Chumashחומש

ונתתי נגע צרעת. בְּשׂוֹרָה הִיא לָהֶם שֶׁהַנְּגָעִים בָּאִים עֲלֵיהֶם; לְפִי שֶׁהִטְמִינוּ אֱמוֹרִיִּים מַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב בְּקִירוֹת בָּתֵּיהֶם כָּל אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְֹרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְעַל יְדֵי הַנֶּגַע נוֹתֵץ הַבַּיִת וּמוֹצְאָן (ויקרא רבה י"ז):

ונתתי נגע צרעת [WHEN YOU COME TO THE LAND …]I WILL PUT THE PLAGUE OF THE LEPROSY — This was an announcement to them that these plagues would come upon them (Sifra, Metzora, Section 5 4; Horayot 10a), because the Amorites concealed treasures of gold in the walls of their houses during the whole 40 years the Israelites were in the wilderness (in order that these might not possess them when they conquered Palestine,) and in consequence of the plague they would pull down the house and discover them (Leviticus Rabbah 17:6).

כנגע נראה לי בבית. שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ הוּא חָכָם וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא נֶגַע וַדַּאי, לֹא יִפְסֹק דָּבָר בָּרוּר לוֹמַר "נֶגַע נִרְאָה לִי", אֶלָּא "כְּנֶגַע נִרְאָה לִי":

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).

בטרם יבא הכהן וגו'. שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן נִזְקָק לוֹ, אֵין שָׁם תּוֹרַת טֻמְאָה:

'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.

ולא יטמא כל אשר בבית. שֶׁאִם לֹא יְפַנֵּהוּ, וְיָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן וְיִרְאֶה הַנֶּגַע נִזְקָק לְהֶסְגֵּר וְכָל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא; וְעַל מָה חָסָה תוֹרָה? אִם עַל כְּלֵי שֶׁטֶף, יַטְבִּילֵם וְיִטְהֲרוּ, וְאִם עַל אֳכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין, יֹאכְלֵם בִּימֵי טֻמְאָתוֹ, הָא לֹא חָסָה תוֹרָה אֶלָּא עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס, שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם טָהֳרָה בַּמִּקְוֶה (ספרא):

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).

שקערורת. שׁוֹקְעוֹת בְּמַרְאֵיהֶן (שם):

שקערורת denotes lying deep because of their colors (they appear to lie deep in the stones) (Sifra, Metzora, Section 6 5).

וחלצו את האבנים. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ: וִיִשְׁלְפוּן — יִטְּלֵם מִשָּׁם, כְּמוֹ וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ (דברים כ"ה) — לְשׁוֹן הֲסָרָה:

וחלצו את האבנים — Understand וחלצו as the Targum does: וישלפון, i.e. they shall remove them from there. It is similar to, (Deuteronomy 25:9) וחלצה נעלו— which is an expression for removing ("she shall remove his shoe”).

אל מקום טמא. מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין טְהָרוֹת מִשְׁתַּמְּשׁוֹת שָׁם, לִמֶּדְךָ הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהָאֲבָנִים הַלָּלוּ מְטַמְּאוֹת מְקוֹמָן בְּעוֹדָן בּוֹ (ספרא):

אל מקום טמא UNTO AN UNCLEAN PLACE — i. e. a place where clean things are not likely to be handled. Scripture teaches you that these stones make the place where they are deposited unclean for the time they are there.

יקצע. רדויי"ר בְּלַעַז, וּבִלְשׁוֹן מִשְׁנָה יֵשׁ הַרְבֶּה:

יקצע — rogner in old French, SCRAPE OFF, and in Mishnaic Hebrew it occurs many times.

מבית. מִבִּפְנִים:

‎מבית INSIDE.

סביב. סְבִיבוֹת הַנֶּגַע; בְּתֹ"כֹּ נִדְרַשׁ כֵּן — שֶׁיִּקְלֹף הַטִּיחַ שֶׁסְּבִיב אַבְנֵי הַנֶּגַע:

סביב ROUND ABOUT — i. e. the place round about the plague-spot; and in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Metzora, Chapter 4 5) it is also thus explained: that he shall peel off the plaster which is round about the area where the plague-stricken stones had been.

הקצו. לְשׁוֹן קָצֶה — אֲשֶׁר קִצְּעוּ בִקְצוֹת הַנֶּגַע סָבִיב:

הקצו is connected in meaning with the word קצה, end, — it means: which they had scraped off at the edges of the plague-spot round about it. (The words mean: the dust which they have removed from the edges. It has nothing to do with “scraping off”).

