Rashi on TanakhLeviticus 14

This shall be the law etc. This teaches that we do not proclaim him pure at night.

Beyond the encampment. Beyond the three camps from which he had been sent out during the days of his definite impurity.

Live, excluding a טְרֵפָה .

Pure (Kosher), excluding an unclean [= unkosher] bird. Because [these] eruptions come [for the sin] of lashon hara’, which is an action [involving] chattering, therefore necessary for [the metzoro’s] purification are the birds which chatter endlessly with twittering sounds.

Cedarwood. [Wood of a tall tree was selected] because these eruptions come [as punishment] for haughtiness of spirit.

Crimson thread and hyssop. What is his cure that he may be healed? He should lower himself from his arrogance like a worm and like a hyssop.

Cedarwood. A stick of cedarwood.

Crimson thread, a strip of wool dyed crimson.

Over running water. He first places [the water] in a vessel, in order that the blood of the bird be recognizable in it, and how much is that? A fourth [of a log].

[As for] the living bird, he shall take it. This teaches that he does not tie it with them; rather, he separates it by itself. But the wood and hyssop are wrapped together in the [crimson] strip, as it is said: “and the cedarwood and the crimson wool and the hyssop” — one “taking” for the three of them. Perhaps, just as [the bird] is not included in the [requirement] of tying together, so [too] it is not included in the [requirement] of dipping? The verse says, “and he shall dip them and the live bird” [here] it returned the bird to the category of dipping.

He must remain outside of his tent. This teaches that he is forbidden marital relations.

All his hair, etc. [This list comprises] a general statement, [followed by] particulars, and [again] a general statement, to include every place in which there is a collection of hair [which] is visible.

One ewe, for a sin-offering.

And three tenths [ephah], for the drink-offerings of these three sheep, for the sin-offering and guilt-offering of the metzoro require drink-offerings.

And one log of oil to sprinkle on him seven [times], and to put [oil] from it on the middle ridge of his ear and for placing on his thumbs.

Before Adonoy. At the Nicanor Gate, and not in the [outer] court itself, for he is lacking atonement.

And bring it as a guilt-offering. He shall bring it into the [outer] court, for the sake of a guilt-offering. And he shall wave. Because it requires waving [while it is still] alive.

And he shall wave them — the guilt-offering and the log.

In the place where he slaughters, etc., on the side of the altar, in the north, and why does the verse say [this]? Is it not said in the teaching of the [law of] the guilt-offering, in the parashoh of Tzav es Aharon, that a guilt-offering must be slaughtered on the north [side]? [This rule is repeated] because this [guilt-offering] has departed from the general rule of guilt-offerings, to be subject to being placed [at the Gate of Nicanor]. Perhaps its slaughtering should be in the spot that it is placed? Therefore it says, “and he shall slaughter [it] in the place in which he slaughters [the sin-offering and the burnt-offering],” etc.

For, just as the sin offering, for like all the sin-offerings is this guilt-offering, it belongs to the kohein, regarding all the services which depend on the kohein this guilt-offering has been made similar to the sin-offering, [so] that you not say that since its blood has departed from the general rule of other guilt-offerings — to be placed on the middle ridge [of the ear] and the thumbs, it does not require placing of the blood and entrails on the altar. Therefore it is said, “For just as the sin offering is the guilt offering, it belongs to the kohein.” Perhaps its blood must be placed above [the red line on the altar], as [is the case with] a sin-offering? The verse says, etc., as in Toras Kohanim.

Middle ridge, the middle wall of the ear, but [the word] תְּנוּךְ is unknown to me, while the interpreters call it tendron.

Thumb, [i.e.,] thumb.

Before Adonoy. Toward [= in the direction of] the Holy of Holies.

And the meal-offering. The meal offering [accompanying] the drink-offering that accompanies an animal [sacrifice].

One tenth (ephah) fine flour, for this lamb, which is a [single] one, he must bring one tenth as its drink-offering.

And a log of oil to place [some] of it on the thumbs. [However,] the [quantity of required] oil [used] for the drink-offerings of the meal-offering the verse did not have to specify.

On the eighth day of his purification, the eighth day from when the birds [were brought] and the sprinkling of the cedarwood and the hyssop and the crimson wool.

On the place of the blood of the guilt-offering — even if it had been cleaned of the blood. [This] teaches that the blood does not cause [purification], but [rather] the place causes [purification].

I shall put the eruption of tzora’as. This is a announcement to them that eruptions will come upon them because the Amorites hid treasures of gold in the walls of their houses throughout the forty years that the Israelites were in the desert, and by means of the eruption [the Israelite] tears down the house and finds them.

Something like an eruption has appeared to me in the house. Even if he is a learned man and knows that it is certainly an eruption, he should not decide the matter absolutely to say: “An eruption appeared to me,” but “something like an eruption appeared to me.”

Before the kohein will come, etc. As long as the kohein has not yet concerned himself with it, there is no law of uncleanness here.

So everthing in the house shall not become impure. For if [the owner] does not empty it, and the kohein comes and sees the eruption, it is necessary to confine [the house] and everything within it will become unclean. And with what was the Torah concerned [that it not become unclean]? If regarding vessels that are purified by immersion, let him immerse them and let them become pure; if regarding food and drink, let him eat them when he himself is unclean; thus, the Torah was concerned only with earthenware vessels, which cannot be purified in a מִקְוֶה .

Impressions, sunken in appearance.

And they shall remove the stones. According to its Targum: “they shall remove” — he shall carry them away, as [in the expression], “and she shall remove his shoe,” an expression [denoting] removal.

To an impure place, a place in which pure things are not handled. The verse teaches you that these stones cause uncleanness to their place while they are still there.

He shall scrape. Rogner in Old French, and in Mishnaic Hebrew, it occurs many times.

The inside, from within.

All around, around the eruption. In Toras Kohanim this is midrashically interpreted in this way; that he should scrape the plaster which is around the stones [which have] the eruption.

They scraped. An expression of “borders,” wherein they scraped [around] the borders of the eruption all around.

Was scraped. [This grammatical form] is an expression of something having been done, and so [too] הִטּוֹחַ “having been plastered,” but [the phrase] חִלֵּץ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים, [“he removed the stones,”] refers to the man who removed them, and [the verb] is in the intense conjugation, as kippeir, [“he atoned”], dibbeir, [“he spoke”].

And if the eruption returns, etc. Perhaps [if] it returns on that same day it should become unclean? The verse says, “the kohein shall return,” “and if it returns” — just as “returning” mentioned below [refers to a time] at the end of a week [of confinement], so “returning” mentioned here [refers to a time] at the end of a week [of confinement].

