## Ramban on Leviticus Chapter 14

###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:2:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:2:1)

**וְהוּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן** יֹאמַר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע בַּיּוֹם שֶׁיִּרְצֶה לְהִטָּהֵר, שֶׁיּוּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן, כִּי אֵין לוֹ טַהֲרָה לְעוֹלָם אֶלָּא עַל פִּיו. וְאח"כ פֵּרֵשׁ כִּי הַכֹּהֵן יֵצֵא אֶל מְקוֹם מוֹשָׁבוֹ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְהוּא לֹא יָבֹא אֵלָיו אע"פ שֶׁנִּתְרַפֵּא. וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרשה א ג), "וְהוּבָא אֶל הַכֹּהֵן" שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶה. וְאִם כֵּן יֹאמַר כִּי בַּיּוֹם שֶׁיִּטְהַר שֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא מִנִּגְעוֹ יוּבָא עַל כָּרְחוֹ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן. וְכֵן "וְכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב מִזּוֹבוֹ" (ויקרא ט"ו:י"ג), "וְאִם טָהֲרָה מִזּוֹבָהּ" (שם טו כח), כְּשֶׁיִּפָּסְקוּ וְיִהְיוּ מְנֻקִּים מִמֶּנּוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר פֵּרַשְׁתִּי (רמב"ן על ויקרא ט"ו:י"א), וְהוּא הַנָּכוֹן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING: HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE PRIEST. Scripture is stating that this shall be the law of the leper in the day that he wishes to be pronounced pure, that he should be brought to the priest, as he can never attain purity except by means of the priest’s word. Then [in the following verse] Scripture tells that *the priest shall go forth to* the place of his [the leper’s] habitation *out of the camp*,¹ but he [the leper] is not to come to the priest even though his leprosy has been healed.² The interpretation thereof in the Torath Kohanim is as follows:³ 1:3. “*And he shall be brought unto the priest*, this means that he is not to wait.” If so, Scripture is stating that on the same day that he is cleansed, [meaning] that he is cured from his leprosy,⁴ (*on the day of his cleansing*) as meaning: “on the day that he is to be pronounced clean, he is to be brought to the priest, for no one else can so pronounce him” (see Note 46 in *Seder Tazria*). But according to the Torath Kohanim the verse means: “on the day he is actually ‘cleansed’ of the sickness, i.e., on the day that he is physically healed of the affliction, there must be no delay and he is to be brought before the priest.” he is to be brought even against his will to the priest. Similarly, the verses, *And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue;*⁵ *But if she be cleansed of her issue*,⁶, Verse 28. mean when [the issues] will cease and the persons become cleansed of them, as I have explained [i.e., that the term “cleansing” in the verse before us means “the healing” of the leprosy, and the same meaning applies to “the cleansing,” of him or her that hath an issue]. This is the correct explanation.

footnotes:
¹ Verse 3.
² Since the plague is a form of punishment, (see Ramban above, 13:47), the priest’s visit to his habitation on the day that the affliction of leprosy is healed is an indication that his repentance has been accepted. Hence the Torah commands the priest to go to the person who had suffered the affliction, and not the other way (Klei Yakar).
³ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁴ There is thus a distinct difference between the first interpretation, and that of the Torath Kohanim. At first we explained b’yom tahoratho
⁵ Further, 15:13.
⁶ Ibid.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:4:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:4:1)

**חַיּוֹת** פְּרָט לִטְרֵפוֹת. **טְהוֹרוֹת** פְּרָט לְעוֹף טָמֵא. לְפִי שֶׁהַנְּגָעִים בָּאִים עַל לָשׁוֹן הָרַע שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֵׂה פָּטִיט, לְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרְכוּ בְּטַהֲרָתוֹ צִפֳּרִים שֶׁמְּפַטְפְּטִין תָּמִיד בְּצִפְצוּף קוֹל, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"ד:ד'). וּמִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמַר "טְהוֹרוֹת פְּרָט לְעוֹף טָמֵא", נִלְמַד שֶׁאֵין הַצִּפֳּרִים מִין טָהוֹר יָדוּעַ, אֲבָל הוּא שֵׁם כּוֹלֵל כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת. אִם כֵּן מַהוּ הַפִּטְפּוּט הַזֶּה שֶׁמָּצְאוּ לָהֶם, כִּי עוֹפוֹת רַבִּים אֵין בָּהֶם פּוֹצֶה פֶּה וּמְצַפְצֵף. וְעוֹד כִּי מִדְרַשׁ "חַיּוֹת פְּרָט לִטְרֵפוֹת" יָבֹא בְּמַחְלֹקֶת, וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה אֵינוֹ כֵן. וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרשה א יב), "חַיּוֹת" - לֹא שְׁחוּטוֹת. "טְהוֹרוֹת" - לֹא טְמֵאוֹת. "טְהוֹרוֹת" - לֹא טְרֵפוֹת. וּבַעֲלֵי הַפְּשָׁט אוֹמְרִים כִּי כָל עוֹף יִקָּרֵא צִפּוֹר, מִמַּה שֶׁאָמַר "צִפּוֹר שָׁמַיִם וּדְגֵי הַיָּם" (תהלים ח ט), "כֹּל צִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (בראשית ז יד), "בֶּן אָדָם אֱמֹר לְצִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (יחזקאל לט יז), וְכֵן "וְאֶת הַצִּפֹּר לֹא בָתָר" (בראשית טו י) עַל תּוֹרִים וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה. וְהַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי שֶׁשֵּׁם צִפּוֹר כְּלָל לָעוֹפוֹת הַקְּטַנִּים הַמַּשְׁכִּימִים בַּבֹּקֶר לְצַפְצֵף וּלְשׁוֹרֵר, מִלְּשׁוֹן אֲרַמִּית "צַפְרָא", וְכֵן "יָשׁוּב וְיִצְפֹּר" (שופטים ז ג), יַשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר. אָמַר "צִפּוֹר שָׁמַיִם" עֲלֵיהֶם כִּי הֵם לְרֻבָּם יַגְבִּיהוּ לָעוּף בַּשָּׁמַיִם; וְ"כֹל צִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (בראשית ז יד) שְׁנֵי מִינִין, כָּל הַקְּטַנִּים וְכָל הַגְּדוֹלִים; "כִּי יִקָּרֵא קַן צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ" (דברים כב ו), הֵם הַקְּטַנִּים שֶׁהֵן רַבִּים, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בִּקְטַנֵּיהֶם יָחוּס; וְכֵן "אֲשֶׁר שָׁם צִפֳּרִים יְקַנֵּנוּ" (תהלים קד יז), כִּי הֵם הַשּׁוֹכְנִים בְּעַנְפֵי אַרְזֵי הַלְּבָנוֹן; "אֱמֹר לְצִפּוֹר כָּל כָּנָף" (יחזקאל לט יז), שֶׁיִּתְאַסְּפוּ אֲפִלּוּ הַקְּטַנִּים עֲלֵיהֶם, כִּי הַטּוֹרְפִים יָבֹאוּ מֵעַצְמָם; וְכֵן "הַתְשַׂחֶק בּוֹ כַּצִּפּוֹר וְתִקְשְׁרֶנּוּ לְנַעֲרוֹתֶיךָ" (איוב מ כט), כִּי דֶּרֶךְ הַנְּעָרִים לְשַׂחֵק בָּעוֹף הַקָּטָן. וּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים כָּךְ הוּא, כָּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ מַקֵּל אוֹ צִפּוֹר (עבודה זרה מ), הָאוֹרֵג מִשְּׂעַר הַנָּזִיר כִּמְלֹא הַסִּיט בְּבֶגֶד בְּצִפַּרְתָּא (תמורה לד), וְאָמְרוּ צִפֹּרֶת כְּרָמִים (שבת צ), וְאָמְרוּ בְּשַׂר צִפֳּרִים מַחְזִירִין הַחוֹלֶה לְחָלְיוֹ (ברכות נז). וְאָמַר בַּכָּתוּב (דברים יד יא) "כָּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ", עַל הַמִּינִין הָרַבִּים הָהֵם, וְנִתְרַבָּה שֶׁל מְצֹרָע מִ"כָּל" וְאָמַר (שם פסוק יב), "וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מֵהֶם", כְּאוֹמֵר וְאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ מִבְּשָׂרָם, וּלְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ "טְהוֹרוֹת לֹא טְמֵאוֹת". וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כֻּלָּם בַּעֲלֵי פִּטְפּוּט הֵם. וְכֵן גַּם כֵּן "גַּם צִפּוֹר מָצְאָה בַיִת וּדְרוֹר קֵן לָהּ" (תהלים פד ד), כָּךְ נִרְאֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֵׁם כּוֹלֵל הָעוֹפוֹת כֻּלָּם, וְכֵן "אֲשֶׁר שָׁם צִפֳּרִים יְקַנֵּנוּ חֲסִידָה בְּרוֹשִׁים בֵּיתָהּ" (שם קד יז). וְהַנִּרְאֶה מִדִּבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שֶׁכָּל עוֹפוֹת טְהוֹרִים נִקְרָאִים "צִפּוֹר", אֲבָל מִצְוָתוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע בְּצִפֳּרֵי דְּרוֹר, דְּתַנְיָא בְּת"כ (פרק ה יד), "וְשִׁלַּח אֶת הַצִּפֹּר הַחַיָּה אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה" (ויקרא י"ד:נ"ג), רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, צִפּוֹר שֶׁחַיָּה חוּץ לְכָל עִיר, וְאֵי זוֹ, זֶה דְּרוֹר. וּמִן הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה הִזְכִּירוּ הַפִּטְפּוּט. וְיִתָּכֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה, וְדִיעֲבַד כֻּלָּם כְּשֵׁרִין בּוֹ, וּלְפִיכָךְ הֻצְרְכוּ בְּת"כ (כאן) לְמַעֵט טְמֵאוֹת. וְכֵן שָׁנִינוּ בַּמִּשְׁנָה מַסֶּכֶת נְגָעִים (פי"ד מ"א), וּמֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים דְּרוֹר. וְשָׁנוּ עוֹד שָׁם (משנה ה), שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁווֹת בְּמַרְאֶה בְּקוֹמָה וּבְדָמִים וּלְקִיחָתָן כְּאַחַת, אע"פ שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁווֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת. שָׁחַט אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁלֹּא דְּרוֹר, יִקַּח זוּג לַשְּׁנִיָּה. וְהַטַּעַם בָּזֶה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּדִיעֲבַד כֻּלָּן כְּשֵׁרוֹת, כְּשֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי מִינִים פְּסוּלוֹת. וּבְפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת (חולין סב) אָמְרוּ, עוֹף הַמְסָרֵט כָּשֵׁר לְטַהֵר בּוֹ אֶת הַמְּצֹרָע, וְזוֹ הִיא סְנוּנִית לְבָנָה שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים. וּמִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין צִפֳּרֵי הַמְּצֹרָע מִין אֶחָד בִּלְבַד, וְשֶׁאֵין מְטַהֲרִין בְּכָל עוֹף טָהוֹר, אֲבָל מִצְוָתוֹ בְּכָל עוֹף דְּרוֹר, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁדָּרָה בַּבַּיִת כְּבַשָּׂדֶה. וּלְפִיכָךְ אָמְרוּ בִּסְנוּנִית, דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה לְדַעַת חֲכָמִים כְּשֵׁרָה לְטַהֵר בָּהּ שֶׁהִיא בִּכְלַל דְּרוֹר. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כָּל הַטְּהוֹרִין כְּשֵׁרִים בְּדִיעֲבַד, שֶׁכֻּלָּן בִּכְלַל שְׁתֵּי צִפֳּרִים טְהוֹרוֹת. וְשָׁנוּ בְּסִפְרֵי (ראה קג), אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "צִפּוֹר", בִּטְהוֹרָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, עוֹף טָהוֹר נִקְרָא "עוֹף" וְנִקְרָא "צִפּוֹר", וְטָמֵא לֹא נִקְרָא אֶלָּא "עוֹף". וְכָךְ הִזְכִּירוּ בַּגְּמָרָא בְּפֶרֶק שִׁלּוּחַ הַקֵּן (חולין קלט), וְשָׁם הֶעֱלוּ (קמ) כִּי "חַיּוֹת" - שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים שֶׁלָּהֶם, לְמַעוֹטֵי מְחֻסְּרוֹת אֵבָר. וְכֵן הַטְּרֵפוֹת פְּסוּלוֹת בָּהֶן. וְדָרְשׁוּ "טְהוֹרוֹת" - לְמַעֵט אֲסוּרוֹת, כְּגוֹן צִפֳּרֵי עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת וְעוֹף שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהַחִלּוּפִין בַּע"ז. וּמִדְרָשָׁם זֶה שָׁם מִן הַלָּשׁוֹן עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁאֵין צִפּוֹר אֶלָּא עוֹף טָהוֹר, וּמַשְׁמַע מִכָּאן שֶׁכָּל עוֹף טָהוֹר בִּכְלַל צִפּוֹר. וְרָאִיתִי עוֹד בַּיְּרוּשַׁלְמִי בְּמַסֶּכֶת נָזִיר (פ"א ה"א) שֶׁאָמְרוּ, וְכִי נָזִיר טָמֵא צִפֳּרִים הוּא מֵבִיא, תּוֹרִים וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה הוּא מֵבִיא, אִית תַּנַּיֵי תָּנֵי, כָּל עוֹף טָהוֹר קָרוּי צִפֳּרִים, אִית תַּנַּיֵי תָּנֵי, כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת בֵּין טָמֵא וּבֵין טָהוֹר קָרוּי צִפֳּרִים. וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁאַר בְּיָדֵינוּ מִמֶּנּוּ מַחְלֹקֶת. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם יִתָּכֵן שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַשֵּׁם בַּקְּטַנִּים בִּלְבַד. וּבַגְּמָרָא כָּךְ הוּא נִרְאֶה, מִמַּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּמַסֶּכֶת סוֹטָה (סוטה ט"ז), הָבֵא מַיִם שֶׁדַּם צִפּוֹר נִכָּר בָּהֶם, וְכַמָּה הֵם, רְבִיעִית. וְשָׁאֲלוּ, גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַמַּיִם, קְטַנָּה וְנִדְחֵת מִפְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, מַהוּ, וּפֵרְשׁוּ, כָּל שִׁעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים כָּךְ הֵם, בְּצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר שִׁעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים, אֵין לְךָ גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁדּוֹחָה אֶת הַמַּיִם וְאֵין לְךָ קְטַנָּה שֶׁנִּדְחֵית מִפְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. וְאִלּוּ הָיָה כָּל עוֹף טָהוֹר כָּשֵׁר בּוֹ, הָיָה מֵהֶם מִי שֶׁדָּמוֹ דּוֹחֶה כַּמָּה לֻגִּין. וְאוּלַי אָמְרוּ כֵן בְּצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה, מִמִּדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַ' יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. וּכְבָר הִזְכִּירוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (שבועות כט), וְדִלְמָא צִפּוֹרָא רַבָּא חֲזָא וְאַסֵּק שְׁמֵהּ גָּמָל. וְהַנָּכוֹן שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה מִכָּל זֶה הוּא שֶׁנֹּאמַר שֶׁכָּל צִפּוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ דְּרוֹר פָּסוּל אֲפִילּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד, מִן הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁנוּ בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ (נגעים יד א) מִצְוָתָן שֶׁיְּהוּ דְּרוֹר, אע"פ שֶׁאֵינָן דְּרוֹר כְּשֵׁרוֹת - כְּמוֹ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ בְּשָׁווֹת (שם יד ה). וְכָל הַדְּרוֹרִים בַּעֲלֵי פִּטְפּוּט הֵם. וּמַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּת"כ "לֹא טְמֵאוֹת", מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ אַף בַּטְּמֵאִין מִינִין שֶׁהֵם דְּרוֹר, כְּגוֹן הַסְּנוּנִית לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. אוֹ יִהְיֶה פֵּרוּשׁוֹ לְמַעֵט טְמֵאוֹת לְךָ, שֶׁהֵן הָאֲסוּרוֹת וְהַטְּרֵפוֹת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ בַּגְּמָרָא בְּפֶרֶק שִׁלּוּחַ הַקֵּן (חולין קמ). וְזֶהוּ הֶהָגוּן בְּעֵינַי. וּבַהַגָּדָה דְּרַבָּה (ויקרא רבה טז ז) אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן, אִלֵּן צִפְּרַיָּא קוֹלָנִין, זֶה הָאוֹמֵר לָשׁוֹן הָרַע. אָמַר הקב"ה, יָבֹא קוֹל וִיכַפֵּר עַל קוֹל. וְר' יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר, צִפֳּרִים צִפֳּרֵי דְּרוֹר, שֶׁאָכְלָה מִפִּתּוֹ וְשָׁתַת מִן מֵימָיו. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר וְכוּ':

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THEN SHALL THE PRIEST COMMAND TO TAKE FOR HIM THAT IS TO BE CLEANSED TWO LIVING, CLEAN ‘TZIPORIM’ (BIRDS). “*Living*, this excludes birds which are *treifah*.⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word *living* excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. *Clean*, this excludes a bird unfit for food. Since the plagues of leprosy came as a punishment for slander, which is done by chattering, therefore Scripture required for the leper’s cleansing that he bring birds which always twitter with a chirping sound.” This is Rashi’s language.
Now in view of the fact that Rashi wrote, “*Clean*, this excludes a bird which is unfit for food,” we can deduce that the [unqualified] term *tziporim* does not denote a permissible species of birds, but is instead a generic term for all birds [those permissible as food and those forbidden]. If so, the question appears: what is this “chirping” that they found [among the *tziporim*]? For there are many birds among which *there is none that openeth the mouth, or chirpeth*!⁸ Moreover, the interpretation [which Rashi quoted]: “*Living*, this excludes birds which are *treifah*,”⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word *living* excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. is really subject to a controversy of opinion,⁹ animal or bird can in fact survive for more than one year. and according to the Sage who says that a *treifah*⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word *living* excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. can survive, this interpretation [of Rashi] is not correct. And in the Torath Kohanim we find this interpretation:¹⁰ 1:12. “*Living*, not slaughtered. *Clean*, not unfit for food. *Clean*, not *treifoth*.”¹¹ means not slaughtered; *clean* means not unfit for food.’ Then [the Tanna] says that according to the Midrash thereof, *clean* means not *treifah*, since that it may not be of a forbidden species, we know already from the word *tzipor*. This Sage further holds that a *treifah* can survive, and therefore birds which are *treifah* are not excluded by the word *living*,” but instead are excluded by the term *clean*. Now the scholars who follow the simple meaning of Scripture¹². say that every kind of bird [whether permissible as food or forbidden] is called *tzipor*, as is evidenced by the verses which state: *‘tzipor’* (*the fowl*) *of the air, and the fish of the sea;*¹³ *every ‘tzipor’* (*bird*) *of every sort;*¹⁴ *And thou son of man … speak ‘l’tzipor’* (*unto the birds*) *of every sort*.¹⁵ Similarly, it says, *and ‘hatzipor’* (*the birds*) *he did not divide*,¹⁶ with reference to the turtle-doves and young pigeons¹⁷, Verse 9. [which are permissible birds, thus proving that the term *tzipor* is used with reference to both permissible and forbidden birds].
