Sifra 7.0.1

Metzora, Section 1

1) (Vayikra 14:2) ("This shall be the law of the leper on the day of his cleansing; he shall be brought to the Cohein.") "the law of the leper": for the "eternal house" (i.e., the Temple). "This" (i.e., the bringing of the offerings) does not obtain in a bamah "shall be": in the present time (i.e., even after the destruction of the Temple). "the law of the leper": There is one law for all the lepers in that they bring this offering. — Now where have they been excluded (from "oneness," that they need be included in it vis-à-vis the offering)? — Because we find Scripture to have differentiated between their (types of) tumah and their weeks (of quarantine, some requiring one week and others, two), we might think to differentiate in their offering too; it is, therefore, written "the law of the leper" — there is one law for all of the lepers; that they bring this offering.

3) "on the day of his cleansing": We are hereby taught that (the declaration of) his tumah and his cleansing obtain (only) in the daytime. This tells me only of his tumah and his cleansing. Whence do I derive the same for the slaughtering of the birds, the sprinkling of the birds' blood and his shaving? From "the law of the leper on the day." I might think that also the taking of the birds and the sending of the bird and the washing of his garments and his bathing must also be in the daytime; it is, therefore, written "This (and not the others) is the law of the leper." "he shall be brought to the Cohein": We are hereby taught that his tumah and taharah are (mediated) through a Cohein. This tells me only of his tumah and his taharah. Whence do I derive the same for the slaughtering of the birds, the sprinkling of the birds' blood, and his shaving? From "the law of the leper" — through a Cohein. I might think that the same applies to the taking of the birds, the sending of the bird, the washing of his garments, and his bathing; it is, therefore, written "This" (and not the others). "on the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein": he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).

4) When Munbaz reasoned before R. Akiva: If one whom I freed (immediately, [i.e., an unconfirmed leper, who returned from his week of quarantine)] — (If one whom I freed immediately from a state of tumah) upon his standing (i.e., upon his return to the encampment), I had held (in a state of tumah) in his going (into quarantine) for seven days, then one whom I held (in his state of tumah for seven days, [namely, a healed confirmed leper]) in his standing, (i.e., upon his return to the encampment after his first shaving [viz. Vayikra 14:8]), does it not follow that I should have held him for seven days (in a state of tumah) in his going (i.e., in the interval between his being healed from the plague-spot and his return to the encampment!) R. Akiva said to him: I can add to your words, viz.: Where would Scripture be more stringent? In the days of confirmation (of absolute leprosy), or in the days of counting (i.e., the seven days between the first shaving and the second)? The days of confirmation are more stringent than the days of counting. For in the days of counting he does not confer tumah through couch (mishkav) or seat (moshav), and he does not confer tumah (to a house) through entry, whereas in the days of confirmation, he does. And if for the days of counting, which are less stringent, you have accorded seven, then for the days of confirmation, should not seven be accorded! Munbaz: Master, indeed, you have substantiated my words! R. Akiva: And when you accord seven for the days of confirmation, they, likewise, become days of counting, so that both combined become fourteen. And if to the less stringent days of counting you have accorded fourteen, then how much more so should fourteen be accorded to the more stringent days of confirmation, so that the process should continue interminably. And it is precisely to countermand such reasoning that Scripture must state "On the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein (for the cleansing procedure)" — he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).

5) (Vayikra 14:3) ("And the Cohein shall go outside the camp, and the Cohein shall see, and, behold, if the plague-spot of leprosy is healed from the leper,") "And the Cohein shall go out … and the Cohein shall see": What is the intent of this (i.e., Why not simply "and he shall see?) — Because it is written "And the Cohein shall go out, I might think that only a Cohein who was in the encampment (could go outside to cleanse the leper), but if he were at sea or in rivers or in deserts, whence would I know (that he is also qualified to do so)? From and the Cohein (i.e., a different Cohein) shall (i.e., may) see." If so, why is it written "And the Cohein shall go out"? (To teach us that only) a Cohein who may enter the encampment (i.e., a Cohein who is not a leper himself) may cleanse a leper, but a leper may not cleanse a leper.

