(a)We have already learned that the Siman Tum'ah of Se'or Lavan is Metamei immediately, whereas Pisyon is not. Which second Chumra concerning the appearance, does Se'or Lavan have that Pisyon does not?
(b)How do we learn this from the Pasuk "u'Mar'eh ha'Nega Amok ... "?
(c)Which third leniency does Pisyon possess that Se'or Lavan does not?
1)
(a)We have already learned that the Siman Tum'ah of Se'or Lavan is Metamei immediately, whereas Pisyon is not. In addition - it is Metamei with any shade of white, whereas Pisyon is confined to one of the four specified shades of white (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)We learn this from the Pasuk "u'Mar'eh ha'Nega Amok ... " - implying that white hairs do not need to look deeper than the skin.
(c)The third leniency that Pisyon possesses that Se'or Lavan does not is that - unlike the latter, it possesses a Siman Taharah (if it spreads to the entire body).
2)
(a)On the other hand, which Chumra does Pisyon possess over Se'or Lavan concerning ...
1. ... Shi'ur (size)?
2. ... location?
(b)And what does the Tana mean when he says, with regard to the third Chumra (the second in the Mishnah) u'Metamei be'Chol ha'Nega'im ... . To which category of Nega'im does Se'or Lavan apply (see Tos. Yom-Tov)?
2)
(a)On the other hand, Pisyon possesses the Chumra over Se'or Lavan ...
1. ... that it has no Shi'ur (whereas Se'or Lavan comprises at least two hairs [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).
2. ... that it is effective even though it appears outside the location of the initial Nega, whilst Se'or Lavan must be inside it (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)And when the Tana says, with regard to the third Chumra (the second in the Mishnah) u'Metamei be'Chol ha'Nega'im ... he means - to confine Se'or Lavan to Nig'ei Or Basar and to Sh'chin u'Michvah only (Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 2
3)
(a)Like Se'or Lavan, Michyah possesses the Chumra over Pisyon that it is Metamei immediately. Which other two Chumros does it possess that Pisyon does not?
(b)Regarding the latter, what does 'with any appearance' mean?
(c)And which three Chumros does Pisyon possess over Michyah?
(d)With regard to the two leniences of Michyah ...
1. ... what is its Shi'ur?
2. ... to which two categories of Nega'im is it confined (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
3)
(a)Like Se'or Lavan, Michyah possesses the Chumra over Pisyon that it is Metamei immediately. In addition, it is Metamei with any appearance and has no Siman Taharah (as we explained by Sh'tei Se'aros).
(b)Regarding the latter, 'with any appearance' means - whatever color the skin is (white, black, red ... [see Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(c)The three Chumros that Pisyon possess over Michyah are - that a. it has no Shi'ur, b. it applies to all categories of Nega'im, and c. it applies even though it appears outside the location of the Nega, whereas the latter must be inside it (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)With regard to the two leniences of Michyah ...
1. ... its Shi'ur is - a k'Adashah [see Tos. Yom-Tov])
2. ... it is confined to - Nega'im of the skin and to Karachas and Gabachas (Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 3
4)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses the Chumros of Se'or Lavan over Michyah, and vice-versa. Which category of Nega'im are subject to Se'or Lavan but not to Michyah?
(b)It also applies whether it appears bi'Mechunas u'vi'Mefuzar, bi'Mevutzar ve'she'Lo bi'Mevutzar. In which of these two cases will Michyah be declared Tahor?
4)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses the Chumros of Se'or Lavan over Michyah, and vice-versa. Shechin and Michvah are subject to Se'or Lavan but not to Michyah.
(b)It also applies whether it appears bi'Mechunas u'vi'Mefuzar, bi'Mevutzar ve'she'Lo bi'Mevutzar - whereas Michyah will be declared Tahor - if it appears either bi'Mefuzar (scattered in more than one location) or she'Lo bi'Mevutzar (at the edge of the Nega).
5)
(a)On the other hand, which categories of Nega are subject to Michyah but not to Se'or Lavan?
(b)Michyah also applies to Hafuchah and she'Lo Hafuchah. What does this mean?
(c)What is the Din regarding Se'or Lavan?
(d)What does Michyah prevent from becoming Tahor that Se'or Lavan does not?
(e)And which Chumra does it posses over Se'or Lavan regarding appearance?
5)
(a)On the other hand - Karachas and Gabachas are subject to Michyah but not to Se'or Lavan.
(b)Michyah also applies to Hafuchah and she'Lo Hafuchah - meaning irrespective of whether the Baheres preceded the Michyah or vice-versa (see Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(c)... whereas Se'or Lavan is only Metamei if the Baheres preceded the white hairs.
(d)Michyah prevents - the Metzora from becoming Tahor if the Nega spreads to the entire body, whereas Se'or Lavan does not.
