Sifra 7.0.4

Metzora, Chapter 2

1) (Vayikra 14:9) ("And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair. His head, his beard, and the brows of his eyes — all of his hair shall he shave. And he shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.") "the seventh": I might think either in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written "in the day," and not at night.

2) "he shall shave all of his hair": I might think even his (normally) covered hair; it is, therefore, written "the brows of his eyes." Just as the brows of his eyes are seen, excluding covered hair, so, "all of his hair" connotes what is seen, excluding covered hair.

3) (But why not say:) Just as his brows are a place of gathered hair that is seen, so I include (for shaving) only a place of gathered hair that is seen. Whence do I derive for inclusion a gathering of hair that is not seen? From "all of his hair shall he shave."

4) "his head": Why is this written? (i.e., Why is the above generalization not sufficient to include it?) Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a blade shall not pass over his head, I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Nazirite); it is, therefore, written "his head." "his beard": Why is this written? Because it is written (of Cohanim, Vayikra 21:5): "the corner of their beard they shall not shave off," I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Cohein); it is, therefore, written "his beard." Why mention both "his head" and "his beard"? (i.e., Why can one not be derived from the other?) — Because there obtain (strictures) with head which do not obtain with beard, and with beard, which do not obtain with head — The head (of a Nazirite) is forbidden both with scissors and with blade, and the (destruction of the) beard does not obtain with scissors; the head is permitted with all men (who are not Nazirites), and the (destruction of the beard is forbidden with all men — Because there obtain with head (strictures) which do not obtain with beard, and with beard (strictures) which do not obtain with head, there must be written (to include for the shaving of the leper) both "his head" and "his beard."

5) R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written "the brows of his eyes," and not his eyelids. "all of his hair shall he shave.": What is the intent of this? (It is already written in the beginning of the verse.) To stipulate responsibility for shaving. So that if he did not shave on the seventh day, he must do so on the eighth, or the ninth, or the tenth.

6) Three shave, and their shaving is a mitzvah: the Nazirite, the leper, and the Levites (viz. Bamidbar 8:7). And all of them, if they shaved without a blade, or if they left two hairs, they have done nothing.

7) (Vayikra 14:10) ("And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of its first year, without blemish, and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil, and one log of oil.") On the seventh day he shaves and on the eighth day he brings (his offerings). And if he shaved on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the ninth day. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Tarfon queried him: Why is this different from the instance of a Nazirite (who became tamei, about whom you said that if he shaves on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the same day)? He answered: The cleansing of the Nazirite is dependent on (the passage of) days (and not on shaving), and the cleansing of the leper is dependent on his shaving, and he cannot bring his offerings until the sun has set (on the day of his shaving).

8) "he shall take two he-lambs": The minimum of "he-lambs" is two. Why, then, is "two" written? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not alike they are kasher? From (the repetition) "he-lamb" - "he-lamb."

9) "and one ewe-lamb of its first year": It must be distinctive. "of its first year": not a one-year-old lamb. "and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil": for the beasts (for the libations of the three lambs). I might think that (the fine flour is intended as a separate) meal-offering (for a leper), but (Vayikra 14:20) "And the Cohein shall offer upon the altar the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, (likening the meal-offering to the burnt-offering as being completely burnt) indicates that the meal-offering (in question) is that for the beasts.

10) But this still requires (learning i.e., Perhaps "and the meal-offering" indicates the meal-offering of a leper [and is not intended to liken the meal-offering to the burnt-offering]). (This cannot be, for in the section on libations [Bamidbar 15:5]) it is written (that the meal-offering is to be brought) "in addition to the burnt-offering" — this is the burnt-offering of the leper; "for the sacrifice" — to include the sin-offering of the leper; "or for the sacrifice" — to include his guilt-offering.