Comentário sobre Levítico 14:46

כל ימי הסגיר אתו [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] ALL THE DAYS THAT IT IS SHUT UP [SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING] — "the days that it is shut up", but not during the days in which he had scraped the plague-spot (for through the scraping the uncleanness has, at least for the time being, departed, and the house is only closed again for investigation). I might think that I may also exclude from this law the house that is decidedly unclean through a recurring plague and which must be demolished from which one has scraped the plague-spot (but which has not yet been demolished, for we might assume that for the time being the uncleanness is departed)! It, however, states, "all the days" (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 4).

והבא אל הבית, “anyone who comes to the house, etc.,” a house which has been sealed provisionally does not confer impurity on everyone who enters it. This is why the Torah uses the expression הבא אליו“who enters,” i.e. if the person enters through the regular doorway. If such a person remains inside long enough to eat half a loaf of bread he and his clothing and any other items he carries or wears are defiled through his stay. If his stay is of shorter duration only his person becomes impure as a result of his entering.

[But] not the days in which he scraped. Meaning: All the days of confinement perforce the impurity is there, and therefore a person who enters is impure. However, the days [after] he removes the stones, scrapes, and plasters do not cause impurity to a person who enters since the impurity is gone, until he begins to count the weeks of confinement. This raises a difficulty: Why would you think that a [house that has been] declared [unclean] would be lenient, and a person who enters it would not become impure? [A house that has been] declared [unclean] is more severe than a confined [house], as it says in Toras Kohanim and the Mishnah (Negaim, 13:4): “A confined house causes impurity from the inside and a declared [unclean house causes impurity] from the inside and from the outside”! It appears to me the answer is: Only when the stones upon which the eruption returned are in the wall does it cause impurity, even from the outside. However, if he scraped the stones even though the house stands to be dismantled [I might think] it will not cause impurity to a person who enters during the intermediate days. Therefore, it lets us know: “Any of the days...” (Nachalas Yaakov).

כל ימי הסגיר אותו, during all the days that he had sealed it; according to Rashi, we have to understand the word: ימי, as excluding the days when the owner had scraped off the symptoms. Those days actually overlapped after the priest had sealed the house. [There is disagreement among the commentators as to what happens to people who enter the sealed house between the inspections. Some commentators feel that third parties who did not own nor live in that house would not be penalised by becoming ritually impure, i.e. that all the yardsticks applied are subjective; others feel that entering such a house, seeing it was sealed make such persons ritually impure even if eventually the house was declared as ritually pure by the priest.[According to at least one opinion in the Talmud, (Sanhedrin 71) it never got to the point when such a house had to be torn down. In light of this, this editor has decided not to pursue the subject further, seeing that our author does not offer an opinion of his own but only quotes commentators. Ed.]

יטמא עד הערב [AND HE THAT COMES INTO THE HOUSE] SHALL BE UNCLEAN UNTIL THE EVENING — This tells us that merely going into the house does not render his garments unclean (since it does not state, as in the next verse, that he shall wash his garments) (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 5). I might think that his garments do not become unclean even if, after coming into the house, he remained there long enough to eat a half-loaf (an ordinary meal, equal in mass to 4 eggs)! It, however, states, (v. 47) "And he that eateth in the house shall wash his garments", for we may reason as follows: I have here only the law regarding one who actually eats. Whence may I derive that this applies also to one who sleeps in the house? Because Scripture states "and he who sleeps [shall wash his garments]". Now I have only the law regarding one who eats and regarding one who sleeps in the house; whence may I derive that the same law applies to one who neither eats nor sleeps (but merely stays in the house)? Because it states ‎יכבס יכבס (twice) in v. 47 where it could have written: והשכב והאכל בבית יכבס את בגדיו, and such wording would imply that only those who actually sleep and eat in the house must wash their garments. By the insertion of the first יכבס we have two coordinated sentences of similar import and this suggests that sleeping and eating are merely examples of cases where garments would require washing. Thus the use of the first יכבס serves to include besides one who sleeps and one who eats in the house anyone who stays there. If this be so (i. e. if it means that the garments of anyone who stays in the house become unclean) why does it expressly mention one who eats and one who sleeps? Let it merely state: one who stays in the house shall wash his garments, when these also would be included! But this is done in order to designate for him who sleeps in the house (i. e. who does anything in the house beyond entering and immediately leaving it, as is mentioned in v. 46) a minimum period of time the stay during which renders his garments unclean, viz., a time long enough to eat a half-loaf (cf. Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 5 7-8).