(e)And it is Metamei whatever the appearance (as we learned in 3b), whereas Se'or Lavan is not (see Tiferes Yisrael).
Mishnah 4
6)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about two white hairs in a Nega which are ...
1. ... black at the root and white at the tip?
2. ... white at the root and black at the tip?
(b)How do we learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Se'ar ba'Nega Hafach Lavan"?
(c)According to R. Meir there is no Shi'ur for the amount of hair that needs to have turned white. What does R. Shimon say?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
(e)What Shi'ur is nevertheless required?
6)
(a)The Mishnah rules that two white hairs in a Nega which are ...
1. ... black at the root and white at the tip - are a Siman Tum'ah.
2. ... white at the root and black at the tip - are Tahor.
(b)We learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Se'ar ba'Nega Hafach Lavan" - which implies that the hairs have turned white at the point where they grow from the Nega.
(c)According to R. Meir there is no Shi'ur for the amount of hair that needs to have turned white - R. Shimon requires sufficient white hair to be cut by a pair of scissors.
(d)The Halachah is - like R. Meir.
(e)The two hairs however, must be long enough to be cut by a pair of scissors (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
7)
(a)What does the Tana say about ...
1. ... a single hair that is split on top?
2. ... a case where a Baheres contains two white hairs, and is also full of black hairs (see Tos. Yom-Tov)?
(b)Why is that?
7)
(a)The Tana rules that ...
1. ... a single hair that is split on top - is considered one hair.
2. ... in a case where a Baheres contains two white hairs, and is also full of black hairs (see Tos. Yom-Tov) - the Metzora is Tamei ...
(b)... because the black hairs do not detract from the Shi'ur of a G'ris.
Mishnah 5
8)
(a)The Tana now discusses a case where a strip of flesh which extends from the Baheres, contains either two white hairs or a Michyah. How wide must the strip be to warrant discussion?
(b)What distinction does the Tana draw between whether there are two white hairs growing inside it or a Michyah?
(c)What will be the Din regarding Pisyon?
(d)What is the basis of the leniency regarding the Michyah?
8)
(a)The Tana now discusses a case where a strip of flesh which extends from the Baheres, contains either two white hairs or a Michyah. To warrant discussion, the strip must be - two hairs-breadth wide (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)If there are two white hairs growing inside it - it is subject to Tumah, but not if it is a Michyah.
(c)The Din regarding Pisyon - is equivalent to that of two white hairs.
(d)The basis of the leniency regarding the Michyah is - because a Michyah requires Mevutzeres (that it is surrounded by the Nega like a fortress (as we have already learned.
9)
(a)On what condition does a strip of marked flesh that joins two Beharos combine the two to make up the Shi'ur Tum'ah?
(b)What are the ramifications of ...
1. ... this ruling?
2. ... the Mishnah's conclusion ve'Im La'av, Ein Mitztarfin?
(c)How will this latter ruling turn out to be a Chumra?
9)
(a)A strip of marked flesh that joins two Beharos combines the two to make up the Shi'ur Tum'ah - provided it is at least as wide as two hairs.
(b)The ramifications ...
1. ... of this ruling are - that if one of them spreads or grows two white hairs, they are both declared Tamei (see also Tos. Yom-Tov and commentaries).
2. ... of the Mishnah's conclusion ve'Im La'av, Ein Mitztarfin are that - they are considered like two separate Nega'im, in which case if each one measures half a G'ris, they do not combine.
(c)This latter ruling will turn out to be a Chumra however - if one of them spreads and the other one doesn't, in which case the first one is declared Muchlat, and the second one Musgar; and in the end, the Metzora will have to bring two Korbanos.
Mishnah 6
10)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, if a Baheres measuring a G'ris contains a Michyah measuring a k'Adashah in which two white hairs are growing, which of two things will have to happen for the Kohen to declare the Metzora Tamei?
(b)What is the Shi'ur (in lentils) of ...
1. ... a Baheres?
2. ... a Michyah?
(c)On what grounds does R. Shimon disagree in the case where the Michyah disappears?
10)
(a)According to the Tana Kama, if a Baheres measuring a G'ris contains a Michyah measuring a k'Adashah in which two white hairs are growing, the Kohen declares the Metzora Tamei - if former disappears or the latter turn black.
(b)The Shi'ur of ...
1. ... a Baheres is - nine lentils.
2. ... a Michyah is - one lentil.
(c)R. Shimon disagrees in the case where the Michyah disappears - because he holds that the white hair must appear or turn white after the Michyah has disappeared (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
11)
(a)What do the Tana Kama and R. Shimon, respectively, hold in a similar case, but where the Baheres plus the Michyah measure a G'ris (see Tiferes Yisrael) and the white hairs are (not inside the Michyah but) inside the Baheres?