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the term *tzipor* is a generic term for all small birds that rise early in the morning to chirp and to sing, the term being associated with the Aramaic word *tzaphra* (morning). Similarly, the expression *let him return v’yitzpor’*¹⁸ means, and arise “early in the morning.” The expression *‘tzipor’* (*the fowl of*) *the air*¹³ is said with reference to these small birds, because it is mostly they that fly high in the air. *Every ‘tzipor’* (*bird*) *of every sort*¹⁴ refers to two kinds, all the little ones and the big ones. *If a ‘kan tzipor’* (*bird’s nest*) *chance to be before thee*¹⁹ speaks about the little ones which are many [and therefore likely to chance to be there], to teach that even when they are young, the finder must exercise mercy towards them. Similarly, *therein ‘tziporim’* (*the birds*) *make nests*²⁰ [means the little ones], for it is they that dwell on the boughs of the cedars of the Lebanon. *Speak ‘l’tzipor’* (*unto the birds*) *of every sort*¹⁵ means that even the little ones should gather upon [the flesh of the mighty that have fallen in battle],²¹ for the big marauding birds will come by themselves. Similarly, *Wilt thou play with him* [the leviathan] *‘katzipor’* (*as with a bird*)? *Or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?*²² [refers to the little birds], for it is the way of young boys to play with little birds. The language of the Sages also follows that usage: Any statue which bears in its hand a staff or *‘tzipor’* (a bird)²³ must be to a small bird that can easily be caught. Rabbeinu Chananel explains the text of the Gemara in the following words: “he holds the whole world in his hand as one holds a bird.” Here too the reference is to a small bird that the holder can easily control in the palm of his hand. [one may not derive any benefit from, since these objects indicate that the statue is worshipped as an idol]; “If a man wove into a garment one *sit’s* length of a Nazirite’s hair [from which one is forbidden to derive any benefit], the garment is to be burnt,”²⁴ is the distance between the tips of the outstretched thumb and forefinger. [and when the Sages of the Gemara raised the question, “why is this small piece not neutralized by the larger part of the garment?” it was answered that this is a case where he wove into the garment “the form of] a *tziporta*” [a small bird, which made the whole garment more valuable, and therefore it is not neutralized by the larger part thereof, and hence must be burnt].²⁵ From this too it is clear that the term *tzipor* denotes a small bird. The Sages also speak of “*tziporoth* (birds of) the vineyard [however small].”²⁶ (birds of) the vineyard, whether alive or dead, [he is liable], however small [the size be].” It is thus clear that the word *tzipor* is used by the Sages to mean a small bird, which even when alive is “however small.” They also said: “the meat of *tziporim* (birds) brings back a sickness to a sick man [who is recovering, and makes it worse”²⁷ refers to a small bird, Ramban now begins to elucidate further that it means both a permissible and forbidden species of bird. Here in the text of Berachoth it definitely means a permissible bird, but further it will be shown that it may mean also a forbidden bird. thus indicating that the term *tzipor* refers to a bird which one may eat]. Scripture further states, *All ‘tzipor’* (*birds*) *that are clean ye may eat*,²⁸ meaning all these many species of [permissible] birds, thus including [the living bird sent away by] the leper [into the open field²⁹ as permissible food],³⁰ (Deuteronomy 14:11), meaning any bird of a permissible species that is found may be eaten, now if the living bird of the leper were forbidden to be eaten, the Torah would not command the bird to be sent off, as this could involve a possible offense [since if the bird were not in fact permitted to be eaten, one might catch it without knowing that it had been used by the leper, and eat it]! Now, concludes Ramban, this permission is based in the Talmud on the word ‘all’ (‘*All birds* etc.) as explained above. This proves that the word *tzipor*, such as found here in the text before us, does not of itself only mean a permissible kind of bird. Rather, since it is a term for both the permissible and forbidden kind, it was therefore necessary for the Torath Kohanim here to establish that the leper’s bird must be of a permissible species, from the word *clean* qualifying *tziporim*. by means of the word *kol* (*‘All’ birds that are clean ye may eat*).²⁸ And the verse which states, *But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the osprey*³¹ means “a small” bird, whether of a permissible or forbidden kind, Ramban finds this verse difficult, since the expression *of them* [in translation of the verse: “of which”] apparently refers back to *‘kol tzipor’* (*birds*) mentioned in the previous verse [11], and yet it mentions here (in Verse 12) big birds like the great vulture, etc. In addition, the word *tzipor* in Verse 11 is explicitly qualified by the word *‘t’horah,’* thus excluding the great vulture. Ramban’s answer follows in the text, where he explains that the expression *of them* does not refer back to *‘kol tzipor’* (*all birds*) previously mentioned, but rather means “of their flesh,” i.e., the flesh of these big birds about to be mentioned — the great vulture, etc. is [to be understood] as if it said, “and these are they, from the flesh of which ye may not eat.” It is for this reason [i.e., since the term *tzipor* includes both permissible and forbidden birds], that the Sages found it necessary to interpret:¹⁰ 1:12. “*Clean*, not forbidden birds” [but they would not have been able to derive it if the word *tziporim* had not been qualified]. In any case it is clear that *tziporim* are the small chirping birds. Similarly, *Yea, the ‘tzipor’ hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself*³² also indicates that the word *tzipor* is not a name for all birds [for otherwise why should the verse mention both *tzipor* and the swallow, if the term *tzipor* already includes all birds]. Likewise, *Wherein tziporim* (*the birds*) *make their nests, the stork makes the fir-tree her house*³³, 104:17. [indicates that *tziporim* does not include all birds, since the verse proceeds also to mention some specific birds].
It would appear from the words of our Sages that all birds permissible as food are called *tzipor*, but the leper was commanded to bring *tziporei dror* [“free birds,” a term which, as explained further on means birds which live in the house as well as in the field], for we have been taught in the Torath Kohanim:³⁴ 5:13. “*And he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field*.³⁵ Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said: ‘This means a bird that lives outside all cities. And what kind of bird is it? It is the bird called *dror*’” [the free bird that lives in the house as well as in the field]. It is on the basis of this interpretation of the Rabbis that they further mentioned [in connection with the leper’s birds] that they “chatter” [since it is usually these free birds which twitter].
It is possible that the requirement that the birds be of “the free” kind is a commandment [which is to be observed if possible, but is not indispensable], so that if it has already been done, they are all valid [whether free or unfree]. Therefore the Sages in the Torath Kohanim¹⁰ 1:12. found it necessary to exclude forbidden bird’s [which do not possess this characteristic of living in the house and in the field]. And so we have been taught in a Mishnah of Tractate Negaim:³⁶ “And he [the leper] brought two birds that are of the free type of bird.” And it is furthermore taught there:³⁷, 5. “It is a commandment that the two birds of the leper should be alike in appearance, in size and in value, and that they should be brought at the same time. Yet even if they are not alike, they are valid. If one was slaughtered and it was found that it was not a ‘free bird,’ he should buy a partner for the second one.” The reason [why he must buy a partner for the second one] although [as we have said above] if it has already been done, all birds [whether free or unfree] are valid, is that if they were of two different kinds [as in this case, where the slaughtered one was a non-*dror*, and the living one a *dror*], they *are* invalid. And in the Chapter *Eilu Treifoth*³⁸” among cattle. It is the third chapter of Tractate Chullin. The text quoted here is found there on 62 a. For the word *treifah*, see above, Note 7. the Sages of the Gemara have said: “A bird which scratches, is valid to be used for the purification of the leper. This is the white-bellied swallow concerning which Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages differed” [as explained further on]. From these texts [it is clear] that the birds for the purification of the leper are not limited to one species, and that the purification is not to be done with *any* permissible bird, but rather the commandment is that it be done only with those birds that are *dror*, that is to say, “which live in the house as well as in the field.”³⁹ Therefore the Rabbis said [in the above-quoted text] with reference to the white-bellied swallow, that since according to the Sages it is a bird which may be eaten, it is also valid for the purification of the leper, as it is included within [the category of those birds that are] *dror* [living in the house as well as in the field]. Yet nonetheless *all* permissible birds [even those that are not “free birds”] are valid, if the purification of the leper has already been done with them, since they are all included within the phrase, *two living clean birds*.
And we have been taught in the Sifre:⁴⁰ 103. See in *Seder Vayikra* Note 121, on Sifre. “Rabbi Yashiyah said: ‘Wherever it says in Scripture *tzipor*, it speaks of a permissible bird.’ Said Rabbi Yitzchak: ‘A permissible bird is called *oph* (fowl) and also *tzipor* (bird), but a forbidden one is only called *oph*’.” Similarly the Rabbis mentioned also in the Gemara [of Tractate Chullin], in the Chapter *Shilu’ach Hakan*,⁴¹ where they resolved that the term *living* [*two ‘living’ clean birds*] means “the ends of whose limbs ‘live’ (exist), thus excluding birds from whom a limb is missing.” Similarly [permissible] birds which are *treifah*⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word *living* excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. are invalid [for the purification of the leper]. The Rabbis also interpreted there⁴¹ the term *clean* [*two living ‘clean’ birds*] to exclude those birds which are of a permissible species but are forbidden to be eaten [for some special reason], such as birds belonging to a person of a city that went astray,⁴² or a fowl that killed a human being, or those that have been exchanged for an idol.⁴³ use, just as the original idol may not be made any use of. This interpretation was derived by the Sages from the very language itself, since the term *tzipor* denotes only a permissible bird. It is clear then from this text, that all permissible birds [whether they are of the dror-type or not] are included within the category of *tzipor*.
I have further seen in the Yerushalmi of Tractate Nazir⁴⁴ i.e., the Jerusalem Talmud. The academies in Babylon flourished for many centuries longer. Their teachings were later compiled [about the year 475 of Common Era] and are known as the Babylonian Talmud. To this day Talmudic study is almost exclusively devoted to the Babylonian Talmud, so that any tractate of the Talmud generally cited, is that of the Babylonian Talmud, unless specified as in the case before us: “the Yerushalmi of Tractate” so-and-so. A tradition has it that after the redaction of the Jerusalem Talmud, its Sages went down as a group to Babylon, and most of their teachings were incorporated into the text of the Babylonian Talmud. This explains why Talmudic study throughout the ages was concentrated almost entirely upon the Babylonian Talmud, while only the outstanding Rabbis of the generations devoted their studies also to the Jerusalem Talmud. that the Sages of the Gemara said: “But does an impure Nazirite really bring *tziporim*?⁴⁵ (birds),’ Rabbi Meir says that he becomes a Nazirite etc.” The reason for this opinion of Rabbi Meir was explained there in the Gemara by Resh Lakish, that it is because a Nazirite whose consecration has been defiled, must bring *tziporim* as an atonement (Numbers 6:9-11). On this explanation of Resh Lakish, the Gemara asked: “But does a Nazirite really bring *tziporim*? It is turtle-doves or young pigeons that he brings!” In other words, *tziporim* means birds which are of a forbidden kind, while the Nazirite must bring birds which are permissible to be eaten! So how could the reason Resh Lakish advanced to explain Rabbi Meir’s opinion be correct, since *tziporim* (forbidden birds) are not used at all by a Nazirite! — Ramban is thus beginning at this point to refute his own explanation which he had set forth, namely, that *tzipor* refers only to a permissible bird, since it is evident from the Yerushalmi that *tzipor* means a forbidden bird! The final solution of the Yerushalmi follows. It is turtle-doves or young pigeons that he brings! [To this question the reply was made:] ‘There are some authorities who teach that all edible birds are called *tziporim*, and there are other authorities that teach that all birds, whether permissible or forbidden, are called *tziporim*.’”⁴⁶, becomes a Nazirite even according to those authorities that hold that the term *tziporim* denotes all kinds of birds, permissible ones or forbidden ones, for since it also denotes permissible birds, his intention was those birds that may be brought upon the altar (P’nei Moshe). Thus we are now left with a divergence of opinion [as to what the term *tzipor* denotes]! Yet it is possible that the name applies only to the small birds. This appears so in the Gemara from what the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sotah:⁴⁷ [In the process of his purification the leper is commanded to] “bring a sufficient amount of water that the bird’s blood may remain discernible in it.⁴⁸. On this the Sages commented that the vessel must contain just enough water that the blood of the bird is discernible in it. And how much etc. (see text). And how much is this? The fourth of a *log*.” Upon this the Sages queried: “If the bird was a large one so that the blood thereof ‘pushed away’ the water [so that it was imperceptible], or the bird was a small one so that its blood was ‘pushed away’ by the water [so that the blood was indiscernible], what is the ruling on these cases?” On these questions [the Rabbis of the Talmud] explained: “All standard measures laid down by the Sages were fixed with precision. The Sages estimated with reference to a ‘free bird’ that you will not find one so big that the blood thereof will ‘push away’ the water, nor will you find one so small that the blood thereof will be ‘pushed away’ by the water.” Now if all kinds of permissible birds were valid for [the purification of the leper], there are some birds the blood of which would “push away” many *logim* of water! Perhaps the Sages established the above standard only with reference to a “free bird” which one is commanded to bring if this is possible, according to the interpretation of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,⁴⁹ [but if the purification has already been done with a large bird, it is also valid]. It has already been mentioned in the Gemara:⁵⁰ “Perhaps he saw a large *tziporo* (bird) and he called it *gamal* (camel).”⁵¹ includes also large birds, and hence the above-mentioned explanation that it refers only to small birds is incorrect.
The correct [and final] conclusion which emerges from all this discussion is that we say on the basis of this interpretation⁴⁹ that any bird which is not a “free one” is invalid for the purification of the leper, even if the purification has already been done, since in the Mishnah thereof³⁷, 5. it was not taught: “It is a commandment [to be fulfilled if possible] that the birds should be ‘free birds,’ but even if they were not ‘free birds,’ they are valid,” as it taught concerning the requirement of equality [in appearance, size and value, that “even if they are not alike, they are valid”]; also, the correct conclusion is that all birds that are “free birds” are those that chatter. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim,¹⁰ 1:12. “*Clean*, not those forbidden as food,”⁵²-characteristic of the bird is indispensable in the purification of the leper, meaning that if the birds did not have this quality of living in the house as well as in the field, the purification is invalid even if already done, why was it necessary for the Torath Kohanim to point to a special Scriptural source for the exclusion of forbidden birds; for such birds are not of the kind that live in the house as well as in the field, and we have said that if the birds lack this characteristic, the purification is invalid?” Ramban answers that we must perforce say that even among forbidden birds there *are* some species that do have this characteristic of being able to live in the house as well as in the field, and hence it was necessary for the Torath Kohanim to exclude them by means of a special expression in the verse. is because even among the forbidden birds there are some species that possess this quality of *dror* [living in the house as well as in the field], such as the white-bellied swallow according to Rabbi Eliezer.⁵³ Or perhaps the meaning of the Torath Kohanim is that it excludes those birds [whose prohibition is not because they belong to the forbidden species, but because of special circumstances] which make them “forbidden to you,” such as those birds which are nonetheless forbidden [as food or benefit, because they belonged to a person of a city that had gone astray,⁴² or those that have been exchanged for an idol],⁴³ use, just as the original idol may not be made any use of. or those which are *treifah*,⁷ according to the accepted opinion (see Note 9 below), is an animal or bird suffering from one of certain organic diseases from which it is bound to die within twelve months, even though it be ritually slaughtered. Thus the word *living* excludes a bird which will die from a disease. Ramban further on will comment on this point. just as the Rabbis resolved in the Gemara in the Chapter *Shilu’ach Hakan*.⁴¹ This is the correct interpretation in my eyes. In the Agadah of the [Midrash] Rabbah we find this statement:⁵⁴ “Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon said: These birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are noisy ones, symbolic of he who speaks slander [and as a punishment for which, the slanderer is stricken with leprosy]. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Let that which is accompanied by sound [namely, these noisy birds] come to bring atonement for the evil sound [of the slanderer].’ And Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Levi said: The birds [brought by the leper for his purification] are of the ‘free kind’ [that live in the house as well as in the field] and thus ate of the leper’s bread and drank of his water. Now the following statement follows logically with stronger reason etc.”⁵⁵).

footnotes:
⁷ Treifah
⁸ Isaiah 10:14.
⁷ Treifah
⁹ I.e., in Tractate Chullin 140a we find a difference of opinion among the Rabbis as to whether a treifah
⁷ Treifah
¹⁰ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
¹¹ In his commentary to the Torath Kohanim, Malbim explains this text as follows: “First [the Tanna of this Beraitha] explains the simple meaning of the verse, saying: ‘Living
¹² Ibn Ezra on this verse, and R’dak in his Book of Roots, under the root tzipor
¹³ Psalms 8:9.
¹⁴ Genesis 7:14.
¹⁵ Ezekiel 39:17.
¹⁶ Genesis 15:10.
¹⁷ Ibid.
¹⁸ Judges 7:3.
¹³ Psalms 8:9.
¹⁴ Genesis 7:14.
¹⁹ Deuteronomy 22:6.
²⁰ Psalms 104:17.
¹⁵ Ezekiel 39:17.
²¹ Ezekiel 39:18.
²² Job 40:29.
²³ Abodah Zarah 40 b. Now the emblem of the bird, as explained in the Gemara (41 a), is “a symbol that [the idol in question] causes itself to be caught like a bird on behalf of the entire world.” Hence the reference in the word tzipor
²⁴ Terumah 34 a. A sit
²⁵ Rashi, ibid.
²⁶ Shabbath 90 a. The Mishnah there in speaking with reference to taking out any object from one domain to another on the Sabbath, states: “for tziporoth
²⁷ Berachoth 57 b. Having proven that the term tzipor
²⁸ Deuteronomy 14:11.
²⁹ Verse 7.
³⁰ Ramban here alludes to a question that was raised in the Gemara (Chullin 140 a), as to whether the living bird of the leper that is sent into the open field is permissible to be eaten if caught by someone. To this the answer was given that one is permitted to eat it; for since the Torah stated ‘All’ birds that are clean ye may eat
²⁸ Deuteronomy 14:11.
³¹ Deuteronomy 14:12. Having established that the word tzipor
¹⁰ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
³² Psalms 84:4.
³³ Ibid.
³⁴ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
³⁵ Further, Verse 53.
¹⁰ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
³⁶ Negaim 14:1.
³⁷ Ibid.
³⁸ “These are accounted treifah
³⁹ Shabbath 106 b.
⁴⁰ Sifre, R’eih
⁴¹ “The letting of [the dam] go from the nest.” It is the twelfth chapter of Tractate Chullin, discussing the law stated in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. The text quoted here is found there on p. 140 a.
⁷ Treifah
⁴¹ “The letting of [the dam] go from the nest.” It is the twelfth chapter of Tractate Chullin, discussing the law stated in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. The text quoted here is found there on p. 140 a.
⁴² See Deuteronomy 13:16-18, that all the belongings thereof are to be destroyed.
⁴³ Thus if one received birds of a permissible species as payment for an idol, they are nonetheless forbidden for any
⁴⁴ Yerushalmi Nazir I, 1. — To understand the name “‘Yerushalmi of Nazir,” it is important to note that after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi — also known as Rabbeinu Hakadosh — in the Land of Israel [about the year 200 of Common Era] it formed, the basis of study in all academies of learning. But whereas hitherto all the great Yeshivoth were concentrated in the Land of Israel, after the completion of the Mishnah two groups of Yeshivoth came into prominence: those of the Land of Israel, and those of Babylon. Thus for a number of generations there existed side by side two groups of academies where the Mishnah was studied and interpreted. In the course of time, the continuous Roman persecutions forced the closing of the Palestinian schools of learning; but before they were finally closed, the Rabbis compiled their teachings in what is known as the Talmud Yerushalmi
⁴⁵ The question refers back to a statement in the Mishnah which reads: “If a person said, ‘I pledge myself to offer tziporim
⁴⁶ Hence he who said, “I pledge myself to offer tziporim
⁴⁷ Sotah 16 b.
⁴⁸ Verse 5 here reads: And the priest shall command that one of the birds shall be slaughtered in an earthen vessel over running water
⁴⁹ See text of Ramban above, quoting the Torath Kohanim at Note 34.
⁵⁰ Shebuoth 29 a.
⁵¹ This text clearly shows that the term tzipor
⁴⁹ See text of Ramban above, quoting the Torath Kohanim at Note 34.
³⁷ Ibid.
¹⁰ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁵² Ramban’s meaning is as follows. On this exclusion of forbidden birds by the Torath Kohanim one might ask: “Since, as we have now established, the dror
⁵³ Mentioned above in the text, at Note 38.
⁴² See Deuteronomy 13:16-18, that all the belongings thereof are to be destroyed.
⁴³ Thus if one received birds of a permissible species as payment for an idol, they are nonetheless forbidden for any
⁷ Treifah
⁴¹ “The letting of [the dam] go from the nest.” It is the twelfth chapter of Tractate Chullin, discussing the law stated in Deuteronomy 22:6-7. The text quoted here is found there on p. 140 a.
⁵⁴ Vayikra Rabbah 16:7.
