Question: What is the source that R. Akiva says that different appearances join together only when one is (directly) whiter than another (or Se'es with its secondary appearance)?

Answer #1 (Beraisa - R. Yosi): Yehoshua asked his father R. Akiva why Chachamim detailed the different appearances, and it did not suffice to say that k'Karom or above (whiter) is Tamei.

R. Akiva: It was necessary to teach that the appearances join together.

Yehoshua: Why didn't it suffice to say that anything k'Karom or above is Tamei, and the appearances join?

R. Akiva: This teaches that a Kohen cannot rule on Tzara'as unless he is an expert on the appearances and knows their names.

Inference: Yehoshua (who surely asked according to R. Akiva's opinion) thought it should suffice to say 'anything k'Karom or above is Tamei, and the appearances join.' He did not need to say also 'anything k'Sid or above is Tamei, and the appearances join'! (If he held that k'Sid joins with its primary appearance, he should have said so! Rashi - Rather, since both secondary appearances are derived from Se'es, it was clear that each joins with the appearance directly above it. Tosfos - surely Yehoshua also intended that the Mishnah would explicitly say that each joins with the appearance directly above it!)

Rejection: Perhaps Yehoshua meant that it should suffice to say that 'anything k'Karom or above is Tamei, and anything k'Sid or above is Tamei' (and each joins with its primary appearance, like Chachamim);

This was obviously his intent. The Tana saw no need to elaborate!

Answer #2 (R. Chanina): A parable explains R. Akiva's opinion of the appearances that join. There were four cups of milk. Two drops of blood fell into one cup, four drops fell in a second cup, eight drops in the third cup, 12 (some say - 16) fell in the fourth;

All appear white, but each is whiter than the next.

Rejection: That shows only about mixed colors. Perhaps regarding pure colors, he holds like Chachamim!

Suggestion: Since he holds like this regarding mixed colors, we may infer that the same applies to pure colors!

Question: Does he really hold this way regarding mixed colors?!

(Mishnah - R. Akiva): Redness mixed in a Baheres looks like redness in k'Sid. Their color is like wine mixed with water;

The difference is in the white part. The white of the (mixed) Baheres is bright like snow, and the white of the (mixed) k'Sid is weaker.

Summation of question: If R. Akiva held that wool-white is second to Baheres, he should have said that the white of the (mixed) wool appearance is weaker than that of Baheres!

Answer: Indeed, he holds this way!

(Beraisa - R. Noson): R. Akiva did not say that the white of (mixed) k'Sid is weaker than that of Baheres, rather that the white of the (mixed) wool appearance is weaker than that of Baheres!

Question: What is the source to say that Baheres is the brightest?

Answer: "V'Im Baheres Levanah Hi" - it is white, and nothing is as white as it.

(Beraisa): Baheres appears deeper (than the surrounding skin) - "u'Mareha Amok Min ha'Or", like a sunlit area appears deeper than the shade;

Se'es connotes elevation - "v'Al Kol ha'Geva'os ha'Nisa'os."

Sapachas connotes being subordinate - "v'Amar Sefacheni Na."

Question: The verse shows that there is a secondary appearance to Se'es. What is the source for a secondary appearance to Baheres?

Answer #1 (R. Zeira): It says "Levanah" about Baheres, just like about Se'es;

Just like there is a secondary appearance to Se'es, also to Baheres.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): The Torah wrote "Sapachas" in between Se'es and Baheres to teach that there is a secondary appearance to each.

(Mishnah): Se'es is like white wool.

Question: What does this refer to?

Answer (Rav Bivi): It is clean wool of a newborn lamb that people cover (to keep it white) to use for Milas (soft wool).

(R. Chanina): A parable explains Chachamim's opinion (of how appearances join). There were two kings, and each had a mayor under him;

One king was above the other, and his mayor was above the other's. (I.e. one primary appearance is above the other and joins with it, and its secondary appearance is above the other's secondary appearance and joins with it.)

Objection: That is R. Akiva's opinion, that each appearance joins to the one above it!

Correction: Rather, each king is above his own mayor (i.e. each primary appearance joins with its secondary appearance).

(Rav Ada bar Ava): A parable explains Chachamim's opinion (of how appearances join). A king (above) an Alkafta (a lesser king) (above) the king's mayor (above) the Alkafta's mayor.

Objection: That is R. Akiva's opinion, that each appearance joins to the one above it!

Correction: Rather, the king is above his mayor, and the Alkafta is above his own mayor.

(Rava): An example illustrates these two kings - Shevor Malka (king of Persia) and the Kaiser (of Romi).

Rav Papa: Which is the more important?

Rava: "V'Seichul Kol Ara" (the last creature in Nebuchadnetzar's dream alludes to a kingdom that will destroy every land);

(R. Yochanan): This is Romi.

Version #1 - Rashi - (Ravina): A parable explains Chachamim's opinion. A new wool garment is only slightly whiter than a new linen garment, but a worn out wool garment is much whiter than a worn out linen garment. (I.e. the primary appearances are very similar, but the secondary appearances are not.)

Version #2 - Tosfos - (Ravina): A parable explains Chachamim's opinion. The difference in importance between new garments of wool and linen is small, but the difference in importance between worn garments of wool and linen is great.

(Mishnah): If one knew of the Tum'ah, and later forgot...

(Beraisa) Question: ("Nefesh Asher Tiga b'Chol Davar Tamei... Oh Chi Yiga b'Tum'as Adam" brings an Oleh v'Yored.) What is the source that the verses discuss one who entered the Mikdash or ate Kodshim?

Answer #1: We learn from the warnings and punishments for intentional transgressions of Tum'ah.

Kares (for Tum'ah) is only for one who enters the Mikdash or eats Kodshim (when he is Tamei). Likewise, the Korban for Tum'ah applies only to these two cases.