Comentario sobre Levítico 14:36
וְצִוָּ֨ה הַכֹּהֵ֜ן וּפִנּ֣וּ אֶת־הַבַּ֗יִת בְּטֶ֨רֶם יָבֹ֤א הַכֹּהֵן֙ לִרְא֣וֹת אֶת־הַנֶּ֔גַע וְלֹ֥א יִטְמָ֖א כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר בַּבָּ֑יִת וְאַ֥חַר כֵּ֛ן יָבֹ֥א הַכֹּהֵ֖ן לִרְא֥וֹת אֶת־הַבָּֽיִת׃
Entonces mandará el sacerdote, y despejarán la casa antes que el sacerdote entre á mirar la plaga, por que no sea contaminado todo lo que estuviere en la casa: y después el sacerdote entrará á reconocer la casa:
Rashi on Leviticus
'בטרם יבא הכהן וגו [THEY SHALL CLEAR THE HOUSE] BEFORE THE PRIEST COME etc. — For so long as the priest has not yet engaged himself with it no law of uncleanness is applicable there.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sforno on Leviticus
ופנו את הבית בטרם יבא, they can clear out the house before the priest’s arrival. In fact, that priest is warned not to arrive until all valuables have been cleared out of the house. During the time that this takes place the owners will be able to do teshuvah and pray and synchronise their prayer with that of the priest when he arrives. Simultaneous to this the priest will announce the period of isolation. In Vayikra Rabbah 17,7 we are told that our paragraph is an allusion to the eventual destruction of the first Temple, its rebuilding, as well as the destruction of the second Temple. The word וטהרו in our verse alludes to the ultimate rebuilding of the third Temple, this one not to be destroyed again.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Or HaChaim on Leviticus
בטרם יבא הכהן, before the priest arrives. The reason the Torah had to write the word הכהן "the priest" again is, that otherwise I could have thought that the priest can issue directives before he arrives at the scene. According to that, the priest would not have had to delay himself until the people had cleared the house in question of all its contents. By writing the word הכהן, the Torah made it plain that the word בטרם is not linked to the mention of the priest as the one who issues the directive but is connected with the words ופנו "and they shall clear out."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rabbeinu Bahya
וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית, “and the priest will issue instructions and they will clear out the house, etc.” The Torah is protective about the Israelites’ possessions, even for such inexpensive vessels as the ones made of earthenware. The vessels mentioned in our verse are such as the Torah speaks about protecting against becoming impure. Vessels of other materials can be purified by means of immersion in a ritual bath, the earhenware vessels cannot. If there is food and drink left over, the person may consume them during the days when he is ritually impure, so that he would not suffer an irreparable loss. It is clear therefore that what the Torah is concerned with here are only earthenware vessels.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
And sees. I.e., immediately when the kohein sees the eruption everything in the house becomes impure, even if he does not tarry in the house the time it takes to eat a half a loaf [of bread]. Otherwise, what is Rashi coming to let us know? It is something that is obvious even to schoolchildren!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rashi on Leviticus
ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית THAT ALL THAT IS IN THE HOUSE BE NOT MADE UNCLEAN, for if he does not clear it out and the priest comes and examines the plague, it requires shutting up and all that is inside immediately becomes unclean. To what is it that the Torah has regard in ordering these precautions to be taken? If it had in mind wooden or metal vessels that need only be rinsed in order to restore them to cleanness, he can immerse them and they will become clean (and there is no need to remove them from the house for fear that they will become unclean if he does not do so), and if it has in mind food and liquids, he can eat them during the time of his uncleanness (in which case also he suffers no loss since he may consume them at a time when he himself happens to be unclean). Consequently it follows that the Torah must have regard only to earthen vessels for which there is no means of purification by immersion in a ritual bath (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 11:35) and which therefore will remain unusable except in connection with ordinary food (חולין) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 12).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
And with what was [the Torah] concerned. This raises a difficulty: How does Rashi know that the Torah was concerned with earthenware vessels? Perhaps it is for silk garments or other things that if he were to immerse them [in a mikveh] they would be ruined. The answer is: All the important [i.e., expensive] vessels are derived from what is written: “And they shall empty the house,” which is because of impurity. And if it comes to specify the reason explicitly it should [just] say: “so that which is in the house shall not become impure.” Why does it say, “everything”? Rather, this is to say he should empty the house even of objects that are not important [i.e., objects that are not expensive such as earthenware] (Kitzur Mizrachi in name of Paneach Raza).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Or HaChaim on Leviticus
כל אשר בבית, everything that is within the house. The meaning is that none of the items that have been removed prior to the arrival of the priest will be affected by the declaration that the house and all its contents have become ritually impure. The reason is that G'd is concerned with the belongings of even the person for whom He expressed some disdain. We must ask ourselves that seeing this is so why did all these items have to be removed prior to the priest's arrival when the impurity decreed on these items does not become effective until after the priest's departure (compare verse 38)? The Torah wrote ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית, "in order that all that is in the house not become defiled," to teach us that once the priest has observed the symptoms on the walls of the house as being those of a נגע, he may not delay pronouncing the house and its contents as ritually unclean any longer. If the people in the house had waited until the last possible moment with removing all mobile objects they would most likely have forgotten some in their haste. It is better therefore that they should do so as soon as they became aware that the priest was on his way.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Siftei Chakhamim
With earthenware vessels. You might ask: Let us say that he should use them when he is impure, as we say regarding impure food, of which he eats when he is impure. The answer is: Food is different because it is eaten over a minimal period of time and we are not concerned about a stumbling block [i.e., he will eat when it is prohibited for him to do so]. However, regarding a vessel, which lasts a long time, we are concerned perhaps it will come to be a stumbling block — that he will use it on the days he is pure or it will come in contact with terumoh or sacrifices (Devek Tov).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Or HaChaim on Leviticus
We are taught in Keylim 12,5 that G'd's concern is only for earthenware vessels seeing all the other vessels are subject to purification rites except earthenware jars, etc. According to our explanation G'd is concerned even about very small and inexpensive earthenware vessels.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy