[א] "וידבר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרן לאמר אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו" – מה ת"ל? לפי שנאמר "ואיש או אשה כי יהי׳ בעור בשרם בֶהָרות בֶהָרות לבנות" אין צריך לומר בהרות שאין בהם מראות נגעים ושלא באו לכלל אלא בהרות שבהם מראות נגעים שהיו בעכו"ם ונתגייר, בקטן ונולד, בקמט ונגלה, בראש ובזקן בשחין ובמכוה ובקדח המורדין. נשתנו מראיהן בין להקל בין להחמיר ר' אלעזר בן עזריה מטהר. ר' אליעזר בן חסמא אומר, להקל – טהור, להחמיר – תראה כתחילה. רבי עקיבא אומר, בין להקל בין להחמיר – תראה כתחלה, לכך נאמר "אדם כי יהיה". 1) (Vayikra 13:1) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: (Vayikra 13:2) A man, if there shall be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it become in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "if there shall be in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this ("shall be" rather than "is")? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:38) "And a man or a woman, if there be in the skin of their flesh white beharoth … he is clean," this tells me only of beharoth which did not arrive at the status of maroth ("appearances" [of plague-spots]) viz.: plague-spots (negaim) which appeared in a non-Jew before he became a proselyte (even though it remained the same after his conversion; (a plague-spot) in a fetus before it was born (which could not be inspected by the Cohein in utero, and which remained the same after birth); in a crease (in the flesh) which was (later) revealed (when the flesh became taut); in the head and the beard (which appeared when he became bald); in a "rebellious" boil or burn or inflammation — (All of these are clean even though they are now "maroth," because when they originated they were not susceptible of inspection by the Cohein. What is their status) if their appearance changes, either lessening or deepening in intensity? R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: It is clean, (for though it changed in appearance, it still originated from the first, non-inspectable plague-spot). R. Elazar b. Chasma says: If of lesser intensity, it is clean (being a "waning" of the original plague-spot); if of deeper intensity, it is to be inspected anew, (being considered a new plague-spot). R. Akiva says: Whether of lesser or deeper intensity it is to be inspected anew. (And) it is in this connection that it is written "A man, if there shall be" (connoting a change [i.e., deeper or lesser intensity] from a pre-existing condition).
[ב] "כי יהיה" – מן הדיבור ואילך. והלא דין הוא! טימא בזבים וטימא בנגעים: מה זבים פטר בהן לפני הדיבור, אף נגעים פטר בהם לפני הדיבור. 2) "if there shall be": from this pronouncement on, (and not what may have existed before it, (their being in this respect like a proselyte before conversion [see above]). — (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow? viz.: Zavim (those with a genital discharge) are tamei, and (those with) negaim are tamei. Just as (tumah) does not obtain with zavim before the pronouncement, so, it does not obtain with negaim before the pronouncement.
[ג] קל וחומר! ומה אם זבים – שטומאתם וטהרתם בכל אדם – פטר בהן לפני הדיבור, נגעים שאין טומאתם וטהרתם אלא בכהן אינו דין שיפטר בהם לפני הדיבור?! לא! אם אמרת בזבים שלא טימא בהם אנוסים, תאמר בנגעים שטימא בהם אנוסים?! הואיל וטימא בהם אנוסים יטמא בהם לפני הדיבור… ת"ל כי "יהיה" – מן הדיבור ואילך. 3) (And it also follows) a fortiori, viz.: If tumah does not obtain before the pronouncement, with zavim, whose tumah and taharah are determined by all men (and not only Cohanim), it certainly does not obtain before the pronouncement with negaim, whose tumah and taharah is determined only by a Cohein! — No, this (that tumah does not obtain before the pronouncement) may be so with zavim, who do not become tamei by accident (i.e., through some external cause, like eating, drinking, jumping and the like), as opposed to (those with) negaim, who do become tamei by accident (i.e., if the nega originates through a burn or the like). (We would think that) since this is so, they (negaim) would be tamei before the pronouncement. It is, therefore, written "if there shall be," from the pronouncement on.
