A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 8: Negaim: Literary and Historical Problems (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) [Reprint ed.] 9781597529327, 159752932X

Citation preview

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART EIGHT

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNJ\.IC Li\.\V OF PURITIES PART EIGHT

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART EIGHT

NEGAIM LITERARY AND HISTORICAL

PROBLEMS

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene, Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 8 Negaim: Literary and Historical Problems By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1975 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-932-7 ISBN 10: 1-59752-932-X Publication date 3/19/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1975

For

Franz Rosenthal

CONTENTS PART VIII

NEGAIM. LITERARY AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS Preface

XI

Abbreviations and Bibliography . Transliterations Introduction L. Mishnah-Tosefta Negaim: Translation .

LI. Mishnah and Tosefta 1. The Relationship between Mishnah and Tosefta 11. The Organization and Redaction of Tosefta 111. Tosefta as Commentary to Mishnah iv. Tosefta as a Corpus of Autonomous Materials . V. The Two Sources of Tosefta . Vl. The Two Sources of Tosefta: Literary Traits Lil.

LIii.

XIII · XVIII

1 9 92 92 92 95 97 99 104

Forms and Formulary Patterns i. Definitions ii. Forms 1. Ladders 2. Stories and Narratives 3. Disputes and Debates iii. Formulary Patterns . 1. Lists 2. Question + Answer ( s) 3. The Apocopated Sentence 4. Unclean/Clean lV. The Declarative Sentence v. Conclusion .

108 108 108 108 108 108 111 111 111 112 113 113 117

Attributions i. Unattributed Pericopae ii. Yavneh iii. Usha iv. The Time of Rabbi .

122 122 125 129 134

VIII

CONTENTS

LIV. The Weaving of the Law . i. Introduction 11. Rules Applying to All Plagues 1. The Role of the Priest 2. The Pr9cess of Inspection 3. Susceptibility of Gentiles . 4. Doubts in Matters of Plagues . iii. Colors . iv. Bright Spots v. The Boil and the Burning Vl. Scalls Vll. Baldspots Vlll. Clothing ix. Houses x. Purification Rites Xl. Stages of the Law 1. Yavneh 2. Usha Xll. The Unassigned Traditions xiii. Conclusion . LV. Weavers of the Law . 1. Yavneh 1. Eliezer 2. Joshua 3. Eleazar b. cAzariah 4. Ishmael 5. Eleazar J:Iisma 6. cAqiva 11. Usha 1. Yose 2. Meir 3. Judah 4. Simeon 5. Eleazar b. R. Simeon . 6. Nel).emiah 7. Eliezer b. Jacob iii. Conclusion .

136 136 139 139 142 146 147 148 152 163 163 166 166 171 176 183 183 186 192 194 195 195 195 195 196 196 197 197 200 200 200 201 202 203 204 204 204

CONTENTS

LVI. Assignments, Attestations, and Attributions: Reconsiderations i. Introduction ii. Secure and Reliable Assignments . iii. Highly Probable Assignments iv. Assignments on the Basis of Concurrent Principles v. Conjectural Asidgnments vi. Conclusion . LVII. Negaim before 70

i. Definition of the Problem ii. The Givens of the Yavnean Rules: Mishnah and Seripture iii. Scripture and Mishnah, .')aracatand Negac . iv. Negacim: The Rabbinical Disease. v. Two Torahs-One \"'{Thole Torah.

IX

206 206 208 212 215 217 218 221 221 222 226 244 250

Appendix: Aphrahat and f udaism: Corrections and Improvements Aphrahat's Demonstration on Kashrut: Notes on the Syriac Text 259 Jean Ouellette, Universite de Montreal Index to Parts VI, VII, and VIII .

265

Index to Biblical and Talmudic References

265

General Index .

287

PREFACE Part VIII completes our work on Mishnah-Tosefta Negaim and Sifra Negaim-Me:sorac Part of the project ,\as carried forward while I was a Fellov.' of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation and also enioyed an extraordinary research bwe granted by Brown University. It is a pleasure to express tlunks for the opportunity afforded by the Guggenheim Foundation and my University. I offer this work in honor of Professor Franz Rosenthal, Yale University, with whom I was privileged to study in 196H-1969, and to whose scholarly works I look for the example of erudition made important by worthwhile insight and transmuted into enduring knowledge by wisdom and understanding. I appreci:1te the labor and good will ul Professor Jean Ouellette, who supplies valu:1.blccorrections and improvements of my Aphr,ifhil and fudai.,m. ]\/Ir. Jon M. Stubblefield. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, LouisYi!le, Kentucky, kindly aclds to the bibliography of The Idea of Purity in Ancient f11dc1ism,listed at the end of the bibliography of the present volume. Dr. Charles Berlin, Harvard College Library, provided books otherwise unavailable and did so with efficiency and good will as always. Conversations with my teacher, Professor Morton Smith, and my friends and colleagues, Professors Baruch Levine. New York University, Paul H.itterband, CUNY, Isadore Twersky, Harvard University, John StrugnelL Har·rnrd University, \'i/illi,un Scott Green, University of Rochester, Gary G. Porton, University of Illinois, Horst R. Moehring, Ernest Frerichs. and Wendell Dietrich, Brown University, provicled criticism, new perspectives, and solace. Professor Moehring's hdp on the Introduction was especially valuable. I am pleased with the literary-critical results of parts VI, VII, and VIII, and am proud of the exegetical work. Those two parts of the tripod seem to me to stand firmer than ever. I am confident that the historical methods arc sound and consnv:itive, the results judicious and carefo l. Unfortunately, the historical results also are meagre and paltry, and, as I shall explain in the chapters, post f1do, if not blatantly deductive. That is, the historical conclusions emerge more from genr::ral results attained elsewhere than from truly inductive exegesis and reconstruction, as was the case in Kelim and Ohalot.

XII

PREFACE

The conclusions do not suggest Negaim finds a provenance, a point of origination, deep in the pre-history of early Rabbinism, as in Ohalot, to a lesser extent, Kelim, but, so far as I can see, only in Yavneh. In this sense Negaim is younger than Kelim, still younger than Ohalot. I find only one important conception which antedates 70, the distinction, which makes no practical difference whatever, between negac and ,raracat-translated for the sake of convenience, with no pretense of medical accuracy, as plague and leprosy, respectively. In all the materials before us, I discern only one really generative idea, 'Aqiva's formation of specific laws around the conception of nega' as a disease peculiarly subject to the authority of the sage, or, as formulated in an absurd way, a "rabbinical disease." With cAqiva, the distinction does make a difference. To be sure, that central idea derives from a careful examination of specific laws of various types and on various problems in our tractate. But it also carries forward quite separate researches, on Yolµnan ben Zakkai, Eliezer hen Hyrcanus, and the growth of the idea of purity in ancient Judaism, and therefore in my own mind comes under the suspicion that I thought of it before I examined the laws of Negaim and brought it with me to those laws. To be sure, it would have been difficult not to have come to such a notion, since M. 3:1 states it explicitly. The interpretation of cAqiva's rulings, particularly in M. 1:4, 4:7-10, 5:3-4, time and again demands the introduction of exactly this larger consideration. The contrast, however, to Kelim and Ohalot, the results of which are purely inductive and also of considerable consequence for the study of the formation of Rabbinic Judaism and the identification and interpretation of its most fundamental and distinctive religious characteristics, is striking and, in assessing the present work, disheartening. All I can say is that the work must be done thoroughly and in acute detail, even though the consequential results for the analysis of large historical, religious and theological problems are, as I said, paltry and meagre. In all, we persevere, with patience and diligence, because the ultimate purpose is close attention to the texts themselves. One must care a great deal about Mishnah-Tosefta, regard knowing those fundamental documents of Rabbinic Judaism-"the Oral Torah"-as fulfillment and self-sufficient purpose, to carry on this study. Qadimah -The red heifer awaits! J.N.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahilot I;I. Albeck, Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958) CArakhin cAvodah Zarah Bavli, Babylonian Talmud Bava' Batra' Bava:>Me~ica, Bava' Qamma:> W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, 1957), p. 473. Ber. - Berakhot Bes. - B~ah Bile. Bikkurim Blackman - Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. VI. Order Taharoth (London, 1955). Bornstein H.Bornstein, Oho/oth. Translated into English, with Notes, in I. Epstein, ed., The Babylonian Talmud Seder Tohoroth (London, 1948: The Soncino Press), pp. 143-228. Brown J. R. Brown, Temple and Sacrifice in Ivtbbinic Judaism. (Evanston, 1963: The Winslow Lectures, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary) . - Dema:>i Dem. Deut. - Deuteronomy Ed. - CEduyyot EK - See Rappaport Eruv. - CEruvin GRA - Elijah ben Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), for M., and from standard text of Tos. Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, for Tos. Hag. - I;Iagigah Hal. - I;Iallah Hillel See Sifra Hillel - David Hoffmann, Mischnafot. VI. Ordnung Toharot. PunkHoffmann tiert, ins Deutsche ubersetzt, und erk/art (Third edition: Basel, 1968). From Negaim 3:7: John Cohn. Hoffmann, Vayyiqra _ D. Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus. Obersetzt und erklart. Translated into Hebrew by S. H. Shaffer and A. Lieberman (Jerusalem, 1953) pp. 255-287. Hor. - Horayot Hui. I;Iullin Israelstam - Midrash Rabbah IV ... Leviticus. Chapters I-XIX, translated by J. Israelstam, etc. (London, 1961) pp. 188-222. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, etc. (ReJastrow print: N.Y. 1950). Katzenelson - J. L. Katzenelson, HaTalmud vebokhemat Harefu:>ah (Berlin, 1928) pp. 304-353. Supplied by Dr. Charles Berlin, Harvard College Library.

Ah. Albeck Ar. A.Z. b. B.B. B.M. B.Q. Bauer

_ -

XIV

Ker. Kil. Lev. Lieberman, TR

ABBREVIATIONS

-

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Katzenelson (pp. 338ff.) raises the question of the difference between Mishnaic and biblical law: the absence of SPJ:IT as a separate ailment, the stress on the white color instead of the "deep" color of Scripture, the homogenization of the various negacim and the.ir rules into a single structure, the indifference to the contagion of the negac, and the like. Scripture distinguishes the bright spot from the rising. Mishnah treats them as one, ignoring the rising thereafter. It was the purpose of the sages, he says, strictly to limit the enforcement of the laws, so that they would fall into disuse. Thus the inconvenience of the law would be limited, a humane policy, he says, made possible by more sanitary living conditions and made compelling by considerations of humanitarianism. I cannot imagine a conclusion more cosmically irrelevant to the concerns of the tractate under study. To be sure, the rabbis' negac is, medically, rather unlikely ever to be discovered. Square spots, of exactly thirty-six hairs, are not, to my knowledge, reported in Hansen's disease, not to mention psoriasis, lupus, ringworm, favus, eczema, leukoderma, or elephantiasis. But medicine to begin with is hardly important to the logical unfolding of the law, which is the rabbis' work. Keritot Kila)yim Leviticus Saul Lieberman, Tosefeth Rishonim. A Commentary. Based

on Manuscripts of the Tosefta and Works of the Rishonim and lviidrashim and Rare Editions. III. Kelim-Niddah. IV. Mikwaoth-Uktzin (Jerusalem, 1939). Saul I.ieberman[n], HaYerushalmi Kif shu{o (Jerusalem, Lieberman, YK 1934) Part I, Vol. 1. Herbert I.oewe, "Disease and Medicine (Jewish)," in Loewe James Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 4: 755-757. - Babylonian Talmud Codex Munich (95). (Reprint: JeruM salem, 1971). Mishnah. M. -- Ephraim Isaac of Premysla. Published in 1882. From reprint MA (Mishnah of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Abaronah) _ Macaserot Ma. Mishnah c;m Perush Rabbenu Moshe hen Maimon. Trans. Maimonides Joseph David Qappal;i. VI. Seder Tohorot (Jerusalem, 1968). The Code of Maimonides. Book Ten. The Book of CleanMaimonides, Code ness, trans. Herbert Danby (New Haven, 1954). Treatise Three: The Uncleanness of Leprosy, pp. 147-204. Mak. - Makshirin MeCilah Me. Melamed E. Z. Melamed, Hayyabas sheben midrcishe halakhah lamishnah velatosefta (Jerusalem, 1967). Men. Menai;iot Mid. Haggadol I.ev. Midrash Haggttdol. Leviticus. Ed. by E. N. Rabinowitz (N.Y. 1932).