הקצות. לְשׁוֹן הֵעָשׂוֹת, וְכֵן הִטּוֹחַ, אֲבָל חִלֵּץ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים מוּסָב הַלָּשׁוֹן אֶל הָאָדָם שֶׁחִלְּצָן, וְהוּא מִשְׁקַל לְשׁוֹן כָּבֵד, כְּמוֹ כִּפֵּר, דִּבֵּר:

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.

ואם ישוב הנגע וגו'. יָכוֹל חָזַר בּוֹ בַיּוֹם יְהֵא טָמֵא, תַּ"ל "וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן" "וְאִם יָשׁוּב", מַה שִּׁיבָה הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן לְסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ, אַף שִׁיבָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָּאן בְּסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ (ספרא):

‎ 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).

ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא הַחוֹזֵר טָמֵא אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן פָּשָׂה, נֶאֱמַר צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת בַּבָּתִּים, וְנֶאֱמַר צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת בַּבגדים, מַה לְּהַלָּן טִמֵּא אֶת הַחוֹזֵר אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ פוֹשֶׂה, אַף כָּאן טִמֵּא אֶת הַחוֹזֵר אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁאֵינוֹ פוֹשֶׂה, אִם כֵּן מַה תַּ"ל וְהִנֵּה פָשָׂה? אֵין כָּאן מְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא זֶה, אֶלָּא "וְנָתַץ אֶת הַבַּיִת" הָיָה לוֹ לִכְתֹּב אַחַר "וְאִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע"; "וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה פָּשָׂה" הָא לֹא בָא לְלַמֵּד אֶלָּא עַל נֶגַע הָעוֹמֵד בְּעֵינָיו בְּשָׁבוּעַ רִאשׁוֹן, וּבָא בְסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁפָּשָׂה — שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרֵשׁ בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְמַעְלָה כְלוּם בְּעוֹמֵד בְּעֵינָיו בְּשָׁבוּעַ רִאשׁוֹן — וְלִמֶּדְךָ כָּאן בְּפִשְׂיוֹן זֶה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּעוֹמֵד בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּפָשָׂה בַשֵּׁנִי; וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה לּוֹ? יָכוֹל יִתְּצֶנּוּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁסָּמַךְ לוֹ "וְנָתַץ אֶת הַבַּיִת", תַּ"ל וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן, וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן, נִלְמַד בִּיאָה מִשִּׁיבָה, מַה שִּׁיבָה חוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, אַף בִּיאָה חוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, וְאִם חוֹזֵר נוֹתֵץ, לֹא חָזַר טָהוֹר. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם עָמַד בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה חוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא, בַּמֶּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִם בְּפוֹשֶׂה בָּרִאשׁוֹן, הֲרֵי כְבָר אָמוּר, אִם בְּפוֹשֶׂה בַשֵּׁנִי, הֲרֵי כְבָר אָמוּר, הָא אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר וְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא אֶלָּא אֶת שֶׁבָּא בְסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ רִאשׁוֹן וּבָא בְסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה; זֶה הָעוֹמֵד מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ? יָכוֹל יִפָּטֵר וְיֵלֵךְ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב כָּאן וְטִהַר אֶת הַבַּיִת? תַּ"ל כִּי נִרְפָּא הַנָּגַע — לֹא טִהַרְתִּי אֶלָּא הָרָפוּי, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ? בִּיאָה אֲמוּרָה לְמַעְלָה וּבִיאָה אֲמוּרָה לְמַטָּה, מַה בָּעֶלְיוֹנָה חוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ — דְּגָמַר לָהּ זֶהוּ שִׁיבָה זֶהוּ בִיאָה — אַף בַּתַּחְתּוֹנָה כֵן וְכוּ', כִּדְאִיתָא בְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים. גְּמָרוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר אֵין נְתִיצָה אֶלָּא בְּנֶגַע הַחוֹזֵר אַחַר חֲלִיצָה וְקִצּוּעַ וְטִיחָה, וְאֵין הַחוֹזֵר צָרִיךְ פִּשְׂיוֹן. וְסֵדֶר הַמִּקְרָאוֹת כָּךְ הוּא: וְאִם יָשׁוּב, וְנָתַץ, וְהַבָּא אֶל הַבַּיִת, וְהָאוֹכֵל בַּבַּיִת, וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה פָשָׂה, וְדִבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בָּעוֹמֵד בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנּוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי לְהֶסְגֵּרוֹ, וּבְסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי לְהֶסְגֵּרוֹ בָּא וְרָאָהוּ שֶׁפָּשָׂה, וּמַה יַּעֲשֶֹה לוֹ? חוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, חָזַר, נוֹתֵץ, לֹא חָזַר, טָעוּן צִפֳּרִים; שֶׁאֵין בַּנְּגָעִים יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלוֹשָׁה שָׁבוּעוֹת (עי' ספרא).

