Negaim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 5. The opening mishnayos of this chapter catalogued the shades of white that can render a person a metzora, together with the reddish admixtures that go with each shade. Our mishnah now does two things: it records a dispute over the total number of appearances of negaim in the entire Torah, and it then moves to a completely different subject, namely which days of the week a kohen may begin his examination.
Background: the categories of negaim
Three broad families of tzara'as are set out in Parshas Tazria-Metzora: nigei adam, tzara'as that appears on a person; nigei begadim, tzara'as that appears in clothing; and nigei batim, tzara'as that appears in a house, which the Torah presents in the closing section of Metzora.
The category of nigei adam is broader than what the earlier mishnayos have covered so far. Beyond the whites and the red admixtures blended into them, the Torah introduces two further terms, shechin and michvah. Rashi on the Chumash understands a shechin as a sore on the skin caused by a blow of something cold, and a michvah as damage inflicted by something hot, such as heated metal or an actual flame. Picturing an injury from something cold that ends up looking like a scald is not simple.
The Rambam in Hilchos Tumas Tzara'as, chapter 5, halachah 1, makes the distinction easier to grasp. He speaks of a person who had a wound in his flesh and whose skin peeled away because of that wound. If the wound came from fire, for example he was burnt by a coal or an ember, by heated iron, or by a stone that had been heated in fire and the like, that is called a michvah. If the loss of skin was not caused by fire, whether he was struck by a stone or by wood or by anything else that wounds, or whether the skin was destroyed by an illness of the body, such as garav (a type of scab), chazazis (another skin affliction), shechafes, or a fever and inflammation and the like which ruined the skin, that is called a shechin. Note how precise the Rambam is: he is describing one and the same kind of damaged skin, and only the cause determines the name.
This distinction carries real halachic weight. Even though the two afflictions are visually indistinguishable, since their origins are different they count as two separate negaim, and they are not mitztaref: they cannot be added to one another. A patch of michvah measuring half a gris together with a patch of shechin measuring half a gris will not combine into the shiur that renders a person tamei.
Next there are the nesakim. These are discolorations in the hair-bearing areas of the head and the beard, and they constitute their own type of nega. Their range of shades goes beyond the four whites treated in the earlier mishnayos.
Lastly, there is the case of a person who has lost the hair of his head and appearances of tzara'as emerge on the exposed scalp (which appearances qualify will be clarified in the coming chapters). The forward portion of the scalp, extending toward the forehead, carries the name gabbachas, while the rear portion, extending down to the spot just beneath the usual hairline where the neck slightly protrudes, is called karachas. Halachically the two are reckoned as one nega.
Sixteen, thirty six, or seventy two
The mishnah begins with the position of Rabi Chanina, the deputy of the Kohen Gadol: "Mar'os negaim shisha asar," the appearances of negaim number sixteen. This line is absent from the Rav's version of the mishnah. The Rosh certainly had it before him, and he works out the tally at length and with much intricacy. To keep matters manageable, we will follow the Rav's text and leave this view aside.
Then comes Rabi Dosa ben Horkinas, who puts the figure higher: "Mar'os negaim sheloshim veshisha," thirty six. In explaining this the Rav draws on the wording of the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnayos, and a question arises on the Rambam which we will reach shortly. The arithmetic works out like this.
- The four fundamental whites, each of which also comes paired with a reddish blend, patuach or adamdam, scaled to the white it accompanies: a more vivid white is matched by a more vivid red, and a fainter white by a fainter red. (The accepted ratio of such a blend follows the way wine used to be diluted, one part wine to three parts water.) Total so far: eight.
- Michvah and shechin, reckoned jointly as one nega, occur in the same four whites plus their four blends: eight more, for a running total of sixteen.
- Nesakim, reckoned as one, contributing eight: twenty four.
- "Ucheneged'an bekarachas uvegabbachas," and parallel to these in the bald rear and bald front of the scalp, reckoned as one, contributing eight: "harei sheloshim ushnayim mar'os," thirty two appearances, being four groupings of eight.
- Add yerakrak and adamdam, the greenish and reddish, of nigei begadim: two more, reaching thirty four.
- And yerakrak and adamdam of nigei batim: "harei sheloshim veshisha," thirty six.
A third figure is given by Akavya ben Mahalalel: "shiv'im ushnayim," seventy two. His method is nothing more than doubling the thirty six. He tallies the appearances as the kohen encounters them at the initial viewing, and then tallies those identical appearances a second time at the viewing held when the period of confinement ends.
Why would he present the count that way? Perhaps this is simply the form in which he received the mishnah from his rebbeim. Or, biderech drush, one might suggest that he is pointing to a difference between the two viewings. The first appearance of the nega places the person in hesgeir, in isolation, and the second examination either releases him or defines him as a full metzora. Something ought to have happened to the person during that period of confinement, and so the appearances at the second viewing are not to be regarded as the same appearances as those at the first, whether in the person's body, his garment, or his house. Again, that is only a homiletical suggestion; the actual reason for the count of seventy two is not clear to me.
The difficulty about nesakim
Before leaving the count, there is the question the Rav raises against the Rambam. By nesek, any color at all is a problem in the hair-bearing areas of the face and scalp, so how can nesakim be limited to eight appearances?
The Tosfos Yom Tov brings the Korban Aharon, a commentary on Toras Kohanim, who defends the Rambam by pointing to the Rambam's own careful wording. In Peirush HaMishnayos, wherever the Rambam catalogues the shades of nigei or basar, of karachas and gabbachas, and of michvah and shechin, he explicitly writes the figure eight. When he comes to nesek he gives no figure at all; he notes only the pure shade and the blend, patuach or adamdam. His intent, then, is merely that these are the shades one typically meets in nesakim, and not that they exhaust the possibilities, since further colors do occur in nesakim.
Which day may the kohen begin?
At this point the mishnah shifts to a subject of a wholly different nature. Rabi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim rules: "Ein ro'in es hanegaim batchilla le'achar haShabbos," an initial examination is not held on the day following Shabbos, meaning Sunday, since the seventh day of the confinement would then land on Shabbos: "sheshevi'i shelo chal lihyos beShabbos." This Tanna maintains that negaim are not examined on Shabbos at all. According to the Rav, the reason is that such an examination has the character of din, of rendering a judgment, and this is the explanation offered by many of the meforshim.
There is an interesting commentary on Seder Taharos called the Mishnah Achronah, whose author is highly creative, and he disputes this. He holds that the concern does not apply to the first sighting at all. Most of the commentators on the mishnah do apply it to the first sighting, so his piece is worth looking up; it is very creative and analytical. There are difficulties with it as well, since din may be involved even at the first examination, because the kohen may declare the person a definite metzora on the spot.
"Velo bisheini," nor may he begin on Monday, since the second week would then conclude on Shabbos: "sheshavu'a sheni shelo chal lihyos beShabbos." Trace the days: an examination begun on Monday puts the seventh day on Sunday, that Sunday opens week two, and week two's seventh day arrives on Shabbos.
"Velo bashelishi levatim," and in the case of houses not on Tuesday either, "sheshavu'a shelishi shelo chal lihyos beShabbos," because houses can have a third week of confinement. A first examination on Tuesday brings the seventh day to Monday, Monday begins the second week whose seventh day is Sunday, and Sunday begins the third week whose seventh day falls on Shabbos.
"Rabi Akiva omer, Le'olam ro'in," Rabi Akiva says that examinations may be conducted on any day whatsoever. "Chal lihyos besocho Shabbos, ma'avirin le'achar haShabbos," and if a day of examination happens to fall on Shabbos, for example a person notices on Shabbos what may be a nega tzara'as, the visit of the kohen is postponed until after Shabbos.
The mishnah concludes: "Veyesh badavar lehakeil ulehachmir," and there is in this matter both leniency and stringency. The consequences of the delay can fall out to the person's advantage or to his disadvantage, and the mishnayos that follow spell this out. In brief: if on Shabbos there was a full siman tumah, so that a kohen examining then would have declared him tamei on the spot, and by Sunday that sign had disappeared, the postponement turned out to be a leniency. If, on the other hand, on Shabbos there was nothing and the kohen would have sent him away tahor, and by Sunday a siman tumah had appeared requiring either hesgeir or outright hachlatah, then the postponement turned out to be a stringency.