Today's Daf Yomi
December 4, 2017 | ืืดื ืืืกืื ืชืฉืขืดื
-
This monthโs learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ
Shevuot 6
Study Guide Shevuot 6. The mishna in Negaim which is somewhat parallel to our mishnaย regarding the 2 shades of white that are leprous in the Torah and the two that the Rabbis added, and elaborates a little more.ย The gemara explains that the mishnaย there doesn’t match Rabbi Akiva’s opinion as the mishnaย connects between Avot and Toladot and Rabbi Akiva connects between the order of the shades of white.ย The mishna then tries to derive from where we know Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.ย The first attempt is unsuccessful but the second succeeds.ย The gemara then explains about the different shades of the colors mentioned in the Torah.ย From where do we know that the verses in the Torah regarding the requirement to bring a sliding scale sin offering for an impure person relate to one who went into the mikdash or ate sacred food?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
ืืื ืืื ืืฉืืื ืืื ืกืื ืืืื ืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืื ืงืฉืื ืืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืืชืชืื ืืฉืืช ืจืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืฉืืช ืืืกืคืืช ืกืคืืช ืืคืืื ืืฉืืช ืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืื ืืชื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืกืื ืืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืืืืืจืชื ืืชื ืืชืื ืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื
The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, it would all be well were it not for the difficulty with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls, as the difficulty raised with regard to an egg membraneโcolored mark is not difficult. As even though the shade of an egg membrane is two stages below that of a seโet, the Merciful One states: โAnd for a seโet and for a sappaแธฅatโ (Leviticus 14:56), which indicates that a sappaแธฅat is secondary to a seโet and can combine with it even though a sappaแธฅat is of a much lower degree of brightness than it. Rabbi Akiva holds that both of the additional shades not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from the word: Sappaแธฅat, and so both of them can combine with a seโet. But the difficulty raised with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls is indeed difficult. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
ืืืืื ืฉืืขืื ื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืื ืืืขืื ืืื
ยง The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Akivaโs opinion: And where have we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva the different shades should be ordered this one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness, and only two adjacent shades can combine together?
ืืืืืื ืืื ืืชื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืกื ืฉืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ื ืฉื ืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืคื ื ืื ืืืจื ืืจืืืช ื ืืขืื ืฉื ืื ืฉืื ืืจืืขื ืืืจ ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืืจื ืืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืืืืขืื ืืื
If we say we learned it from that which is taught in the following baraita, it is difficult. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei said that Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Akiva, asked of Rabbi Akiva: For what reason did the Sages say that the different shades of leprous marks are two types that are four, and proceed to specify their names? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But if not that, what else could they say? Rabbi Yehoshua answered him: Let them say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure.
ืืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืฆืืจืคืื ืื ืขื ืื ืืืจ ืื ืืืืืจื ืืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืืืืขืื ืืื ืืืฆืืจืคืื ืื ืขื ืื ืืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืื ืื ืืื ืฉืืื ื ืืงื ืืื ืืืฉืืืชืืื ืืื ื ืจืืื ืืช ืื ืืขืื
Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified the four different shades in order to say that they combine with each other in that order, i.e., each one with its adjacent shade. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If so, let them simply say: Any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure, and they combine with each other. Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified their names in order to tell you: Any priest who is not an expert in distinguishing between them and in identifying their names is not authorized to inspect the leprous marks and make a decision regarding them.
ืืืืื ืืกืื ืืืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืงืืืจ
The Gemara explains the difficulty: Rabbi Yehoshua suggested that according to Rabbi Akivaโs opinion it should be sufficient to say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and upward is impure, but he did not say that it would also be necessary to add: And any mark of a degree of brightness from that of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls and above is impure. If Rabbi Akiva agrees to the categorization of the mishna, then it would be necessary to state separately each category of marks, in a dual formulation, in order to indicate that only shades that are categorized together can combine.
ืืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ื ืืฉืืืข ืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืืื ืฉืืช ืืฆืืจืคืื
The Gemara suggests: Conclude from the fact that he did not say this to Rabbi Akiva that Rabbi Yehoshua heard of Rabbi Akiva that he says: All the different shades combine with a seโet. Accordingly, both a snow-white baheret and a lime-colored mark will each combine with a seโet, as they are adjacent to it when listed in order of their degrees of brightness. An egg membraneโcolored mark will also combine with a seโet, as it is derived from the word: Sappaแธฅat, and the Torah indicates that a sappaแธฅat is secondary to a seโet.