The kohein shall come and see, and behold, the eruption has spread in the house. Perhaps [an eruption] which returns is not unclean unless it spreads? צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת [“a prickly tzora’as“] is said regarding houses, and צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת is said regarding garments, just as below [the verse] declared impure [an eruption] which returns even though it did not spread, so here it declared unclean an [eruption] which returns, even though it did not spread. If so, why does the verse say, “and behold, it spread”? This is not the place of this verse, but “and he shall dismantle the house” should have been written after “and if the eruption returns.” “And [the kohein shall come] and see,” and behold the eruption has spread” therefore comes to teach only regarding an eruption which remains unchanged in his sight during the first week, and he comes at the end of the second week and finds that it spread. For previously the Torah did not explain anything regarding if the eruption remained [unchanged] in his sight during the first week — and it teaches you here in regard to this spreading, that it speaks only regarding [an eruption] which remained unchanged during the first and spread during the second. What should he do with it? Perhaps he dismantles it, as [laid down by the verse] adjacent to it: “and he shall dismantle the house”? The verse says: “and the kohein shall return,” “and the kohein shall come.” We learn “coming” from “returning,” just as [in] “returning” he removes [the affected stones] and scrapes and plasters and gives it another week, so [in regard to] “coming” he removes [the affected stones] and scrapes and plasters and gives it another week — if it returns he dismantles; if it does not return, [the house] is [ritually] pure. And from where [do we know] that if it remained [unchanged] during this [week] and that [week], he removes [the affected stones] and scrapes and plasters and gives it a week? The verse says, (“he shall come”) “and if he shall come and see.” In [regard to] what is the verse speaking? If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread during the first [week], it was already mentioned. If regarding [a case] where [the eruption] spread during the second [week], it was already mentioned. Thus, (“he shall come”) “and if he shall come” must deal with [a case] in which [the kohein] came at the end of the first week, and came at the end of the second week, and saw, and behold! It had not spread. What does he do in the case of this unchanged [eruption]? Perhaps he should just leave, as it is said here, “and he shall declare the house pure”? The verse says, “for the eruption has healed” — I have declared clean only that which is [totally] healed. What shall he do with it? “Coming” is mentioned above and “coming” is mentioned below; just as the one above he removes [the affected stones], scrapes, plasters and gives it another week — for he learns [a גְזֵרָה שָׁוָה]: “This is ’returning,’ this is ‘coming’” — so [too] regarding the [case] below, etc. as it is in Toras Kohanim. In conclusion, dismantling [is carried out] only with an eruption which returns after removal [of the affected stones], scraping and replastering, and the [eruption] which returns does not require “spreading.” The order of verses is as such: “And if it returns” “he shall dismantle,” “whoever will come inside the house,” “whoever will eat inside the house,” “the kohein shall come and see, and behold! It has spread,” and the verse speaks of [an eruption] which remains [unchanged] during the first [week], that he gives it a second week of confinement, and at the end of the second week of its confinement, [the kohein] comes and sees that it spread. What shall he do to it? He removes [the affected stones], scrapes, replasters and gives it a week. [If] it returns, he dismantles [the house]; [if] it does not return, it requires [purification with] birds, for, [cases of] eruptions [do not last] longer than three weeks.

All the days of its confinement. [But] not the days in which he scraped its eruption. Perhaps I exclude the [house which has been] declared [unclean] which has had its eruption scraped? The verse says: “any of the days.”

Shall be impure until the evening. [This] teaches that it does not cause impurity to clothes. Perhaps [this refers to a case where] he waited [even as short at space of time] as that in which one might eat half a loaf? The verse says: “Whoever will eat inside the house shall wash his garments.” I [know this] only of one who eats, from where [do I know this of] one who lies down? The verse says: “Whoever will lie down.” I [know] only this of one who eats and lies down, one who does not eat or lie down — from where do we know [that he is unclean]? The verse says, “he must wash. . .he must wash” — [this] includes [such a case]. If so, why are “one who eats” and “one who lies down” stated? So as to give the measure [of time for impurity to occur] for one who lies down — [the space of time] in which one might eat half a loaf.

And if shall come at the end of the second week.

And see, and behold! The eruption did not spread. This verse comes to teach [us the rule regarding a case] in which [the eruption] is [unchanged] in his sight during the first [week] and during the second [week]; what shall he do to it? Perhaps he should declare it clean, as the plain sense of the verse [indicates]: “and the kohein should declare the house pure”? The verse says: “for the eruption has healed” — I have declared clean only that which is [totally] healed, And considered healed is only when a house has been scraped and plastered and [in which] the eruption did not return. But this [house] requires removal of the [affected stones], scraping, replastering, and a third week. And so is the verse interpreted midrashically: “And if he comes during the second [week] and sees, behold! It did not spread” — he must plaster it, and there can be no plastering without removal [of stones] and scraping — “and after plastering the house, the kohein declares the house clean” — if [the eruption] does not recur at the end of the [third] week. Since the eruption has healed, [but] if it returns, [the verse] has already explained [that] a returning [eruption] requires [the house] be dismantled.

To teach [the law] of the day of becoming impure. What day he is to declare [the house] pure and what day he is to declare [the house] impure.