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Milgrom and Rabbinowitz Miq. M.Q. M.S. MS

-

N

-

Naz. Neg. Nid. Nusab

-

Oh. Ouellette

-

Par. Pes. Preuss

QA Qid. Rabad Rabad, Sifra Rabbinowicz Rappaport

xv

Jacob Milgrom and Louis I. Rabinowitz, "Leprosy," Encyclopaedia Judaica 11: 37-39. MiqvaJot MoCed Qatan Macaser Sheni Melekhet Shelomo. Shelomo bar Joshua Adeni, 1567-1625. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Mishnah c;m Perush HaRambam. Defus Risho11 Napoli [5] 252 (1492) (Jerusalem, 1970). Nazir NegaCim. Niddah Y. N. Epstein, Mavo leNusab haMishnah (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 19542). Ohalot Jean Ouellette, "CAtum1m in I Kings VI:4: a Dravidian Origin," Bulletin of the 111stitute of Jewish Studies, London, II, 1974, pp. 99-102. JTM in I Kings 6:4 means turrets or towers. If so, then NPS JTMH of M. Oh. 7: lD should mean not "a solid tomb-monument" but an above-ground or raised sepulchre. This then shows the relationship of M. 7:lF to D. It further shows the reason that T. 7:17 links the item to wall-cupboards. Both sorts of objects are upright structures, and Judah-Joshua's position is that these aboveground sepulchres are unclean in the inside, not on the outsid.e. They are simply Tents, so interpose if they have the requisite opening. M. Oh. 7:lE regards the sepulchre as unclean both inside and out, like a sealed grave. Sukkot leaned against it are unclean. Judah says they are clean. He therefore regards the sepulchre as a normal Tent. D's monument is not built on a sealed grave (IV, p. 76). It is a sealed grave. Judah disagrees with D as well as E-F. And in the name of Joshua, he extends the same principle to the cupboards of T. 7:17. It seems to me Yose takes the opposite position on the cupboards (then, why not the NPS JTMH?) in M. Oh. 4:1-3/T. 5:6. I thank Professor Ouelette for supplying me with a copy of his article, the importance of which is clear. Parah Pesal;iim Julius Preuss, Biblisr:h-Talmudische Medizi11 (Berline, 1923) pp. 369-401. Preuss supplies an extensive bibliography of medical writings on 1araca1. Qorban Aharon, Aaron Ibn I;Iayyim (d. 1632), Qorban Aharon. Perush LaSefer Sifra (Dessau, 1749).

Qiddushin -

Supercommentary to Maimonides, Code. R. Abraham hen David. Commentary to Sifra. From. ed. Weiss. Rabbinowicz, La Medir:ine du Thalmud (Paris, 1880). ~evi Hirsch Hakohen Rappaport, Torat Kohanim, with the commentaries C£zrat Koha11im and Tosafot HacEzrah (Jerusalem, 1972) Vol. III.

XVI

ABBREVIA'fIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

R.H. Rosh

-

s Sanh. Sens

Shah. Shav. Shev. Sifra Fink.

-

-

Sifra Hillel Sifra ed. Weiss Slotki

SN SM Sot. Suk. T. Ta. Tan.

Tern. Ter. Toh. Tos. W &R

-

-

Tos. Zuck.

TR T.Y. TYB TYT

-

TYY

Uqs.

-

Rosh Hashanah Asher hen Ye]:i.iel,ca. 1250-1327. For source, see Sens. Sifra Sanhedrin Samson hen Abraham of Sens, ca. 1150-1230. From reprint of Mishnah Seder Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, Romm ed. (Vilna, 1887). Shabbat Shavucot Shevicit Sifra or Torat Kohanim. According to Codex Assemani LXVI. With a Hebrew Introduction by Louis Finkelstein (N.Y., 1956). Sifra. With the Commentary of Hillel b. R. Eliaqim. Ed. by Shakhna Koleditzky (Jerusalem, 1961) . Vol. II. Sifra, ed. Isaac Hirsch Weiss (Repr. N.Y. 1947). Israel W. Slotki, NegaCim. Translated into English with Notes in I. Epstein, ed. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder T ohoroth (London, 1948: The Soncino Press) pp. 229-297. Sifra Parashat Negacim. Sifra Parashat Me~orac. Sofah Sukkah Tosefta Ta"anit Y. N. Epstein, Mevo0 ot leSifrut Hatanna0 im. Mishnah, Tosefta uMidrashe Halakhah. Edited by E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957). Temurah Terumot Tohorot Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., Rabbinische Texte. Erste Reihe. Die Tosefta. Text. Obersetzung, Erklarung. Herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel and Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Band 6. Seder T oharot. Text, Obersetzung, Erklarung. Kelim, Ahilot. Edited by Walter Windfuhr. Toharot-Uksin, edited by Gerhard Lisowsky, Gunter Mayer, Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, and Emanuel Schereschewsky. (Stuttgart, 19531967). T. Negaim is the work of Walter Windfuhr and Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Tosephta. Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices, with parallels and variants, by M. S. Zuckermandel (Repr. Jerusalem, 1963). See Lieberman, TR Tevul Yorn Tiferet Yisrael, Boaz. See TYY. Tosafot Yorn Tov. Yorn Tov Lipmann Heller, 1579-1654. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tiferet Yisrael, Yakhin. Israel hen Gedaliah Lipschutz, 1782-1860. (With supercommentary of Baruch Isaac Lipschutz = TYB), from reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. cuq~in

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vayyiqra R.

W&R Waldstein

-

y. Y.T. Yad.

-

Yev.

Zab. Zev.