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.

כל ימי הסגיר אתו. וְלֹא יָמִים שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת נִגְעוֹ; יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא הַמֻּחְלָט שֶׁקָּלַף אֶת נִגְעוֹ, תַּ"ל כָּל יְמֵי:

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).

יטמא עד הערב. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין מְטַמֵּא בְגָדִים; יָכוֹל אֲפִלוּ שָׁהָה בִכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס, תַּ"ל וְהָאוֹכֵל בַּבַּיִת יְכַבֵּס אֶת בְּגָדָיו, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל, שׁוֹכֵב מִנַּיִן? תַּ"ל וְהַשּׁוֹכֵב, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹכֵב, לֹא אוֹכֵל וְלֹא שׁוֹכֵב מִנַּיִן? תַּ"ל יכבס יכבס רִבָּה; אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹכֵב? לִתֵּן שִׁעוּר לַשּׁוֹכֵב כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס (שם):

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).

ואם בא יבא. לְסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי:

ואם בא יבא AND IF [THE PRIEST] SHALL COME IN at the end of the second week,

וראה והנה לא פשה. מִקְרָא זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד בָּעוֹמֵד בְּעֵינָיו בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי וּמַה יַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ, יָכוֹל יְטַהֲרֶנּוּ, כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא "וְטִהַר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַבַּיִת", תַּ"ל כִּי נִרְפָּא הַנָּגַע — לֹא טִהַרְתִּי אֶלָּא אֶת הָרָפוּי; וְאֵין רָפוּי אֶלָּא הַבַּיִת שֶׁהֻקְצָה וְהוּטַח וְלֹא חָזַר הַנֶּגַע — אֲבָל זֶה טָעוּן חֲלִיצָה וְקִצּוּי וְטִיחָה וְשָׁבוּעַ שְׁלִישִׁי; וְכֵן הַמִּקְרָא נִדְרָשׁ: וְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא בַשֵּׁנִי, וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה, יְטִיחֶנּוּ — וְאֵין טִיחָה בְּלֹא חִלּוּץ וְקִצּוּי — וְאַחֲרֵי הִטּוֹחַ אֶת הַבַּיִת וְטִהַר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַבַּיִת, אִם לֹא חָזַר לְסוֹף הַשָּׁבוּעַ, כִּי נִרְפָּא הַנָּגַע, וְאִם חָזַר, כְּבָר פֵּרֵשׁ עַל הַחוֹזֵר שֶׁטָּעוּן נְתִיצָה:

וראה והנה לא פשה AND LOOK UPON IT, AND, BEHOLD, THE PLAGUE HATH NOT SPREAD … [THEN THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE THE HOUSE CLEAN].— This verse, as shown above, is intended to teach the law regarding the case that it (the plague) has stayed as it was during both the first week and the second week. What shall he do to it? One might think that he shall pronounce it clean just as the verse literally implies: וטהר הכהן את הבית "and the priest shall pronounce the house clean"! It, however, states, "[The priest shall declare the house clean] כי נרפא הנגע if the plague is healed" — Scripture says, as it were, I pronounce clean only that plague which is healed, and only that house is healed which has been scraped and re-plastered and in which the plague has not recurred, but this, in which during two weeks the plague has remained in the same condition, is not yet healed and thus not yet clean, and requires removal of the stones, scraping and re-plastering and yet a third week. And the verse is accordingly to be explained as follows: ואם בא יבא, And if having come once he comes again at the end of the second week and he looks upon it, and, behold, it has not spread, he shall re-plaster it and of course also remove the stones and scrape it — for re-plastering never takes place without removal of the stones and scraping (and Scripture merely states אחרי הטוח for the sake of brevity) — אחרי הטוח את הבית and after the house has been re-plastered, וטהר הכהן את הבית, shall the priest pronounce clean, if the plague has not returned at the end of the third week, כי נרפא הנגע FOR THEN THE PLAGUE IS HEALED. If, however, it has returned at the end of that week it is unnecessary to state the law here since it has already explained regarding a recurring plague that it requires the demolition of the house (cf. Rashi on v. 44).