Torah Reading for Metzora

I might thus think that a reappearing lesion is not defiled unless it spreads. However, it says צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת “onerous tzara’at” here regarding houses, and it says above 3 צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת “onerous tzara’at” regarding garments. Just as there, a reappearing lesion is ritually defiled even if it did not spread, so too here, a reappearing lesion is ritually defiled even if it did not spread.

If so, what is the meaning of Scripture’s statement here: “it has spread”? The answer is that the proper place of this verse is not here; rather, it should have written: “He must demolish the house” 4 after: “If the lesion erupts again….” In fact, “he must come and examine it; if the lesion in the house has spread” comes to teach us about a lesion that remained in the same condition after the first week, and the priest comes at the end of the second week and finds that it has spread, for Scripture above has not yet specified any ruling regarding a lesion that remained in the same condition after the first week. It is teaching you this here about this “spreading,” which speaks only of such a case where it remained in the same condition after the first week and spread during the second; and what must he do to it? I might think he must demolish the house, just as it says afterwards: “He must demolish the house.” Scripture therefore states: “The priest must return,” 5 and “The priest must come” (here). We derive the ruling in the case of “coming” from that in the case of “returning”; just as when “returning” he removes the afflicted stones, scrapes off the plaster, and re-plasters, and gives it a week before it is re-examined, so too, when “coming,” he removes the stones, scrapes off the plaster, and re-plasters, and gives it a week before it is re-examined; after this, if it reappears, he demolishes the house, and if it does not reappear, it is pronounced free of ritual defilement.

And from where do we know that if the lesion remained in the same condition after both the first and second weeks, that he also removes the stones, scrapes off the plaster, and re-plasters, and gives it a third week before it is re-examined? Scripture states here וּבָא “The priest must come,” and again וְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא “If the priest comes, and comes again.” 6 To what does that verse refer? If to a lesion that spread during the first week, this has already been stated in v. 39; if to a lesion that spread during the second week but not during the first, this has also been stated in our verse. It must be that from the stated verses – “The priest must come” and “If the priest comes, and comes again” – we derive the law for one who comes at the end of the first week and comes again at the end of the second week “and examines the lesion, and the lesion did not spread.” This lesion – which remained in the same condition for two continuous weeks – what must he do with it? I might think that it is released from quarantine and the priest may leave, as is written here: “the priest must pronounce the house rid of ritual defilement.” Scripture therefore states there: “because the lesion has healed” – i.e., I only deem the house rid of ritual defilement if the lesion has healed. What then must he do with it? “Coming” is stated in the earlier verse and “coming” is stated in the later verse; just as in the above case he removes the stones, scrapes off the plaster, and re-plasters, and gives it another week before being re-examined, as we derived above – that the case of “coming” has the same ruling as that of “returning” – so also in the case below, the rule is the same…, as stated in Torat Kohanim.

In summation: A house is only demolished if a lesion reappears after removing the stones, scraping off the plaster, and re-plastering, and such a reappearing lesion does not need to spread in order to require demolition. The sequence of the verses is as follows: “If the lesion erupts again”; 7 “He must demolish”; 8 “Anyone entering the house”; 9 “someone who eats in the house.” 10 After that, follows this verse: “the priest must come and examine it; if the lesion in the house has spread,” by which Scripture refers to a lesion that remained in the same condition during the first week, telling us that he gives it a second week to be in quarantine, and at the end of its second week of quarantine, he comes and sees that it has spread. What must he do with it? He removes the stones, scrapes off the plaster, and re-plasters it, and gives it another week. If it reappears, he demolishes the house; if it does not reappear, he must purify the house by bringing two birds, for no lesions can be quarantined for more than three weeks.Then Scripture continues: “If the priest comes, and comes again” – at the end of the second week – “and examines the lesion, and the lesion did not spread.” This verse comes to teach us about a lesion that remained in the same condition after both the first and second week. What must he do with it? I might think he should pronounce it rid of ritual defilement, as the plain sense of the verse implies: “the priest must pronounce the house rid of ritual defilement.” Scripture therefore states: “because the lesion has healed” – I deem rid of ritual defilement only that which has healed, and it is only considered healed if the house has been scraped and re-plastered and the lesion did not reappear. This case, however, requires removing the stones, scraping, re-plastering, and a third week of quarantine. And this is how the verse is expounded: “If he comes, and comes again” in the second week “and examines it, and the lesion did not spread,” he must re-plaster it, and re-plastering is only done after removing the stones and scraping off the plaster, and “after the house has been re-plastered, the priest must pronounce the house rid of ritual defilement” if the lesion does not reappear at the end of the week, “because the lesion has healed”; but if it reappears, it has already been specified regarding the case of a reappearing lesion that the house must be demolished.