ืืืืื ืฉืืช ืืชืืืืชื ืืืจืช ืืชืืืืชื
The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps Rabbi Akiva does hold that the only combinations possible are a seโet and its secondary mark, i.e., an egg membraneโcolored mark; and a baheret and its secondary mark, i.e., a lime-colored mark. And perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua in fact proposed that the Sages should use a dual formulation, but the baraita cites only the first half of his suggestion.
ืืื ืืืจืื ืื ืื ื ืืืืจ ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืืฉื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืจืืขื ืืืกืืช ืฉื ืืื ืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืฉืชื ืืืคืื ืฉื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืืจืืข ืืืคืื ืฉื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืฉืืื ื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืฉืชืื ืขืฉืจื ืืืคืื ืืืืจื ืื ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื ืืืคืื ืฉืืืื ืืจืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื ืืื
Rather, Rabbi Akivaโs opinion can be inferred from that which Rabbi แธคanina says, as Rabbi แธคanina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to four cups of milk, and two drops of blood fell into one of them, and four drops of blood fell into another one of them, and eight drops of blood fell into another one, and twelve drops of blood fell into the last one. And some say that sixteen drops fell into the last cup. This is a suitable analogy, as the milk in all of the cups still has a similar shade of white, but the cups can be ordered according to their degrees of brightness, as this one is above this one, and that one is above that one. Rabbi แธคaninaโs analogy would appear to portray Rabbi Akivaโs opinion in the same way it was cited earlier.
ืืืืืจ ืืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืคืชืื ืืืืืง ืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื
The Gemara rejects this. The Torah states that a โreddish-white afflictionโ (Leviticus 13:42), not just a flawless white one, renders a person ritually impure. Therefore, the Gemara suggests: Say that you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to combining different shades of a mark that is mixed [befatukh] with red, which is the case most similar to the analogy offered by Rabbi แธคanina, but with regard to different shades of flawless white, have you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion?
ืืื ืชืืื ืื ืืืื ืืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืคืชืื ืืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืืืืง ืืืคืชืื ืืืคืื ืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืืชื ืื ืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืฉืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืฉื ืืืจืช ืขืื ืืฉืื ืืฉื ืกืื ืืืื ืืืื ื
And if you would say that just as you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to a mark that is mixed with red, so too, by logical extension, you have effectively heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to different shades of flawless white, as what possible reason is there to differentiate between them, this is difficult. And this suggestion is problematic, as in the case of a mixed reddish-white mark itself, did you ever hear him express this opinion? But isnโt it taught otherwise in a mishna (Negaโim 1:2): With regard to the various shades of white that are mixed with red, Rabbi Akiva says the reddish variation of this one, i.e., of a baheret, and of that one, i.e., of a lime-colored mark, are like wine diluted in water, except for the following distinction: That the reddish variation of a baheret is still an intense white, like snow, albeit with a somewhat pinkish hue, but the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.
ืืื ืืืชื ืฉื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืขื ืืื
And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva lists the different shades in decreasing order of their degree of brightness, then after mentioning the reddish variation of baheret he should have next said: The reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it, not that the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.
ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืชื ืื ืจืื ื ืชื ืืืืจ ืื ืฉืืืจ ืจืื ืขืงืืื ืฉื ืกืื ืืืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืฉื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื
They said in response to this: Yes, it is indeed so that Rabbi Akiva continues by referring to the reddish variations of a wool-white mark, and it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says, referring to that mishna: It is not correct that Rabbi Akiva said: The reddish variation of lime is darker than it; rather, he said that the reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it.
ืืื ืื ืืืืจืช ืขืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืจ ืงืจื ืื ืืืจืช ืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืืจืช ืืื ื
ยง The Gemara considers the source from which the different shades of marks are derived: And from where do we derive that baheret is an intense white color? Abaye said: The verse states: โAnd if it is a white baheretโ (Leviticus 13:4), which indicates that it alone is a bright white and there is no other as white as it.
ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืืืจืช ืขืืืงื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืขืืง ืื ืืขืืจ ืืืจืื ืืื ืืขืืืงื ืื ืืฆื ืฉืืช ืืื ืฉืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืื ืืืจืื ืืจืืื ืืขื ืื ืืืืขืืช ืื ืฉืืืช ืกืคืืช ืืื ืกืคืืช ืืื ืืคืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืกืคืื ื ื ื
The Sages taught in a baraita: The bright shade of a baheret makes it appear deeper than the surrounding skin, and so the verse states: โAnd its appearance is deeper than the skinโ (Leviticus 13:25). This is like the appearance of an area illuminated by the sun, which appears deeper than the area in the shade. The darker shade of a seโet makes it appear as though it is raised above the surrounding skin; this is indicated by the fact that the word seโet means nothing other than raised, and so the verse states: โUpon all the high mountains and upon all the raised up [hanissaot] hillsโ (Isaiah 2:14). The words hanissaot and seโet share the same Hebrew root and both refer to something raised up. In the verse: โFor a seโet and for a sappaแธฅatโ (Leviticus 14:56), the word sappaแธฅat means nothing other than secondary, and so the verse states: โAnd he will say: Append me [sefaแธฅeni] please to one of the priestly classes to eat a piece of breadโ (Iย Samuel 2:36). This teaches that there is a leprous mark that is secondary and appended to a seโet. This is a mark that is the color of an egg membrane.
ืืฉืืื ืืคืืื ืืฉืืช ืืคืืื ืืืืจืช ืื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจื ื ืืืจื ืืื ื ืืฉืืช ืื ืืืจื ืืื ื ืืืืจืช ืื ืืื ื ืืืืืจื ืืฉืืช ืืฉ ืื ืืคืืื ืืฃ ืืื ื ืืืืืจื ืืืืจืช ืืฉ ืื ืืคืืื
We found a source for a mark that is secondary to a seโet; from where do we derive that there is also a mark that is secondary to a baheret? Rabbi Zeira said: โWhiteโ (Leviticus 13:10) is stated with regard to a seโet and โwhiteโ (Leviticus 13:4) is stated with regard to a baheret. This teaches that just as the shade of white stated with regard to a seโet has a secondary mark, i.e., the mark that is the color of an egg membrane, so too, the shade of white stated with regard to a baheret has a secondary mark, i.e., the lime-colored mark.
ืืืชื ืืชื ืชื ื ืืืื ืืืชืื ืืกืคืืช ืืื ืฉืืช ืืืืจืช ืืืืจ ืื ืืฉื ืฉืืคืืื ืืฉืืช ืื ืืคืืื ืืืืจืช
A different source for this was taught in a baraita: The verse (see Leviticus 13:2) placed the word sappaแธฅat between seโet and baheret, to say to you: Just as there is a shade that is secondary to a seโet, so too, there is a shade that is secondary to a baheret.
ืฉืืช ืืฆืืจ ืืื ืืื ืฆืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืกื ืฆืืจ ื ืงื ืื ืืืื ืฉืืืื ืื ืื ืืืืืช
The mishna in Negaโim cited above states: A seโet is like white wool. The Gemara asks: What is meant by white wool? Rav Beivai says that Rav Asi says: It is the color of clean wool from a lamb that is wrapped up [mekhabnin] in a cover when it is one day old in order to protect it from being sullied, so that the wool will be suitable for producing a fine wool garment.
ืืืจ ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืืฉื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืชืจื ืืืื ืืืชืจื ืืืคืจืื ืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืืคืจืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืคืจืื ืฉื ืื
ยง In continuation of his statement cited above Rabbi แธคanina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., the opinion expressed in the mishna in Negaโim (1:1) that both a baheret and a seโet have marks that are secondary to them. To what is this matter comparable? To two kings and to two governors [iparkhei] where, with regard to their supremacy, the king of this governor is above the king of that governor, and the governor of this king is above the governor of that king. The two kings are analogous to a baheret and a seโet and their two governors are, respectively, a lime-colored mark and an egg membraneโcolored mark. Accordingly, the order of supremacy is: Baheret, seโet, lime-colored mark, egg membraneโcolored mark.
ืืื ืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื
The Gemara questions whether this is a suitable analogy for the opinion of the Rabbis: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above this one and that one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness. That is Rabbi Akivaโs opinion, not the opinion of the Rabbis.
