Sevuot — Talmud Jerusalmi

Sevuot

Sevuot — Talmud Jerusalmi a Beth HaMidrash oldalán: a héber szöveg és magyar fordítása, Rásival és a nagy kommentátorokkal. Ingyenes, online.

משנה: שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. יְדִיעוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָּעָה:MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds. 5:4 requires a reparation sacrifice for inadvertent breach of a commitment made by oath, “what was pronounced, negatively or positively.” The standard example of a positive oath is somebody swearing that he will eat certain foods. The corresponding negative is an oath that he will refrain from eating certain foods. The exact expression used, לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב, by its hiph`il form points to the future. A natural complement are backward looking oaths, if a person swears that he ate or did not eat certain foods in the past (Mishnah 3:1). These four cases are equal in sanctions for willful or inadvertent breach.. There are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds. 5:2–3 requires a reparation sacrifice for a person who became impure, forgot it, and then either ate sancta in his impurity or entered the Sanctuary. The two added cases are that he knew about being impure but forgot that the food was holy or that the place was a Sanctuary.. There are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds 1:1). “Transport” includes lifting up, moving, and setting down. The two cases where one is liable (for a sacrifice if the sin was unintentional, punishment if the transgression was intentional, and is prosecutable, or extirpation by Divine decree if the crime was intentional but is not prosecutable) are “export” by a person standing inside the private domain, lifting something up inside the domain and putting it down on the outside (e. g., through a window) even without moving his feet, or “import”, somebody lifting an object from the outside to the inside and depositing it there. The two cases where one is not liable refer to a person inside who lifts an object, hands it to a person outside (so that the object never is at rest) and the second person puts it down. Since no one person completed a criminal act, no one can be held liable even though the combined action clearly is forbidden.. There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds. 13:2 defines impure skin disease as שְׂאֵ֤ת אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֨חַת֙ א֣וֹ בַהֶ֔רֶת “as elevated spot, or sapaḥat, or a white spot.” This is read as “an elevated spot (which makes the surrounding skin look elevated over the whitish spot) and a really white spot and their appendages”, deriving sapaḥat from the root ספח, “to append, adjoin.” This extends the definition of impure skin disease from two relatively well defined cases to two additional weaker symptoms..

הלכה: שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע כול׳. שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לְחִייוּב וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר או̇ אַרְבַּע לְחִייוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. לֹא לְחִייוּב. וְדִכְוָותָהּ יְצִיאוֹת שַּׁבָּת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע לְחִייוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. תַמָּן כּוּלְּהוֹן לְחִיּוּב. הָכָא חִיּוּב וּפְטוֹר אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי. הָדָא אָמְרָה. אַרְבַּע לְחִיּוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוֹר. וְהָתַנֵּי. דַּלְתוֹת הֵיכַל שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע. אִית מֵימַר. לְחִיּוּב וְלֹא לִפְטוֹר. נִיתְנֵי שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר פְּטוֹר. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא פְטוֹר שֶׁהוּא כְנֶגֶד חִייוּב. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בָּר אָדָא. מָהוּ אָהֵין פְּטוֹר דְּתַנִּינָן הָכָא. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. עָנִי וְעָשִׁיר אֶחָד מֵהֶן וּמָנוּם חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם. הַכְנָסָה וְהוֹצָאָה שְׁנַיִם הֵן וּמָנוּם חֲכָמִים אֶחָד. יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת אֵין הַכְנָסָה בִכְלָל. הַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת אֵין הַמַּכְנִיס בִכְלָל. וְעוֹד מֵהָדָא דָּמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִכְנִיס חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת חַיָיב. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהוֹצָאָה קְרוּיָה מְלָאכָה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַיְצַו מֹשֶׁה וַיַּעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בַּמַּחֲנֶה וגו׳. נִמְנְעוּ הָעָם מִלְּהוֹצִיא מִבָּתֵּיהֶן לָתֵת לַגִּיזְבָּרִין וּמִלְּהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן לְהַכְנִיס לַלִּישְׁכָּה. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וְלֹא תוֹצִיאוּ מַשָּׂא מִבָּתֵּיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְכָל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ.HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. 