💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:52:11. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
43 [1] AND IF THE PLAGUE RETURN AND BREAK OUT IN THE HOUSE. Now this plague which came in the other stones and in the other mortar [which replaced the original ones], is not identical with the first plague which was there, [but is a different outbreak]. It is thus unlike the “breaking out” of the leprosy mentioned in the case of a person and the spreading thereof, which mean that the plague returned to its former natural place, since the pus many times hides under the skin and retreats into the interior of the body, and afterwards it returns and spreads to the skin on its outside. Rather, the matter [of leprosy in a house] is as I have written in *Seder Ishah Ki Thazria*, that it is a plague and Divine intervention implying that *the evil spirit from G-d* is in that place. And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said: “*And if the plague come again, and break out in the house*. This is like saying, ‘That person has returned to his place.’” The meaning of the Sages is to state that the expression *‘u’parach’* (*and it break out*) mentioned here [in connection with leprosy in a house], does not mean “spreading out” as it does in the verse [dealing with leprosy of a man], *And if the leprosy ‘paro’ach tiphrach’* (*break out abroad*) *in the skin*, but here it denotes a [fresh] outbreak in that place just like the expression, *the rod of Aaron ‘parach’* (*was budded*). The comparison that the Rabbis drew [i.e., that this is like saying, “That person has returned to his place”], is to allude to the matter we have stated, namely, that this is not a plague which comes into existence and spreads out [as in the case of leprosy of man], but is one outbreak after another, just like a man who left his place and then came back to sit in his former place, on a different chair which was prepared for him there. I have already explained the meaning of this “breaking out” [of leprosy in a house], as well as of the “breaking out” of leprosy in garments.
Now Scripture does not state here, “and if the plague comes back, and breaks out ‘in those stones’” [but instead it says, *and breaks out ‘in the house’*], for even if it broke out in another place of the house, and even if it was of another color, unlike that of the first plague, it is considered a recurring plague [i.e., one that recurs after removal of the stones, scraping and replastering, which necessitates the demolition of the house], and is not considered a plague appearing for the first time in the house. This is the sense of the expression *in the house* [*and if the plague come again, and break out ‘in the house’*], meaning that wherever it recurs in the house, it is governed by that law [which requires the demolition of the house]. The reason for this is that the evil spirit will not depart from that house, but will always be in one of the places in that house, to frighten its owners. So also the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: I know only that [the house is to be demolished] if the plague returns to its former place. Whence do I know to include a return to any place in the house? Scripture therefore says, *in the house*. I know only that this rule applies if the plague recurs in its original color. Whence do I know that even if it recurs in a different color [it is governed by the same rule]? Scripture therefore says, *and it break out* [meaning, in its original color or a different one].
Now the meaning of these verses according to the interpretation [of the Torath Kohanim] is as follows. *And if the plague come again* on the seventh day and returns *in the house, after that the stones have been taken out, and after the house hath been scraped, and after it is plastered*, or *the priest shall come* a second time *and see, and, behold*, that now *the plague has recurred* *in the house* as it was at first, *it is malignant leprosy … and he shall break down the house*, the two verses thus explaining that whether the plague recurred at the end of the first week or at the end of the second week, they are governed by one law [which requires the demolition of the house]. Scripture did not need to say [in Verse 44] “*and the priest shall come and see, if the plague be ‘pasah’* (*have recurred*) *in the house* — he shall then command that they take out the stones” etc., [as Rashi would have it], for this verse [*and the priest shall come …*] is connected with the verse [43] immediately preceding it, stating, *if the plague come again … after that the stones have been taken out* at the end of the first week or the second week, when the priest comes, and he sees its recurrence, *it is a malignant leprosy*. Then Scripture further states, *And if the priest shall come in*, that is, at the end of the second week mentioned above [in Verse 44], *and see it, and, behold, the plague hath not recurred* *in the house, after that the house was plastered; then the priest shall pronounce the house clean*, since it is healed of the plague, that is to say, it did not recur. Thus we now derive the principle that if a plague remained as it was during the first week and the second week, he removes the stones, scrapes away and replasters, and gives it another week, and if the plague returns, he demolishes the house. This is the correct interpretation of the verses in accordance with the [Rabbinical] interpretation thereof, for it is impossible to cut them, so to say, with a knife placing later verses first and earlier verses later, in a manner which is not all their meaning.
