Shevuot 6b — the Talmud in English

And if it is so

that Rabbi Akiva teaches the appearances in this order, one above the other, why, after the appearance of the brightness, does he mention the appearance of plaster? And surely

he should have said: “the appearance of wool, dimmer than it”!

For that is the order of the whiteness: the bright baheret is like snow, and the se'et, which appears like white wool, follows it. And since Rabbi Akiva did not say this, but mentioned “bright like snow” and plaster after it, it is proved that he does not teach the appearances of the lesions according to the order of their whiteness

And we answer:

They say: Indeed, it is so;

“the appearance of wool, dimmer than it” should be taught instead of “the appearance of plaster, 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 plaster, dimmer than it.” Rather, “the appearance of wool, dimmer than it”!

And now the Gemara discusses the words of the Mishna at the beginning of the sugya:

And from where do we know that the baheret is bright

like the whiteness of snow, for there is no appearance whiter than it?

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

“it” is white, but another is not white!

The Sages taught: A baheret

appears

deep. And so it says: “And the appearance of the lesion is deeper than the skin”—

like the appearance of

light

of the sun, which is deeper than the shade!

For every bright white appearance appears deeper.

A se'et—

a se'et means only high.

Since the se'et is darker than the baheret, it appears higher than it and rises above it; therefore it is called “a se'et.”

And so it says: “Above all the high mountains and above all the elevated hills.”

A sappahat—

a sappahat means only an attachment. And so it says

[II Samuel 1]

“And he said: Attach me, please.”

And the verse comes to teach that there is another appearance of a lesion that is a derivative of the se'et.

And we raise the matter:

We have found an attachment to the se'et,

for it is stated, “a se'et or a sappahat.”

An attachment to the baheret

according to the Sages,

from where do we know it?

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

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

and we derive it by a gzera shava:

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

In a baraita it was taught: The verse placed “sappahat” between se'et and baheret.

As it is stated: “A se'et or a sappahat or a baheret,” to tell you:

Just as there is an attachment to the se'et, so there is an attachment to the baheret!

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

We learned in tractate Nega'im:

A se'et—

like white wool!

What is “white wool”? Rav Bibi said in the name of Rav Asi: Clean wool of a lamb one day old!

On the day on which the lamb is born, its mother licks it, and you have no wool as clean as on that day. And this clean wool is the wool

with which they make woolen cloth,

which they pack and seal its package, because it is intended for making

fine woolen fabric,

which is an expensive woven material made of wool.

Rabbi Hanina said: The parable of the Sages,

who arranged the order of the lesions according to a source and its derivative,

to what is it comparable?—

To two kings and two viceroys

[deputies of the king], where

the king of this one is above the king of that one, and the viceroy of this one is above the viceroy of that one.

According to this parable, the baheret and the se'et are joined together like two kings adjacent to one another. And the plaster of the Sanctuary and the membrane of an egg, which are adjacent to one another, are likewise joined together like the viceroys of the kings, who walk together after their two kings.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty: Surely this does not resemble the order arranged by the Sages in the Mishna, source and its derivative, source and its derivative, but rather the order of Rabbi Akiva—

is this not “this above that, and that above this”!?

Rather,

this is the parable according to the Sages: It is like two kings and two viceroys,

and the king of this one

is above the viceroy of his own, and the king of that one is above the viceroy of his own,

for every deputy of a king walks following his king, and likewise every source is joined with its derivative.

Rav Adda bar Abba said:

such as when they walk one after the other:

the king, and the alkaphta

[a king of a lower rank],

the rupila,

who is the deputy of the king,

and the exilarch,

who is the deputy of the alkaphta.

And we challenge this: Surely this is not the order of the Sages, who join a source to its derivative, but

this,

it is the order of Rabbi Akiva, for

is this not “this above that”!?

Rather,

this is the parable for the order of the appearances according to the Sages:

such as a king and a rupila

[his deputy], who walk one beside the other.

And an alkaphta and an exilarch,

his deputy, who walk one beside the other, like a source and its derivative, which are joined together.

Rava said: Such as 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, source and its derivative, source 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, until you ask which is more important.

Go out and see,

go out and see

whose currency is greater in the world,

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

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

the wicked one,

whose currency went out throughout the entire world!

Ravina said:

The parable of the Sages is

such as a woolen cloak and its worn one,

a woolen cloak that is extremely whitened when it is new, and an old, worn cloak whose whiteness is not as noticeable.

And a linen sheet and its worn one,

a new linen sheet that is extremely white, while in the old one its whiteness is not noticeable.

That is, the new woolen cloak resembles the new linen sheet in its whiteness more than it resembles the old and worn woolen cloak. And here too, the se'et resembles the baheret more than the plaster of the Sanctuary resembles the baheret, except that this one is its derivative and that one is not its derivative.

We learned in the Mishna:

One that has knowledge at the beginning

and so on.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of the sliding-scale offering: “A person who touches anything impure,”

from where is it derived that the verse speaks only of the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things?

For nothing is written in this verse except that he became impure through his touch, and it is not mentioned at all that after he became impure he ate sacred meat or entered the Sanctuary. If so, from where is it known that the verse speaks of this?

And it is a logical deduction

[for you can reason it out on your own]:

Since the Torah warned

the verse,

and punished

with karet

for

intentional

impurity,

for entering the Sanctuary in a state of impurity [as explained in Leviticus 21]—“and they shall not defile their camps,” a warning concerning the Sanctuary—and the verse warned [in Leviticus 22]—“He shall not eat of the sacred things until he becomes pure”—and punished with karet [in Numbers 19]—“because he defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord, and he shall be cut off.” And the verse likewise punished with karet one who eats sacred things in a state of impurity [in Leviticus 7],

and obligated

the verse

to bring an offering for

the unwitting transgression of

impurity,

except that the verse did not specify in which matter one is obligated to bring this offering—

therefore it is necessary to reason and say:

Just as when it warned and punished for impurity

intentionally,

it warned and punished only for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, so when it obligated an offering for impurity

unwittingly,

it obligated one only for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps

it may be said that the reference in the offering for impurity is to one who ate

teruma

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

that the Torah warned

the verse

and punished

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

And we answer:

We have not found,

we have not found

a sin punishable by death

at the hands of Heaven

for which one is obligated to bring an offering.

For a sin offering comes only for an unwitting transgression of karet.

And we challenge this:

Perhaps

when you say that we have not found an offering for an unwitting transgression involving an obligation of death,

that applies to a fixed offering

of a sin offering,