[ד] "בעור בשרו" מה ת"ל? לפי שנאמר "ושער בנגע הפך לבן" שיכול אין לי אלא מקום שהוא ראוי לגדל שער לבן, מקום שאינו ראוי לגדל שער לבן מנין? ת"ל "בעור בשרו" – ריבה "שאת" – זו שאת. "בהרת" – זו בהרת. "ספחת" – זו שני לבהרת. "ומראה הנגע עמוק" שני לשאת. מה לשון שאת? מוגבהת כמראה הצל שהם גבוהים ממראה החמה. מה לשון עמוק? עמוקה כמראה חמה שהם עמוקים מן הצל. מה לשון ספחת? טפילה שנאמר "ספחיני נא אל אחת הכהונות". "והיה" – מלמד שהם מצטרפין זה עם זה לפטור ולהחליט ולהסגיר. "בעור בשרו" – בעור בשר של נראה. מכאן אמרו בהרת עזה נראית בגרמני כהה, והכהה בכושי עזה. 4) (Vayikra 13:2) ("A man, if there be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it shall be in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:3) "and hair in the plague-spot had turned white," I would think that this denotes only a site where white hair can grow. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even a site where white hair cannot grow (like the palm of the hand)? From (the redundant) "in the skin of his flesh." "se'eth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "se'eth." "bahereth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "bahereth." "sapachath": This is an adjunct to (i.e., a lesser form of) se'eth, and its appearance is of lesser depth than that of bahereth. What is signified by "se'eth"? A "rising," as the appearance of a shadow, which seems higher than that of the sun. What is signified by (Vayikra 13:3) "deeper"? As the appearance of the sun, which seems deeper than that of the shadow. What is signified by "sapachath"? "adjunct," as it is written (I Samuel 2:36) "Join me ('sefacheini'), I pray you, to one of the priests' offices." "and it shall be": (We are hereby taught [by its being written "and it shall be" rather than "and they (se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth) shall be"]) that they combine with each other for purposes of negation (of leprosy), confirmation, and quarantine. "in the skin of his flesh": in (i.e., relative to) the skin of the flesh of the observed. In this connection it was stated: A very bright spot seems dull in a (light-complected) German, and a dull spot in an Ethiopian seems bright.
[ה] ר׳ ישמעאל אומר בית ישראל הריני כפרתן הרי הן כאשכרוע, לא שחורים ולא לבנים אלא בינונים. רבי עקיבא אומר יש לציירים סממנים, שהם צרים צורות שחורות לבנות ובינונות. מביא סם בינוני ומקיפו מבחוץ ותראה כבינוני. ר׳ יוסי אומר כתוב אחד אומר "בעור בשרו" וכתוב אחד אומר "בעור הבשר", מצאנו שמראות נגעים להקל אבל לא להחמיר – רואה הגרמני בבשרו להקל, נמצא מקיים "בעור בשרו". והכושי כבינוני להקל, נמצא מקיים "בעור הבשר". וחכמים אומרים זה וזה בכבינוני. 5) R. Yishmael says: The children of Israel ("may I be an atonement for them") are like the eshkeroa (the box-tree), neither black nor white but intermediate. R. Akiva says: The painters have dyes by which they paint figures that are black, white, or intermediate. (In the inspection of a plague-spot) the intermediate dye is brought and placed around the outside (of the plague-spot) and gives the appearance of "intermediate." R. Yehudah says: One verse (I Samuel 2:2) states "in the skin of his flesh" and another (I Samuel 2:3) "in the skin of the flesh." We are hereby taught that plague-spots are inspected with leniency and not with stringency. The German is inspected relative to his flesh, for leniency — thus, in the skin of his flesh," and the Ethiopian, through the intermediate (dye), for leniency — thus, "in the skin of the flesh." And the sages say: Both (are inspected) through the intermediate (dye).