⁵⁵ “If these birds that ate of his bread and drank of his water, effect atonement for the leper, how much more so do the priests who enjoy twenty-four kinds of gifts, effect atonement for Israel!” (Ibid.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:4:2
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:4:2)

**וְעֵץ אֶרֶז וּשְׁנִי תוֹלַעַת וְאֵזֹב** אָמַר ר"א (אבן עזרא על ויקרא י"ד:ד') הוּא הַגָּדוֹל וְהַקָּטָן בְּמִינֵי הַצְּמָחִים, וְהָעֵד מִדִּבְרֵי חָכְמַת שְׁלֹמֹה (מלכים א ה יג). וְהִנֵּה הַמְּצֹרָע וְתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הַמְּנֻגָּע וְטֻמְאַת הַמֵּת קְרוֹבִים, וְהִנֵּה הֵם כִּדְמוּת פֶּסַח מִצְרַיִם. וְטַעַם "עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה" (ויקרא י"ד:ז'), מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֵין שָׁם יִשּׁוּב, שֶׁלֹּא תִּדְבַּק הַצָּרַעַת. וּבְת"כ (פרשה ב ה) אָמְרוּ, "עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה", שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמֹד בְּיָפוֹ וִישַׁלְּחֶנָּה לַיָּם, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמוֹד בִּגְבַת וִישַׁלְּחֶנָּה לַמִּדְבָּר. וְאִם כֵּן יִהְיֶה הַטַּעַם כְּסוֹד הַשָּׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, וְשָׁם יִשְׁתַּלַּח לַעֲזָאזֵל הַמִּדְבָּרָה וְכָאן לְפוֹרְחוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה. וְעוֹד אֲפָרֵשׁ זֶה (רמב"ן על ויקרא ט"ז:ח') בע"ה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND CEDAR-WOOD, AND SCARLET, AND HYSSOP. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that “[the cedar-wood and the hyssop] represent the tallest and the lowest in species of vegetation, as is evidenced by the words of wisdom of Solomon.⁵⁶ [Solomon] *spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall* (I Kings 5:13). The inference is clearly that Solomon’s wisdom encompassed all vegetation, from highest to lowest. Thus the law of the leper and the law of the house stricken with leprosy and the [law of] impurity [conveyed by] a corpse are closely related,⁵⁷ and they resemble the Passover in Egypt.⁵⁸ And the meaning of the expression *into the open field*⁵⁹ is to an uninhabitated place, so that no infection might be caused.” [Thus far are the words of Ibn Ezra.].
And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁶⁰ 2:5. “*Into the open field*,⁵⁹ this means that he is not to stand in Joppa [which is on the sea] and let it go into the sea, nor is he to stand in Gabbath [a city which is on the edge of the desert] and let it go into the desert.” Now if so, [that he may not let it go into the sea or into the desert], then the reason why it is sent into the open field is like the secret of the goat sent to Azazel,⁶¹ except that there it is sent *for Azazel into the wilderness*,⁶¹ and here it is sent to the flying [destructive spirits] of the field.⁶² I will yet explain this with the help of G-d.⁶³

footnotes:
⁵⁶ And he
⁵⁷ In each of these cases the cedar-wood and the hyssop are requirements in the process of purification. See further, 14:52 for the purification of a house that had been affected by leprosy, and Numbers 19:6 and 18, for the purification from the impurity conveyed by a corpse.
⁵⁸ Exodus 12:22. There the hyssop was required in the sprinkling of the blood upon the lintel and the two side-posts, so that the destroyer would not come into the Israelite houses. — Ibn Ezra is thus intimating that in the cases of leprosy and impurity of a corpse, the purification was a sign that the destroyer would no longer approach that person or house, just as was its function in Egypt (Ezra L’havin).
⁵⁹ Verse 7.
⁶⁰ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁵⁹ Verse 7.
⁶¹ Further, 16:10.
⁶¹ Further, 16:10.
⁶² See my Hebrew commentary, p. 80.
⁶³ Further, 16:8.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:9:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:9:1)

**אֶת כָּל שְׂעָרוֹ** כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, לְהָבִיא כָּל מְקוֹם כִּנּוּס שֵׂעָר הַנִּרְאֶה, לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י (רש"י על ויקרא י"ד:ט'). אֲבָל בְּת"כ (פרק ב ב ג) "וְגִלַּח אֶת שְׂעָרוֹ", יָכוֹל אַף בֵּית הַסְּתָרִים, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "גַּבּוֹת עֵינָיו", מַה גַּבּוֹת עֵינָיו בְּנִרְאֶה אַף כָּל שְׂעָרוֹ בְּנִרְאֶה, פְּרָט לְבֵית הַסְּתָרִים. אִי מַה גַּבּוֹת עֵינָיו מָקוֹם כִּנּוּס שֵׂעָר בְּנִרְאֶה, אַף כָּל מָקוֹם כִּנּוּס שֵׂעָר בְּנִרְאֶה, מִנַּיִן כִּנּוּס שֵׂעָר בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה, פִּזּוּר שֵׂעָר בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה, ת"ל "אֶת כָּל שְׂעָרוֹ יְגַלֵּחַ". אֲבָל הָרַב תָּפַס מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מַאי הֵבִיא, שְׂעַר הָרַגְלַיִם, וּמַאי הוֹצִיא, דְּבֵית הַשֶּׁחִי וּדְכוּלֵּי גּוּפֵהּ. אֲבָל בְּכָאן הֲלָכָה מְגַלֵּחַ כִּדְלַעַת, אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֲלָכָה עוֹקֶבֶת אֶת הַמִּדְרָשׁ אוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְרַבִּי דְּכֻלֵּי גּוּפֵהּ, וּמִעֵט שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַחֹטֶם בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן שָׁנִינוּ בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ (נגעים פי"ד מ"ב), וְהֶעֱבִיר תַּעַר עַל כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ, וּמְפֹרָשׁ בְּפֶרֶק שֵׁנִי דְּסוֹטָה (טז):

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND IT SHALL BE ON THE SEVENTH DAY, THAT HE SHALL SHAVE ALL HIS HAIR, HIS HEAD AND HIS BEARD AND HIS EYEBROWS, EVEN ALL HIS HAIR HE SHALL SHAVE OFF. “This is a general principle [*he shall shave all his head*] followed by an enumeration of particulars [already comprehended in the general proposition, i.e., *his head* etc.] and [this again is followed by] a generalization [*all his hair he shall shave off*].⁶⁴ This is to include every spot of the body where there is a visible collection of hair” [just like the head, beard and eyebrows]. This is Rashi’s language.
