Firstly, let us define the basic terms of this week's Parasha. "Tzara'at" is a type of disease. It can affect not only people, but clothing and buildings as well. Tzara'at is expressed externally on the skin (or surface) of the affected person (or object) in the form of an infected area, that appears different from the area surrounding it. The Torah refers to this infected area as a "Negga" (pl. "Neggaim"). A Negga takes on any of a number of different forms, depending on the surface upon which it appears.

There are numerous halachic implications to Tzara'at. A person -- or object -- which contracts the disease becomes Tamei (ritually unclean), and is prohibited from partaking of sacrificial foods, from entering the precincts of the Beit HaMikdash, and even from entering walled cities. Other restrictions apply to him as well.

The Oral Torah's discussion of the laws of Tzara'at can be found in Torat Kohanim (henceforth T.K. -- a Tannaitic halachic commentary on the book of Vayikra), and in the Mishnah and Tosefta of tractate Neggaim.

If the Kohen does declare the person Tamei, what is the duration of his period of Tum'ah (ritual uncleanness)? This depends on which kind of Negga it is, as follows. There are two classes of Negga -- a Negga which has, besides the lesion itself, an innate indication of Tzara'at (this is called "Muchlat"), and a Negga which bears no such indication (called "Musgar"). In the latter case, the Tum'ah lasts for a fixed time -- two weeks, in the instance of a Skin-Negga -- or until the lesion heals, whichever comes first. In the former case, however, the Tum'ah lasts for as long as the Negga with its Tum'ah-indicators is present on the skin. (It is interesting to note that in either case, the person can become "Tahor," or ritually clean, even if the Negga is still on his skin. A Negga that is Musgar becomes Tahor after the lapse of two weeks, and a Negga that is Muchlat becomes Tahor when its Tum'ah-indicators disappear, even if the Negga itself remains behind.)

What are these Tum'ah-indicators that establish a Negga as being the more severe "Muchlat" type? In the case of a Skin-Negga, there are three such indications: (1) Spreading ("Pisyon") -- when the Negga expands beyond its original boundaries; (2) the appearance of normal, healthy skin in the middle of the lesion ("Michyah"); and (3) the appearance of two white hairs ("Se'ar Lavan") anywhere in the lesion. Any one of these three indications render the Negga as Muchlat. Conversely, the absence of all three of these signs indicates that the Negga is of the less severe, Musgar type.

Until now we have been discussing the Neggaim that appear on "regular" skin. As T. K. (Parsheta 5:9) points out, however, these laws do not apply if the Negga we have described appears under the hair of a person's scalp or in his beard. Rather, another type of Negga can cause Tum'ah if it appears in one of these areas -- a Negga which the Torah refers to as a "Nettek" (13:30).

What does a Nettek look like? Is it a white lesion, like a Skin-Negga? The Torah does not describe the appearance of a Nettek at all, but the early commentators discuss the issue. The Ramban (13:29) relates the word "Nettek" etymologically to the verse (Yehoshua 4:18), "The feet of the Kohanim were withdrawn (Nitku)." The word "Nettek" thus means "removal" or "departing." A Nettek, explains the Ramban, is simply a loss (= removal) of hair from a place which is normally covered with hair. If a person experiences a loss of hair in the scalp or beard, he has contracted the Negga called Nettek. A Nettek involves no change of skin color at all according to this interpretation. Allusions to the Ramban's approach may be found in the language of the Torah itself (13:31 - "There is no black hair in [the Nettek]"), and in T. K., Parsheta 5:7 and ibid., Perek 9:7. Nearly all of the early commentators accept this view. (This is in contrast to the words of Tosefta Neggaim 1:2 [quoted and discussed by Raavad to T. K. Perek 5:1 and to Mishneh Torah 8:1] which *do* seem to attribute to the Nettek a skin discoloration.)

Aside from the fact that the appearance of the Scalp-Negga is different from that of the Skin-Negga, the Tum'ah-indicators of the Scalp-Negga (that confer on it Muchlat status) are different as well. In this case, there are only two Tum'ah-indicators: Spreading (Pisyon), or the appearance of thin, golden hairs (Se'ar Tzahov) in the Negga (Vayikra 13:30).