1:1, of which there exists a Genizah parallel (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 62). The text in Šabbat is original since in both versions, “here” refers to Šabbat while “there” refers to Ševuot, and in addition, the statement of R. Ba logically has to precede that of R. Yose as in the Šabbat text. Probably the scribe of the Ševuot text available to the Leiden ms.’s scribe had omitted the statement of R. Ba and added it in the text when he noticed the omission. S. Liebermann, in his Commentary to the Yerushalmi Šabbat (Hayerushalmi Kipshuto, New York 1995, Jerusalem 1935) holds that the source is Ševuot. This is difficult to accept; the text is from Šabbat but the problem is the discrepancy in meaning of the same expression “two which are four” used in very different meanings in our Mishnah.The problem starts with the rather complicated language of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1: “There are two cases which are four for exporting and two cases which are four for importing.” The Mishnah then goes on to explain that if a rich person, the owner, stands at the window of a house (which is a private domain) and a poor person stands in the street (the public domain), if then the rich person delivers an object to the poor outside, or the poor reaches inside and takes the object, the person acting is liable to prosecution but the other is not liable. (In fact, the passive participant never did do anything; the expression “not liable to prosecution” is inappropriate.) But if the rich person lifted the object, kept it moving all the time, and handed it to the poor who put it down, nobody is liable since nobody completed a forbidden act. The same naturally applies if the poor takes up a package and keeps it moving until the the owner of the house takes it and puts it down. In this case, the qualification as “not liable” is appropriate since both participants violated a Sabbath prohibition.The question now arises whether the formulation “two which are four” always implies that the status of the two additional cases is different from the two original ones since in our Mishnah the same expression is used for oaths and Sabbath violations. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability 1:1 there are four cases of liability, rich or poor taking out or rich or poor bringing in. There are also four cases where there is no liability, depending on who takes up the object first and who takes over, and what the direction of the move is. The question now is raised whether a similar case can be made for the first clause in Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.. the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four refers to Mishnah Middot 4:1 which explains that the entrance gate to the Temple hall was built in the manner of a city gate, a thick wall closed by an outer double door opening to the outside and an inner two-winged door opening to the inside. The expression “two doors which are four” is simply the description of the structure of the building.? Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability 1:1 counts four actions for which one is liable (complete actions, export and import for the rich person, export and import for the poor.) Then it counts four cases for which one is not liable, but since for any incomplete action one is not liable one could consider the possibility that the poor man reaches into the house, lifts the object which the rich then takes up and deposits on the outside. A similar convoluted action is possible for import; two actions for two actors each result in four non-liabilities.? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada: bar Abba. In the Babli, Šabbat 2b/3a, the argument is by Babylonian Amoraim. said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted 1:1 in two completely different senses. As noted earlier (Note 5) if the complete action is performed by one person, the other one is passive and does not infringe on any law; at all times everything he does is permitted. But if the action is completed by two persons, both sinned. While they are not liable for a sacrifice or punishment, they require repentance and Heaven’s forgiveness.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one, the Genizah text and the first hand of the Leiden ms. read “Exporting or importing are one but the Sages counted them as two” but as S. Liebermann (Note 5) has noted, the reading here is supported by early Medieval quotes.. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable Chapters 7–8). For solid food, the minimum is fixed at the volume of a dried fig. The two actions mentioned will combine if there was continuous awareness of the Sabbath prohibitions.. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,. 36:6. The verse speaks of donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. The Babli (Šabbat 96b) finds a tenuous connection with the Sabbath by a gezerah šawah, concurrent use of words.” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.. 17:22. While prophetic books are not sources of law, they are authentic evidence for the understanding of the Torah by the teachers of past generations. It is proved that in the understanding of Jeremiah (whose student Barukh ben Neriah is credited with bringing the study of Torah to Babylonia) moving objects from a private to the public domain is a violation of biblical law. This supports the interpretation of Ex. 36:6.”

רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי אַבִּין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּנִּינָן תַּרְתֵּין כְּלָלִין וְלָא דָמְיָין דֵּין לְדֵין. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע מֵבִיא אַרְבַּע קָרְבָּנוֹת. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי קָרְבָּנוֹת. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבִּין פָּתַר לָהּ פֶּתֶר חוֹרָן. שְׁבוּעוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבַּע רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רִבִּי חַגַּיי בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לִי כְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וַאֲפִילוּ כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אַתְיָא. הִיא יְדִיעָה וְהֶעֱלֵם עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ יְדִיעָה וְהֶעֱלֵם עַל טוּמְאַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָאן אִית לֵיהּ הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ לָאו רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וַנָּן בְּעֵיי כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. פְּעָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע נֶעֶלְמָה מִמֶּנּוּ טוּמְאָה וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְיָדַע. נֶעֱלַם הִימֶּינּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְיָדַע. הֲרֵי כָאן הֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה וְהֶעֱלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וּפְעָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ כָּאן כַּמָּה יְדִיעוֹת וְכַמָּה הֶעֱלֵימוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הֵיךְ. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע נֶעֶלְמָה הִימֶּינּוּ טוּמְאָה. עַד שֶׁהוּא בְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה נֶעֶלְמָה הִימֶּינּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא וְיָדַע וְאָמַר. טוּמְאָה זוֹ אֵין חַיָיבִין עָלֶיהָ קָרְבָּן. נִיטְמָא וְיָדַע נֶעֶלְמָה הִימֶינּוּ טוּמְאָה. עַד שֶׁהוּא בְהֶעֱלֵם טוּמְאָה נֶעֱלַם הִימֶּינּוּ מִקְדָּשׁ וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיָצָא אֲפִילוּ כַמָּה פְעָמִים וּבַסּוֹף יָדַע. הֲרֵי כָאן כַּמָּה יְדִיעוֹת וְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.Rebbi Mana said it without attribution; Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: We did state two principles which do not compare. “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds”; one has to bring four sacrifices (Wayyiqra 2) Parašah 9(8). For the four cases enumerated in Note 1, R. Aqiba requires four separate sacrifices. R. Ismael infers from the forward-looking formulation of the verse that only future-directed oaths can trigger liability for a sacrifice. According to him, for separate oaths in the same period of oblivion at most two sacrifices may be due.. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds”; one has to bring two sacrifices, New York 1909, p. 264 ff.) but it cannot be correct. The purification ceremony of the healed sufferer from skin disease is independent of the particular diagnosis by which he had been declared impure and the number of sacrifices due solely depends on his financial ability. The sequel shows that one has to read “there are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds,” the second clause in the Mishnah.The difference between RR. Aqiba and Ismael is explained in Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 12(7), Babli 14b. Both verses Lev. 5:2,3 describe situations in which a person might become impure; they both end with the remark “it was hidden from him but then he knew and was found guilty,” i. e., he forgot about the impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and then became aware of his transgression. R. Aqiba holds that since impurity is mentioned twice but the Sanctuary only by inference, no sacrifice is due for causing impurity of the Sanctuary, only for entering it in impurity. R. Ismael holds that the repetition of the clause implies the obligation of a sacrifice both for impurity of the person and of the Sanctuary. R. Aqiba will hold that separate sacrifices might be due for impurity originating outside the person (v. 2) and that created in humans (v. 3). R. Ismael will hold that separate sacrifices are due for a human entering the Sanctuary in impurity and for the impurity thereby caused to the Sanctuary. The problem is that the Mishnah is anonymous, representing R. Meїr’s Mishnah, which is R. Aqiba’s tradition.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora. explained it otherwise: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds” was said by Rebbi Aqiba; “there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds” by Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: why do I need to follow Rebbi Ismael? Does it not come even following Rebbi Aqiba? Knowing and forgetting about impurity of the Sanctuary is the same as knowing and forgetting about impurity of sancta. He told him, does not Rebbi Ismael have forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary, and we want to follow Rebbi Aqiba and forgetting the Sanctuary (Mishnah 2:6). R. Ḥaggai’s inference is incorrect; R. Aqiba will not require a sacrifice in his case.? Sometimes there is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. How is this? If one became impure, realized it, then forgot about impurity, entered the Sanctuary, and left; then he became aware. Here is forgetting impurity and forgetting the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one sacrifice. In the case in question there was only one forgetting; there is only one sacrifice required.The sentence is missing in G.. Sometimes there are many forgettings of impurity and many forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice]. How [is this]? If one became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left; then he became aware. He said, there is no sacrifice due for this impurity. Again he became impure and realized it, then forgot and while being oblivious of impurity entered the Sanctuary and left even several times; in the end he became aware. Here are many forgettings of impurity and forgettings of the Sanctuary but he is liable for only one [sacrifice].

