Shevuot 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

And if it is so,

that Rabbi Akiva teaches the appearances in the order of one above the other, why, after mentioning the appearance of baheret, did he mention lime? For

he should have said, “The appearance of wool, which is dimmer than it,”

since this is the order of the whiteness: baheret, as intense as snow, followed by se'et, which appears like white wool. And since Rabbi Akiva did not say this, but instead mentioned snow-white baheret followed by lime, it is evident that he does not teach the appearances of lesions according to their order of whiteness

!?

They said: Indeed, that is so;

the text should read, “The appearance of wool, which is dimmer than it,” instead of “the appearance of lime, which is dimmer than it.”

And it was taught

in accordance with our statement:

Rabbi Natan says: Do not

say

that Rabbi Akiva said, “The appearance of lime, which is dimmer than it.” Rather, he said, “The appearance of wool, which is dimmer than it”!

The Gemara now discusses the statement of the Mishna at the beginning of the sugya:

And from where do we derive that baheret is as intense

as the whiteness of snow, such that there is no appearance whiter than it?

Abaye said: The verse states: “And if baheret is white”—

“it” is white, but no other one is white!

The Sages taught: Baheret

appears

deep. And similarly it says: “And the appearance of the affliction was deeper than the skin”—

like the appearance of

sunlight,

which is deeper than shadow!

For every bright white appearance appears deeper.

Se'et—

the term se'et means only elevated.

Since se'et is darker than baheret, it appears higher than it, as though rising above it, and therefore it is called “se'et.”

And similarly it says: “Above all the lofty mountains and above all the elevated hills.”

Sapahat—

the term sapahat means only an adjunct. And similarly it says

[II Samuel 1]

“And he said, Attach me, please.”

The verse thereby teaches that there is another appearance of a lesion that is a derivative of se'et.

We ask about this:

We have found an adjunct to se'et,

as it is stated: “Se'et or sapahat.”

An adjunct to baheret,

according to the Rabbis,

from where do we derive it?

From where is it known that there is another appearance of a lesion that is a derivative of baheret?

Rabbi Zeira said: “White” is stated with regard to se'et, and “white” is stated with regard to baheret,

and we derive it by means of a gzera shava:

Just as the “white” stated with regard to se'et has an adjunct, so too, the “white” stated with regard to baheret has an adjunct!

It was taught in a beraita: The verse placed “sapahat” between se'et and baheret.

As it is stated: “Se'et or sapahat or baheret,” to tell you—

just as se'et has an adjunct, so too baheret has an adjunct!

And from here we learn that there are four appearances of lesions.

We learned in Tractate Nega'im:

Se'et—

like white wool!

What is meant by “white wool”? Rav Beיבי said in the name of Rav Asi: The clean wool of a lamb one day old!

On the day the lamb is born, its mother licks it, and there is no wool as clean as it is on that day. This clean wool is the wool

used by wool-carders,

who pack it and seal its package, because it is intended for the making of

fine woolen cloth,

which is an expensive fabric made of wool.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: The analogy of the Rabbis,

who arranged the lesions in the order of a primary form and its derivative,

to what is it comparable?—

To two kings and two viceroys

[deputies of the king], in which

the king of one is above the king of the other, and the viceroy of one is above the viceroy of the other.

According to this analogy, baheret and se'et are joined together like two kings who are adjacent to one another. Similarly, the lime of the Sanctuary and the membrane of an egg, which are adjacent to one another, are like the kings’ viceroys, who proceed together after their two kings.

But the Gemara asks: This does not resemble the order taught by the Sages in the Mishna, primary form and its derivative, primary form and its derivative; rather, it resembles the order of Rabbi Akiva—

is this not one above the other and the other above the other!?

Rather,

this is the analogy according to the Rabbis: It is like two kings and two viceroys,

with the king of one

above his own viceroy, and the king of the other above his own viceroy,

as each deputy of the king proceeds in the wake of his king, and likewise each primary form is joined with its derivative.

Rav Adda bar Abba said:

It is like those who proceed one after another:

the king, and the alkaphta

[a king of a lower rank],

the ruphila,

who is the deputy of the king,

and the exilarch,

who is the deputy of the alkaphta.

The Gemara objects: This too is not the order of the Rabbis, who join each primary form to its derivative. Rather,

this

is the order of Rabbi Akiva, for

is this not one above the other!?

Rather,

this is the analogy for the order of the appearances according to the Rabbis:

It is like a king and a ruphila

[his deputy], who walk side by side.

And an alkaphta and the exilarch,

his deputy, who walk alongside each other, just as a primary form and its derivative are joined together.

Rava said: It is like King Shapur,

who is the king of Persia and has a deputy,

and the Caesar,

the king of Rome, who has a deputy. That is, a primary form and its derivative, a primary form and its derivative.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Which of them is superior,

which of the two is more important?

He said to him,

Rava:

“He eats in his forest!”

It seems as though you have been hidden in a forest all your life, that you ask which is more important.

Go out and see,

go out and observe

whose currency is more prevalent in the world,

the currency [its standing and importance] of Rome or of Persia!?

As it is written: “It devoured the whole earth, and trampled it and crushed it!” And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is wicked Rome,

the wicked one,

whose currency circulated throughout the entire world!

Ravina said:

The analogy of the Rabbis is

like a woolen cloak and its worn-out one,

a woolen cloak that is especially white when new, and an old, worn cloak whose whiteness is not as apparent.

And a linen sheet and its worn-out one,

a new linen sheet that is especially white, whereas its whiteness is not apparent in the old one.

That is, the new woolen cloak resembles the new linen sheet in its whiteness more than it resembles the old and worn woolen cloak. Here too, se'et resembles baheret more than the lime of the Sanctuary resembles baheret, except that the former is its derivative and the latter is not its derivative.

We learned in the Mishna:

One that has awareness at the outset

and so on.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the sliding-scale offering: “A person who touches any impure thing,”

from where is it derived that the verse is speaking only of the ritual impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacrificial foods?

For this verse states only that he became impure through contact, and it does not mention at all that after becoming impure he ate sacrificial meat or entered the Sanctuary. If so, from where is it known that the verse is speaking of this?

And it is a logical inference

[you can reason it out yourself]:

Since the Torah warned

in the verse

and punished

with karet

for

intentional

violation of the impurity,

for entering the Sanctuary while impure [as explained in Leviticus 21]—“They shall not defile their camps,” which is the warning concerning the Sanctuary—and the Torah warned [in Leviticus 22], “He shall not eat of the sacred things until he becomes purified,” and punished with karet [in Numbers 19], “For he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord, and that person shall be cut off.” The Torah likewise punished with karet one who eats sacrificial foods while impure [in Leviticus 7],

and the Torah made one liable

for

an offering for

unintentional

violation of the impurity,

but the verse did not specify in what circumstance one is liable for this offering—

therefore, one should reason and say:

Just as when the Torah warned and punished for impurity

intentionally,

it warned and punished only for the ritual impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacrificial foods, so too, when it made one liable for an offering for impurity

unintentionally,

it made one liable only for the ritual impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacrificial foods.

The Gemara objects:

But perhaps

the offering for impurity refers to one who ate

teruma

unintentionally while he was impure. For with regard to teruma as well, we find

that the Torah warned

in the verse

and punished

with death at the hands of Heaven one who intentionally eats impure teruma.

The Gemara answers:

We have not found

any

offense punishable by death

at the hands of Heaven

for which one is liable for an offering.

For a sin-offering is brought only for an unintentional violation involving karet.

The Gemara objects:

Perhaps

when you say that we have not found an offering for an unintentional violation involving liability for death,

that applies to a fixed offering

of a sin-offering,