레위기 13:52의 주석

בצמר ובפשתים means OF WOOL OR OF FLAX. This is the plain meaning. And the Midrashic explanation is: One might think that he must bring fleeces of wool or stalks of flax and burn them together with it, (the garment, in order to make a flame in which to burn it; then the verse will mean: he shall burn the garment with wool etc.) Scripture, however, states, in this verse, היא באש תשרף “it (the garment) shall be burnt in fire” — no other thing being required with it. If this be so why does it state בצמר או בפשתים? To exclude from being burnt the אומריות, the hems, that are on it if these are made of a different material than wool or flax respectively. The word אומריות means a hem; it is the same as the better-known word אימרא. (The translation is therefore: he shall burn [apply fire to] the garment etc., on the woolen parts only) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 1).

FOR IT IS A LEPROSY THAT IS ‘MAM’ERETH’ (FRETTING). “Mam’ereth is an expression of ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier).¹⁴⁹Ezekiel 28:24. The Midrashic interpretation is:¹⁵⁰Torath Kohanim, Negaim 14:11. attach a me’eirah (curse) to it — so that you will have no benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos translated: “a leprosy that is mechasra (pricking).” This interpretation he also derived from ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier),¹⁴⁹Ezekiel 28:24. for in Aramaic any shrub which causes a pricking pain is called chisra. Thus: “k’chizra (as a thorn) in a ball of wool;”¹⁵¹Berachoth 8a. “take thy good-natured advice and throw it over achizri (the hedge).”¹⁵²Baba Kama 83a. And the truth of the matter is that mam’ereth is indeed an expression of curse, that it is to say, it is G-d’s curse upon the garment and house, as I have mentioned.¹⁵³Above, Verse 47. But the Midrash which states that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it [a leprous garment] is based [not on the word mam’ereth as Rashi had it, but] on the redundancy of expression.¹⁵⁴The expression tzara’ath mam’ereth appears in Verses 51 and 52 in the same connection. Since one is redundant, it serves as the basis for the Midrashic interpretation mentioned. The same law applies to a leprous house, and it is derived from the verse, And he shall break down the house.¹⁵⁵Further, 14:45.
Thus also I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi of Tractate Orlah:¹⁵⁶Yerushalmi, Orlah III, 3. “If stones were removed from a house affected with leprosy and made into plaster, some Rabbis taught that they become free of their impurity, and some taught that they do not become free of their impurity. Those who said that they become free, are also of the opinion that they may now be used [for some benefit], and those who say that they do not become free are also of the opinion that they are still forbidden [to be made use of], for it is written: it is a leprosy that is ‘mam’ereth’, meaning, attach a curse to it and derive no benefit from it. Rabbi Abohu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: All things which must be burnt, one may derive benefit from their ashes, except for the ashes of an idol. Rabbi Chiya the son of Yosei asked Rabbi Yochanan: ‘There is the case of the ashes of a house [affected with leprosy], which is not related to idolatry, and yet you say that the ashes thereof are forbidden for any use [like the stones which have been turned into lime or plaster]! Said Rabbi Yochanan to him: ‘This is different,’ since [concerning a house affected with leprosy] it is written that it be ‘broken down.’”¹⁵⁷And since in the case of the idols it is also written, and ye shall ‘break down’ their altars (Deuteronomy 12:3), we derive from a similarity of phrases the law that just as it is forbidden to have any benefit from idols, so we are under the same stricture of making any use from the stones of a house which had been affected with leprosy (P’nei Moshe, ibid.).
Metzora

צרעת ממארת, similar to Ezekiel 28,24 סילון ממאיר וקרץ מכאיב, “prickling briers and lacerating painful thorns.” We also have a similar phenomenon described in Deuteronomy 28,20 המארה והמהומה, “curse and confusion.”

צרעת ממארת היא, ”it is a malignant tzorat.” The symptom is of a malignant nature that will eventually envelop the entire garment. This is why the whole garment has to be burned forthwith.

“The fabric under discussion or the garment made from this fabric which has been contaminated has to be burned.” According to Nachmanides the repeated use of the words בגד, שתי, ערב, עור are all reminders of the miraculous connection between the afflicted person’s sins and the state of health of his garments or basic utensils. G’d, as it were, reminds him gently to mend his ways so that He would not have to take stronger action. [Needless to add that the premise is that as a rule Israeli society observed all of G’d’s commandments and only a very few individuals experienced such afflictions to their clothing. In a corrupt society these afflictions would become so commonplace as to lose their educational value. Ed.]

Of wool. Not that the ב is instead of של (of), but rather instead of a מ (from), as in (8:32): “והנותר בבשר ובלחם (and the left over from the flesh and bread).”

צרעת ממארת היא, “it is a malignant skin disease;” the afflicted person, when he feels burning of the skin will feel tempted to peel off the affected part of the skin, and as a result it would come back on an even bigger area of his skin.

To exclude. And the ב is in its plain meaning, connected with the phrase, “he shall burn.”