Sifra 6.0.20

Tazria Parashat Negaim, Chapter 15

1) (Vayikra 13:52) ("And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, of wool or of flax, on any article of skin in which the plague-spot will be; for it is blight-leprosy — it shall be burned in fire.") "And he shall burn, etc.": I might think that he should bring shearings of wool and stalks of flax and burn them along with it; it is, therefore, written "it shall be burned in fire" — nothing else need be burned along with it.

2) If so, why is it written "of wool or of flax"? To exclude (from the requirement of burning) appendages (to the garment, which are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.)

3) I would then exclude appendages of silk and of gold, whose kind (silk and gold) are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness, but I would not exclude (wool) of purple and crimson, whose kind, (wool) is subject to plague-spot uncleanliness. It is, therefore, written "in which the plague-spot will be found," i.e., which is subject to plague-spot (uncleanliness — to exclude dyed wool ["purple and crimson" above], which is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness).

4) (Vayikra 13:53) "And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread in the garment, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin": This refers to the stationariness (omed) of the plague-spot, (and not to the non-appearance of a different plague-spot). (Vayikra 13:54) ("Then the Cohein shall command, and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine it a second seven days.") "Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash": the command, by the Cohein; the washing, by any man.

5) "and they shall wash … the plague-spot": I might think the plague-spot alone; it is, therefore, written "what contains the plague-spot." How so? Some of the adjoining material is washed with it.

6) "and he shall quarantine it a second seven days": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is included in the count — both before it and after it (i.e., the last of the first seven, and the first of the second seven.)

7) (Vayikra 13:55) ("And the Cohein shall see, after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance, and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean. In fire shall you burn it; it is p'cheteth in its karachath or in its gabachath.") "after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean.": If it has not changed and not spread, it is tamei; but if it changed and did not spread, it should be examined as in the beginning. These are the words of R. Yehudah. And the sages say: It is tamei by reason of omed (viz. Vayikra 13:4 above). How, then, am I to understand "and, behold, it has not changed"? From any appearance that renders it subject to tumah (even if it changed from green to red).

8) "pcheteth": all of it appearing to be indented. — But perhaps only second-degree (dimness) is intended! — "It" ("It is pcheteth") indicates that it is as it was before. How, then, am I to understand "pcheteth"? As connoting (all of) it appearing to be indented.

9) "in its karachath": This refers to frayed (garments); "or in its gabachath": This refers to new (garments) — whence they ruled: sagus (a very thick cloak) on which a plague-spot appears — R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Until it appears in its weaving and its tufts.

10) (Vayikra 13:56) "And if the Cohein saw, and, behold, the plague-spot became dim after it was washed": second-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to green), or third-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to neutral)? It is, therefore, written "and, behold, the plague-spot became dim" (i.e., even though it is dim, it is still called "plague-spot." — If "plague-spot," I might think that it retained its original appearance (but just changed color [e.g., from deep green to deep red]); it is, therefore, written "and, behold, it became dim." How so? (It changed from) first degree to second degree, and not to third degree.