What are the connotations of "Tahor Hu"?
Rashi: It means that it is Tahor from Tum'as Nesakin, but subject to Tum'as Nega'im of the skin, since absolute Tum'ah can only occur through Michyah or Pisyon.
Nega'im, 10:9: It teaches us that if this Nesek spreads to the entire head or beard (P'richah), he is Tahor.
What is the practical difference between the current case and that of Nesakim?
Rashi and Ramban #1: Nesek is where only a patch falls out but it remains surounded by hair, whereas in the current case, the bald area is not surrounded by hair on all four sides.
Ramban #2, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: The current case is speaking where the hair fell out but there is no sign of Tzara'as, whereas, in the case of Nesakim, a Si'man Tzara'as appeared on the Nesek. 1
RS"R Hirsh (citing R. Shimshon in Mishnah 10:10): "Nesek" is when hair falls out temporarily, whereas here it fell out permanently. The Ramban supports this; 'Nituk' implies detached, and 'Meritah' implies a fixed change in the skin. 2
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that Karachas and Gabachas are Tamei through white hairs. But this does not concur with the Mishnah in Nega'im, 4:3 and the Sifra, 11:1?
Mizrachi: The Beraisa of R. Yishmael at the beginning of the Sifra states that Karachas and Gabachas are Tahor only from Tum'as Nesakim, but they have Tum'as Or Basar (n which case white hairs are a Siman Tum'ah). 1
Why does he not address that below (11:1) - The Sifra explicitly says that white hairs are not a Siman Tum'ah in Karachas and Gabachas? (PF)