ืืื ืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืคืจืืื ืื ืคืฉืื ืืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืคืจืืื ืื ืคืฉืื
Rather, a suitable analogy is where the king of this governor is above his own governor, and the king of that governor is above his own governor. So too, each secondary mark is subordinate only to its primary mark.
ืจื ืืื ืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืงืคืื ืจืืคืืื ืืจืืฉ ืืืืชื ืืื ืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืจืืคืืื ืืืืงืคืื ืืจืืฉ ืืืืชื
The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rav Adda bar Abba said: For example: A king, and a chief officer [alkafta], the vizier [rofila], and the Exilarch; each person in the list is more powerful than the subsequent one. The Gemara asks: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above that one, which is Rabbi Akivaโs opinion. Rather, a suitable analogy is, for example: A king and the vizier; and a chief officer and the Exilarch. This list splits the four into two groups, each group containing one person who is subordinate to the other.
ืจืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืืจ ืืืื ืืงืืกืจ
The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rava said: The previous suggestion is not precise because all these positions, apart from the king, are subordinate to the king. A more precise analogy would be, for example: King Shapur, the king of Persia, with his subordinate; and the Roman emperor with his subordinate.
ืืืจ ืืื ืจื ืคืคื ืืจืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืขืืืฃ ืืืจ ืืื ืืืืจืฉืื ืงื ืืืื ืืื ืคืืง ืืื ืืืืขื ืืืื ืกืื ืืขืืื ืืืชืื ืืชืืื ืื ืืจืขื ืืชืืืฉื ื ืืชืืงื ื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ื ืื ืจืืื ืืืืืช ืฉืืืืขื ืืฆื ืืื ืืขืืื ืืืื
Rav Pappa said to Rava: Which of them is greater, King Shapur or the Roman emperor? Rava said to him: Does he eat in the forest, i.e., do you live disconnected and unaware of events in the world at large? Go out and see whose coin circulates throughout the world, which is an indicator of a governmentโs influence, as it is written with regard to the fourth empire described in Danielโs dream of the future powers of the world: โIt shall devour the whole earth and tread upon it and break it into piecesโ (Daniel 7:23), and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is the guilty empire of Rome whose coin circulates throughout the entire world.
ืจืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืืื ืืขืืจ ืืฉืืงืื ืกืืื ื ืืืืชื ื ืืฉืืงืื
The Gemara presents a different analogy. Ravina said: For example, a new white woolen garment and a frayed one; a new linen sheet and a frayed one.
ืืช ืฉืืฉ ืื ืืืืขื ืืชืืื ืืืืณ ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืื ืื ืฉืืื ืืืชืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืงืืฉืื
ยง The mishna (2a) states: In cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one had awareness at the beginning and awareness at the end, but had a lapse of awareness in between while he actually transgressed, this person is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the verse that describes the liability for a sliding-scale offering (see Leviticus 5:2โ4) speaks of nothing other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods? While the verse mentions that a violation was committed due to a lapse of awareness of oneโs state of impurity, it does not mention which transgression was violated.
ืืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืขื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืงืจืื ืขื ืืืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืขื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืืื ืขื ืืืืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืงืืฉืื ืืฃ ืืฉืืืื ืงืจืื ืขื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืขื ืืืืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืงืืฉืื
The Gemara explains: And it is a logical inference: Since the Torah has explicitly prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the intentional defiling of something sacred and has rendered one liable to bring an offering for the unwitting defiling of something sacred, it follows that just as when it prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the defiling of something sacred it prohibited and also prescribed punishment only for the intentional defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods; so too, when it rendered one liable to bring an offering for the defiling of something sacred it rendered one liable to do so only for the unwitting defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
ืืืืื ืชืจืืื ืฉืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืื ืืฉืืื ืขืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืขืืื ืงืจืื
The Gemara asks: But say instead that the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering is referring to a ritually impure person who partook of the sacred portion of produce grown in Eretz Yisrael that is designated to be given to a priest [teruma], as the Torah also has explicitly prohibited and prescribed punishment for this. One who partakes of teruma while ritually impure is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven (see Leviticus 22:9). The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to teruma, because we do not find a sin whose punishment for an intentional violation is death, with regard to which one is liable to bring an offering for its unwitting violation. Sin-offerings, of which the sliding-scale offering is one type, are brought only for transgressions whose intentional violation is punishable by karet.