Now we are ready to discuss the difficulty that presents itself when reading the verses that deal with Karachat. As mentioned above, in the case of a Nettek, the hair loss itself is considered a Negga. Now, however, the Torah tells us that hair loss by itself is "merely balding" and is *not* considered a Negga! How can these two facts be reconciled? When is hair-loss a Negga of Nettek, and when is it Karachat, or a mere balding? This is the enigma of Karachat.

The first part of the answer to our question is relatively simple. As Raavad (to T.K. Perek 10:5) points out, baldness is considered to be a Negga by itself only if the hair loss was not brought about by some external factor -- e.g., a bruise, a depilatory chemical (or electrolysis), etc. If the baldness *did* occur due to an external stimulus, however, then it is labeled "Karachat." The newly exposed skin is treated as normal, non-hairy skin as far as Tzara'at is concerned.

The Raavad's assumptions about Nettek and Karachat can indeed be corroborated by statements made in T.K. (Parsheta 5:4 and ibid., Perek 10:6). It is hinted at in the Mishnah (Neggaim 10:10) as well. The logic behind this distinction is obvious. If a person loses hair due to a known, external cause, this loss of hair can hardly qualify as a Negga and an expression of the Tzara'at malady. In fact, *all* of the commentators seem to agree to this distinction between Nettek and Karachat.

What, then, is left to be explained? The verse now makes perfect sense -- Karachat (not a Negga) is when an external factor causes one's hair to fall out, while a Nettek (a Negga) is when the hair falls out by itself! The difficulty that remains is that in T.K., Perek 10:6, we are explicitly taught that there is such a thing as a Karachat ("mere, innocuous baldness") in which the loss of hair occurs *without* external intervention, or naturally ("Bi'dei Shamayim")! If the hair fell out naturally, why is it considered a Karachat? Why isn't it classified as a Nettek? There is apparently a further distinction between Nettek and Karachat. What is that distinction?

Among the early commentators we find several solutions to this problem. We will present here three different approaches which may be used to deal with this question.

The Tiferet Yisrael (19th cent. Germany) in his introduction to Neggaim (par. #8) points out a difficulty with the Rash's approach. Is the Kohen a prophet, he asks, that he can determine if the victim's hair loss will some day be reversed? If the baldness occurs naturally, how can it ever be ascertained whether it is temporary or permanent, and hence whether it is a Nettek or a Karachat?

Actually, the Ramban (12th cent. Spain) to Vayikra 13:29, who quotes the Rash's opinion, was bothered by this question several centuries before the Tiferet Yisrael. He avoids the question by pointing out that when the Torah speaks of Karachat it refers to the loss of hair as "Yimmaret." The Ramban relates this word to the word "Memorat" (in Melachim I 7:45), which means "shining or polished." If a person's scalp takes on a shiny veneer, then his hair must have been completely uprooted and will never grow again, the Ramban asserts. If not, than part of the roots of the hairs remain, and they will eventually regrow.

(2) The Raavad (to T.K., Parasha 5:1 and T.K., Beraitta of Rebbi Yishmael, #5) develops another approach. He asserts that Nettek is baldness in the *middle* of the head -- i.e. a bald spot surrounded by a row of hair. Karachat (benign baldness), however, is the baldness formed by a *receding* hairline (at the front or at the rear of the head). As he explains, receding hairlines are quite common and natural, and can by no means be considered an "affliction" or "disorder." Only a bald spot in the *middle* of a head of hair could possibly be considered a Negga. (The Ramban (13:29) quotes this opinion as well, without mentioning the Raavad by name.)

We may suggest textual support for the Raavad's thesis. The Torah makes a point of describing two types of innocuous baldness -- that occurring at the front of the head and that occurring at the back of the head. (The Torah even gives the two distinct names -- frontal baldness is called "Gabbachat" while rear baldness is called "Karachat!") Why should the Torah divide these two occurrences into separate categories? Since when is the head considered to be comprised of two separate halves? According to the Raavad, we can better understand this arrangement. The Torah is informing us that the rules of Karachat (innocuous baldness) can only apply in *two* instances -- when the hairline recedes from the front, and when it recedes from the back. If baldness occurs anywhere else on the head, it is not classified as Karachat, but as Nettek!

It should be noted that this distinction will probably apply to natural baldness only. As we have shown above (section III), the Raavad himself clearly acknowledges another form of Karachat, and that is baldness that is brought about by an *external* stimulus. Logically, there is no justification to limit the latter Karachat to the front or rear hairline. No matter where on the scalp a depilatory chemical is applied, the loss of hair that results cannot be attributed to disease, and will therefore be considered a Karachat and not a Nettek. Thus, we may conclude that according to Raavad there are two ways for baldness to be considered Karachat (innocuous baldness) -- either if it was caused anywhere on the scalp due to external factors, *or* if it occurred naturally due to a receding hairline.

(3) The Rambam, in Hilchot Tzara'at 5:8, offers a third explanation. According to the Rambam, "If all of someone's hair falls out of his head, whether it is due to illness or because of a blow or because he ingested or smeared a substance which causes the hair to fall out, even if the hair is destined to grow back again, *since all of the hair of his head is lost* for the moment, he is known as a "Kere'ach" [= a man with Karachat], or a Gibbe'ach [= a man with Gabbachat]." Apparently, the Rambam is of the opinion that Karachat (innocuous baldness) occurs only in the event of *total* hair loss. If only some of a person's hair falls out, then, it is a Nettek and is considered to be a Negga.

This, at any rate, is how the commentators (such as Tosfot Yom Tov, in Neggaim 10:10) interpret the Rambam's statements. It seems to me, however, that this interpretation is not plausible. (a) If partial hair loss is considered a Negga (i.e. a Nettek), how could total hair loss suddenly become Karachat (innocuous baldness)? Why should total baldness be attributed to the Tzara'at disease any less than a partial baldness? (b) Another objection to this interpretation of the Rambam is that the Rambam himself, in the continuation of that very statement cited above, goes on to say that "if the baldness is in the rear of the head... he is called a Kere'ach, and if it is at the front of the head, he is called a Gibe'ach." (See also ibid. 5:10, "[A Negga] that spreads from a Karachat area to a Gabbachat area is not Tamei....) If Karachat is only applicable to *total* baldness, how can the Rambam speak of frontal *or* rear baldness? (c) Yet another difficulty with this interpretation is that in 8:13, the Rambam says clearly that even if *all* of a person's hair has fallen out it is still considered to be a Nettek! (d) A fourth problem is that conversely, in the Mishnah (Neggaim 10:10) we learn that even if there *is* a row of hair on someone's head, it still may be called Karachat!

Due to these objections, it seems to me that the Rambam's words must be interpreted in a completely different sense. What the Rambam really means to say is that when all the hair *in a given spot on the head* falls out this is a Karachat. This is in contrast to a Nettek, in which some hair may remain behind, according to the Rambam.

[A Nettek may be pronounced as Tzara'at although it still retains some hair. If the hair that remains is either a single black hair or any number of thin gold hairs, it is certainly considered to be a Nettek and causes Tum'ah. According to the Rambam, however, an even more common situation can be found whereby hair may remain in a Nettek. From the words of the Rambam it seems that white hair, or perhaps any hair that is not the natural or original color of the surrounding hair, does not disqualify the bald spot from being considered a Nettek. (See Rambam 8:6-7; see also 8:2, "He is not to 'shave' the Nettek....") Although T.K. Perek 8:6 (quoted by Rashi 13:37) clearly tells us that even red or blond hair must fall out before the area can be classified as a Nettek, the Rambam apparently understood the T.K. to be referring to a situation where such is the natural color of the person's hair. Unnaturally colored hair, however, does not have to fall out in order for the bald spot to be considered a Nettek.]