פרשת מצורע תשי"א - נגעי בתים

והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, when it is quite clear that this is not the kind of stain familiar to science and responsive to removing by chemical detergents. Discolouration of a garment in colours other than the ones that are work related due to the vocation of the wearer, are usually caused deliberately by the owner. What occurred here is due to some sin the owner was guilty of.
At any rate, our tradition has taught that the only discolouration of garments or cloths that are considered from a halachic point of view are garments which themselves are white and not coloured. Any coloured garment is not subject to this legislation at all, is not within the parameter of what is called נגע צרעת. The phenomenon of white garments or exterior walls of houses which are normally whitewashed breaking out in different colours is by itself a warning to the owner to examine his lifestyle and what he might have done wrong to rate such a warning.
Our sages in Kidushin 20 tell about how seriously a violation of a rule which is only peripheral to the Sh’mittah legislation is viewed. [the basic rules of sh’mittah relate to working the soil during that year. What I described here as “peripheral,” i.e. in Talmudic parlance as אבקה של שמטה, is the dealing in produce grown in violation of the sh’mittah laws. Ed.] The Talmud explains that violating the “peripheral” aspects of that legislation my result in the guilty party becoming impoverished. The process is gradual so that the guilty party had ample opportunity to ask himself why G’d had singled him out for this kind of punishment.
The same is true of the נגע צרעת legislation. Proof of the fact that this affliction is due to a well meaning Creator, One Who is concerned with the welfare of His Jewish subjects, is the fact that if the symptoms we know as נגע צרעת surface on the garments of gentile or houses of gentiles, these are not declared as ritually impure. Seeing that the gentiles as a rule do not have life in the hereafter to look forward to, G’d is not at such pains to warn them not to risk losing something they doe not to look forward to in any event. When a Jew is in danger of losing his claim to eternal life this is a far more serious matter, and G’d goes out of His way to afford the person potentially endangering his claim to eternal life an opportunity to repent and change his lifestyle before it is too late. In referring to this concept, Solomon in Proverbs 10,25 describes the צדיק, the Just, as the foundation of the universe. The whole idea of man having been created in G’d’s image, and G’d’s desire for man to become as much like Him as it is possible for a creature to become, lies at the source of this concern by G’d not to let man waste his opportunity to live up to his destiny.
Once man becomes aware of G’d’s concern for him he will have little difficulty in making his own will correspond to the revealed will of His Maker. He will begin to realise that by “listening” to the urgings of his body-dominated desires he risks losing his eternal life and the death of his body would also signal the death of his life force נפש, just as that of all the animals. >br> Even though we see many people defy G’d in their lifestyles, we can be sure in the words of G’d in Exodus 23,7 כי לא אצדיק רשע, “that I will not allow the wicked to appear as if he were a just person for ever.” [the author, in continuing this sermon, describes all the gentiles and most of the Jews of his time, as so oblivious to all this that they may be compared as existing in a permanent state of spiritual coma. Ed.] Nonetheless, if G’d chose the Jewish people as His special people it is because He entertains the fond hope that out of this nation there will emerge a nucleus of people who are aware of their destiny. When the Jewish people are predominantly in the state of spiritual coma the author just described, the symptoms described in our portion will not appear as it would be a waste of time to hope that the people thus afflicted would see in these symptoms a message from their G’d.

כנגע נראה לי בבית SOMETHING LIKE A PLAGUE HATH SHOWN ITSELF TO ME IN THE HOUSE — Even if he (the owner of the house) be a learned man and knows for sure that it is a plague he shall not decide the matter as a certainty saying, "a plague hath shown itself to me" but, “something like a plague hath shown itself to me" (Mishnah Negaim 12:5; Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 10).

כנגע נראה לי בבית SOMETHING LIKE A PLAGUE HATH SHOWN ITSELF TO ME IN THE HOUSE — Even if he (the owner of the house) be a learned man and knows for sure that it is a plague he shall not decide the matter as a certainty saying, "a plague hath shown itself to me" but, “something like a plague hath shown itself to me" (Mishnah Negaim 12:5; Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 10).

...On account of proper behavior, such that a man should not say even about something that is clear to him, "[It is] certain," but rather, "[There is] a doubt." And this is what the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Berakhot 4a), "Teach your tongue to say, "I don't know.'"

And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house.

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 orderiny 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).

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.

And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.

ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה THEN THE PRIEST SHALL COME AND LOOK, AND, BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE HATH SPREAD … [IT IS UNCLEAN] — From this one might think that a recurring plague is unclean (i. e. renders the whole house unclean) only if it spreads. But the phrase צרעת ממארת. “a fretting leprosy”, is mentioned in connection with houses and the phrase. צרעת ממארת is mentioned in connection with garments (Leviticus 13:51), thus making that plague analogous to this: What is the case there? Scripture declares the recurring plague unclean although it has not spread (Leviticus 13:55)! Similarly, here, it declares the recurring plague unclean even though it has not spread. But if this be so, why does it state here “and, behold. [the plague] hath spread"? As a matter of fact this is not the proper place of the verse), and the statement “he shall pull down the house” (v. 45) it ought to have written immediately after (v. 43), “and if the plague return”). The words in v. 44, “he shall look, and, behold, if the plague hath spread”, consequently only intend to tell us something about a plague which has remained in the same condition during the first week, and to which he (the priest) comes at the end of the second week and finds that it has spread, for Scripture has not explained anything at all about the case where the plague remains in the same condition during the first week. (It speaks in v. 39 only of when the plague has spread during the first week.) It tells us here (in the section which speaks about what happens a week after the house has been scraped etc., i. e. after the end of the second week) the law regarding it by mention of this spreading (i. e. by the words וראה והנה פשה) which can only speak of the case that it remained in the same condition during the first week, and has spread during the second week. Now what shall he do with it? One might think that he must demolish it, even as it states immediately after it, (v. 45) “He shall break down the house”. It, however, states, (v. 39) “if the priest returneth” at the end of the week and finds that it has spread, and (v. 44) “and if the priest cometh” at the end of the second week and now finds that for the first time it has spread — thus we may learn what is to be done after this “coming" from what happens after that “returning”! What is the law in the case of that “returning”? He must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster (vv. 40—42), and give it another week! Similarly, here, in the case of this “coming” after a second week, he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster and give it a further week! If it recurs he must demolish the house: if it does not recur, the house is clean. And whence may we infer that if it remained in the same condition both during this week (the first) and that (the second), he must remove the stones, scrape and re-plaster, and give it another week (just as he did when it spread in the second week, as we have just stated)? Because it states, (v. 44) ובא ”and if [the priest] cometh”, and (v. 48) ואם בא יבא “and if [the priest] cometh”, the expression “coming” being used in each case to indicate an analogy between them, the reasoning being as follows: About what can this verse 48 which refers to the plague not having spread be speaking? If you say it speaks of a plague which has spread during the first week but did not spread during the second week, behold, this has already been mentioned (vv. 39—43, and second half of v. 44)! If you say that it speaks of a plague which has spread during the second week but has not spread during the first week, behold, this has already been mentioned (v. 44 according to Rashi's explanation above). Consequently it can only be saying the words ואם בא יבא, “if having come once (בא), he cometh again (יבא)”, about one who comes at the end of the first week and comes again at the end of the second week, “and, behold, [the plague] had not spread” in either instance. In the case of such a plague which remains as it was during two successive weeks, what shall he do to it? One might think he departs and gets himself off without doing anything more because the house is clean, since it states here (immediately afterwards), “he shall pronounce the house clean”. It, however, states, “if the plague is healed”, — which implies that Scripture says as it were: I do declare clean only the plague which is healed (i. e. when something has been done by which it is removed). What, then, shall he do to it? The reply is: above (v. 44) it has spoken of “coming”, and further on (v. 48) it also speaks of “coming”. What is the law in the previous case? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week — for, as we have stated above, we have it as tradition that “return” (v. 39: ושב הכהן) and “coming” (v. 44: ובא הכהן) are identical in regard to their law; similarly, too, must be done in the later case (v. 48 which as we have proved, must be speaking of עמד בראשון ובשני etc.), as it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Section 7 10). The conclusion of the matter is: Demolishing a house takes place only in the case of a plague that recurs after removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering, and such a recurring plague does not require that it should also have spread in order to make it necessary to demolish the house. The sequence of the verses is as follows: “If it returns” (v. 48), “he shall break down” (v. 45), “But if one cometh” (v. 46) “[And he that lieth in the house] … and he that eateth in the house” (v. 47), and only then v. 44: “And if the priest come and look, and, behold, the plague hath spread”; — and the last verse speaks, as shown above, of the case of a plague that remained as it was during the first week to which one has therefore given a second week for being shut up, and at the end of the second week he comes and sees it that it has spread. And what shall he do to it? He removes the stones, scrapes and re-plasters and gives it another week. If it returns he demolishes the house, if it does not return, it is clean and requires two birds for purification, but this third week is the utmost time for investigation, for not more than three weeks are to be spent in the investigation of plagues.