(b)What is R. Shimon's reason in this case?
(c)In which case does he concede to the Tana Kama that the Metzora is Tamei?
11)
(a)The Tana Kama and R. Shimon, respectively, repeat their opinions in a similar case, but where the Baheres plus the Michyah measure a G'ris (see Tiferes Yisrael) and the white hairs are (not inside the Michyah but) inside the Baheres.
(b)R. Shimon's reason in this case is - because he requires the white hairs to appear or to turn white after the Michyah has become part of the Baheres.
(c)He concedes to the Tana Kama however, that the Metzora is Tamei - if the white hairs were situated in an area of a ke'G'ris.
Mishnah 7
12)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about a case similar to the one that it just discussed, but where the Baheres contains both a Michyah and Pisyon or Se'or Lavan and Pisyon?
(b)What exactly, is the case?
(c)What does R. Shimon say in this case?
12)
(a)In a case similar to the one that it just discussed, but where the Baheres contains both a Michyah and Pisyon or Se'or Lavan and Pisyon, the Mishnah rules that - if one of them disappears, the other one becomes a Siman Tum'ah.
(b)The case is - where the Kohen locked up a Baheres ke'Geris (see Tos. Yom-Tov), and then after seven days, he found a Michyah or two white hairs and that the Nega had spread, he declared him a Muchlat, following which, one of them disappears.
(c)R. Shimon does not comment on this case - in which case he presumably agrees with the Tana Kama.
13)
(a)What does the Tana say about a case where a Michyah on a Musgar disappeared in the middle of the week but reappeared by the end of the week ...
1. ... in the same spot?
2. ... in a different spot?
(b)And what does he say there where it both disappeared and reappeared after he declared the Metzora Tahor?
(c)On what condition does the Mishnah declare a Metzora whose Baheres became paler or more pronounced during the seven days of quarantine unchanged?
(d)What will he rule if this condition is not met?
13)
(a)The Tana rules in a case where a Michyah on a Musgar disappeared in the middle of the week (see Tos. Yom-Tov) but reappeared by the end of the week ...
1. ... in the same spot - that he remains a Musgar, as he was.
2. ... in a different spot - that what the Kohen sees is a a new Nega ...
(b)... as is the case there where it both disappeared and reappeared after he declared the Metzora Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)The Mishnah declares a Metzora whose Baheres became paler (see Tos. Yom-Tov) or more pronounced during the seven days of quarantine, unchanged - provided it did not become paler than the palest of the four appearances (ki'K'rum Beitzah').
(d)If this condition is not met - then he declares the Metzora, Tahor.
14)
(a)If a Nega that measured more than a G'ris (see Tiferes Yisrael) during the first week, grows smaller during the second week of Hesger, and then returns to its former size, or vice-versa, the Chachamim declare him Tahor. Why is that?
(b)What will the Kohen say if this occurrs at the end of the first week?
(c)What does R. Akiva rule?
(d)What is his reason?
14)
(a)If a Nega that measured more than a G'ris during the first week, grows smaller during the second week of Hesger, and then returns to its former size, or vice-versa, the Chachamim declare him Tahor (see Tiferes Yisrael) - because as long as it does not exceed its original size, it is not considered Pisyon (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)If this occurs at the end of the first week - the Kohen locks him up for a second week`.
(c)R. Akiva - rules that he is Tamei ...
(d)... seeing as, it did in fact, spread.
Mishnah 8
15)
(a)If a Baheres the size of a G'ris spreads another half-G'ris in one direction but diminishes by the same amount in the opposite one, the Chachamim declare it Tahor. Why is that?
(b)What does R. Akiva say?
15)
(a)If a Baheres the size of a G'ris spreads another half-G'ris in one direction but diminishes by the same amount in the opposite one, the Chachamim declare it Tahor - because as long as the Nega has not increased in size, it is not considered Pisyon.
(b)According to R. Akiva - it is considered a new Nega.
Mishnah 9
16)
(a)The Chachamim issue the same ruling in a case where, after having declared the Baheres Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov), it spreads a ke'Geris-plus in one direction, but diminishes by the same amount in the opposite one. What does R. Akiva say there if this occurs ...
1. ... before the Kohen has declared it Tahor?
2. ... after the Kohen has declared it Tahor?
(b)What is the reason of ...
1. ... R. Akiva?
2. ... the Rabbanan?
16)
(a)The Chachamim issue the same ruling in a case where, after having declared the Baheres Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov) the Baheres spreads a ke'G'ris-plus in one direction, but diminishes by the same amount in the opposite one. R. Akiva rules that, should this occur ...
1. ... before the Kohen has declared it Tahor - it is Tamei, and the same will apply if it occurs ...
2. ... after the Kohen has declared it Tahor (see Tos. Yom. Tov DH 'u'Pas'sah').
(b)The reason of ...
1. ... R. Akiva is - on account of the extra piece of Pisyon that exceeds the original ke'Geris.
2. ... the Chachamim is - because since only half a ke'Geris remains of the original Nega, there is only a half a ke'Geris-plus of new Nega.
17)
(a)If a Baheres measuring G'ris spreads by a G'ris-plus, and then after the Kohen has declared it Tahor, the original Nega disappears, R. Akiva rules that it is Tamei. Why is that?
(b)On what grounds do the Chachamim consider it a new Nega?
(c)What are the ramification of a new Nega?
17)
(a)If a Baheres measuring G'ris spreads by a G'ris-plus, and then after the Kohen has declared it Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov), the original Nega disappears, R. Akiva rules that it is Tamei - since it spread to a larger area than the original Nega.
(b)The Chachamim consider it a new Nega - because the original Nega disappeared in its entirety ...
(c)... in which case - the Kohen declares him a Musgar.
Mishnah 10
18)
(a)R. Akiva and the Rabbanan dispute a case where, after a Pisyon appears on a Baheres the size of a G'ris (which the Kohen has already declared Tahor [see Tos. Yom-Tov]), the original Nega disappears. What does R. Akiva say?
(b)What are the ramifications of the Chachamim's ruling Tera'eh ba'Techilah?
(c)Then what is the difference between the two opinions? Who is the more lenient of the two?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah throughout the Perek?
18)
(a)R. Akiva and the Rabbanan dispute a case where, after a Pisyon appears on a Baheres the size of a G'ris (which the Kohen has already declared Tahor [see Tos. Yom-Tov]), the original Nega disappears. R. Akiva - declares it Tamei.
(b)The ramifications of the Chachamim's ruling Tera'eh ba'Techilah are that - it has the Din of a new Nega, and must therefore be declared a Tamei Muchlat.
(c)The difference between the two opinions is that - whereas R. Akiva requires him to bring only one Korban (since he considers the current Nega a continuation of the previous one), according to the Chachamim, he has to bring two (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The Halachah throughout the Perek is - like the Chachamim.
19)
(a)What does the Mishnah rule in a case where a second half-G'ris containing one Se'or Lavan appears beside the half-G'ris of the original Nega?
(b)What will be the Din if ...
1. ... one Se'or Lavan has already grown before the second half-G'ris appears with the second Se'or Lavan?
2. ... in the same case, the first half-G'ris contains two white hairs?
(c)And what if in all the above cases, the white hair/s grew on the first half-G'ris, but before the second half-G'ris appeared?
(d)What is the reason for all these rulings?
19)
(a)In a case where a second half-G'ris containing one Se'or Lavan appears beside the half-G'ris of the original Nega, the Mishnah rules that - the Kohen declares him a Musgar, and the same applies to a case ...
(b)... where ...
1. ... one Se'or Lavan (or even two [see Tos. Yom-Tov]) has already grown before the second half-G'ris appears with the second Se'or Lavan ...
2. ... in the same case, but where the first half-G'ris contains two white hairs, and where ...
(c)... the white hair/s grow on the first half-G'ris, but before the second half-G'ris appears.
(d)The reason for all these rulings is - because the entire Nega must precede both white hairs (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 11
20)
(a)What does the Tana now say in a case where the first half-G'ris is empty, and the second half-G'ris appears with two white hairs?
(b)What does the Tana really mean when he says Noldah Baheres ka'Chatzi G'ris u'vah Sh'tei Se'aros?
(c)What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hi Hafchah Se'or Lavan"?
20)
(a)In a case where the first half-G'ris is empty, and the second half-G'ris appears with two white hairs - the Tana declares him a Muchlat.
(b)When the Tana says Noldah Baheres ka'Chatzi G'ris u'vah Sh'tei Se'aros, what he really means is that - the Baheres appeared first and the two white hairs, afterwards.
(c)And we learn this from the Pasuk "ve'Hi Hafchah Se'or Lavan" - implying that the Nega caused the hairs to turn white (or to appear in the first place).
21)
(a)What does the Tana Kama say in a case of a Safek (as to whether the white hairs preceded the Baheres, or vice-versa).
(b)R. Yehoshua says Kihah. What does Kihah actually mean?
(c)What does he mean to say by that?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
21)
(a)In case of a Safek (as to whether the white hairs preceded the Baheres, or vice-versa), - the Tana Kama rules Tamei (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)R. Yehoshua says Kihah - meaning that his teeth were blunted (or tasted something sour [see Tos. Yom-Tov & Tiferes Yisrael], an expression of disagreement).
(c)He means that - it is Tahor (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d)The Halachah is - like the Tana Kama (see Tos. Yom-Tov).