XVII

Leviticus Rabbah. Translated by J. Israelstam. In Midrash Rabbah, ed. by J. H. Freedman and M. Simon, Vol. IV (London, 1939). See Tos. W &R. A. S. Waldstein, "Leprosy-In the Talmud," Jewish Encyclopedia 8: 10-11. Leprosy is not considered contagious. Yerushalmi. Palestinian Talmud. Yorn Tov Yadayim Yevamot Zabim Zeval;iim

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

SUPPLEMENT

To the bibliography of The Idea of Purity in Ancient f udaism, pp. 131-136, Mr. Jon M. Stubblefield, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, kindly adds the following items: Bailey, Cyril. Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome (Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood Press, 1972; originally published, 1932). Pp. 6-34, 75-93. Connects lustratio with magic and superstition. Dyer, R. R. "The Evidence for Apolline Purification Rituals at Delphi and Athens;· Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1969, 89: 38-56. Fowler, W. Warde. The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London: Macmillan, 1911), pp. 208-218. Ogilvie, R. M. "Lustrum Condere," Journal of Roman Studies, 1961, 51: 31-39. Reid, J. S. "Human Sacrifices and Other Notes on Roman Religion," Journttl of Roman Studies, 1912, 2: 34-52. Stengel, Paul. Die Griechischen Kultusaltertumer (Miinchen, 1920), pp. 155-190.

TRANSLIT'ERA T'IONS

l:l

::i

- B

l

-

G

0

j

- D - H - w - z - I;I - T

';J

N

:,

l1 t.,

., 1 1,

~= l=

M N

- s

=, b

-

p

r

--

:;;

~

.,p

-

Q

--

R

,Jj

-

y

iii

s s

:::>= K - L

li

T

-

INTRODUCTION No question about our tractate is less pertinent than the specific diagnosis of the "disease( s)" under discussion in Negaim. Whether, as Bauer maintains, in Greco-Roman times we speak of psoriasis, in contrast to the biblical usage, ''which meant true leprosy, caused by Hansen's bacillus, including other inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis, lupus, ringworm, and facus," is simply beside the point. For the issue of Mishnah-Tosefta Negaim is quite unrelated to medical facts. Our tractate is solely concerned with the development of the laws characteristic of a ·particular status, uncleanness caused by negaC,here translated ( for convenience sake only) as "plague," along the lines of, but quite separate from, the laws characteristic of a parallel and correlative status, uncleanness caused by 1aracat,commonly translated "leprosy." While we have ample evidence, in the form of sayings and stories in Josephus's writings and in the Synoptic Gospels, that "leprosy" indeed was a recognized affliction, that the status of uncleanness was imposed on that account, and that the processes of purification, moreover, were of practical consequence, our tractate does not speak of practical "leprosy." It is unconcerned with the concrete facts of illness or uncleanness on that account. Its concerns and issues are its own. It speaks of an invisible world, of a status which is supernatural in its meaning. It speaks, as Maimonides says (Uncleanness of Leprosy 16:10); ''not of a normal happening, but about a portent and wonder among the Israelites .... " As I shall suggest at the very end, the generative issue of our tractate is the meaning of the holy and clean, the worldly and unclean-passive and attributed, or active, attributive, and achieved. What is interest and the central issue of our tractate? It is revealed in the title, Negaim. The irreducible datum is that negac is distinct from 1aracat,which occurs in the appended chapter on purification ( M. 14: 1-10) . If any conception in our tractate antedates the destruction of the Second Temple, it is that simple distinction. Whether or not the distinction produced important differences before 70 we do not know. None is revealed. But it did make a difference after 70, for, in the hands of cAqiva, the distinctiveness of the negac was made to allow for the development of an important role for the sage, in particular, in the determination of status in the processes described

2

INTRODUCTION

in Leviticus 13-14. Leviticus 13-14 naturally knows only the priest; negac faracat constitute a single disease, governed by the decisions of the priest. All translations treat the two as one. In LXX, for example, ~ &qi~ always translates negaC, and ~ M1tpocalways translates faracat. Together they mean, "'the spot of leprosy." Negac-spot-is not one disease, faracat another. Yet as we shall demonstrate, for the rabbis, negac is distinct from faracat. The former is very much under the supervision of the rabbi, who is intruded into the process of inspection and purification reserved, in Leviticus, for the priest alone. In this connection we find a striking parallel in the Gospels. There too we discern the intrusion of an authority other than a priest in the "healing" of leprosy-that is, in the declaration that leprosy is clean. The intrusion of the sage in the process of deciding questions of leprosy is common to the Gospels and Mishnah (Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16). Matthew 8:2-5 has Jesus heal a leper, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." And he stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately, his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and off er the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people." Jesus's stretching out his hand and touching the leper is curious as well, since, in touching the leper, he himself is made unclean-if he is subject to the law to begin with. In making the leper clean, Jesus is made unclean. This is a curious paradox indeed, and I do not see how the irony cannot have been part of the intent of the story-teller. The same motif-a nonpriestly role in leprosy rites-recurs at Luke 17:11-19. Ten lepers ask to be healed. Jesus tells them to go and show themselves to the priests. ,,,And as they went away, they were cleansed." What is curious in these passages is their combining actual healing of the disease, on the one side, and accomplishment of the rites of purification on the other ( as in the saying attributed to Hillel [SN 9:16], he is clean and the priest will declare him clean-both are required). Like God in Num. 12:10-15, Jesus accomplishes the actual healing of the disease. '"The leprosy was cleansed" then should mean that it disappeared. Even so, judiciously, Jesus tells the man the priest must see the spot; the purification-rite must be undertaken. When, in M. 3:1, we are told that the priest is subordinate in the process, the rabbi supervises it, and the priest simply states what the rabbi tells him to say, we discern the same division between the supervision, through recognition, of the healing-process, on the one hand,

INTRODUCTION

3

and the purificatory formalities associated therewith, on the other. The role of Jesus and that of the rabbi are similar in that a noniiacerdotal figure enters into the process. But the difference is equally obvious: the rabbi does not heal the disease, he only recognizes the symptoms that it is healed. The story about Jesus by contrast seems to me perfectly clear that he himself accomplishes a miraculous healing of the disease, not merely discerning certain facts. He then is represented as placing the matter back in the hands of the priests, a formality which is explicitly represented as politic. In structure, the change is the same, as I said: the intervention of a new authority in the examination and healing process. But what Jesus does is not what rabbis do. What qualifies him to intervene in the process is his supernatural power, mastery of the healing process. What qualifies the rabbis is his learning, his being an "expert in them and in their names"-a quite different thing. A further odd story places Jesus in the house of a leper on the eve of Passover, Mark 14:3 (Matthew 26:6): «And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of ointment of pure nard .... " John preserves Bethany and the ointment (John 11 :2) but loses the details of Simon and leprosy. Now it is Lazarus, who, being dead, produces not leprosyuncleanness but corpse-uncleanness, a shift readily understood because of the analogy between the two forms of uncleanness. A further detail lost by John has to do with the preparation for Passover. Lazarus is purified from his corpse-uncleanness by being raised from the dead. John 12:1-8 introduces the costly ointment and Passover. For our interest the curious side is the tradition of Mark and Matthew which places Jesus in a leper's house before Passover, thus subjects him to uncleanness at the very moment at which one should have been concerned to preserve cleanness. The "pure" nard was made unclean by being brought into the house; putting it on Jesus could not have made him more unclean than he and everyone else already were. It is beyond our purpose to speculate on the meaning of these shifts in detail, context, and narrative structure. From our perspective what is striking is the indifference to the uncleanness of leprosy produced by entering Simeon's home-and before Passover, of all times. Brief reference to these stories is meant to point out that when ''leprosy" forms the background, even the principal theme, of a New Testament story or Mishnaic law, its particular medical traits and identification with a known disease are of no interest at all. The task

4

INTRODUCTION

of the present study is to discover precisely what the sages of MishnahTosefta-Sifra wished to say not only about, but also through the laws of Negaim, what it is that they had in mind, just as the analysis of the stories about Jesus and leprosy must determine not the medical symptoms and their scientific diagnosis but the purpose and point of those stories. Let me now describe the theory of the present work and what I propose to accomplish. After the reprise of the translation, supplied for convenient reference in studying the catalogues and charts which make up the bulk of this work, we turn to the analytical and restorative task. The earlier results on the two, fixed relationships between Mishnah and Tosefta and the organization of Tosefta out of two anterior sources, each with its own literary, attributive and formal preferences, are confirmed in Chapter Fifty-One. In Chapter Fifty-Two we proceed to the study of the forms and formulary patterns of our tractate, making a measure of progress on the analysis of the meaning of those patterns for the nature of the tradental and redactional processes accomplished by Rabbi. Some modest speculation is attempted on that matter. The limited implications of form-criticism for historical study of the law, specified in Part V, pp. 4-5, are to be taken for granted. In Chapter Fifty-Three are listed all pericopae, first, those without evidence of origin in a particular period- Y avneh, Usha-then those with such evidence. These catalogues clearly indicate that for Negaim the problem of unattributed pericopae is substantial, far more formidable than the equivalent in Kelim and Ohalot. The established solution to the problem is worked out in Chapter Fifty-Four. Here I have analyzed each pericope in terms of its specific law and the larger principle contained within the law, on the one side, and in terms of the evidences per· mitting assignment of the pericope to a particular generation, on the other. The materials are organized thematically, but, given the nature of our tractate, they follow the principle of organization supplied by Rabbi himself. There seems to me no alternative to his schematization. Chapter Fifty-Five rapidly presents the main principles and teachings of the important authorities. For Yavneh, only cAqiva seems important. For Usha, Simeon and Yose are of special interest. The one methodological step forward comes in Chapter Fifty-Six. There we review the assignments and attributions of Chapters FiftyFour and Fifty-Five so as to differentiate reliable from conjectural assignments. The differentiation is in four groups. The assignments of pericopae to particular strata which, I contend,

INTRODUCTION

5

are absolutely reliable, are those in which we can show a correlation between the progression of logical sequences and of chronological attributions-to named authorities--from one generation to the next. If we have a saying attributed to a Yavnean, the logic of which is prior to and generates a proposition attributed to an Ushan, then I hold we are on unshakable grounds in holding the saying attributed to the Yavnean is earlier, "Yavnean," that to the Ushan is later, "Ushan." The next level is assignments which are highly probable. These depend upon the inclusion of named authorities, without correlation of principles, because correlative pericopae do not exist. The reason that depending upon names in assigning a pericope to a given stratum seems to me highly probable is this: where we can test the attribution against the logic and principle of sequential pericopae, we invariably come up with positive results. Furthermore, when we test the consistency of rulings attributed to a single master, we do not discover contradictions and sometimes notice that such rulings even reveal profound agreement on a fundamental principle, spelled out in discrete cases, in totally unrelated legal materials. Finally, when we examine the growth of the traditions about Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, we see that these unfold with remarkable discipline and precision, from the beginning to the end of Mishnah-Tosefta. Accordingly, such evidence as we have points toward the reliability of attributions, specifically for assigning pericopae to the age in which the named authority is assumed to have flourished. But it is clear that that is not the same order of certainty as is attained in accord with the first sort of test. The third category consists of those items assigned to a particular period because of the congruence of their rules or principles with materials assigned on better grounds to said period. This category turns out to consist in the main of the unassigned pericopae of Sifra. The final category-conjectural assignments-hardly needs spelling out. There the specific problems are listed and explained. In all, I think the results of this reexamination tend to confirm our confidence, in respect to Kelim and Ohalot, in the division of materials among the several appropriate chronological strata. What is especially interesting is that nearly all of the laws of Mishnah-Tosefta fall into the first two categories. It will be necessary to continue this reexamination in future parts of the study, though I hope I shall find a more concise way of doing the work. Chapter Fifty-Seven contains no methodological surprises. I first reduce Yavnean items ( differentiating among the bases for assigning