פִּיסְקָא. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסֵי. שָׁאַל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר לוֹ. מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ. מַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר לוֹ. וְאִם לָאו מַה יֹאמְרוּ. אָמַר לוֹ. יֹאמְרוּ. מִקְּרוּם בֵּיצָה וּלְמַעֲלָה טָמֵא. אָמַר לוֹ. לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם אֵין בָּקִי בָהֶן וּבִשְׁמוֹתָן אֵין רוֹאֶה הַנְּגָעִים.New paragraph. “There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.” 6a.“Rebbi Yose said, Joshua the son of Rebbi Aqiba asked Rebbi Aqiba. He said to him, why did they say, ‘There are two kinds of looks of skin disease which are four kinds’? He answered him, if not so, what should they have said? He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure.. 13:38–39), if they contain discolored hair they potentially are sources of impurity. This is characterized in Lev. 13:2 as “s´et, adjoint, or shiny spot” which is read as “s´et, shiny spot, or one of their adjoints”. It is indicated that the Cohen has to determine the nature of the impurity but no details are given, possibly to reserve diagnosis to priests. The details therefore are left to tradition. In Mishnah Nega`im 1:1, “shiny spot” is defined by R. Meїr as color of fresh snow, s´et as color of eggshell (or the color of the membrane enclosing a hard boiled egg.) These colors are characterized as appearing as depressions on normal skin (Lev. 13:3). There are secondary forms for which the spots do not appear as if depressed (Lev. 13:4), these are described as the color of whitewash used in the Temple and that of white wool. The Sages disagreeing with R. Meїr declare eggshell as a secondary color. Since in the Tosephta eggshell is treated as secondary color, R. Meїr cannot represent the teachings of R. Aqiba in this case.In G there is an added sentence which cannot be reconstructed.’ He said to him, to tell you that anybody not expert for them and their names may not see skin lesions.”

וּמְנַיִין שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מָנוּ אוֹתָן חֲכָמִים שְׁנַיִם וּמָנוּ אוֹתָן אַרְבָּעָה. מַה שְׁנַיִם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה אַף אַרְבָּעָה מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבִּין. אִם בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן מִין בְּמִינוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְהָיוּ אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן אֶלָּא וְהָיָה. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. תַּנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. לְנִיגְעֵי צָרַעַת אֵין כָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אָמַר לוֹ. וְיֹאמְרוּ. מִקְּרוּם בֵּיצָה וּלְמַעֲלָה טָמֵא וּמִצְטָרְפִין. וְאַל יֹאמְרוּ. מַרְאו̇ת נְגָעִים שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵן אַרְבָּעָה. אָמַר לוֹ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵינָן זֶה לְמַעֲלָה מִזֶּה. וִיהֵא זֶה לְמַעֲלָה מִזֶּה. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן נִמְצֵאת אוֹמֵר. הַכָּהֵא טָמֵא. וְהַכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא טָמֵא. וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה וְהִנֵּה כֵּהָה הַנֶּגַע. הַכָּהֶה טָמֵא אֲבָל הַכָּהֶה מִן הַכָּהֵא טָהוֹר. וַתְיָיא כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים וּשְׁנֵי אִיפַּרְכִין. מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה וְאִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה מֵאִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. וְאֵין אִיפַּרְכוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים וּשְׁנֵי שַׁגְרִירֵיהֶן. מַלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה וְשַׁגְרִירוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה מִשֶּׁלָּזֶה. וְאֵין שַׁגְרִירוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה גָּדוֹל מִמַּלְכּוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רַב אָחָא בַּר אַחֲוָוא. מֶלֶךְ וְרַב חֵילֵיהּ וְאַרְקַבֶּטָא וְרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוּסֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵינָן זֶה לְמַעֲלָה מִזֶּה. אִם הַשְּׂאֵת שֶׁכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא שֶׁלָּהּ טָהוֹר יֵשׁ לָהּ מַרְאֶה שֵׁינִי. בַּהֶרֶת שֶׁכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא שֶׁלָּהּ טָמֵא לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁיְּהֵא לָהּ מַרְאֵה שֵׁינִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. חֲמִי מָה מַר. שֵׁינִי יֵשׁ לָהּ. שְׁלִישִׁי לֹא כָל שֶׁכֵּן. וּמַה חֲמִית מֵימַר. בַּהֶרֶת שֶׁכָּהֵא מִן הַכָּהֵא שֶׁלָּהּ טָמֵא זוֹ שְׂאֵת. מִינָהּ שֶׁלַּשְּׂאֵת כִּקְרוּם בֵּיצָה. שְׂאֵת זוֹ שְׂאֵת. בַהֶרֶת זוֹ בַהֶרֶת. סַפַּחַת שֵׁינִי לַבַּהֶרֶת. וּמַרְאֵה עָמוֹק שֵׁינִי לַשְּׂאֵת. מַה לְשׁוֹן שְׂאֵת. מוּגְבָּהַת. כְּמַרְאֶה הַצֵּל גָּבוֹהַּ מִמַּרְאֶה חַמָּה. מַה לְשׁוֹן עָמוֹק. עֲמוּקָה. מִמַּרְאֶה חַמָּה שֶׁהִיא עֲמוּקָה מִמַּרְאֶה הַצֵּל. מַה לְשׁוֹן סַפַּחַת. טְפֵילָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סְפָחֵינִי נָא אֶל אַחַת הַכְּהוּנּוֹת וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. זו̇ דִבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. שְׁאֵת וּבַהֶרֶת אַחַת. סַפַּחַת שְׁנִיָיה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. נַעֲשֵׂית מִסְפַּחַת שְׂאֵת אין מִסְפַּחַת עַזָּה.From where that they can be joined one to the other? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora.: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind and “shiny spot” are to be combined then certainly a shiny spot and one of lesser intensity are one and the same.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other, Parašat Nega`im, Pereq 1(4) which reads מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה “this teaches that they can be joined one to the other.” Already D. Fraenckel in the 18th Century recognized that under the influence of Greek the h sound was lost and there was no difference in sound between שֶׁהֵן and שֶׁאֵין.. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other.” “He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened. 13:6. Since even for a darkened spot there are conditions which have to be satisfied before the sufferer from skin disease is declared pure, it follows that the change of color alone is not sufficient.. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants, legatus, the second in command. The decreasing order of brightness is snow, eggshell, whitewash, white wool.. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada] bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa, pp. 27b–28b. and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third and s´et combine. If one would establish a hierarchy of brightness as the parables indicate and s´et was less than baheret, a combination of baheret with its secondary color would be a combination of degrees 1 and 3, which we had excluded by a previous argument. Therefore s´et and baheret must be coordinate, not subordinate.? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. , Parašat Nega`im, Pereq 1(4). A parallel text from another source is in the Babli, 6b.“שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened. 13:3., secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods. 2:36., etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat. 7:2. מִסְפַּחַת is biblical equivalent of סַפַּחַת (Lev. 13:6,7) used both for impure and pure spots, thereby validating the distinction between deeper and much deeper colors.”

Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot.1.1