But in the Torath Kohanim it is stated:⁶⁵ 2:2-3. Ramban’s meaning is to point out that Rashi here follows Rabbi Yishmael’s method of exposition, while the accepted rule is that of Rabbi Akiba, who had a different method of exegesis which allowed in such cases for a wider inclusion of particulars not specified, as indicated in the following text of the Torath Kohanim. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 80. “*And he shall shave off all his hair*. I might think this includes the hidden parts of the body; Scripture therefore states, *his eyebrows*. Just as the eyebrows are visible, so also [the expression] *all his hair* refers only to visible parts of the body, thus excluding hair which is in the hidden parts of the body. If so I might think, just as the eyebrows are in a place where there is a visible collection of hair, so we are to include [only] those places where there is a visible collection of hair. Whence do I know to include [in the commandment of shaving his hair] an invisible collection of hair [such as under the armpits, and between the legs], or a visible scattering of hair [such as on the stomach or ribs] or an invisible scattering of hair [such as the hair in the folds of the body]? Scripture therefore says, *even all his hair he shall shave off*.” However, the Rabbi [Rashi] followed the interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael,⁶⁴ who included only the hair between the legs, and excluded the hair under the armpits and on the whole body [since they are not “visible collections of hair].” But here the accepted law is that he shaves his body as smooth as a gourd, either because this is one [of the three instances] where the practice goes beyond the Biblical text,⁶⁶ or because the accepted law is like the opinion of Rabbi Akiba, who [as a consequence of his wider method of exegesis] included the hair of the whole body [in the requirement of being shaved], and excluded only the hair within the nose [or ears]. So also have we been taught in a Mishnah [like Rabbi Akiba]:⁶⁷ “He passed the razor over the whole of his body,” and it is further explained in the second chapter of Tractate Sotah.⁶⁶

footnotes:
⁶⁴ Such a Scriptural statement is governed by the rule enunciated by Rabbi Yishmael [in his “Thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is expounded”], that the generalizations can include only such new particulars as are similar to those particulars specified. In the verse they therefore include etc.
⁶⁵ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁶⁴ Such a Scriptural statement is governed by the rule enunciated by Rabbi Yishmael [in his “Thirteen exegetical principles by which the Torah is expounded”], that the generalizations can include only such new particulars as are similar to those particulars specified. In the verse they therefore include etc.
⁶⁶ Sotah 16 a.
⁶⁷ Negaim 14:2.
⁶⁶ Sotah 16 a.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:10:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:10:1)

**יִקַּח שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים תְּמִימִים וְכַבְשָׂה אַחַת** לֹא פֵּרֵשׁ הַכָּתוּב מַה יַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁנֵי הַכְּבָשִׂים וְכַבְשָׂה, אֲבָל הִזְכִּיר בַּכֶּבֶשׁ הָאֶחָד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ לְאָשָׁם (ויקרא י"ד:י"ב), וְהִזְכִּיר שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה הַחַטָּאת וְאַחַר יִשְׁחַט הָעוֹלָה (ויקרא י"ד:י"ט). וְזֶה בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁכְּבָר הִזְכִּיר בְּפָרָשַׁת וַיִּקְרָא (ה-ו) בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁתִּהְיֶה נְקֵבָה, וְהִזְכִּיר בְּכָל עוֹלָה (שם א-ג ועוד) שֶׁהוּא זָכָר, לְכָךְ לֹא הֻצְרַךְ לְהַאֲרִיךְ, כִּי בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי יִהְיֶה הָעוֹלָה וְהַכַּבְשָׂה הִיא הַחַטָּאת:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND ON THE EIGHTH DAY HE SHALL TAKE TWO HE-LAMBS WITHOUT BLEMISH, AND ONE EWE-LAMB. Scripture has not explained what is to be done with the two he-lambs and the one ewe-lamb. However, it mentioned concerning one of the he-lambs that the priest offer it as a guilt-offering,⁶⁸ and further mentioned that he should offer up the sin-offering,⁶⁹ *and afterward he shall slaughter the burnt-offering*.⁶⁹ This is because He has already mentioned in the section of *Vayikra* that the sin-offering should be a female,⁷⁰ and that every burnt-offering should be a male.⁷¹, 1:3; 10. Therefore there was no need here to speak at length, it being known that [since the first he-lamb was a guilt-offering], the second he-lamb would be the burnt-offering, and the ewe-lamb would be the sin-offering.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ Verse 12.
⁶⁹ Verse 19.
⁶⁹ Verse 19.
⁷⁰ Above 4:28; 32.
⁷¹ Ibid.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:18:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:18:1)

**יִתֵּן עַל רֹאשׁ הַמִּטַּהֵר וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה'** בְּמַעֲשֵׂה דַּם הָאָשָׁם וְהַשֶּׁמֶן תִּהְיֶה הַכַּפָּרָה הַזֹּאת. וְכֵן "לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לִפְנֵי ה'" (ויקרא י"ד:כ"ט). וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרק ג יב), "וְהַנּוֹתָר בַּשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַכֹּהֵן יִתֵּן עַל רֹאשׁ הַמִּטַּהֵר וְכִפֶּר" - אִם נָתַן כִּפֵּר, וְאִם לֹא נָתַן לֹא כִּפֵּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר, שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵם, בֵּין שֶׁנָּתַן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן - כִּפֵּר. וְא"כ עַל דַּעַת ר' יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי יִהְיֶה "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו" עַל הָאָשָׁם. וְהִנֵּה אָמַר הַכָּתוּב בָּאָשָׁם "וְכִפֶּר", וְחָזַר וְאָמַר (ויקרא י"ד:י"ט) בַּחַטָּאת "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַמִּטַּהֵר מִטֻּמְאָתוֹ", וְאָמַר עוֹד בָּעוֹלָה וּבַמִּנְחָה (ויקרא י"ד:כ') "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵר", וְלֹא יָדַעְנוּ מַה עִנְיַן הַכַּפָּרוֹת הַלָּלוּ כֻּלָּן, אוּלַי הָאָשָׁם יְכַפֵּר עַל מַעֲלוֹ אֲשֶׁר מָעַל קֹדֶם נִגְעוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת עַל חֶטְאוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בִּימֵי הַנֶּגַע, אוּלַי בְּצַעֲרוֹ נָתַן תִּפְלָה לֵאלֹהִים, וְזֶה טַעַם "מִטֻּמְאָתוֹ", וְהָעוֹלָה וְהַמִּנְחָה יִהְיוּ לוֹ כֹּפֶר נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לִטָּהֵר וְלָשׁוּב אֶל אָהֳלוֹ, וּלְכָךְ אָמַר "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵר". וּבְת"כ (שם ג יג) "וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר", מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְהֶעֱלָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה הַמִּזְבֵּחָה", יָכוֹל יְהוּ כֻּלָּן מְעַכְּבִים אוֹתוֹ, ת"ל "וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר", מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכַּפָּרָה תְּלוּיָה בַּחַטָּאת. וְיִתָּכֵן כִּי "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן וְטָהֵר" רