Kommentar zu Wajikra 14:43

הִקְצוֹת — The grammatical form expresses the idea of something “having been done” (passive) and so, also, is the word הִטּוֹחַ (both are Niphal construct infinitive), but in חִלֵּץ את האבנים the expression refers to the man who removes them (i. e. it is active, the subject having to be supplied. The translation is: “after he has removed the stones”, whilst the following words denote: after the house has been scraped at its edges and after it has been plastered), it (the word חִלֵּץ) being of the heavy conjugation (Piel), just as כִּפֵּר and דִּבֵּר‎.

AND IF THE PLAGUE RETURN AND BREAK OUT IN THE HOUSE. Now this plague which came in the other stones and in the other mortar [which replaced the original ones], is not identical with the first plague which was there, [but is a different outbreak]. It is thus unlike the “breaking out” of the leprosy mentioned in the case of a person⁸⁴Above, 13:12; 20. and the spreading thereof, which mean that the plague returned to its former natural place, since the pus many times hides under the skin and retreats into the interior of the body, and afterwards it returns and spreads to the skin on its outside. Rather, the matter [of leprosy in a house] is as I have written in Seder Ishah Ki Thazria,⁸⁰Above, 13:47. that it is a plague and Divine intervention implying that the evil spirit from G-d⁸⁵I Samuel 16:16. is in that place. And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁸⁶Torath Kohanim, Metzora 7:1. “And if the plague come again, and break out in the house.⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. This is like saying, ‘That person has returned to his place.’” The meaning of the Sages is to state that the expression ‘u’parach’ (and it break out) mentioned here [in connection with leprosy in a house], does not mean “spreading out” as it does in the verse [dealing with leprosy of a man], And if the leprosy ‘paro’ach tiphrach’ (break out abroad) in the skin,⁸⁸Above, 13:12. but here it denotes a [fresh] outbreak in that place just like the expression, the rod of Aaron ‘parach’ (was budded).⁸⁹Numbers 17:23. The comparison that the Rabbis drew [i.e., that this is like saying, “That person has returned to his place”], is to allude to the matter we have stated, namely, that this is not a plague which comes into existence and spreads out [as in the case of leprosy of man], but is one outbreak after another, just like a man who left his place and then came back to sit in his former place, on a different chair which was prepared for him there. I have already explained⁸⁰Above, 13:47. the meaning of this “breaking out” [of leprosy in a house], as well as of the “breaking out” of leprosy in garments.⁹⁰Above, 13:57.
Now Scripture does not state here, “and if the plague comes back, and breaks out ‘in those stones’” [but instead it says, and breaks out ‘in the house’],⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. for even if it broke out in another place of the house, and even if it was of another color, unlike that of the first plague, it is considered a recurring plague [i.e., one that recurs after removal of the stones, scraping and replastering, which necessitates the demolition of the house], and is not considered a plague appearing for the first time in the house. This is the sense of the expression in the house [and if the plague come again, and break out ‘in the house’],⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. meaning that wherever it recurs in the house, it is governed by that law [which requires the demolition of the house]. The reason for this is that the evil spirit will not depart from that house, but will always be in one of the places in that house, to frighten its owners. So also the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim:⁹¹Torath Kohanim, Metzora 7:1; 3. I know only that [the house is to be demolished] if the plague returns to its former place. Whence do I know to include a return to any place in the house? Scripture therefore says, in the house.⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. I know only that this rule applies if the plague recurs in its original color. Whence do I know that even if it recurs in a different color [it is governed by the same rule]? Scripture therefore says, and it break out⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. [meaning, in its original color or a different one].
Now the meaning of these verses according to the interpretation [of the Torath Kohanim] is as follows. And if the plague come again on the seventh day and returns in the house, after that the stones have been taken out, and after the house hath been scraped, and after it is plastered,⁸⁷Further, Verse 43. or⁹²The expression u’va hakohein of Verse 44, which is generally translated “‘and’ the priest shall come,” Ramban interprets to mean “‘or’ the priest shall come.” See further, Note 95, on the significance of this interpretation. the priest shall come a second time and see, and, behold, that now the plague has recurred⁹³The Hebrew word is pasah, which is generally translated as “spread.” But Ramban has already explained above that in this section dealing with leprosy of a house, the term means “recur” and not “spread.” See Note 95. in the house as it was at first, it is malignant leprosy … and he shall break down the house,⁹⁴Verse 45. the two verses thus explaining that whether the plague recurred at the end of the first week or at the end of the second week, they are governed by one law [which requires the demolition of the house].⁹⁵Ramban thus avoids a great exegetical difficulty which Rashi found in these verses. Principally it is as follows: Verse 44 states: And the priest shall come and see, and, behold, the plague be ‘pasah’ in the house, it is a malignant leprosy; it is unclean. This is followed by Verse 45 which states: And he shall break down the house etc. Now Rashi, who interpreted the word pasah here in Verse 44 in the same way as in leprosy of man, meaning that “it spread out,” found this difficulty: since the Rabbis have said that every plague that recurs in a house after the removal of stones, scraping and replastering, is a sign of impurity, and requires the whole house to be demolished, why then does the verse state here pasah, since the same law applies even if the plague did not spread out? Accordingly Rashi transposed the order of the verses, placing Verse 45 [And he shall break down the house …] after Verse 43 [And if the plague come again …], and Verse 44 [And the priest shall come …] after Verses 46 and 47 [and he that eateth in the house …]. Ramban later remarks that this transposition of the verses is like “cutting the verses with a knife.” Ramban on the other hand explained the verses on these two premises: (a) the term pasah in this section on leprosy of a house, means “recur,” and not “spread.” (b) ‘u’va hakohein’ in Verse 44 does not mean “then the priest shall come,” or “and the priest shall come,” but rather “or the priest shall come.” Thus Verse 43 speaks of the recurrence of the plague at the end of the first week [after the removal of the stones etc.], and Verse 44 speaks of the case when it recurred at the end of the second week. In each of these cases the law is as stated in Verse 45: And he shall break down the house … Thus according to Ramban all the verses are in order. The text of Ramban which follows sets forth this exposition in more detail. Scripture did not need to say [in Verse 44] “and the priest shall come and see, if the plague be ‘pasah’ (have recurred) in the house — he shall then command that they take out the stones” etc., [as Rashi would have it],⁹⁶Since Rashi explained the word pasah as “spreading,” he was also forced — besides transposing Verse 44 [And the priest shall come and see …] to follow after Verse 47 as mentioned above — to explain that if at the end of the second week after the house was shut up, the priest found that the plague has spread then Verse 40 (!) reapplies: then the priest shall command that they take out the stones … and he gives it another week. If it returns, he demolishes the house, and if it does not return, it is pure. [[illegible]] It is this re-introduction of Verse 40 here in the order of the verses that Ramban finds unnecessary, as explained in the text. for this verse [and the priest shall come …] is connected with the verse [43] immediately preceding it, stating, if the plague come again … after that the stones have been taken out at the end of the first week or the second week, when the priest comes, and he sees its recurrence, it is a malignant leprosy. Then Scripture further states, And if the priest shall come in,⁹⁷Verse 48. that is, at the end of the second week mentioned above [in Verse 44], and see it, and, behold, the plague hath not recurred⁹⁸Here too (in Verse 48) the word is pasah, which Rashi would explain as “spread” or “extended” [and it is so rendered in most translations], but Ramban explains it as meaning “recur.” in the house, after that the house was plastered; then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, since it is healed of the plague, that is to say, it did not recur. Thus we now derive the principle that if a plague remained as it was during the first week and the second week, he removes the stones, scrapes away and replasters, and gives it another week, and if the plague returns, he demolishes the house. This is the correct interpretation of the verses in accordance with the [Rabbinical] interpretation thereof, for it is impossible to cut them, so to say, with a knife⁹⁹Reference is to Rashi’s exposition of the verses. See above, Note 95. placing later verses first and earlier verses later, in a manner which is not all their meaning.
It is further possible that we say as a correct interpretation of the verses on this subject, that the term pasah in this section [which deals with leprosy in a house], is like parach, both of them being an expression of “sprouting.” Where a plague exists already, the term pasah denotes its growth and extension, and where there is no plague, it means its [original] sprouting and [subsequent] recurrence, since it is all a matter of growth. Onkelos also has rendered all [expressions of pasah] as oseiph (adding), and the term tosepheth (addition) is used of a growing thing which is added to another, such as in the expressions: ‘v’nosaph gam hu’ (they be added also) to our enemies;¹⁰⁰Exodus 1:10. ‘v’nosphah nachalathan’ (then will their inheritance be added),¹⁰¹Numbers 36:4. and it may also be used of a matter which “returns,” such as: the Eternal ‘yosiph’ (will set again) His hand;¹⁰²Isaiah 11:11. and they prophesied ‘v’lo yasaphu’ (but they did so no more),¹⁰³Numbers 11:25. meaning that [Eldad and Meidad] did not prophesy any more. Thus the meaning of the term pasah is that the plague “returned.” Now after the removing of the stones, [scraping and replastering], when Scripture speaks of pisayon [as it does in Verse 44 and 48], the meaning thereof is “sprouting,” as I have mentioned in connection with the term prichah.¹⁰⁴In the beginning of this verse, in the text before Note 88. If so, Scripture is stating: and if the plague came again and ‘sprouted’ in the house, after that the stones have been taken out … and the priest shall come and see, and, behold the plague has ‘sprouted’ in the house … then he shall break down the house,¹⁰⁵Verses 43-45. for every plague that returns is a sign of confirmed impurity. And if the priest shall come in, and see that the plague has not ‘sprouted’ at all in the house, after the house was plastered, he shall pronounce it pure, because the plague has been healed by the removal of the stones, [scraping] and replastering.
Thus the law of a house wherein the plague recurs at the end of the first week has been explained here, that he removes the stones, scrapes and replasters, and gives it another week. If the plague returns the house is impure [and is to be demolished], and if it does not return it is pure. But where it remained at the end of the first week as it was [when he first saw it], and it recurred at the end of the second week, the law thereof was not explained in the Torah, but we derive it by means of a gzeirah shavah¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. as follows: [the expression, and behold if the plague recur is found both in Verse 44: and the priest shall come, and in Verse 39: and the priest shall return, thus establishing that] “coming [in Verse 44] and returning [in Verse 39] are identical in regard to their law,” meaning that the law of “coming” which is stated at the end of the second week, is like the law of “returning” stated at the end of the first week, i.e., that in both cases if the plague recurred, he removes the stones, scrapes and replasters and gives it another week.¹⁰⁷This is clearly stated in Verse 40 with regard to the end of the first week. The above analogy establishes that the same law applies to the end of the second week, although it is not clearly specified. Similarly, if the plague remained as it was [at the end of] the first and second weeks, and recurred [at the end of] the third week, the law thereof is not mentioned in the Torah, but it is derived by means of another gzeirah shavah:¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. ‘v’im bo yavo hakohein’ (and if the priest shall come in),¹⁰⁸Verse 48. thus establishing that the priest’s third coming is identical in law to his coming the second time.¹⁰⁹The root bo (coming) together with the verb yavo (he will come) suggest two “comings” — thus making the priest’s coming into the house to examine the status of the plague at the end of the third week, comparable in its law to that of his second visit, as explained in the text. Thus the verses are explained in line with their simple meaning, while the [Rabbinical] interpretations were derived by a gzeirah shavah¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. taught to Moses on Sinai. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim:¹¹⁰Torath Kohanim, Metzora 7:7. “What does Scripture refer to? etc.” [from which you might think that these interpretations were originally established by the Rabbis, and not based on the gzeirah shavah taught to Moses on Sinai], is merely a Rabbinical support, since they wanted to find a basis in the Scriptural text for that principle which they had received by tradition established by the gzeirah shavah.¹⁰⁶Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy. Similarly, what the Rabbis said there:¹¹¹Ibid., 6. “If we are eventually to include a plague which recurred, even though it did not extend [in the law requiring the removal of the stones etc.], why then does Scripture say, And the priest shall come and see, and behold, if the plague be ‘pasah’ (extended)?¹¹²Verse 44. See also above, Note 98. Leave it.”¹¹³I.e., “This is not the proper place of the verse, since that verse speaks of the case of a plague that remained as it was during the first week, to which the priest has therefore given a second week to be shut up, and at the end of the second week he comes and sees that it has spread.” See above, Note 96, that Rashi transposed Verse 44 and read it after Verse 47. This is all predicated upon the interpretation of the term pasah as meaning “spreading” or “extending.” The phrase in the Torath Kohanim hanach lo (“Leave it”) is therefore interpreted as explained above [on the basis of the Rabad’s commentary there, which follows Rashi’s interpretation]. Ramban who has explained the term differently, as explained above in the text, is therefore bound to give a different interpretation of the expression in the Torath Kohanim, which now follows in the text: “That is to say, that we are to leave etc.” That is to say, we are to leave here the plain meaning of the verse and follow the interpretation, but not that we are to uproot the verse from its place and explain it as referring to another place. This is what appears to me to be correct in the meaning of this Scriptural section, so that the words of the Sages be upheld, and it is a fitting and appealing interpretation.

ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח בבית, “and if the affliction returns and erupts in the house, etc.” According to Nachmanides the affliction the Torah speaks of here does not again show up on the same stones as previously, but the same kind of affliction now appears on other stones and other earthen parts of the same house. This is different from when skin afflictions either shrunk or expanded on an afflicted person. On those occasions the Torah described changes occurring in the original symptom of the affliction. In matters of skin irregularities it is not unusual for symptoms to temporarily subside, only to resurface even more pronouncedly at a later stage of the disease. The disease not only had not disappeared, but, by penetrating more deeply into the body below the skin it had taken a firmer hold on the afflicted person. This is why the Torah here does not write: ואם ישוב הנגע ופרח באבנים ההם, “and if the affliction resurfaces and spreads out on these stones, etc,” but it writes in such a way that we understand that even if now the affliction surfaces in a part of the house that had not been afflicted at first, etc. The word בבית means that the entire house is viewed as having been potentially at risk as soon as any part of it had shown symptoms of being afflicted with this tzoraat. The reason for all this, the need to totally tear down the house, is that the רוח הרעה, the harmful atmosphere that had been responsible for the affliction first erupting, will not disappear until all the stones, etc., have been completely removed. Otherwise, there will always remain the risk that the reconstructed house would suddenly erupt with the same symptoms as had led to the partial destruction of the original house. The Midrash explains how one can understand all the verses without having recourse to the principle that the Torah is not bound to write everything sequentially, in chronological order.