ืืืื ืื ื ืืืื ืงืจืื ืงืืืข ืืื
The Gemara asks: But say that this statement applies only to a fixed sin-offering, but
-
This monthโs learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Shevuot 6
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
ืืื ืืื ืืฉืืื ืืื ืกืื ืืืื ืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืื ืงืฉืื ืืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืืชืชืื ืืฉืืช ืจืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืฉืืช ืืืกืคืืช ืกืคืืช ืืคืืื ืืฉืืช ืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืื ืืชื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืกืื ืืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืืืืืจืชื ืืชื ืืชืื ืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื
The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, it would all be well were it not for the difficulty with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls, as the difficulty raised with regard to an egg membraneโcolored mark is not difficult. As even though the shade of an egg membrane is two stages below that of a seโet, the Merciful One states: โAnd for a seโet and for a sappaแธฅatโ (Leviticus 14:56), which indicates that a sappaแธฅat is secondary to a seโet and can combine with it even though a sappaแธฅat is of a much lower degree of brightness than it. Rabbi Akiva holds that both of the additional shades not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from the word: Sappaแธฅat, and so both of them can combine with a seโet. But the difficulty raised with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls is indeed difficult. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
ืืืืื ืฉืืขืื ื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืื ืืืขืื ืืื
ยง The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Akivaโs opinion: And where have we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva the different shades should be ordered this one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness, and only two adjacent shades can combine together?
ืืืืืื ืืื ืืชื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืกื ืฉืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ื ืฉื ืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืคื ื ืื ืืืจื ืืจืืืช ื ืืขืื ืฉื ืื ืฉืื ืืจืืขื ืืืจ ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืืจื ืืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืืืืขืื ืืื
If we say we learned it from that which is taught in the following baraita, it is difficult. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei said that Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Akiva, asked of Rabbi Akiva: For what reason did the Sages say that the different shades of leprous marks are two types that are four, and proceed to specify their names? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But if not that, what else could they say? Rabbi Yehoshua answered him: Let them say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure.
ืืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืฆืืจืคืื ืื ืขื ืื ืืืจ ืื ืืืืืจื ืืงืจืื ืืืฆื ืืืืขืื ืืื ืืืฆืืจืคืื ืื ืขื ืื ืืืจ ืื ืืืืจ ืื ืื ืืื ืฉืืื ื ืืงื ืืื ืืืฉืืืชืืื ืืื ื ืจืืื ืืช ืื ืืขืื
Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified the four different shades in order to say that they combine with each other in that order, i.e., each one with its adjacent shade. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If so, let them simply say: Any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure, and they combine with each other. Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified their names in order to tell you: Any priest who is not an expert in distinguishing between them and in identifying their names is not authorized to inspect the leprous marks and make a decision regarding them.
ืืืืื ืืกืื ืืืื ืืืืขืื ืื ืงืืืจ
The Gemara explains the difficulty: Rabbi Yehoshua suggested that according to Rabbi Akivaโs opinion it should be sufficient to say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and upward is impure, but he did not say that it would also be necessary to add: And any mark of a degree of brightness from that of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls and above is impure. If Rabbi Akiva agrees to the categorization of the mishna, then it would be necessary to state separately each category of marks, in a dual formulation, in order to indicate that only shades that are categorized together can combine.
ืืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืฉืืข ืืื ื ืืฉืืืข ืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืืื ืฉืืช ืืฆืืจืคืื
The Gemara suggests: Conclude from the fact that he did not say this to Rabbi Akiva that Rabbi Yehoshua heard of Rabbi Akiva that he says: All the different shades combine with a seโet. Accordingly, both a snow-white baheret and a lime-colored mark will each combine with a seโet, as they are adjacent to it when listed in order of their degrees of brightness. An egg membraneโcolored mark will also combine with a seโet, as it is derived from the word: Sappaแธฅat, and the Torah indicates that a sappaแธฅat is secondary to a seโet.
ืืืืื ืฉืืช ืืชืืืืชื ืืืจืช ืืชืืืืชื
The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps Rabbi Akiva does hold that the only combinations possible are a seโet and its secondary mark, i.e., an egg membraneโcolored mark; and a baheret and its secondary mark, i.e., a lime-colored mark. And perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua in fact proposed that the Sages should use a dual formulation, but the baraita cites only the first half of his suggestion.
ืืื ืืืจืื ืื ืื ื ืืืืจ ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืืฉื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืจืืขื ืืืกืืช ืฉื ืืื ืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืฉืชื ืืืคืื ืฉื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืืจืืข ืืืคืื ืฉื ืื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืฉืืื ื ืืืื ื ืคืื ืืชืืื ืฉืชืื ืขืฉืจื ืืืคืื ืืืืจื ืื ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื ืืืคืื ืฉืืืื ืืจืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืื ืฉืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื ืืื
Rather, Rabbi Akivaโs opinion can be inferred from that which Rabbi แธคanina says, as Rabbi แธคanina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to four cups of milk, and two drops of blood fell into one of them, and four drops of blood fell into another one of them, and eight drops of blood fell into another one, and twelve drops of blood fell into the last one. And some say that sixteen drops fell into the last cup. This is a suitable analogy, as the milk in all of the cups still has a similar shade of white, but the cups can be ordered according to their degrees of brightness, as this one is above this one, and that one is above that one. Rabbi แธคaninaโs analogy would appear to portray Rabbi Akivaโs opinion in the same way it was cited earlier.
ืืืืืจ ืืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืคืชืื ืืืืืง ืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื
The Gemara rejects this. The Torah states that a โreddish-white afflictionโ (Leviticus 13:42), not just a flawless white one, renders a person ritually impure. Therefore, the Gemara suggests: Say that you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to combining different shades of a mark that is mixed [befatukh] with red, which is the case most similar to the analogy offered by Rabbi แธคanina, but with regard to different shades of flawless white, have you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion?
ืืื ืชืืื ืื ืืืื ืืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืคืชืื ืืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืืืืง ืืืคืชืื ืืืคืื ืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืืชื ืื ืจืื ืขืงืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืฉืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืฉื ืืืจืช ืขืื ืืฉืื ืืฉื ืกืื ืืืื ืืืื ื
And if you would say that just as you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to a mark that is mixed with red, so too, by logical extension, you have effectively heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to different shades of flawless white, as what possible reason is there to differentiate between them, this is difficult. And this suggestion is problematic, as in the case of a mixed reddish-white mark itself, did you ever hear him express this opinion? But isnโt it taught otherwise in a mishna (Negaโim 1:2): With regard to the various shades of white that are mixed with red, Rabbi Akiva says the reddish variation of this one, i.e., of a baheret, and of that one, i.e., of a lime-colored mark, are like wine diluted in water, except for the following distinction: That the reddish variation of a baheret is still an intense white, like snow, albeit with a somewhat pinkish hue, but the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.
ืืื ืืืชื ืฉื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืขื ืืื
And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva lists the different shades in decreasing order of their degree of brightness, then after mentioning the reddish variation of baheret he should have next said: The reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it, not that the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.
ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืชื ืื ืจืื ื ืชื ืืืืจ ืื ืฉืืืจ ืจืื ืขืงืืื ืฉื ืกืื ืืืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืฉื ืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ื
They said in response to this: Yes, it is indeed so that Rabbi Akiva continues by referring to the reddish variations of a wool-white mark, and it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says, referring to that mishna: It is not correct that Rabbi Akiva said: The reddish variation of lime is darker than it; rather, he said that the reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it.
ืืื ืื ืืืืจืช ืขืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืจ ืงืจื ืื ืืืจืช ืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืืจืช ืืื ื
ยง The Gemara considers the source from which the different shades of marks are derived: And from where do we derive that baheret is an intense white color? Abaye said: The verse states: โAnd if it is a white baheretโ (Leviticus 13:4), which indicates that it alone is a bright white and there is no other as white as it.
ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืืืจืช ืขืืืงื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืขืืง ืื ืืขืืจ ืืืจืื ืืื ืืขืืืงื ืื ืืฆื ืฉืืช ืืื ืฉืืช ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืื ืืืจืื ืืจืืื ืืขื ืื ืืืืขืืช ืื ืฉืืืช ืกืคืืช ืืื ืกืคืืช ืืื ืืคืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืกืคืื ื ื ื
The Sages taught in a baraita: The bright shade of a baheret makes it appear deeper than the surrounding skin, and so the verse states: โAnd its appearance is deeper than the skinโ (Leviticus 13:25). This is like the appearance of an area illuminated by the sun, which appears deeper than the area in the shade. The darker shade of a seโet makes it appear as though it is raised above the surrounding skin; this is indicated by the fact that the word seโet means nothing other than raised, and so the verse states: โUpon all the high mountains and upon all the raised up [hanissaot] hillsโ (Isaiah 2:14). The words hanissaot and seโet share the same Hebrew root and both refer to something raised up. In the verse: โFor a seโet and for a sappaแธฅatโ (Leviticus 14:56), the word sappaแธฅat means nothing other than secondary, and so the verse states: โAnd he will say: Append me [sefaแธฅeni] please to one of the priestly classes to eat a piece of breadโ (Iย Samuel 2:36). This teaches that there is a leprous mark that is secondary and appended to a seโet. This is a mark that is the color of an egg membrane.
ืืฉืืื ืืคืืื ืืฉืืช ืืคืืื ืืืืจืช ืื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืจื ื ืืืจื ืืื ื ืืฉืืช ืื ืืืจื ืืื ื ืืืืจืช ืื ืืื ื ืืืืืจื ืืฉืืช ืืฉ ืื ืืคืืื ืืฃ ืืื ื ืืืืืจื ืืืืจืช ืืฉ ืื ืืคืืื
We found a source for a mark that is secondary to a seโet; from where do we derive that there is also a mark that is secondary to a baheret? Rabbi Zeira said: โWhiteโ (Leviticus 13:10) is stated with regard to a seโet and โwhiteโ (Leviticus 13:4) is stated with regard to a baheret. This teaches that just as the shade of white stated with regard to a seโet has a secondary mark, i.e., the mark that is the color of an egg membrane, so too, the shade of white stated with regard to a baheret has a secondary mark, i.e., the lime-colored mark.
ืืืชื ืืชื ืชื ื ืืืื ืืืชืื ืืกืคืืช ืืื ืฉืืช ืืืืจืช ืืืืจ ืื ืืฉื ืฉืืคืืื ืืฉืืช ืื ืืคืืื ืืืืจืช
A different source for this was taught in a baraita: The verse (see Leviticus 13:2) placed the word sappaแธฅat between seโet and baheret, to say to you: Just as there is a shade that is secondary to a seโet, so too, there is a shade that is secondary to a baheret.
ืฉืืช ืืฆืืจ ืืื ืืื ืฆืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืกื ืฆืืจ ื ืงื ืื ืืืื ืฉืืืื ืื ืื ืืืืืช
The mishna in Negaโim cited above states: A seโet is like white wool. The Gemara asks: What is meant by white wool? Rav Beivai says that Rav Asi says: It is the color of clean wool from a lamb that is wrapped up [mekhabnin] in a cover when it is one day old in order to protect it from being sullied, so that the wool will be suitable for producing a fine wool garment.
ืืืจ ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืืฉื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืชืจื ืืืื ืืืชืจื ืืืคืจืื ืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืืคืจืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืคืจืื ืฉื ืื
ยง In continuation of his statement cited above Rabbi แธคanina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., the opinion expressed in the mishna in Negaโim (1:1) that both a baheret and a seโet have marks that are secondary to them. To what is this matter comparable? To two kings and to two governors [iparkhei] where, with regard to their supremacy, the king of this governor is above the king of that governor, and the governor of this king is above the governor of that king. The two kings are analogous to a baheret and a seโet and their two governors are, respectively, a lime-colored mark and an egg membraneโcolored mark. Accordingly, the order of supremacy is: Baheret, seโet, lime-colored mark, egg membraneโcolored mark.
ืืื ืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื
The Gemara questions whether this is a suitable analogy for the opinion of the Rabbis: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above this one and that one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness. That is Rabbi Akivaโs opinion, not the opinion of the Rabbis.
ืืื ืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืคืจืืื ืื ืคืฉืื ืืืืื ืฉื ืื ืืืขืื ืืืืคืจืืื ืื ืคืฉืื
Rather, a suitable analogy is where the king of this governor is above his own governor, and the king of that governor is above his own governor. So too, each secondary mark is subordinate only to its primary mark.
ืจื ืืื ืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืงืคืื ืจืืคืืื ืืจืืฉ ืืืืชื ืืื ืื ืืืขืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืจืืคืืื ืืืืงืคืื ืืจืืฉ ืืืืชื
The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rav Adda bar Abba said: For example: A king, and a chief officer [alkafta], the vizier [rofila], and the Exilarch; each person in the list is more powerful than the subsequent one. The Gemara asks: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above that one, which is Rabbi Akivaโs opinion. Rather, a suitable analogy is, for example: A king and the vizier; and a chief officer and the Exilarch. This list splits the four into two groups, each group containing one person who is subordinate to the other.
ืจืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฉืืืจ ืืืื ืืงืืกืจ
The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rava said: The previous suggestion is not precise because all these positions, apart from the king, are subordinate to the king. A more precise analogy would be, for example: King Shapur, the king of Persia, with his subordinate; and the Roman emperor with his subordinate.
ืืืจ ืืื ืจื ืคืคื ืืจืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืขืืืฃ ืืืจ ืืื ืืืืจืฉืื ืงื ืืืื ืืื ืคืืง ืืื ืืืืขื ืืืื ืกืื ืืขืืื ืืืชืื ืืชืืื ืื ืืจืขื ืืชืืืฉื ื ืืชืืงื ื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ื ืื ืจืืื ืืืืืช ืฉืืืืขื ืืฆื ืืื ืืขืืื ืืืื
Rav Pappa said to Rava: Which of them is greater, King Shapur or the Roman emperor? Rava said to him: Does he eat in the forest, i.e., do you live disconnected and unaware of events in the world at large? Go out and see whose coin circulates throughout the world, which is an indicator of a governmentโs influence, as it is written with regard to the fourth empire described in Danielโs dream of the future powers of the world: โIt shall devour the whole earth and tread upon it and break it into piecesโ (Daniel 7:23), and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is the guilty empire of Rome whose coin circulates throughout the entire world.
ืจืืื ื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืืื ืืขืืจ ืืฉืืงืื ืกืืื ื ืืืืชื ื ืืฉืืงืื
The Gemara presents a different analogy. Ravina said: For example, a new white woolen garment and a frayed one; a new linen sheet and a frayed one.
ืืช ืฉืืฉ ืื ืืืืขื ืืชืืื ืืืืณ ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืื ืื ืฉืืื ืืืชืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืืืืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืงืืฉืื
ยง The mishna (2a) states: In cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one had awareness at the beginning and awareness at the end, but had a lapse of awareness in between while he actually transgressed, this person is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the verse that describes the liability for a sliding-scale offering (see Leviticus 5:2โ4) speaks of nothing other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods? While the verse mentions that a violation was committed due to a lapse of awareness of oneโs state of impurity, it does not mention which transgression was violated.
ืืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืขื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืงืจืื ืขื ืืืืืื ืื ืืฉืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืขื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืืื ืขื ืืืืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืงืืฉืื ืืฃ ืืฉืืืื ืงืจืื ืขื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืขื ืืืืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืงืืฉืื
The Gemara explains: And it is a logical inference: Since the Torah has explicitly prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the intentional defiling of something sacred and has rendered one liable to bring an offering for the unwitting defiling of something sacred, it follows that just as when it prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the defiling of something sacred it prohibited and also prescribed punishment only for the intentional defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods; so too, when it rendered one liable to bring an offering for the defiling of something sacred it rendered one liable to do so only for the unwitting defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
ืืืืื ืชืจืืื ืฉืืืืืจ ืืขื ืฉ ืื ืืฉืืื ืขืื ืืืชื ืืืืื ืขืืื ืงืจืื
The Gemara asks: But say instead that the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering is referring to a ritually impure person who partook of the sacred portion of produce grown in Eretz Yisrael that is designated to be given to a priest [teruma], as the Torah also has explicitly prohibited and prescribed punishment for this. One who partakes of teruma while ritually impure is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven (see Leviticus 22:9). The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to teruma, because we do not find a sin whose punishment for an intentional violation is death, with regard to which one is liable to bring an offering for its unwitting violation. Sin-offerings, of which the sliding-scale offering is one type, are brought only for transgressions whose intentional violation is punishable by karet.
ืืืื ืื ื ืืืื ืงืจืื ืงืืืข ืืื
The Gemara asks: But say that this statement applies only to a fixed sin-offering, but