Sifra 7.0.11

Metzora, Section 7

1) (Vayikra 14:43) ("And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house after he removed the stones and after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered. (Vayikra 14:44) And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is tamei.") "And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house": Just as we speak of a man returning to his place, here, too, the plague-spot returns to the same stones. This tells me only of his place. Whence do we derive the entire house for inclusion? From "in the house." I might think that the size of a garis (makes it subject to tumah); it is, therefore, written here "plague-spot" and before, (Vayikra 14:37), "plague-spot." Just as there, two garisin, here, too, two garisin.

2) In sum: Adjacent spreading, any amount; distant (spreading), a garis; returning to houses, two garisin.

3) This tells me only of its (original) appearance. Whence do I derive the same (even if it returns) not in its (original) appearance? From "and it blossoms," whether or not in its (original) appearance.

4) — But perhaps "it blossoms" connotes only if it returns and spreads. Now would this follow? There is (plague-spot) tumah in garments, and there is (plague-spot) tumah in houses. Just as in garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so, with houses, it should confer tumah even without spreading.

5) Now if we are stringent with garments, where if the plague-spot remains the same at the end of two weeks, the garment is burned, should we be stringent with houses, where if the plague-spot remains the same after two weeks the house is not razed! It is, therefore, written "blight leprosy" (here) - "blight leprosy" (Vayikra 13:5), in respect to garments) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as with garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so with houses, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading.

6) If in the end we will include a returning plague-spot (even if it does not spread), what is the intent of "And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread"? — Leave it (i.e., This is not the place of this verse. It does not refer to post-removal and scraping, but to spreading at the end of the second week, as in 7) below.) Or, once we have learned that if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house (even if it does not spread, it is tamei), then, if we see it returning on the same day (of the plastering), it should be declared tamei (and razed immediately)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return" - (Vayikra 13:43) "and if the plague-spot returns." Just as the "returning" there, is at the end of one week, so, (the returning) here, is at the end of one week.

7) And whence is it derived that if it remained as it was at the end of the first week and it spread in the second week, he removes and scrapes and plasters, and he is given another week? From (Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread." Of what is this speaking? If of spreading in the first week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking, then, of his having come at the end of the first week and finding it to have remained the same, and coming at the end of the second week and finding it to have spread. What should be done? I derive it inductively from the spreading of the first week, i.e., he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. The same obtains with the spreading of the second week. — Now if we were lenient with spreading in the first week, it is because we were lenient with its remaining the same. Shall we then be lenient with spreading in the second week, where we are stringent with its remaining the same? It is, therefore, written (re the end of the first week, Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return," and (re the end of the second week, Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come." Returning and coming are one and the same. Just as with "returning," he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week, so, with "coming."

8) Whence is it derived that if it remained the same in this (the first week) and in this (the second week), he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week? From its being written (instead of) "and if the Cohein comes," (Vayikra 13:44), "and if the Cohein come, shall come" — two comings. Of what is this speaking? If of its having spread in the first week, this has already been stated. If of its having spread in the second week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking of his having come at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week, (Vayikra 13:44) "and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread," i.e., it remains the same. What should be done? Can I think that he (simply) leaves and walks away? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) "for the plague-spot has been healed." I have cleansed only what has been healed (through an additional removal, scraping, etc. [See Rashi in Chumash]).

9) "What should be done?" I induce from what we find in its spreading in the second week. He removes and scrapes and plasters and is given an additional week. The same obtains with its remaining the same in the second week.

10) Now if we are stringent with spreading in the second week because of stringency with spreading in the first week, shall we be stringent with remaining the same in the second week where there has been leniency with remaining the same in the first week, (only quarantine of the house being required), and render remaining the same like spreading in the second week? It is, therefore, written (instead of) "and if the Cohein comes," "and if the Cohein come, shall come" — two comings, that stated above and that stated below. Just as with the first there is removing, scraping, and plastering, and the allocation of an additional week, so with the second.

11) They said in the name of R. Yishmael: "Blight leprosy" is written of garments, and "blight leprosy" is written of houses. Just as with garments, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week, so with houses, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week. (Vayikra 13:43) "after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is known that there is no removing without scraping and plastering.) For I might think that there is no returning (of the plague-spot) and razing except after spreading in the first week. Whence do I derive for inclusion returning (of the plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week (that both require removing, scraping, and plastering, and, if it returns thereafter, razing)? From (Vayikra 13:43) "after he removed the stones …" Let it not be written "after scraping" and "after plastering." Is there removing without scraping and plastering? Why, then, is it mentioned? To include a returning (plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week.

12) Whence is it derived that if (after remaining the same at the end of the first week and having been quarantined for a second week), it (was found to have) dimmed in the second week or disappeared (entirely), he peels (the site of the spot) and he requires birds (for its cleansing)? From (Vayikra 13:49) "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, etc." This is one house … — whence they ruled: There are ten houses (in this connection): If it dims in the first week or disappears, he peels it and it is tahor (clean). If it dims in the second week or disappears, he peels it and he requires birds. If it spreads in the first week, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returns, he razes (the house). If it does not return, he requires birds. If it remained the same in the first week and spread in the second week, he removes, scrapes, and smears, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds. If it remained the same both the first week and the second, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds.

13) (Vayikra 14:44) ("And if the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is unclean.") "it is unclean": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Was it not unclean until now?) Because we find in a quarantined house that it confers tumah only from its inside, (viz. Vayikra 14:46), we might think that this is so even with a confirmed house; it is, therefore, written "it is unclean," conferring tumah both from the inside and from the outside (by being touched).