English translation — תזריע ג

A.

In the verse¹

"And if a man loses the hair of his head, he is bald, he is clean" — Rashi stands on the words "bald he is clean he is" and explains: clean from the impurity of netekin, that it is not judged by the signs of the head and beard, which are a place of hair,

but by the signs of skin blemishes of the flesh, by white hair and by a quick flesh and by spreading.

The reason for this, that Rashi does not teach the verse according to its simple meaning

but rather that "clean from the impurity of <b>netekin</b>",

one can say apparently²,

And with an introduction:

Regarding the impurity of netakim, we find a dispute³

: the Ramban⁴

learns that netek means "netek from the place of the hair,"

it was removed from his head or his beard, hair like a bald spot,

then,

if in that place "was born there this thin yellow defective hair,

it is a sign of impurity"⁵.

Rashi⁶

explains, however, not so.

Earlier on the verse "netek hu"⁷

Rashi says — "so is the name of the lesion that is in the place of hair"

(and when in this lesion in the place of hair there becomes a sign of yellow hair or spreading,

then it becomes impure⁸),

and he does not say the explanation that the lesion consists in "netek" — in that which "netek from the place of the hair".

And according to this: Granted, if one learns that netek is .

the matter of "netek from the place of the hair",

one can learn simply,

that the verse "And if a man loses the hair of his head, he is bald, he is pure",

which comes after the section of the afflictions of netek,

negates the assumption that "he loses the hair of his head" should cause impurity

(because this is an affliction of the head and beard — netek — the hair of the head is removed),

the verse says that at the time of "he loses the hair of his head",

(either from before it or from after it),

then this is not a netek — an affliction of the head,

he does <b>not</b> become impure through "he loses the hair of his head"⁹.

: "And a man or a woman if there will be on the skin of their flesh bright spots ..

And the priest shall see and behold on the skin of their flesh ..

It is a freckled spot, it has blossomed on the skin; <b>pure</b> <b>he</b> is" — so <b>the</b> white bright spots do not cause impurity upon the person,

rather "he is pure",

Rather pure he is,

He remains pure.

Afterwards the verse continues,

That just as this is regarding the plagues "on the skin of the flesh" about which it speaks at the beginning of the portion of plagues,

That there are bright spots that do not impart impurity,

So too is it regarding the other type of plagues — on the head —

(or on the beard),

That there is a situation in the law,

When the hair of the head is plucked out and he does not become impure through this — when this is not in a part

(small)

of the head,

Rather "his head is plucked bare",

Then "pure he is"].

According to Rashi's explanation, however,

which does not interpret regarding negaim of the head and beard that the nega consists of falling out of the hairs&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

one does not know of any law that falling out of hairs should be a nega,

and consequently there is no possibility to learn that the matter of "he shall shave his head" should make impure,

the verse does not need to negate this and say that "he is pure"

(that he does not become impure through this)

— from where would it occur that he should be impure

— therefore&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

Rashi learns,

that with "he is pure" the Torah does not mean to teach that "he shall shave his head" does not create impurity,

but the verse speaks regarding a &lt;b&gt;nega&lt;/b&gt; in this place,

that it is "pure from the impurity of netakin — that it is not judged by the signs of the head and beard which are a place of hair".

2.

One must, however, understand: Rashi adds "except by the signs of plagues of skin of flesh etc."

At first glance,

In the verse it explicitly says only "he is pure"; from where does Rashi take in this verse that by the signs of plagues of skin of flesh he becomes impure?

Commentators¹³

bring as a source for Rashi's commentary the teaching at the beginning of Torat Kohanim

(in the Baraitha of Rabbi Yishmael¹⁴)

"A thing learned from its context, how? 'And if a man loses the hair of his head, he is bald, he is pure'; could he be pure from all impurity? When it¹⁵

says¹⁶

'And if on the baldness or on the forehead baldness there be a white reddish plague, a thing learned from its context'¹⁷

'that he is not pure from all impurity, but only from the impurity of plagues of the scalp.'"

But in Rashi's commentary one cannot learn it like that.

