Sifra 6.0.21

Tazria Parashat Negaim, Chapter 16

1) (Vayikra 13:56) ("And if the Cohein saw, and, behold, the plague-spot became dim after it was washed, then he shall tear it from the garment, or from the skin, or from the warp, or from the woof, (Vayikra 13:57). And if it be seen again in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is porachath. In fire shall you burn it, what contains the plague-spot.") "then he shall tear": I might think that he tears it just a little to fulfill the mitzvah of tearing; it is, therefore, written "it." If "it," I might think that he might slash it and leave it in its place; it is, therefore, written "from the garment" — he must remove it from the garment.

2) If "from the garment," I might think that he could tear it out and throw the torn pieces on the dung heap; it is, therefore, written (the redundant) "In fire shall you burn it, what contains the plague-spot," to teach us that the torn pieces require burning.

3) We learned about what dimmed at the end of the second week to a second-degree appearance (see Chapter 15:10) that he tears it out. And whence is it derived that what dims at the end of the first week to a second-degree appearance and not to a third degree that he washes it (and quarantines it again as it if had remained in its original appearance? It is written here "plague-spot" ("and, behold, the plague-spot became dim") and there (Vayikra 13 verse 54), "plague-spot" ("Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot"). Just as with "plague-spot" here — it dimmed to the second degree and not to the third degree, so with "plague-spot" there — it dimmed to the second degree but not to the third degree.

4) (Vayikra 13:57) ("And if it be seen again in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is porachath (something whose "blossoming" recurs). In fire shall you burn it (the entire garment), what contains the plague-spot"). Whence is it derived that he places a patch upon it (the site of the torn out plague-spot)? From "and if it be seen again," and "again" can apply only to the site," whereby we learn that he places a patch upon it.

5) R. Nechemiah says: A patch is not required, ("again" referring to the garment from which the plague-spot was torn out). If (after the patch was placed on the site) the plague-spot returned to the garment (at a different site), the patch is "rescued" (i.e., it need not be burned, not being part of the original garment). If it returned upon the patch, the (entire) garment is burned (along with the patch). If one patched aught of a quarantined (garment) on a clean (garment), and the plague-spot reappeared on the (clean) garment, the patch is burned. If it reappeared on the patch, the first garment is burned. And (a separate ruling:) The patch can be used for the second garment with (identifying signs [so that it not be confused with other patches]).

6) This ("And if it be seen again") implies in its original place. Whence is it derived (that it requires burning if it reappears) anywhere on the garment? From "in the garment." I might think (this applies if it reappeared) in any size. It is, therefore, written "again." Just as the first, the size of a garis, so the second, the size of a garis.

7) ("and if it be seen again":) This tells me only (if it is seen again) in its original appearance. Whence do I derive (that it is tamei) even not in its original appearance (but in any appearance of tumah, e.g., from deep green to deep red)? From "a blossoming" — whether or not in its original appearance.

8) — But perhaps the thrust of "a blossoming" is that it is not tamei unless it returns and spreads even more (than its original appearance). — (This is not so, for) "it (is a blossoming") connotes its remaining as it was. How, then, is "a blossoming" to be construed? As "whether or not in its original appearance."

9) Of a linen curtain that had stripes running through it, dyed and white, they asked R. Eliezer: It has only one white stripe (the size of a garis, which has nowhere to spread, the other stripes being dyed and thus not being subject to plague-spot tumah. [the question: Does this require quarantine if there is no point in quarantining it to see whether or not it will spread?]) He answered: (It must be quarantined, but) I have not heard (why). R. Yehudah b. Betheirah said to him: Shall I study it? R. Eliezer: If to substantiate the words of the sages (that it must be quarantined), yes, (but not to contravene them). R. Yehudah (after study): Perhaps it will remain (without dimming) for two weeks, and a plague-spot that remains (undimmed) in garments for two weeks (even without spreading) is tamei. R. Eliezer: You are a great sage, for you have substantiated the words of the sages. A spreading, if it adjoins (the original plague-spot is tamei) with any amount; if distant, it requires the size of a garis.

10) (Vayikra 13:58) ("And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of skin that you shall wash, and the plague-spot depart from them, then it shall be cleansed (i.e., immersed) a second time and it shall be clean.") "And the garment … that you shall wash": I might think (if not for "and the plague-spot depart") that it is sufficient to perform the mitzvah of washing (and that it need not be rubbed thoroughly); it is, therefore, written "and the plague-spot depart" (i.e., to the end that it depart or that it dim to the third degree [and if he sees that it does not depart, it is quarantined for a second seven days]). If only "and it depart" were written, I might think from this side to the other side; it is, therefore, written "from them" — until it is entirely uprooted from them.

11) "then it shall be cleansed a second time and it shall be clean": the second (i.e., this cleansing), to cleanse it from tumah (i.e., ritual immersion); the first, (in verse 54), to quarantine the plague-spot (if it does not depart).

12) (Vayikra 13:59) ("This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, to declare it clean or to declare it unclean.") "This is the plague-spot of leprosy, etc.": (Vayikra 14:54) ("This is the law for all plague-spots or leprosy and for a nethek (Vayikra 14:55) and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house.") They (plague-spot garments) are being likened to a house, viz., Just as a house is rendered unclean by the entry (of an unclean person), so it is rendered unclean by the entry of all (plague-spot garments). — But perhaps just as a house requires birds (for its cleansing, [viz. Vayikra 14:49]), so all (plague-spot garments) should require birds (for their cleansing)! It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect [that of "entry"] are they similar, and not in the other.) Rebbi says: It is written "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house." Just as a house renders unclean by entry, so all are rendered unclean by entry. This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive all of them (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) for inclusion? From "This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy … in the warp or in the woof, etc." Just as a garment renders unclean by entry, so all (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) render unclean by entry. — But perhaps just as a garment is rendered unclean by all that are tamei (e.g., sheratzim, semen, etc.), so all (warp and woof etc.) are rendered unclean by all that are tamei! It is, therefore, written "This" (and not the others).

13) "to render it clean and to render it unclean": Just as it (the law of plague-spots) is a mitzvah in Eretz Yisrael, so it is a mitzvah outside Eretz Yisrael. "to declare it clean or to declare it unclean": Just as it is a mitzvah to declare it clean, so it is a mitzvah to declare it unclean. "to declare it clean or to declare it unclean": The Cohein who declares it clean declares it unclean, and if he dies, a different Cohein inspects it.