It is further possible that we say as a correct interpretation of the verses on this subject, that the term *pasah* in this section [which deals with leprosy in a house], is like *parach*, both of them being an expression of “sprouting.” Where a plague exists already, the term *pasah* denotes its growth and extension, and where there is no plague, it means its [original] sprouting and [subsequent] recurrence, since it is all a matter of growth. Onkelos also has rendered all [expressions of *pasah*] as *oseiph* (adding), and the term *tosepheth* (addition) is used of a growing thing which is added to another, such as in the expressions: *‘v’nosaph gam hu’* (*they be added also*) *to our enemies;* *‘v’nosphah nachalathan’* (*then will their inheritance be added*), and it may also be used of a matter which “returns,” such as: *the Eternal ‘yosiph’* (*will set again*) *His hand;* *and they prophesied ‘v’lo yasaphu’* (*but they did so no more*), meaning that [Eldad and Meidad] did not prophesy any more. Thus the meaning of the term *pasah* is that the plague “returned.” Now after the removing of the stones, [scraping and replastering], when Scripture speaks of *pisayon* [as it does in Verse 44 and 48], the meaning thereof is “sprouting,” as I have mentioned in connection with the term *prichah*. If so, Scripture is stating: *and if the plague came again and ‘sprouted’ in the house, after that the stones have been taken out … and the priest shall come and see, and, behold the plague has ‘sprouted’ in the house … then he shall break down the house*, for every plague that returns is a sign of confirmed impurity. *And if the priest shall come in, and see that the plague has not ‘sprouted’* at all *in the house, after the house was plastered*, he shall pronounce it pure, *because the plague has been healed* by the removal of the stones, [scraping] and replastering.
Thus the law of a house wherein the plague recurs at the end of the first week has been explained here, that he removes the stones, scrapes and replasters, and gives it another week. If the plague returns the house is impure [and is to be demolished], and if it does not return it is pure. But where it remained at the end of the first week as it was [when he first saw it], and it recurred at the end of the second week, the law thereof was not explained in the Torah, but we derive it by means of a *gzeirah shavah* as follows: [the expression, *and behold if the plague recur* is found both in Verse 44: *and the priest shall come*, and in Verse 39: *and the priest shall return*, thus establishing that] “*coming* [in Verse 44] and *returning* [in Verse 39] are identical in regard to their law,” meaning that the law of “coming” which is stated at the end of the second week, is like the law of “returning” stated at the end of the first week, i.e., that in both cases if the plague recurred, he removes the stones, scrapes and replasters and gives it another week. Similarly, if the plague remained as it was [at the end of] the first and second weeks, and recurred [at the end of] the third week, the law thereof is not mentioned in the Torah, but it is derived by means of another *gzeirah shavah:* *‘v’im bo yavo hakohein’* (*and if the priest shall come in*), thus establishing that the priest’s third coming is identical in law to his coming the second time. Thus the verses are explained in line with their simple meaning, while the [Rabbinical] interpretations were derived by a *gzeirah shavah* taught to Moses on Sinai. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim: “What does Scripture refer to? etc.” [from which you might think that these interpretations were originally established by the Rabbis, and not based on the *gzeirah shavah* taught to Moses on Sinai], is merely a Rabbinical support, since they wanted to find a basis in the Scriptural text for that principle which they had received by tradition established by the *gzeirah shavah*. Similarly, what the Rabbis said there: “If we are eventually to include a plague which recurred, even though it did not extend [in the law requiring the removal of the stones etc.], why then does Scripture say, *And the priest shall come and see, and behold, if the plague be ‘pasah’* (*extended*)? Leave it.” That is to say, we are to leave here the plain meaning of the verse and follow the interpretation, but not that we are to uproot the verse from its place and explain it as referring to another place. This is what appears to me to be correct in the meaning of this Scriptural section, so that the words of the Sages be upheld, and it is a fitting and appealing interpretation.
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY