OPINIONS: The Mishnah (2a) states that there are two Mar'os Nega'im that are actually four. RASHI (2a, DH she'Hen) writes that for each of the two Avos Nega'im (principle forms) there is a Toldah (secondary form).

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that Yehoshua, the son of Rebbi Akiva, asked his father why the Chachamim in the Mishnah enumerate the Mar'os Nega'im in this manner, "two which are four." Rebbi Akiva answered that this wording teaches that any Kohen who is not an expert in the Nega'im and their names is not qualified to examine Nega'im and rule about their status. (The word "Mar'os," "sights," implies that the Kohen who examines Nega'im must recognize their different shades and know their different names.)

The Gemara in Erchin (3a) asks that the Gemara here apparently contradicts the Mishnah in Nega'im (3:1). The Mishnah in Nega'im states, "Everyone is qualified to examine Nega'im." The Gemara in Erchin understands that the Mishnah's intention is to include a Kohen who is not expert in the shades of the Nega'im and their names. This, however, contradicts the Gemara here, which says that any Kohen who is not an expert in the Nega'im and their names is not eligible to examine Nega'im and rule about their status. The Gemara answers that "one refers to a case in which someone explains to him and he understands, and the other refers to a case in which someone explains to him and he does not understand." What does this mean?

(a) TOSFOS in Echin (3a, DH d'Misberi) states that the Kohen must be an expert only when there is no other expert present. Tosfos quotes the Toras Kohanim which says that if an expert in the laws of Nega'im accompanies the unqualified Kohen, even if the expert is a Yisrael and the Kohen is a Shoteh, the expert may examine the Nega and then tell the Kohen, "Say it is impure," and the Kohen says after him, "It is impure."

Tosfos in Erchin explains that the Gemara and Toras Kohanim do not refer to a Kohen who is an actual Shoteh. Rather, they mean that as long as the Kohen merely is not learned, but he can understand, when it is explained to him, that a certain mark is a Nega, he may proclaim it to be a Nega. (The ROSH in the beginning of the third chapter of Nega'im similarly explains that the Kohen is called a "Shoteh" in contrast to the scholarly Yisrael, but he is not an actual Shoteh.)

(b) Tosfos in Erchin and Tosfos here (DH Kol Kohen) give another explanation for the Gemara in Erchin. The Gemara means that if the expert who is a Yisrael can explain to another Yisrael how to determine whether or not this form of Nega is Tamei, and the second Yisrael can communicate this information to the Kohen, the Kohen may proclaim that Nega to be impure even if he is a real Shoteh. Even though the Yisrael who instructs the Kohen is not an expert in the laws of Nega'im, and he was merely shown by an expert how to determine whether this type of Nega is Tamei, he may relate what he knows to the Kohen, who then may proclaim the Nega to be Tamei.

Tosfos here (DH Kol Kohen) questions this explanation. Why should the Gemara refer to a case in which one Yisrael (who is an expert in Nega'im) explains the laws to another Yisrael (who is not an expert), who then explains the laws to the Kohen? Why does the expert not explain the laws directly to the Kohen? Tosfos suggests that the Gemara refers to a case in which the expert cannot see, and therefore he needs to explain it to someone else, who in turn may explain it to the Kohen Shoteh.

(c) When the RAMBAM (Hilchos Tum'as Tzara'as 9:2) records this Halachah, he writes that the Kohen may rely on a Yisrael who is an expert, and he adds, "This applies when he relies on the words of a Chacham. However, if the Kohen sees and relies on his own opinion, he may not examine any Nega until his teacher instructs him and he will be an expert in all of the Nega'im, and their names, of people and houses." The YAD BINYAMIN in Erchin (3a) implies that the Rambam's view seems to be in conflict with the opinion of Tosfos, who says that it is possible that a Kohen may know how to examine just one Nega well and be able to issue a ruling about its status. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that Baheres (Vayikra 13:2) is a deep form of Nega. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Tum'as Tzara'as 1:6) writes that this does not mean that it is deep when one feels it on the skin, but rather that it appears to the eye to be a deep color in the same way as the light of the sun appears deeper than the shade. When one looks at the light of the sun next to a shaded area, the sunny part appears to extend deeper than the shady part, which appears to be on the surface of the ground. This is the meaning of the verse, "Its appearance is deeper than the flesh" (Vayikra 13:3).

The Beraisa continues and says that the Nega of Se'es has a "high" appearance. The Gemara earlier (5b) quotes the Mishnah in Nega'im (1:1) that states that the white of Baheres is as strong as the white of snow. In contrast, the white of Se'es is similar to white wool.

The Rambam writes that no appearance of leprosy on the skin is deemed a Nega Tamei unless it is deeper than the skin. However, if its appearance is "higher" (that is, darker, in the same way that shade is "higher" than sunlight) or equal to the skin, it is not considered a Nega but is merely a growth on the body.

What does the Ramban mean when he writes that if the Nega is higher than the flesh it is pure? Although this may be true of a Baheres, it does not seem to apply to Se'es. The Gemara itself states that Se'es, which is Tamei, appears higher than the skin. (See RA'AVAD.)

ANSWER: The KESEF MISHNEH answers that since the Torah says that Baheres must be deeper than the skin, it follows that Se'es also must be deeper than the skin. When the Gemara states that Se'es is high, it does not mean that it is higher than the skin, but rather that it is higher than Baheres. It still looks deeper than the skin.

This may also be the view of RASHI (5b, DH Sheniyah). Rashi writes that Se'es is close to the whiteness of Baheres, but it is slightly higher than the shade of Baheres because it is not as white as Baheres. These words imply that Se'es is not actually higher than the skin itself; it merely is higher than Baheres. It is still deeper than the skin, as the Kesef Mishneh explains.

This explanation also clarifies Rashi's comment on the verse, "And the appearance of the Nega is deeper than the skin of his flesh" (Vayikra 13:3). Rashi explains, "Every shade of white is deep, in the same way that the sun is deeper than the shade."

The RAMBAN (on the verse there) questions Rashi's words from the Gemara here. Even though Se'es is white, it is a "high" shade. If Se'es is deep, why does the Torah call it high?

The Ramban himself answers for Rashi that perhaps Se'es is called "high" relative to Baheres, because when they are placed next to each other, the Baheres appears to be the color of the sun and the Se'es appears, in comparison, like shade. However, both are deeper than the color of the skin. (D. BLOOM)