Shevuot 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What is this?

Why should this pose a difficulty for you?

Granted, without

the question of what the

plaster of the Sanctuary,

from

the membrane of an egg

would

not be difficult

for you, as to how it can combine with other lesions. For it is obvious to us that the membrane of an egg, which is the fourth degree, can combine with the se'et, which is the second degree.

For even though the membrane of an egg

is lower

than the se'et,

two degrees below the se'et, nevertheless we have a special amplification concerning the derivative of the se'et, that it combines with its primary category despite its distance from it. For

the Torah said: “And for the se'et and for the sapachat,”

and the verse amplified

“sapachat,”

whose meaning is: anything that is

attached to the se'et, even though it is much lower than it,

nevertheless combines with its primary category. For sapachat, whose meaning is “attached,” includes even the slightest attachment, even when another appearance intervenes between them.

This amplification concerning sapachat, which is attached to the se'et, applies only to the derivative of the se'et. The verse spoke only of that, but we do not have a division of primary categories between the baheret and the se'et. And according to Rabbi Akiva, the baheret has no derivative. Rashi

Accordingly, when Rabbi Akiva said that the order of the appearances must be arranged, one above the other, and that there is combination only between two lesions whose appearances are adjacent, he was referring only to the other three lesions: the baheret, the se'et, and the plaster of the Sanctuary. Each combines with the one adjacent to it.

The baheret is a primary category in its own right, and it combines with the se'et, as it is stated: “And it shall be,” teaching that the baheret and the se'et combine.

And according to Rabbi Akiva, they combine because they are adjacent. Likewise, the plaster and the se'et combine because they are adjacent. Only the membrane combines with the se'et, because the Torah amplified a derivative for the se'et more than for the baheret.

Rather, as for the plaster of the Sanctuary,

if you call it the derivative of the baheret, by dividing the four lesions into two primary categories and their two derivatives,

it is difficult

for us: How can it combine with another lesion? It cannot combine with the se'et, which is not its primary category. Nor can it combine with the membrane of an egg, which is the derivative of another primary category. And it cannot combine with its primary category, the baheret, which is two degrees distant from it!?

And if we say concerning the plaster of the Sanctuary that the verse amplified a derivative for the baheret, even though it is lower than it, and therefore the plaster combines with the baheret even though the se'et intervenes between them, then combination would follow only the relationship between primary categories and derivatives, and not the adjacent appearances. For the membrane combines with the se'et even though the plaster intervenes between them, and likewise the plaster combines with the baheret even though the se'et intervenes between them. Why, then, did Rabbi Akiva say that only two adjacent appearances combine?

Rather, necessarily, the plaster does not combine with the baheret, because they are not adjacent.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear—the

Mishna

at the beginning of tractate Nega'im is

not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva!

We inquire:

And where do we hear that Rabbi Akiva holds that the four appearances of lesions must be arranged one above the other,

to teach that they combine only when the two lesions are adjacent?

If you say it is from that which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Joshua, the son of Rabbi Akiva, asked Rabbi Akiva: Why did they say that there are two appearances of lesions that are four?

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva said to his son Joshua: What is your question?

And if not, what would they say!?

He said to him,

Joshua said: My question is this—

they should say:

Any appearance of whiteness higher than

the membrane of an egg and above

is

impure;

so why did the tanna need to specify them by name?

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva said to him: The tanna mentioned the names of all four lesions, and distinguished between their appearances and arranged them in graduated order, in order

to say that they combine with one another.

He said to him,

Joshua said to him: If it is to teach that they combine with one another, it would suffice that

they say:

Any appearance that is white

from the membrane of an egg and above

is

impure, and they combine with one another!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva said to him: This is why he mentioned them by their names,

to teach you

that

any koen who is not expert in them and in their names does not examine lesions!

The Gemara now infers from Joshua’s reply what the position of his father, Rabbi Akiva, was. Had Rabbi Akiva held like the tanna of our Mishna, that each derivative combines only with its primary category, his son Joshua should have asked him: Let them say that anything from the membrane of an egg and above is impure and combines, and let them say that anything from the plaster of the Sanctuary and above is impure and combines. For according to the division into primary categories and their derivatives, these are the only two combinations between a derivative and its primary category. But the question Joshua asked—let them say, “From the membrane of an egg and above it is impure, and they combine”—indicates that all of them combine with one another, without a division into primary categories and derivatives.

