Shevuot 6a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

What is this

that it should be difficult for you?

Granted, without

the question of what the

plaster of the Sanctuary

will combine with,

the membrane of the egg would not

be

a difficulty

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

For even though the membrane of an egg

is lower

than the lower one of se'et,

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

the Torah said: “And for se'et and for a secondary affliction,”

and the verse amplified

“a secondary affliction,”

whose meaning is, whatever is

secondary to se'et, even though it is far below it,

that it is much lower than it, nevertheless it combines with its principal, because “a secondary affliction,” whose meaning is “secondary,” includes even the slightest secondary affliction, even when another appearance intervenes between them.

And this amplification of the secondary affliction of se'et is only for the derivative of se'et. For the verse spoke only of it, but we do not have a division of principals between baheret and se'et. And likewise baheret has no derivative, according to Rabbi Akiva. Rashi

And according to this, that which Rabbi Akiva said—that the order of the appearances should be taught, one above the other, and there is combination only between two lesions adjacent to one another in their appearances—refers only to the other three lesions, which are baheret, se'et, and the plaster of the Sanctuary, which combine, each with the one adjacent to it.

The baheret is a principal in its own right, and it combines with se'et, because it is stated “and it shall be,” to teach that baheret and se'et combine.

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

Rather, the plaster of the Sanctuary,

if you call it the derivative of baheret, through dividing the four lesions into two principals and their two derivatives,

it is difficult

for us: how can it combine with another lesion? With se'et, which is not its principal, it cannot combine. And with the membrane of the egg, which is a derivative of another principal, it also cannot combine. And with its principal, baheret, which is two degrees distant from it, it also cannot combine!?

And if we say concerning the plaster of the Sanctuary that the verse amplified a derivative for baheret, even though it is lower than it, and therefore the plaster combines with baheret even though se'et intervenes between them, then the combination would be only according to principals and derivatives, and not according to adjacent appearances. For the membrane combines with se'et even though the plaster intervenes between them, and likewise the plaster combines with baheret even though 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 baheret, because they are not adjacent.

And we conclude:

Rather, it is clear—

the Mishna

at the beginning of Tractate Nega'im is

not according to Rabbi Akiva!

And we raise the question:

And where do we hear from Rabbi Akiva that the four appearances of lesions should be taught one above the other,

in order to teach that their combination is only between two adjacent lesions?

Shall we say from this, as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said, Joshua, the son of Rabbi Akiva, asked Rabbi Akiva: Why did they say, “The appearances of lesions are two that are four”?

He said to him,

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

And if not, what would they say!?

He said to him,

Joshua: My question is this—

let them say:

Every appearance of whiteness higher

than the membrane of an egg and above

is

impure,

so why did the tannai need to specify them by their names?

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva: The tannai mentioned the names of all four lesions, and their division of appearances, and arranged them in graduated order, in order

to say that they combine with one another.

He said to him,

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

they say:

Every appearance that is white

from the membrane of the egg and above

is

impure, and they combine with one another!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva: Therefore he mentioned them by their names,

to tell you

that

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

And now the Gemara infers from Joshua’s reply what the method of Rabbi Akiva, his father, was: If Rabbi Akiva held like the tannai of the Mishna, that every derivative combines only with its principal, Joshua his son should have asked him: Let them say, “From the membrane of an egg and above it is impure and combines,” and let them say, “From the plaster of the Sanctuary and above it is impure and combines,” for according to the division into principals and their derivatives, these are the only two combinations of a derivative and its principal. But the question that 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 principals and derivatives.

And so 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, infer from it that Rabbi Akiva heard

from his father

that he said: all of them

the appearances of lesions

combine with se'et.

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

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

And therefore Joshua asked Rabbi Akiva his father: Let them say, “From the membrane of an egg and above it is impure and they combine,” and we know that there is combination only with a secondary affliction or with an adjacent appearance. And he did not also ask him, “Let them say, ‘From the plaster and above it is impure and it combines.’” For Rabbi Akiva has no division of principals and derivatives.

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

Perhaps,

Rabbi Akiva also held that the combination of the appearances of lesions is

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

And this is how Joshua his son 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 tannai of the beraita, who brought the words of Rabbi Akiva and Joshua his son, was not particular to specify the question!?

Rather,

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

from Rabbi Hanina.

For Rabbi Hanina said: An analogy

for the order of the appearances of lesions according

to Rabbi Akiva: To what may the matter be compared?—

To four cups of milk,

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

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

And it is proven from Rabbi Hanina’s words that Rabbi Akiva held that the combination is not according to principals and derivatives, but according to adjacency in the degrees of whiteness. For Rabbi Akiva said, “This is above that,” and Rabbi Hanina received from his teachers that he said this concerning the order of combination: that each one combines with the appearance adjacent to it.

And we raise the question:

You may say that you heard from Rabbi Akiva

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

in a mottled lesion,

which is the white-reddish lesion mentioned in the Torah. And it corresponds to Rabbi Hanina’s analogy of the mixture of white milk with red blood. But in a lesion

of a uniform appearance,

which is an appearance of white alone, such as baheret,

did you hear from him

that the combination is according to the degrees of whiteness!? Perhaps the combination is as the tannai of our Mishna: between principals and their derivatives?

And if you will say: Just as you heard from him concerning a mottled lesion, so you heard from him concerning a uniform lesion,

for what difference is there, it is still difficult for you:

And concerning the mottled lesion itself, did you hear from him

that Rabbi Akiva teaches them according to the order of whiteness, and says that they combine specifically according to the order of the adjacency of their degree of whiteness?

But we learned: Rabbi Akiva says:

How does a lesion appear,

reddish in this one and in that one,

that is, in the two appearances of lesions mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna, which are “strong as snow” and “like the plaster of the Sanctuary”? They appear

like wine diluted with water.

For if a drop of blood were to fall and become mixed with milk, an appearance of wine diluted with water would result, with a white appearance surrounding it, and this is the form of a reddish lesion.

Rather,

the appearance of the whiteness of the mottled lesion

of baheret

appears

strong as snow, while that of plaster is weaker than it.

That is, the distinction between a mottled lesion of baheret and one of plaster is in the appearance of the whiteness: the whiteness of baheret is stronger.