6

INTRODUCTION

those items to Yavneh) to their primary presuppositions, then seek the relationship between those fundamental ideas and Scripture. All of them turn out to do little more than either repeat what is stated explicitly-about 1aracator negac saracat-in Leviticus 13-14, to ask a rather simple question of definition about what is mentioned in Scripture, or to raise a logical question relevant only in a general way to Negaim, e.g., about resolving matters of doubt and the like. These results, so different from those in Kelim and Ohalot, raise the question, What is it that the rabbis of the Oral Torah thought they were doing in our tractate? The answer is in two parts. First, we discern that the one genuinely new and clearly very "ancient''-pre- 70-idea is that negac and Jaracat are separate diseases. To prove that this is so, we review all of Leviticus 13-14. I have translated those chapters in the language used for the translation of Mishnah-Tosefta and in accord with the ideas of the rabbinic Torah. In virtually every instance I can show word-usages in Mishnah-Tosefta which correspond to and confirm those I have employed in reading the Written Torah as I contend the rabbis of the Oral Torah read it. This of course is not to suggest that the rabbis read Leviticus 13-14 and then spun out their rules. It is only meant to show beyond a doubt what it is that the rabbis, early and late, read into the specific biblical chapters. The second important component of what is new in the Oral Torah of Negaim seems to me to begin with cAqiva, who took up the distinction between negac and ;aracat and turned it into an important difference. Here I have offered one wild conjecture, for which I hope the reader will forgive me. Simeon attributes to cAqiva the opinion that clothing is not susceptible to plagues ( negacim). The Written Torah is clear that clothing is susceptible to leprosy (!aracat). We have therefore to ask: granted the distinction between the two diseases, what is it in Scripture which will have told cAqiva negac does not apply to clothing, while Jaracatdoes apply to clothing? My answer to this question depends upon meanings assigned to words in other contexts of Mishnah-Tosefta. Nonetheless, we are not likely to know just how cAqiva read the relevant Scriptures. The sole certainty is that (Simeon claims) he alone saw something which told him to exclude clothing from the uncleanness caused by the negac. Chapter Fifty-Seven closes with an effort to relate the laws of Negaim, particularly as cAqiva develops them and lays out the lines of their development in the second century, to the larger world of

INTRODUCTION

7

Rabbinic Judaism in this period, in particular, that world which, if the rabbis were to use contemporary language, they would have called the realm of the supernatural. The concluding statements tend to a certain abstraction, primarily because I am as yet unable to make them more concrete. Until this point in our study we have made use of the language of the rabbinic Torah-myth, speaking of Scripture as '"the Written Torah" and Mishnah as "'the Oral Torah." Doing so has imposed the issue, What is the relationship between the one Torah and the other? If we knew Mishnah but did not know that it was conceived, in the late second and third centuries, to constitute a part of the "'Whole Torah of Moses our Rabbi," we should never have referred to it in such language. Mishnah makes remarkably little pretense of linking itself to the Scriptures. As we saw, Sifra criticizes Mishnah for that very reason, insisting that all of its laws depend upon Scripture, none upon reason alone. Mishnah furthermore does not even attempt to copy the language and the stylistic preferences of Scripture. The notion that Mishnah is based upon the exegesis of Scripture is, so far as Mishnah's fundamental presuppositions are concerned, certainly false. It was introduced, made into the "'history" of Mishnah, by Sherira Gaon, presumably in his conflict with the Qaraites. That notion is a fine answer to Qaraite criticism of the rabbinic Torah, because it takes up the very supposition of Qaraism, that all Moses revealed was the Written Torah, and, accepting it, defends and vindicates the Oral Torah as integral, because of exegesis, to the Written one. But, as is generally the case in ''Talmudic history," what we are told by the Geonim is now universally translated into the language of historical narrative and becomes "the history" of our law. If, however, we repeat these two dubious notions, first, that Mishnah is conceived by the rabbis cited in and responsible for Mishnah as Oral Torah, second, that Mishnah (therefore) must be located in some correlative relationship, preferably in a clearly exegetical relationship, to the Written Torah, we accomplish no more than mindless anachronism. The present tractate, to be sure, simply demands to be examined in relationship with Written Torah, because of its explicit and continuous relationship to it. But, as already noted, its fundamental conception is no more part of, generated by, the Written Torah than are those of Kelim and Ohalot; indeed, as we shall see in Parts IX and X, it contradicts the datum of the Written Torah exactly as does the datum of Parah. The true character of Mishnah will become clear to us only

8

Il';TRODUCTION

when we ask about Mishnah as an autonomous document, just as we ask about the contents of the Essene library found at Qumran and elsewhere, about the Gospels, about the diverse collection of writings gathered by R. H. Charles and published as the ApocryphcL cmd Pseudepigrapha of the Old Test(1ment, about the writings of Philo and of Josephus, as autonomous documents. My impression is that, for Seder Tohorot, Mishnah is, as literature and as a corpus of conceptions about the nature of sacred being, mi gereris, not to be compared to any other document of its place and time. Or, to put it differently, 1',fishnah is "the Oral Torah of Moses our Rabbi," and part of the "One \'Vholc Torah" revealed by God to him, exactly as what is foretold about the Messiah in the "Old Testament" prophets is fulfilled by Jesus in the "New Testament." It will not advance our inquiry into the character and meaning of Mishnah and into the history of its laws repeatedly to ask about the relationship between the Oral and the \Y✓ritten Torahs, or to formulate our question, :1-sI said, in the language of the rabbinic Torah-myth. We have only to ask, ,lt appropriate points, about the exegetical relationships, if any, betv\'een biblical and Mishnaic laws, a very different, descriptive and secular ciuestion.