[ו] "והיה בעור בשרו…[נגע]" – מלמד שהוא מצטער ממנו. ומנין שאף אחרים רואים אותו שהוא מצטער ממנו? ת"ל "לנגע". "צרעת" – כגריס. הלא דין הוא! טימא כאן וטימא במחיה, מה מחיה כגריס אף כאן בגריס. 6) "and it shall be … a plague-spot (lenega)": We are hereby taught (that in order for it to qualify as a plague-spot) it must give him pain, (this being the connotation of "nega"). And whence do we derive that others, too, when they witness his pain, must, likewise, "feel" his pain? From "lenega." The (redundant) "leprosy" indicates that it must be (at least) the size of a garis (a bean). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow? viz.: "timei" is written here (I Samuel 2:3), and "timei" is written in respect to michyah (I Samuel 2:25). Just as there, the size of a garis; here, too, the size of a garis.
[ז] לא! אם אמרת במחיה שהיא צריכה כעדשה, תאמר בשיער לבן שאין מקום שיער לבן צריך כלום?! ת"ל "צרעת" – כגריס. 7) — No, this may be so of michyah, whose middle must be the size of a lentil, as opposed to "white hair" (I Samuel 2:3), the site of which need not be of any prescribed size; it is, therefore, written "the size of a garis."
[ח] "והובא אל אהרן הכהן" – אין לי אלא אהרן עצמו, מנין לרבות כהן אחר? ת"ל "הכהן". מנין לרבות בעלי מומים? ת"ל "מבניו". או יכול שאני מרבה חללים? ת"ל "הכהנים" – יצאו חללים. ומנין לרבות כל ישראל? 8) "then he shall be brought to Aaron": This tells me only of Aaron himself. Whence do I derive (the suitability of) another Cohein? From "the Cohein." Whence do I derive (the suitability [for inspection] of) blemished (Cohanim)? From "his sons" (even though they may not perform the sacrificial service). I might then think that even chalalim (those unfit for the priesthood) are included? It is, therefore, written "the Cohanim," excluding chalalim. And whence do I derive (the validity of) any Jew (in the absence of a Cohein? From "or to one (of his sons").
[ט] אם סופינו לרבות כל ישראל מה תלמוד לומר "או אל אחד מבניו הכהנים"? אלא ללמד שאין טומאה וטהרה אלא מפי כהן. הא כיצד? חכם שבישראל רואה את הנגעים ואומר לכהן, אעפ"י שוטה – "אמור טמא", והוא אומר טמא. "אמור טהור", והוא אומר טהור. דבר אחר מה תלמוד לומר "או אל אחד מבניו הכהנים"? לפי שנאמר "ועל פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע" – הקיש ריבים לנגעים – מה נגעים ביום אף ריבים ביום 9) If in the end all Jews are included (for inspection), why is it written "of his sons, the Cohanim"? To teach that the pronouncement of "tumah" and "taharah" must be made by a Cohein. How is this effected? An Israelite sage inspects the plague-spots and says to the Cohein, even if he himself is unversed (in their inspection): Say "tamei," and he says "tamei"; say "tahor," and he says "tahor." Variantly: What is the intent of "or to one of his sons, the Cohanim"? Because it is written (Devarim 21:5): "And by their word (that of the Cohanim) shall every contention and every plague-spot be (ruled upon)" — Contentions are hereby compared to plague-spots. Just as plague-spots are adjudicated in the daytime, so, contentions are to be adjudicated in the daytime.
[י] מה נגעים שלא בקרובים אף ריבים שלא בקרובים. אי מה ריבים בשלשה אף נגעים בשלשה? ק"ו אם ממונו בשלשה אינו דין שיהיה גופו בשלשה?! אם כן למה נאמר "או אל אחד מבניו הכהנים" – מלמד שכהן אחד רואה את הנגעים. 10) Just as contentions (are to be adjudicated) not by kin, plague-spots, too, not by kin. — But perhaps just as contentions by three (judges), plague-spots, too, by three! And, what is more, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If money matters (are adjudicated) by three, how much more so must (matters affecting) his "body" be (adjudicated) by three! It must, therefore, be written "or to one of his sons, the Cohanim" — only one inspects the plague-spots.