Shevuot

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.1 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,2 [But this is not conclusive], as [R. Akiba may perhaps hold that] Se'eth combines with its derivative, and Bahereth with its derivative.3 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!]4 When did you hear R. Akiba holding this view — only in connection with variegated leprosy,5 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. to’. It is here taken to denote that which is joined, attached to Se'eth (translated ‘rising’), i.e., its derivative Kerum bezah. without differentiating a derivative for Bahereth and a derivative for Se'eth. Hence we may deduce that Se'eth has two derivatives, Sid and Kerum (because Sappahath, which implies derivatives, is connected with Se'eth in Holy Writ), both of which combine with it and each other, and that Bahereth being only one degree higher than Se'eth also combines with Se'eth; but Bahereth has no derivative. Thus R. Akiba holds they are one above the other. and combine; but R. Jose was not particular to quote him verbatim.