Mesechtas Negaim

Mesechtas Negaim contains are 14 chapters. The tractate deals with the laws of tzaraas afflictions, from the Torah portions of Tazria and Metzora.

Doubt Whether the Baheres Preceded the White Hair

In the tractate it is brought: If the baheres (white spot) preceded the white hair, it is tamei (impure). If the white hair preceded the baheres, it is tahor (pure). And if there is doubt, it is tamei; Rabbi Yehoshua considers it keha (rules it pure). In the Gemara it is related that in cases of doubt, there was a halachic discussion between the Holy One, blessed be He, who declared it pure, and the Heavenly Academy who declared it impure. They decided that Rabbah bar Nachmani should resolve it, since in his generation he was unique in negaim and unique in ohalos. They sent a messenger from Heaven to ask him, and he declared it pure.

According to the Rebbe's explanation, like any ruling, the third opinion does not join with one of the two previous ones, but rather encompasses both of them. This is similar to the attribute of Tiferes (beauty/harmony) which reconciles between the attribute of Din (judgment) and the attribute of Rachamim (mercy). Therefore, the reason Rabbah declared the affliction pure is not the same reason the Holy One, blessed be He, declared it pure. The Rebbe explains this concept in Likkutei Sichos according to Chassidic teachings.

A Bridegroom with a Visible Affliction

In Chapter 3, the Mishnah states: For a bridegroom who has a visible affliction, we wait seven days of the wedding feast. The Tannaim in Tractate Moed Katan disagree about the source of this law: According to Rabbi Yehuda, this law is derived from "and on the day when living flesh appears in it," implying that there is a day when you do not examine it. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, we learn this from the verse "and the Kohen shall command, and they shall clear out the vessels from the house," from which we see that the Holy One, blessed be He, cares about the property of Israel. And if we wait for matters of personal choice – to remove vessels from the house, for matters of mitzvah, all the more so. (The Rebbe notes that the names of the Tannaim appear this way specifically in the Gemara in Tractate Moed Katan, but in the early commentaries on Tractate Negaim they appear in reverse.)

The Rebbe explains in Likkutei Sichos that there is a distinction between the two sources of these laws: According to the derivation from the verse "and the Kohen shall command," it is a matter of postponement, as the simple meaning of the phrase "we wait." According to the verse "and on the day when living flesh appears in it," it refers to a day that is completely exempt from the law of examining afflictions, as the simple meaning of the phrase "there is a day when you do not examine it." The Rebbe even adds in parentheses that there may be a halachic difference between the two derivations, since if the derivation is from the verse "and on the day when living flesh appears in it," meaning that this day is completely exempt from the laws of afflictions, then if the Kohen examined the affliction after the fact and declared it impure, the affliction is not impure, since this day is completely exempt from the law of examining afflictions. But if the law is a matter of postponement and delay, one could say that if the Kohen examined the affliction after the fact, the affliction is not impure.

The Rebbe adds that according to Chassidic teachings, there is also a distinction between the two sources of these laws. This is based on the Rambam's explanation that the mitzvah of afflictions contains Hashem's kindness, for when a person speaks lashon hara (evil speech), the Holy One, blessed be He, has mercy on him to return him to teshuvah (repentance) and places afflictions on his house to arouse him and return him to complete teshuvah. According to this, the essence of the mitzvah of afflictions stems from Hashem's love for His children, the people of Israel, to return them to teshuvah. Therefore, even in these details of the mitzvah, Hashem's special kindness is hidden, as He has mercy on him. Although in the law of waiting for matters of personal choice, Hashem's kindness for the property of the wicked is more apparent, while in waiting for a bridegroom, Hashem's fondness for the mitzvah matters of the wicked is more apparent. To add, while the fondness for the property of the wicked shows Hashem's love for a Jew because of his essential Jewish identity, in waiting for a bridegroom, the importance of the mitzvah actions of the wicked is seen, which stems from his actions.

Examination of Afflictions

It is ruled that a Kohen who has a defect, being blind in one of his eyes, is disqualified from examining afflictions. Rashi's commentary on the Torah derives this from the verse "for all the appearance to the eyes of the Kohen." The Rebbe investigates whether the deficiency of not seeing with one eye is a disqualification of the person (gavra), similar to a Kohen with a blemish who is disqualified from service, or if it is a disqualification in the examination of the afflictions.

The Rebbe explains based on the known fact that there are two laws in examining afflictions: one is the actual seeing, for which it is ruled that all are qualified to see afflictions, not just Kohanim; and the second law is ruling whether it is pure or impure, which is specifically the role of the Kohen himself. Based on this, one can investigate regarding a Kohen whose eyesight is diminished, whether he is only disqualified from seeing the afflictions, or also from the second law of ruling whether the affliction is impure or pure. In the Meiri, two opinions are presented on this: some say he is only disqualified from seeing the affliction but can rule pure or impure, while others say he is also disqualified from declaring it impure or pure.

The Rebbe explains that this depends on the above investigation. If the disqualification is in the person himself, since he cannot see properly, then it is clear that he is also disqualified from ruling whether the affliction is pure or not. But if the disqualification is only in seeing the affliction, then it is reasonable that the Kohen is only disqualified from seeing and deciding if the affliction is pure or not, but not from the actual declaration of pure or impure.

In practice, the Tannaim of the Mishnah and the Toras Kohanim disagree on this investigation. In the Mishnah, this law disqualifying a Kohen with an eye defect is described together with the parallel law that a dark house is not given windows to see its afflictions. For the Tanna of the Mishnah, the disqualification is in the very lack of ability to see, and in a dark house, windows are not opened because the Kohen's sight must be complete without outside light. Therefore, according to the Tosfos Yom Tov, a Kohen is not disqualified if one of his eyes is dim, because if he can still see with one eye, there is no deficiency in his vision according to this approach. The fact that a Kohen is disqualified if blind in one eye is a scriptural decree, as it is written "for all the appearance to the eyes of the Kohen."

However, the Toras Kohanim holds that the disqualification of the Kohen is because when he does not see well with one of his eyes or does not see at all, he is considered to have a blemish regarding examining afflictions. Therefore, the Toras Kohanim holds that from the verse "for all the appearance to the eyes of the Kohen," which comes to exclude seeing hidden places, one cannot learn this disqualification of a Kohen whose one eye has darkened. This is because while the former is a disqualification in the object of sight, the latter is a disqualification in the person, and one cannot learn both teachings from one verse. This is in contrast to the Mishnah, which holds that both teachings are learned from the verse "for all the appearance to the eyes of the Kohen."

Additional Explanations

Chapter 2, Mishnah 4: The man is examined as if hoeing, etc., the woman as if kneading. Likkutei Sichos p. 84 (p. 97).