6) "and, behold, it is healed": if the plague-spot (itself) is healed (even if the white hair still remains). "plague-spot": (even) if the white hair has gone (and the plague-spot remains). "leprosy": (even) if the michyah has gone. This tells me only of all of them (i.e., all of the white hair, all of the michyah). Whence do I derive (that he is healed) even if part of the white hair (has gone), even part of the michyah? From "from (the leper"), ("from" connoting "part of"). "the leper": to include one in whose entire body it has blossomed, as requiring birds.

7) But does this not follow a fortiori? (Why, then, is a verse required?) viz. If one who was healed, with no signs of tumah remaining with him — (If he) requires birds, then one who was healed, with signs of tumah (complete blossoming) remaining with him — how much more so should he require birds! — (No,) this is refuted by one who was quarantined for two weeks, who was healed, the signs of tumah (i.e., the original plague-spot for which he was quarantined) remaining with him (but merely not spreading), and his not requiring birds.

8) Do not wonder, then, about one in whom it blossomed entirely, that even if he were healed and signs of tumah remained with him, he did not require birds. It must, therefore, be written "the leper," to include one in whom it has blossomed entirely as requiring birds.

9) (Vayikra 14:4) ("And the Cohein shall command, and he shall take for the one to be cleansed two clean, living birds, and cedar-wood, and scarlet and hyssop.") "And the Cohein shall command, and he shall take": the commanding by a Cohein; the taking, by anyone.

10) "and he shall take for the one to be cleansed": in the name of "one to be cleansed," whether man or woman or child. From here it was derived: If he took it for a man, it may be used for woman; if for a woman, it may be used for a man; if for a house (afflicted with a plague-spot), it may be used for a leper; if for a leper, it may be used for a house.

11) "and he shall take two birds": The minimum of "birds" is two. If so, why state "two"? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not both alike, they are still valid? From "bird" (Vayikra 14:5) - "bird" (Vayikra 14:6), implying extension of inclusion.

12) "living': and not slaughtered. "clean": and not treifoth (birds with organic defects). "and cedar-wood": If "wood," I would think any wood; it is, therefore, written "cedar." If "cedar," I would think a (cedar) leaf; it is, therefore, written "and wood." What is intended? A piece of wood cut from a cedar tree. R. Chananiah b. Gamliel says (the meaning is) with a leaf on top.

13) R. Yehudah said: It was my Sabbath (to expound), and I went after R. Tarfon (his master) to his house (to take leave to do so). He said to me: My son, give me my sandal, and I gave it to him. He stretched his hand out to the window and gave me a stick from it, saying: Yehudah, with this I cleansed three lepers — at which I learned seven halachoth: that it must be b'roth (a type of cedar), that it must have a leaf on top, that its length must be an ell, that its thickness must be about a quarter of the leg of a bedstead, cut into two and then into four, that it can be used for sprinkling, once, twice, and three times, that the cleansing can be before the Temple and not before the Temple, and that it can be done in the border towns (and not necessarily in Jerusalem).

14) "and scarlet (tola'ath)": I might think that pikas (a scarlet wood derivative) were permissible; it is, therefore, written "tola'ath" (lit., [scarlet] of a worm). If tola'ath, I might think any color (that came from a worm) were permissible; it is, therefore, written "ushni tola'ath" (and "distinctive" tola'ath). How so? It must be deep red. Yochanan b. Dehavai says: Residue, (this connoted by "shni") of tola'ath is also permitted.

15) And whence is it derived that if he used it for testing purposes (to see if the color would take), it is unfit (for cleansing the leper)? From (the understood connotation of) "and shni tola'ath."

16) "and hyssop": and not Greek hyssop, and not blue hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and not desert hyssop, and not any "hyssop" qualified by an epithet.