Because from the Toras Kohanim itself it is understood that the explanation of "tahor hu" in <b>this</b> verse means "tahor hu" <b>completely</b>

("pure from all impurity"),

according to its simple meaning; and the proof that "tahor" is only from the impurity of netakin is only from a <b>later</b> verse "And if there will be on the bald spot or on the forehead bald spot a reddish-white lesion"¹⁸.

And if Rashi learns like that according to the simple meaning of the verses¹⁹,

Rashi would not have needed to explain it at all in this verse,

since the verse says it further on explicitly.

And one cannot say that Rashi warns at the beginning of the matter

(even though that is stated later in the verses explicitly)

so that one should not have a mistake that "pure he is" means completely,

because Rashi says <b>not</b> the content of the verse

(that is "when there will be on the baldness etc.")

: In the verse it says "And when there will be on the baldness or on the forehead <b>a plague</b> <b>white</b> <b>reddish</b>",

the <b>appearance</b> of the plague,

but Rashi says "rather <b>by the signs</b> of plagues of skin of flesh <b>by white hair</b> <b>and by quick flesh</b> <b>and by spreading</b>".

Thus it is proven from this,

that according to Rashi's approach one does not need to come to the later verse to know that "we judge..

by the signs of plagues of skin of flesh" — that we know from the verse itself.

And the verse "When there will be on the baldness etc. a plague white reddish etc." comes to state the <b>appearances</b> of plagues on the baldness or on the forehead.

Also one must understand: even if one should find an explanation why Rashi needs the addition "except with the signs of skin blemishes of the flesh",

why does he need to add and specify here &lt;b&gt;what&lt;/b&gt; are the signs of skin blemishes of the flesh&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

for apparently: a)

what is the practical difference in &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; verse?

If Rashi wants to say all the details of a blemish on the baldness and on the forehead-baldness, its place is in the verse "And if there will be etc."?

b)

And especially since the signs of skin blemishes of the flesh are already stated earlier in the Torah explicitly&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

3.

Regarding the signs that Rashi says "with white hair and quick flesh and spreading" — commentators ask&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

: it is an explicit Mishnah&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

that baldness and forehead-baldness render impure only with two signs,

with quick flesh and with spreading,

but not with the sign of white hair.

And as it is also explicit in Torat Kohanim on the verse&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

"It is a spreading leprosy": leprosy teaches that it renders impure with quick flesh,

spreading teaches that it renders impure with spreading,

it &lt;b&gt;does not&lt;/b&gt; render impure with white hair.

From where does Rashi take the novel idea that "when the head becomes bald" he is also judged with the sign of white hair,

contrary to the halacha?

In old printings²⁴

and in Rashi manuscripts it indeed does not say "with white hair"²⁵.

But from the fact that we find it in the common printings, and thus was the reading before the Ra'ah²⁶

and several commentators of Rashi²⁷,

it is understood that the reading "with white hair" "has a place" in Rashi's commentary

(the plain meaning of Scripture).

The Rambam in Sefer HaYad&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding this law says: The baldness of the front and the baldness of the back are contaminated by two signs: by the quick and by spreading, etc. And since they have no hair, white hair is not a sign of impurity in them.

From this it appears that the Rambam does not accept the exposition from Toras Kohanim that white hair is not contaminating there because of a teaching,

a limitation of the verse,

but rather because of the reason "since they have no hair",

and as he states explicitly also in the Commentary on the Mishnah&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

"&lt;b&gt;And&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;it is not&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;conceivable&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; white hair because the baldness of the front and the baldness of the back is a place that has no hair",

i.e.,

that is,

since it is not a place of hair,

therefore there cannot be any white hair here.

And based on this it is very difficult to say that it is a dispute about reality, and according to Rashi a bald spot can grow hair, and consequently white hair is also one of the signs of impurity.

But from the words of the Kesef Mishneh&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

"And our teacher holds that the Torah excluded it because of the reason that he wrote",

that this is the reason for the exposition of the Torat Kohanim "it does not impart impurity through white hair",

it implies,

that also according to the Rambam the reality of hairs is possible.

Because if the &lt;b&gt;reality&lt;/b&gt; of hairs does not exist — why does the Torah need to exclude it?

And as the Rash&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

explains the exposition of the Torat Kohanim,

"And the reason it did not say the opposite, that it should impart impurity through white hair and not through a bright spot, is because typically they do not grow hair, but sometimes they have hair like ordinary people who are bald, in places where there are two or three hairs".

One must, accordingly, say³²,

that the plain meaning in the words of the Rambam "And because there is no hair in them, the white hair is not a sign of impurity in them" is: since that <b>in general</b> there is no hair there,

therefore,

even when a white hair does grow there,

the white hair is not a "sign of impurity in them"³³.

And it requires explanation: wherein consists the difference between the view of Rashi

(according to the version before us)

— the plain meaning of the verse — that even though this is not a "place of hair," white hair

(if,

as an exception it grows there,

it is)

a sign of impurity; and the view of the Rambam — the halachah — that since it is not a place of hair,

"the white hair is not a sign of impurity in them".

4.

And it can be said the explanation in all this:

Rashi is precise in the words which he quotes from the verse "he is bald."

For at first glance: If the verse comes only to state the law that "a man whose head is bald etc. he is pure" from the impurity of plagues of the scalp — why does it also say "he is bald"?

Granted, if one learns that negai netakim means that the hairs of the head were removed,

it is understandable what the verse says here "he is bald",

because with this the difference between "netek" is explained,

which is a plague,

with that which "he shaved his head"³⁴

When hairs fell out in the middle of the head and there are hairs that surround the place from all sides,

this is a matter of "illness" in the place,

and therefore this is a "plague" — "netek"; but when the entire hair of one of the sides of the head is plucked out,

then "he is bald" — this is the <b>nature</b> of the person "for by nature many people become bald with a small amount of hair on the sides of the head backward or forward and the baldness is not another illness in them but it is like the rest of the body"³⁵,

and therefore "he is pure".

According to Rashi's explanation, but if not, this is the difference between netakim and "ki yimaret rosho",

it requires explanation why the verse adds and adds "&lt;b&gt;korach&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;hu&lt;/b&gt;

(tahor hu)

Therefore Rashi teaches that the verse comes to teach not

(only)

purity from the impurity of netakin,

that it is not judged by the signs of the head and beard etc.,

but

(also)

mainly that it is judged by the signs of skin blemishes of the flesh.

As follows.

5.

The difference between the two opinions mentioned above regarding netakim is a difference in the very definition of netek,

whether netek is distinguished from nega es basar only regarding the &lt;b&gt;place&lt;/b&gt; of the nega,

or it is a different &lt;b&gt;type&lt;/b&gt; of nega.

And from this emerges a practical difference regarding korachas and gabachas.

At the beginning of the portion of netakim&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

"And a man or a woman if there will be in him a nega on the head or on the beard" Rashi translates "The verse came to distinguish between a nega that is in a place of hair and a nega that is in a place of flesh, that this one's sign is in white hair and this one's sign is in yellow hair."

That is: according to Rashi these are not two types of negaim.

Rather it is the same type,

and the difference between them is only "in the place",

that due to the difference in place a difference becomes

(but only)

in the signs of tumah of the nega,

that "in a place of flesh" its sign is in white hair and "in a place of hair" its sign is in yellow hair.

And that which it is called by another name — "netek",

is as Rashi says "so is the name of the nega that is in a place of hair",

it is only a change of the name.

And based on this is understood the necessity to explain that the verse "he is bald, he is pure" comes to say

(not only that "he is pure from the impurity of netakin,

that he is not judged by the signs of the head and beard",

but)

also that "he is judged..

by the signs of negai of skin of flesh etc.":

The words "Korach hu" in the verse are an explanation and reason for that which "tahor hu": "Korach hu" emphasizes that the place of the head where the baldness is, is not a "place of hair"

(Because of which there is no netek there,

the "negah shebimkom sear")&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

; and since it is not a "place of hair",

then &lt;b&gt;automatically&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;in the manner of&lt;/b&gt; the definition of "or basar" applies to it,

and a negah in this place is judged "by the signs of negai or basar".

Rashi does not say here two separate dinim,

one din that "tahor from tumat netakin,

that it is not judged by the signs of the head and beard which are a place of hair" and another din in which it is indeed judged

("by the signs of negai or basar")

— rather Rashi learns that the verse says here &lt;b&gt;one&lt;/b&gt; thing: "Korach hu tahor hu",

since "Korach hu",

it follows that "&lt;b&gt;place&lt;/b&gt; of hair",

and consequently — "tahor from tumat netakin that it is not judged by the signs of the head and beard &lt;b&gt;which are&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;place&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;of hair&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;but&lt;/b&gt; by the signs of negai or basar with white hair etc."&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

that "netek" is a different <b>type</b> of negaim

(that "netek is from the hair")

D.

— this.

E.

is.

that the place of flesh has one type of negaim and the head and beard a second type of negaim — from "he is bald" one can only know that at the time of "he shall shave his head" the law of "netek" is not present; and afterwards the verse <b>renews</b> that there exists <b>another</b> type of negaim — kareach and gabeach,

as mentioned above

(page 62)

from Torat Kohanim that "a matter learned from its context...

when it says 'And if on the baldness or on the bald forehead there is a white reddish blemish...'

that it is not pure from any impurity except from the impurity of netekim alone" this.

is.

that were it not for the subsequent verse there would be room to say that on kareach and gabeach there is altogether no law of nega³⁹].

And based on this it is understood what Rashi continues and says <b>explicitly</b> also the signs "with white hair and quick flesh and spreading": thereby he emphasizes that that which is judged by the signs of negai ohr basar is not only from the <b>halachah</b>

(that one learns from a verse that "it is <b>judged</b>...

by the signs of negai ohr basar"),

it is but a different type of nega — only that this is one thing: because it lacks in the definition of "place of hair",

is <b>automatically</b> applicable to it the definitions of a nega in a place of ohr basar.

6.

According to all the above, one will also understand the difference between the opinion of Rashi and the opinion of the Rambam — whether that which baldness of the front and baldness of the back are not a place of hair is a reason that white hair should not be there a sign of impurity:

According to Rashi,

"he is bald"

(that it is not a "place of hair")

only negates that it is not a "place of hair" like &lt;b&gt;head&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;and beard&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

but it is not "worse" than the rest of the parts of the body

(the skin of the flesh).

And therefore this is not a reason that white hair should not be a sign of impurity — rather it is exactly like the rest of the body,

which is not a "place of hair" like head and beard,

and white hair is there a sign of impurity&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

The method of the Rambam, however, is — as he rules in the laws of impurity of tzaraat⁴¹

— that "the negaim of the head and the beard is that the hair in them falls out from its root and the place of the hair remains empty, and this is called a netek ..

whether its appearance was deep or whether it was not deep, etc."⁴².

D.

E.

So "netek"

("negaim of the head and the beard")

is a different <b>type</b> of nega⁴³

And that kareach and gabeach are impure with negaim — is not a matter that is automatically

(as according to the method of Rashi),

that since there are no hairs, this is

(automatically)

like the skin of the flesh — rather, first a definition of "he is kareach" must apply to it, that "it is not fit to grow hair"⁴⁴

(or that human actions removed his hair "even though it is fit to grow later, since all the hair of his head is now lost, this is called kareach or gabeach"⁴⁴),

and then there is a <b>special</b> teaching that "the kareach and the gabeach are impure" like the skin of the flesh,

as the Rambam brings⁴⁵

"<b>as it is said</b> <b>in them</b> like the appearance of tzaraat of the skin of the flesh"

(not like the method of Rashi, that one knows this from the words "he is kareach" itself).

That is,

that according to the Rambam, baldness of the forehead and baldness of the back of the head are not the same type of plague as plagues of the skin of the flesh⁴⁶.

And this is what the Rambam explains — "And because there is no hair on them, the white hair is not a sign of impurity": since the definition of baldness of the forehead and baldness of the back of the head is that which "there is <b>no</b> <b>hair</b> <b>on them</b>" — i.e.,

i.e.,

not only is it not a "place of hair" like the head and beard

(but there is hair in the manner of the skin of the flesh on the other parts of the body)

— rather, there is altogether no hair on them,

even not as there is on the skin of the flesh in general

(therefore this is a separate "section" in [the tractate of] Negaim,

a separate type of plague),

It is consequently understood,

that the type of impurity that is connected with the place "that has no hair",

is not connected with "white hair"

(even when in practice hairs grow there).

In another style: Since "he is bald" negates

(not only "place of hair" like head and beard,

but)

hair in general,

"there is no hair in them" — therefore,

when on a "bald one" hair grows,

it is as if the white hair is not related to this place; and consequently the boundaries and laws in relation to "hair" do not apply to baldness of the front and baldness of the back.

7.

Although according to the Rambam it is

(also)

Korachas and Gabachas are distinguished from the plagues of the skin of the flesh,

he places it however <b>together</b> with the other plagues of the skin of the flesh

(and also the reality and the signs of the plague are equal,

"that the head or the beard that became bald are like the skin of the flesh for all matters except that they are not made impure by white hair"⁴⁷).

Where does he emphasize that it is a different type of plague?

Is this not established,

the plagues of the head and the beard.

That which the Rambam writes in a chapter by itself at the end of all the plagues of a person⁴⁸.

And one must say the explanation in this,

and the elucidation of the difference between the view of Rashi and the view of the Rambam in this according to the reasons for the commandments:

In the words of our Sages, may their memory be blessed⁴⁹

are counted several sins for which "negaim come".

Although the sins are the cause of all types of plagues,

we find in the commentators on the Torah⁵⁰

that some of the sins are connected to a different type of plague

(the distinctions of the appearances of plagues,

the details of the plagues,

plague of skin of flesh, boil, burn, netek, etc.).

In Rashi's commentary on the Torah⁵¹

Rashi brings only <b>two</b> matters for which plagues come,

"the plagues come on account of evil speech"⁵²,

"the plagues come on account of haughtiness".

And it can be said that these are the <b>two</b> types in negaim — negai ohr basar,

and nega bimkom sear — negai harosh vehazakan:

"Lashon hara" which is "maaseh pitputei devarim"⁵³,

an external matter in the person,

cause negaim on the rest of the parts of the body on the skin of the flesh,

which is a lower level in man; "gasut haruach" which comes and is connected with an internal "place" in man,

touches this in the high place of the person on the head⁵⁴

(or on the beard).

The Rambam says⁵⁵

regarding negaim only that this comes from the side of lashon hara,

and explains the sin thereof that finally the sin brings to speech,

"to speak against God and heretics regarding the principle."

And based on this one can say that this is the difference according to the Rambam between a nega of the skin of the flesh in general and the negaim of the head and the beard — netek: as long as the sin of the man is only "the conversation of the wicked which is scoffing and lashon hara"⁵⁶,

the negaim are connected with the skin of the flesh that is on the body,

but when this brings him to "to speak against God and heretics regarding the principle",

a matter connected with opinions,

then come negaim <b>on the head</b>

(and his beard)

— netek.

8.

And based on this we can explain the difference between the opinion of Rashi and the Rambam: according to Rashi — negaim come for lashon hara and haughtiness,

although these are two things,

they are nevertheless in the same category — a sin that is

(primarily)

toward one's fellow,

therefore Rashi learns that the negaim of the head and beard — netakim,

are not a different category but "such is the name of the negah in a place of hair."

According to the Rambam, however, that the negaim of the head are connected with heresy primarily,

it is then completely a different category than negaim of the skin of the flesh which come for lashon hara.

Therefore the Rambam divides the plagues of the head as a separate type of plague,

and in a separate chapter at the end of all plagues of man,

because this is

(to a certain extent)

distinguished in its materiality,

from other plagues of the skin of the flesh.

And through this study in the section of plagues in the Written Torah and Oral Torah, this itself arouses the caution regarding the sins for which plagues come,

caution to the utmost,

until bringing about the action opposite of the aforementioned — as the conclusion of the Rambam in the study of these laws: bringing about "conversation of the worthy of Israel"⁵⁷

which "is not⁵⁸

except in words of Torah and wisdom, therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, helps through them and merits them in it, as it is said⁵⁹

then those who fear the Lord spoke, each man to his friend, and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and for those who think of His name."

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Tazria, 5744)