CHAPTER FIFTY

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA NEGAIM TRANSLATION The Mishnah-translation is given in large type. The related Tosefta is indented and printed in smaller letters. I have changed the order of T. presented in Part VI by moving to the proper place pericopae clearly related to a Mishnah other than that to which they are attached in T.'s composite version. Thus if a paragraph of T. pertaining to a given Mishnah-pericope is clearly out of place and is so designated in Part VI, I have here transferred it to its proper location. At the same time I have kept the original designation by letter so that easy reference to the commentary is possible. I have deleted nearly all additions to the translations presented in Part VI, including transliterations, interpolated comments, and, in most cases, even language intruded to clarify the sense of the law. The purpose of the following translation is to give an accurate and slavishly literal version of the Hebrew words, their order and sense, to lay the foundations of the several studies to follow. Since I have already explained the meaning of each passage, there is now no purpose in including the considerable interpolations of the shorter commentary in Part VI, which here would impede the work. Chapter One

1:1

A. B.

The appearances of plagues are two, which are four: ( 1) A bright spot is as bright-white as snow. ( 2) And secondary to it is [ a shade as white} as the lime of the Temple. C. ( 3) '' And the swelling is [ as white J as the skin of an egg. ( 4) "And secondary to it is [ a shade as white J as white wool," the words of R. Meir. D. And sages say, '" ( 1) The swelling is [as white J as white wool. ( 2) Secondary to it is [ a shade as white J as the skin of an egg." M. 1:1

A. Said R. Yose, "Joshua, the son of R. cAqiva, asked R. cAqiva, saying to him, 'Why have they said, 'Appearances of plagues are two which are four' ?'

10

TRANSLATION

"He said to him, 'If not, what should they say?' B. "He said to him, 'Let them say, '[ Any shade of white] from the skin of an egg and above [brighter] is unclean.' "He said to him, '[They used the cited language} to teach that they join together.' C. "He said to him, 'Let them say, '[A shade of white] from the skin of an egg and above is unclean, and they join together with one another.' "He said to him, 'To teach you that if one is not an expert in them and in their names, he should not examine the plagues.' " T. 1:1 A. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said in the name of R. I;Iananiah b. Kina,i, who said in the name of R. cAqiva, "How do you know that a priest who is an expert in plagues and not in itches, in itches and not in bald spots, in man and not in clothing, in clothing and not in houses, in the primary appearance [color] and not in the secondary appearance [color], in the secondary appearance and not in the tertiary appearance, should not examine the plagues, until he is an expert in them and in their names ? B. "Scripture states, This is the Torah for every plague of leprosy: for the itch, and for leprosy of the garment and in the house, and for the swelling and for the eruption, and for the spot and to teach [ when it is unclean and when it is clean. This is the law for leprosy]" (Lev. 14:54). T. 1:2

1:2

A. ''The [ reddish J mixture which 1s m the snow-white is like wine mixed in snow. "The [reddish J mixture in the lime is like the blood which is mixed in milk," the words of R. Ishmael. B. R. cAqiva says, 1. "The reddishness which is in this and in this is like wine mixed in water. 2. ''But that which is in snow-white is strong, and that which is in lime is duller than it.'' M. 1:2 A. Said R. Nathan, "Not that R. cAqiva rules [that reddishness] of the lime is dimmer than it. B. "But [that reddishness] of the swelling is dimmer than it.'' T. 1:3A

1:3

A. These four appearances join together with one another( 1) to dear [ of uncleanness J,

NEGAIM CHAPTER ONE

11

and (2) to certify [the sign to be unclean], and ( 3) to shut up [ quarantine for a week J : B. (3) To shut up: That which stands [unchanged} at the end of the first week. C. ( 1 ) To declare clear: That which stands [ unchanged J at the end of the second week. D. (2) And to certify: That in which quick flesh or white hair appears, E. (a) in the first instance, (b) at the end of the first week, ( c) at the end of the second week, ( d) after the clearance. F. (2) To certify: That in which a spreading appears, G. (a) at the end of the first week, (b) at the end of the second week, ( c) after the clearance. H. (2) To certify: That which turns entirely white ( d) after the clearance. I. ( 1) To declare clear: That which turns entirely white after the certification or after the shutting up. J. These are the appearances [colors} of plagues, upon which all plagues depend. M. 1:3 A. For it is not possible for a swelling to render unclean in the first instance. B. But it is possible for the spreading to render unclean when it is one day old. C. How so? A bright spotand in it are tokens of uncleannessand one certified himand the tokens of uncleanness went awayand he came to a priestand he declared him dearand afterward spreading appeared on itThis is spreading which can render unclean on its first day. T. 1:3B A. There are four appearances through which the flesh of the skin is rendered unclean. B. And by them (1) the boil and (2) the burning and (3) the bald head and (4) the bald forehead [Lev. 13:41-44] are rendered unclean: C. The spreading renders unclean, even though it is not of the

12

TRANSLATION

very same appearance [color} but of an another appearance [color], on condition that it is one of the four appearances [colors]. D. The quick raw flesh renders unclean in any appearance, and even white on black or black on white. E. And white hair renders unclean in any appearance of white, and even the appearance [color} of old age, but the hair [ must be} white. F. And scalls render unclean in any appearance [color], and even white on black and black on white. G. And they are signified as unclean with thin golden hair, the appearance of which is like an image of gold.

T. 1:4 1:4-6

A. R. J:Iananiah Prefect of the Priests says, ''The appearances [ colorsJ of plagues are sixteen." B. R. Dosa ben Harkinas says, "The appearances of plagues are thirty-six." C. cAqavya b. Mehallel says, "Seventy-two." D. R. J:Iananiah Prefect of the Priests says, ''They do not examine the plagues in the first instance after the Sabbath [Sunday], for the end of that week will fall on the Sabbath; and not on the second day [Monday], for the end of its second week falls on the Sabbath; and not on the third day for houses, for the end of its third week falls on the Sabbath." E. R. cAqiva says, "At any time do they examine. [If] it [the next inspection J turns out to coincide with the Sabbath, they move [it] to after the Sabbath." F. And there is in this matter [ground] to rule leniently and to rule strictly. M. 1:4

A. How to rule leniently? B. ( 1) [If] there was in it white hair, and the white hair went away. C.

( 2) [If] they were white and turned black.

D. ( 3) black. E. (4) F. (5) G. ( 6) H. ( 8)

I.

One was white and one was black, and they both turned

[They were J long and became short. One [was]long and one short, and both grew short. A boil adjoined both of them, or (7) one of them. The boil surrounded them, or {9) one of them. (10) Or there divided them

NEGAIM CHAPTER ONE

13

J. (a) the boil, and (b) the raw flesh of the boil, (c) and the burning, and ( d) the raw flesh of the burning, and ( e) the tetter. K. ( 11) [If] there was in it raw flesh, and the raw flesh went away. L. ( 12) [If] it was four-sided and became round or long. M. [If] it was encompassed and shifted to one side. N. ( 13) [If] it was gathered together and spread apart, 0. or the boil came and entered it. P. ( 14) [If] it was encompassed, and there divided or diminished it Q. (a) the boil, and (b) the raw flesh of the boil, and ( c) the burning, and ( d) the raw flesh of the burning, and ( e) the tetter. R. ( 15) [If] there was a spreading in it and the spreading went away. S. (16) Or if the primary sign went away, or (17) was diminished, T. and ( 18) there is neither in this one nor in that one [ as much asJ a split bean. U. (19) The boil, and the raw flesh of the boil, the burning, and the raw flesh of the burning, and the tetter divide the primary sign and the spreading. V. Lo, these produce a lenient ruling. M. 1:5 A. How to rule strictly? B. ( 1) There was not in it a white hair, and a white hair appeared in it. C. ( 2) They were black and turned white. D. (3) One [was]black and one white, and they both turned white. E. ( 4) They were short and grew long. F. ( 5) One was short and one was long, and they both grew long. G. (6) The boil joined both of them or (7) one of them. H. ( 8) The boil surrounded both of them, or ( 9) one of them. Or ( 1O) there divided themI. (a) the boil, and (b) the raw flesh of the boil, and ( c) the burning and ( d) the raw flesh of the burning, and ( e) the tetterJ. and they went away. K. ( 11) There was no raw flesh in it, and raw flesh appeared in it. L. ( 12) It was round or long and became four-sided. M. [If it was] at the side and became encompassed.

14

TRANSLATION

N. 0. P.

(13) It was scattered and became joined together, and the boil came and entered into it. ( 14) [There J surrounded it, divided it into half, or dimin-

ished it

Q. (a) the boil, and (b) the raw flesh of the boil, and ( c) the burning, and ( d) the raw flesh of the burning, and ( e) the tetterR. and they went away. S. ( 15) There was no spreading in it, and spreading appeared in it. T. (19) The boil, and the raw flesh of the boil, and the burning, and the raw flesh of the burning, and the tetters divide between the primary sign and the spreading, and then go away U. -lo, these produce a more stringent ruling. M. 1:6 A. R. Ishmael says, "The appearances of plagues are twelve." B. R. J:Iananiah the Prefect of the Priests says, "The appearances of plagues are sixteen." C. R. Dosa b. Harkinas says, "The appearances of plagues are thirty-six." D. cAqavya b. Mehallel says, "The appearances of plagues are seventy two." T. 1:6 Chapter Two

2:1

A. A bright spot appears in a German as dim, and the dim in an Ethiopian as bright [white]. B. R. Ishmael says, "The children of Israel-I am their atonement!-lo, they are like boxwood, not dark and not white, but intermediate." C. R. cAqiva says, 1. "The artists have colors, with which they paint black, white, and intermediate figures. 2. '''One brings an intermediate color and encompasses it on the outer perimeter, and it will then appear [as on one whose skin is] intermediate.'' D. R. Judah says, "The appearances [ colorsJ of plagues are meant to produce a lenient decision, but not to produce a rigorous one. E. "Let a German be examined in accord with his skin for a lenient decision; "and an Ethiopian [be judged] leniently by the intermediate color." F. And sages say, "Both this one and that one [ should be judged by the standard of color of] the intermediate [ shade J." M. 2:1

NEGAIM CHAPTER TWO

15

2:2

A. B. C. D. E. F. words G.

They do not examine the plagues at dawn and at sunset, and not inside the house, and not on a cloudy day, because the dim appears bright, and not at noon, because the bright appears dim. When do they examine? "At three, at four, at five, at seven, at eight, and at nine," the of R. Meir. R. Judah says, "At four, at five, at eight, and at nine." M. 2:2

2:3

A. A priest blind in one of his eyes, or whose eyes are dim, should not examine the plagues, as it is said, In accord with the entire vision of the eyes of the priest (Lev. 13:12). B. As to a dark house, they do not break open windows in it to examine its plague. M. 2:3 A. A person who is blind in one of his eyes is not permitted to judge, as it is said, In accord with the entire vision of the eyes of the priest (Lev. 13:12). And it also says, And by their word every dispute and every plague shall be [decided] (Deut. 21:5). B. Scripture links dispute to plagues. Just as plagues [are decided in accord with J the entire vision of the eyes of the priest, so too disputes [ are settled] in accord with the entire vision of the eyes of the priest.

T. 1:7 2:4

A. How is the examination of the plague? B. The man is examined ( 1) like one who hoes, C. and ( 2) like one who harvests olives. D. The woman [is examined] (1) like one who rolls out bread, E. and ( 2) like one who gives suck to her child, F. and ( 3) like one who weaves at an upright loom, for the right hand. G. R. Judah says, ''Also like one who spins flax, for the left [armpit]." H. Just as one is examined for his plague, so is he examined for his shaving. M. 2:4

16

TRANSLATION

A. As to a dark house the windows of which are closed, they open those windows and examine its plague. B. A sheet which is folded over~they smooth out its folds and examine its plague. C. [If} the plague appears in holes or in slits, one is not subjected to it. If one removed it [ from these places}, lo, this is like what is folded which is spm1cl out and like the hidden pfaces of the body which are revealed. D. "Like one who wec1vesat a standing loom: "for the armpit," the words of R. Meir. E. R. Judah says, "Like one who spins flr,x: "for the left hand." F. Said Rabbi, "The words of R. Meir seem to me correct for the right hand and the words of R. Judah for the left." T. 1:8 A. Just as one is examined for his plague, so is he examined for his shaving, as it is said, Then he shc1ll shaie himself (Lev. 13:33). And it is said, And on the Jeventh day he shrdl sh111e rd! his hair off his head; he shall sh