An expression of something having been done. Meaning: This is the passive conjugation (נפעל), and so too הטוח, because the ה has a חיריק it is an expression התפעל (reflexive), i.e., the house was scraped within the border of the eruption, “but [the phrase] חלץ את האבנים כו'...”

The verse refers to the reappearance of the plague after seven days have elapsed since the symptoms and the afflicted stones have been removed. Our author states that he copied Rashi’s entire commentary on this verse, in order to enable the reader to fully understand it.“after having been scraped off;” this is inferred from the similarity of the verb: “if the plague recurs,” אם ישוב הנגע ופרח. I might have thought that if the plague recurs immediately after having been scraped off, the house would be declared as ritually contaminated with all the consequences thereof. The Torah wrote: “the priest returns, etc.;” in order to make plain that this occurs only after an interval of seven days, just as in the case of a priest reexamining the symptoms of a plague on the skin of a person so afflicted. (13,32). Moreover, unless in the interval the area afflicted with these symptoms had expanded, the house will not be declared as ritually contaminated. (verse 44) We find the expression צרעת ממארת, “a malignant tzoraat,” In connection with houses as well as in connection with tzoraat on clothing; (13,52) here too the reappearance of the symptoms of the plague that had been removed is sufficient for the house to be declared as having been ritually contaminated, even if the area of the contamination had not become larger. Actually, this is not the place where we would have expected to read this verse. What are we to learn from the words (verse 44) “the area covered by the symptoms of the plague has expanded,” seeing that the verdict of the priest will be no different? That verse should have been written before verse 43, and then the next verse would have taught us that even if the area had not increased the priest would still order the tearing down of the house. We must therefore assume that verse 44 speaks of the priest having come for another inspection at the end of the second week. The proper place for our verse actually is after verse 47, where we are taught that people who had used that house to dwell in and go about their normal activities have to retroactively treat what they wear, their food supplies, their furniture, etc. as having been contaminated since the departure of the priest the previous time.[I am taking the liberty to abbreviate here and draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the Torah had warned the inhabitants of that house to empty it out before his return (verse 36). The inhabitants have now incurred additional financial loss because they had ignored the priest’s warning. If until the next visit of the priest the symptoms of the plague had not come back after they had been scraped of and new plaster had been applied to that area, the priest will declare it as ritually pure, and will take two birds, etc., on behalf of the owner and slaughter one of them, etc. and release the second one into the air, as described in verse 4953. Ed.] Rashi’s principal contribution here is that the expressions used by the Torah for the priest’s visit to the house, once described as ביאה, “coming,” and once as שבה, “returning,” are not chosen randomly, but are to draw our attention to the results of each visit by the priest, depending on the choice of words used by the Torah to describe them, being basically similar.

‎ ישוב מגע ‎ואם‎ AND IF THE PLAGUE RETURN [AND BREAK OUT IN THE HOUSE] — One might think that this means: if it returns on the self-same day it shall be unclean as it stated in v. 44. It, however, says, (v. 39) ושב הכהן “when the priest returns [on the seventh day]”, and here, also, it says, ואם ישוב, “and if it (the plague) return”. What is the case of “return” mentioned there? It is at the end of a week! Similarly, too, “return” mentioned here means at the end of a week (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 6).

Intense conjugation. I.e., it is one of the stressed letters, therefore it is vowelized with a חירי"ק, as in dibbeir (he spoke), kippeir (he atoned).