And this is how the Gemara infers: Joshua’s entire question was, “Let them say: From the membrane of an egg and above it is impure and they combine,” whereas, “Let them say:

From the plaster of the Sanctuary and above

it is impure and they combine,”

he did not say

to him.

And since he did not say this to him, conclude from it that Rabbi Akiva heard

from his father

that he said: all of them,

the appearances of lesions,

combine with the se'et.

For the combination does not depend on primary categories and derivatives; rather, the combination is between adjacent appearances. Therefore, the se'et combines with the baheret and with the plaster, because they are adjacent. Likewise, the se'et combines with the membrane, although they are not adjacent, because the verse amplified a derivative for the se'et, even though it is two degrees lower than it.

But the baheret does not combine with the plaster or with the membrane of an egg, since it is two degrees distant from them.

Therefore Joshua asked his father, Rabbi Akiva: Let them say, “From the membrane of an egg and above it is impure and they combine,” and we will know that combination applies only to an attached derivative or to an adjacent appearance. He did not also ask him that they should say, “From the plaster and above it is impure and it combines,” for Rabbi Akiva does not divide them into primary categories and derivatives.

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

Perhaps,

Rabbi Akiva likewise held that the combination of the appearances of lesions is between

the se'et and its derivative, and the baheret and its derivative.

And this is how his son Joshua asked him: Let them say, “From the membrane and above it is impure and it combines,” and let them say, “From the plaster of the Sanctuary and above it is impure and it combines.” Rather, the tanna of the beraita, who cited the exchange between Rabbi Akiva and his son Joshua, was not particular to state the question in full!?

Rather,

we must learn the order of the combination of the lesions according to Rabbi Akiva

from Rabbi Hanina.

For Rabbi Hanina said: A parable

for the order of the appearances of lesions according to

Rabbi Akiva: To what is this comparable?—

To four cups of milk,

into each of which a different number of drops of blood fell and became mixed with the milk. Into one cup

two drops of blood fell. Into another, four drops of blood fell. Into another, eight fell. And into another, twelve drops fell. And some say, sixteen drops. All of them are appearances of whiteness, but this one is above that one, and that one is above the other!

It is proven from Rabbi Hanina’s words that Rabbi Akiva held that the combination does not follow primary categories and derivatives, but rather the adjacency of the degrees of whiteness. For Rabbi Akiva said, “This one is above that one,” and Rabbi Hanina received from his teachers that he said this with regard to the order of combination: each combines with the appearance adjacent to it.

We inquire:

You may infer that you heard from Rabbi Akiva

that this is the order of their combination, according to the adjacency of the degrees of whiteness,

with regard to a mixed lesion,

which is the white-reddish lesion mentioned in the Torah, and which corresponds to Rabbi Hanina’s parable of white milk mixed with red blood. But with regard to a

plain lesion,

which consists of a white appearance alone, such as the baheret,

did you hear from him

that combination follows the degrees of whiteness!? Perhaps combination follows the position of the tanna of our Mishna, between primary categories and their derivatives?

And if you would say: Just as you heard this from him with regard to a mixed lesion, so you heard it from him with regard to a plain lesion,

for what distinction is there between them, the difficulty nevertheless remains:

And with regard to the mixed lesion itself, did you hear from him

that Rabbi Akiva arranged them according to the order of whiteness, to say that they combine specifically according to the order of the adjacency of their degrees of whiteness?

But we learned: Rabbi Akiva says:

What is the appearance of a lesion

reddish in each of these two?

That is, in the two appearances of lesions mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna, which are “intense as snow” and “like the plaster of the Sanctuary,” they appear

like diluted wine.

For had a drop of blood fallen into milk and become mixed with it, it would produce the appearance of diluted wine surrounded by a white appearance, and this is the form of a reddish lesion.

Rather,

the appearance of the whiteness of the mixed lesion

of the baheret

appears

“intense as snow,” while that of the plaster is duller than it.

That is, the distinction between a mixed lesion of baheret and one of plaster lies in the appearance of the whiteness: the whiteness of the baheret is more intense.