Declared [unclean] which had been scraped. This is a house in which the eruption sprouted after he removed the stones, scraped, and plastered. The eruption returned and sprouted, and its eruption was scraped and the stones with the eruption were taken out. [I might think] that someone who enters will not become impure, [therefore,] the verse says, “any of the days.” Scripture should have written: “In the days of its confinement,” why does it say, “any”? This is to include [a house that has been] declared [unclean], even though it has had its eruption scraped, it causes impurity. Since it is standing to be dismantled, the entire house is impure and it causes impurity to a person upon entering.

What is clear from verses 46-48 is that merely entering that house during the period it is sealed, results in a very brief state of ritual impurity not even requiring immersion in a ritual bath, but requiring only sunset, whereas sleeping in that house requires a more elaborate ritual before such a person becomes ritually pure again, i.e. immersion in a ritual bath of both his body and the clothes he wore.

That it does not cause impurity to clothes. Otherwise, Scripture should have written, “and he shall wash his garments and he shall be impure until the evening.”

As that in which one might eat half a loaf. Meaning: The volume of four eggs. [You would assume that it does not] cause impurity to clothes because Scripture writes without specifying: “Whoever will come inside the house... shall be impure until the evening,” which implies even if he stays there the entire day it does not cause impurity to clothes. Rashi continues explaining: “The verse says: ‘Whoever will eat... ’” I.e., just as whoever will eat stays there and his clothes become impure, the same applies to what Scripture writes: “Whoever will come inside the house” as well — if he stays [the period of time] in which one might eat half a loaf, it will cause impurity to clothes although he does not eat. This is because we cannot say only eating [causes impurity to clothes], but one who lies down, in which only staying is applicable, does not [cause impurity to clothes], since the verse says: “Whoever will lie down.” This teaches that the reason that “whoever will eat” [causes impurity to clothes] is not because of eating. Rather, it is because he stays, and the same applies to coming inside as well — if he stays [the period of time] in which one might eat [half a loaf] it causes impurity. We cannot say that the verse means only eating or lying down [causes impurity to clothes], but if he did not lie down or eat, for instance, he only came inside, even though he stays [the period of time in which one might eat half a loaf] it does not cause impurity to clothes. [Because] if so, why does the verse say: “he must wash...he must wash” two times. Scripture should have written: “Whoever will lie down inside the house or whoever will eat inside the house shall wash his garments.” Rather, perforce, it includes a person who comes inside and stays although he does not eat or lie down, but [only] stays, causes impurity to clothes. Then, Rashi continues and asks: If so, that the matter depends on staying, why does it say, “whoever will lie down”? It is fine [that it says] “Whoever will eat”, [because] it is needed to give the minimal amount of staying — as the minimal amount of eating. [But why is “whoever will lie down” needed?] If it is because of the extra phrase “he must wash,” which includes even someone who only stays without eating or lying down, then Scripture should write “whoever will come inside” in place of “whoever will lie down,” since coming inside is included in lying down. Why does the verse say, “whoever will eat” and “whoever will lie down”? Rather, it is to teach that a minimal amount of time is necessary for one who lies down. Rashi explains this verse (46) after (v. 48): “If the kohein shall come,” which is out of order, in order to juxtapose “If the kohein shall come” with (v. 44): “The kohein shall come and see,” because both are of one matter. Re’m dwelt at length but I made it short. Many raise the difficulty: Why is this different than a prohibition of eating, where the Torah prohibits an olive’s bulk? Why here is it the volume of four eggs? It appears to me that there is no difficulty at all: In all the other places Scripture does not intend to give the minimum amount, rather, it mentions the prohibition alone. However, we have established from a halachah of Moshe from Sinai [that the minimum amount is] an olive’s bulk. This is not the case here, where it intends to let us know the minimum amount. If it means to say as all the minimum measurements of all prohibitions — there is a prohibition in eating any amount at all, for example: something that is a living creature. Rather, it is referring to something that is the amount of a meal, which is the volume of four eggs (Divrei Dovid).