Sifra 6.0.12

Tazria Parashat Negaim, Section 5

1) (Vayikra 13:29) ("And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard (Vayikra 13:30) then the Cohein shall see the plague-spot; and if its appearance is deeper than the skin and there is in it thin yellow hair, then the Cohein shall declare him tamei. It is a nethek (a scall); it is leprosy of the head or the beard.") "And a man": to include a nethek within a nethek (as being tamei). "a man or a woman": This tells me only of a (distinct) man or woman. Whence do I derive for inclusion a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite? From "or." "if there be in it a plague-spot in the head or in the beard": This teaches us that the head and the beard do not combine with each other (vis-à-vis the minimum size for tumah).

2) I might think that though they do not combine with each other, they can spread from one to the other (vis-à-vis "spreading" uncleanliness); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:30) "leprosy of the head or the beard" — Just as they do not combine with each other, so they do not spread from one to the other.

3) This tells me (of his being tamei) when he has (a plague-spot) in (both) his head and his beard. Whence do I derive (that he is also tamei) when he has (a plague-spot) in his head, but not in his beard or in his beard and not in his head? From "And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard."

4) "its appearance is deeper than the skin": This tells me (that he is tamei) only if its appearance is deeper. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in tumah an appearance which is) level or elevated? From (Vayikra 13:31): "and its appearance is not deeper than the skin." Why, then, is it written "and its appearance is deeper? I might think that if a man made a nethek it is tamei; it is, therefore, written "and its appearance is deeper" — Just as "its appearance is deeper" indicates by the hands of Heaven, here, too, (in connection with the "making" of the nethek), "by the hands of Heaven" is indicated.

5) "and there is in it thin yellow hair": to include (for tumah) what is (rooted) in it and lies outside of it; to exclude what is (rooted) outside of it and lies within it. "and … hair": the minimum of "hair," two hairs. "yellow": not green, not red, and not black. I would exclude all but not white. And it would follow, viz.: If yellow hair, which is not a sign of tumah in a nega, is a sign of tumah in a nethek, then white hair, which is a sign of tumah in a nega, how much more so should it be a sign of tumah in a nethek! It is, therefore, written "yellow" — yellow and not white. And what (shade) is it similar to? To that of gold.

6) "thin": shriveled and short. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: What do people say? "This stick is thin"? "This reed is thin"? "thin, shriveled, and short"? — or "thin, shriveled, and long"? R. Akiva countered: Rather than learn from a reed, let us learn from a hair. (People say) "That man's hair is thin," "thin, shriveled, and short" — not "thin, shriveled, and long."

7) I might think that (the nethek) is in addition to the four "appearances" of the skin of the flesh; it is, therefore, written "Then the Cohein shall declare him tamei; it is a nethek" (a bald spot. That is the only criterion, and not the four appearances.)

8) I might think that it (a nethek) need not be in addition to the four appearances of the skin of the flesh, but that it does confer tumah in the place of the bahereth (i.e., in the rest of the body, and not only in the head and the beard.) It is, therefore, written "it is leprosy of the head or the beard." It confers tumah in the head or the beard, but not in the place of the bahereth.

9) I might think it does not confer tumah in the place of the bahereth, but that a bahereth does confer tumah in head or beard. It is, therefore, written "It is a nethek" — the only tumah of head or beard is that of nethek (and not that of bahereth).