1) (Vayikra 14:45) "Then he shall raze the house — its stones, its wood, and all the mortar of the house": We are hereby taught that a house is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness unless there be in it stones, wood, and mortar.... 2) How many stones (in total) must be in it (on all sides to make it subject to tumah)? R. Yishmael says four (one on each side). R. Akiva says eight (viz. Section 6:4). For R. Yishmael says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones or on one stone. R. Akiva says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones, and not on one stone. R. Elazar says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones on two walls in one corner, its length two garisin, and its width a garis. 3) (if the plague is in) his stones, and his mortar, and his wood: and not, (if the wall were jointly owned), in those of his neighbor. "his stones": We are hereby taught (that in a case of joint ownership) he planes (his portion from that of his neighbor) and removes his stones. "its stones": all the stones with which the house was built (and not those that were superadded to it after it was built). "its wood": all the wood with which the house was built. "its stones": and not those of the attic. "its wood": and not those of the attic. "the mortar of the house": and not that of the attic — whence it was ruled: If a plague-spot appeared in the house, he places the beams in the attic. If it appeared in the attic, he places its beams in the house. "its stones": and not stones which were superadded to it after it was built. "the mortar of the house": and not mortar that fell off from it (before the house was razed). "and he shall take them (the stones) outside the city to an unclean place": If this is already written in respect to removing (the stones, viz. Vayikra 14:40), why need it be written in respect to razing? And if it is written in respect to razing, why need it be written in respect to removing? Because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and because there obtains with razing what does not obtain with removing. With removing, the stone on a side (common to that of his neighbor) — he removes the whole, (even that of his neighbor [viz. Chapter 4:2]), and when he razes, he razes (only) what is his and leaves that of his neighbor; and in razing, he razes both the stones with a plague-spot and those without a plague-spot. So that because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and with razing, what does not obtain with removing, both removing and razing must be written. 4) (Vayikra 14:46) ("And he who comes into the house all the days that he has shut it up shall be unclean until the evening.") "And he who comes into the house": when he enters — his head and the greater part of his body. "the days that he has shut it up": and not the days that he peeled its plague-spot (i.e., If he peeled its plague-spot within the days of its quarantine and threw (its peelings) out [even though he thereby transgressed a negative commandment], one who enters does not become tamei.) I might think that I (also) exclude (from tumah one who enters) a confirmed (plague-spot house) whose plague-spot was peeled; it is, therefore, written "all the days" (to include such a contingency). 5) "and he shall be unclean until the evening": We are hereby taught that his clothes do not become tamei. I might think (that this is so) even if he remained there long enough to eat a p'ras (a half-loaf); it is, therefore, written (in the following verse) "and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes." 6) This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive the same for lying down? From (Vayikra 14:46) "And he who lies in the house shall wash his clothes." 7) This tells me only of eating or lying down. Whence do I derive the same for not eating and not lying down, (but simply standing there)? From (the redundancy of) "he shall wash" - "he shall wash." 8) If in the end, everything is included, why specify "he who eats" and "he who lies"? To establish the (minimum) time for lying as corresponding to that of eating. And what is that of eating? As long as it takes to eat a p'ras of a loaf of wheat, (which is eaten quickly), and not (as long as it takes to eat a p'ras of) a loaf of barley, and when one reclines and eats it with relish, (in which instance he eats more quickly). 9) All washing of clothing mentioned in the Torah is (oriented) to stringency, and this, to leniency, (viz.) Even if he were wearing ten trousers and cloaked with ten mantles, they are all tahor until he remains as long as it takes to eat a p'ras. 10) I might think that a beast and a gentile, (who are not subject to tumah) would "rescue" clothing (upon them) in a plague-spot house; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:46) "he shall be tamei until the evening" (followed by [Vayikra 14:47] "and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes") — One who himself is subject to tumah "rescues" clothing in a plague-spot house. This excludes a beast and a gentile, who, not being subject to tumah, do not rescue clothing in a plague-spot house. 11) From here they ruled: If he were standing inside (a plague-spot house) and he stretched his hand outside, with his rings upon it — If he remained in the house as long as it takes to eat a p'ras, they are tamei, (being regarded as part of his body). If he were standing outside and he stretched his hand inside, with his rings upon it, R. Yehudah rules them to be tamei immediately, and the sages (rule them tamei) only if they remain (there) long enough for the eating of a p'ras. 12) They said to R. Yehudah: If when his whole body is tamei, what is upon it is not tamei until he remains there long enough to eat a p'ras, then, when his whole body is not tamei, does it not follow that what is upon it should not be tamei until it remains long enough for the eating of a p'ras? 13) R. Yehudah rejoined: We find that the power of the tamei to rescue (from tumah) is greater than that of the tahor: Israelites are subject to tumah and "rescue" garments in a plague-spot house; a beast and a gentile, who are not subject to tumah, do not "rescue" garments in a plague-spot house. 14) (Vayikra 14:51) "and he shall sprinkle upon the house": on the lintel. Others say: on all of it. 15) (Vayikra 14:53) ("And he shall send the living bird outside the city over the face of the field, and he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.") "And he shall send the living bird outside the city": R. Yossi Haglili says: a bird that lives outside the city. Which is that? A free bird (i.e., one which lives anywhere). 15) "and he shall make atonement for the house and it shall be clean.": If this (procedure with the birds) is written in respect to a leper, why must it be written in respect to houses? And if it is written in respect to houses, why must it be written in respect to a leper? Because there obtains with houses what does not obtain with a leper, and with a leper what does not obtain with houses. A leper requires an offering and a house does not require an offering. A leper has cleansing from his tumah and a house has no cleansing from its tumah, (but must be razed). So that because there obtains with a leper what does not obtain with houses, and with houses what does not obtain with a leper, both a leper and houses must be written. 16) (Vayikra 14:54) "This is the law, etc.": Whence is it derived that a Cohein who is expert in plague-spots (i.e., se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth), but not in nethakim; in nethakim, but not in karachoth; in karachoth, but not in shechin and michvah; in shechin and michvah, but not in garments; in garments, but not in houses — (Whence is it derived that) he should not examine plague-spots until he is expert in (all of) them and in their names? From (Vayikra 14:54-57) "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house, and for a se'eth, and for a sapachath, and for a bahereth, to teach" (i.e., he should not teach others unless he is expert in all of them). (Vayikra 14:57) Rebbi says: "on the unclean day and on the clean day": We are hereby taught that he rules "unclean" in the daytime and he rules "clean" in the daytime. Chananiah b. Chachonai says: What is the intent of "to teach"? We are hereby taught that he does not examine plague-spots until his master teaches him.
Sifra Metzora Chapter 5
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.