1 This is no question: without Sid hekal, Kerum bezah would present no difficulty, for, although Kerum bezah is [two degrees] lower than Se'eth, Scripture says: For Se'eth and for Sappahath. Sappahath is secondary to Se'eth although it is much [i.e., two degrees] lower. But Sid hekal presents a difficulty: [with what shade can it combine?] Obviously, then, our Mishnah [in making Sid secondary to Bahereth, and Kerum secondary to Se'eth] is not in accordance with R. Akiba's view. And where have we heard R. Akiba [enumerating the shades of leprosy] one above the other? Shall we say, in the following [Baraitha], where it is taught that R. Jose said: Joshua, the son of R. Akiba, asked R. Akiba. ‘Why did they say the shades of leprous affections are two, subdivided into four?’ He replied. ‘What should they say?’ ‘They should say’, [said his son, ‘All shades] from Kerum bezah and upwards are unclean’. He replied. ‘[The Rabbis stated the law in the form of two, subdivided into four] so that we may deduce that they combine with each other.’ His son argued. ‘They could have said. "[All shades] from Kerum bezah and upwards are unclean, and combine with each other".’ He replied. ‘[The Rabbis stated it in the form of two, subdivided into four] to teach us that a priest who is not well versed in them and their names is not competent to inspect the leprous shades.’ Now, [in his question], Joshua did not suggest [that they could have said that the shades from Kerum bezah and upwards are unclean and combine, and the shades] from Sid hekal and upwards are unclean and combine. And because he did not say this, we may deduce that he had heard that R. Akiba held that they all combine with Se'eth, [But this is not conclusive], as [R. Akiba may perhaps hold that] Se'eth combines with its derivative, and Bahereth with its derivative. Well, then from R. Hanina's statement [we may deduce that R. Akiba enumerates the shades one above the other], for R. Hanina said: To what may R. Akiba's statement be compared? — To four tumblers of milk; into one there fell two drops of blood; into the second, four drops; into the third, eight drops; and into the fourth, twelve drops — some say, sixteen drops. They are all shades of white, but one above the other. [No!] When did you hear R. Akiba holding this view — only in connection with variegated leprosy, but did you hear it in connection with plain [white leprosy]? And if you will say that, just as he holds this view in connection with variegated leprosy, so he holds it in connection with plain; are you really sure that he holds it [even] in connection with variegated leprosy? Is it not taught: R. Akiba says: the redness in this and in that [Bahereth and Se'eth] is like wine mixed with water, except that Bahereth is white like snow, and Sid is fainter than it.ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉ
2 And if it is [as you say, that R. Akiba holds they are one above the other, i.e., Bahereth, then Se'eth], he should have said: White wool [i.e., Se'eth] is fainter than it? — That is so [R. Akiba really said Se'eth, and not Sid]. And so said R. Nathan: R. Akiba did not say: Sid is fainter than it, but white wool [i.e., Se'eth] is fainter than it. And how do we know that Bahereth is brilliantly white? Abaye said: Because Scripture says: And if the bright spot be white . . . That is white and no other is [as] white [as it]. Our Rabbis taught: Bahereth is deep; and so Scripture says: And the appearance thereof [of the Bahereth] is deeper than the skin — like the appearance of the sun which is deeper than the shade. Se'eth: Se'eth denotes high; and so Scripture says: Upon all the high mountains and upon all the hills that are lifted up. Sappahath: Sappahath denotes an attachment [i.e derivative]; and so Scripture says: And he shall say: Attach me, I pray thee, [to one of the priest's offices]. We find a derivative for Se'eth. Whence do we deduce that there is a derivative for Bahereth. R. Zera said: The word ‘white’ is mentioned with Se'eth, and the word ‘white’ is mentioned with Bahereth. Just as the ‘white’ mentioned with Se'eth has a derivative, so the ‘white’ mentioned with Bahereth has a derivative. In a Baraitha it is taught: Scripture put Sappahath between Se'eth and Bahereth to teach you that just as there is a derivative for Se'eth, so there is a derivative for Bahereth. Se'eth is like white wool. What white wool? — R. Bibi said that R. Assi said: Clean wool of a new-born lamb which is covered, up [to be made] into a cloak of fine wool. R. Hanina said: The Rabbis’ enumeration [of the four shades] — to what may it be likened? To two Kings and two Governors: the King of this is higher than the King of that; and the Governor of this is higher than the Governor of that. But this [enumeration] is one above the other! — Well then, the King of this is higher than his own Governor; and the King of that is higher than his own Governor. R. Adda bar Abba said: It is like King, Alkafta, Rufila, and Resh Galutha. But this is one above the other! Well then, it is like King, Rufila, Alkafta, and Resh Galutha. Raba said: It is like King Shapur and Caesar. R. Papa said to Raba: Which of them is greater? He replied: You eat in the forest! Go forth and see whose authority is greater in the world; for it is written: It shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. Said R. Johanan: This is wicked Rome whose authority is recognised all over the world. Rabina said: It is like a [new white] woollen garment, and a worn-out woollen garment; and a [new white] linen garment, and a worn-out linen garment. WHERE THERE IS KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING ETC. Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that Scripture [in demanding a sliding scale sacrifice for uncleanness] refers only to cases where the Temple is entered or holy food eaten while unclean? — There is a good argument for this deduction. Scripture warns against uncleanness, and punishes it; and also enacts that a sacrifice be brought for uncleanness. Now just as Scripture, in warning against uncleanness and punishing it, did so only in cases where the Temple was entered or holy food eaten while unclean; so when it enacted that a sacrifice be brought for uncleanness,it did so only in cases where the Temple was entered or holy food eaten. Then let us include Terumah [for sacrifice, if eaten while unclean], since Scripture also warned [against its being eaten while unclean] and punished [the transgressor with death by divine intervention]? — We do not find that the sin for which the death penalty by divine intervention is inflicted [for wilful transgression] should be punishable by sacrifice [for unwitting transgression]. You may say it is only the case in regard to a fixed sacrifice, butᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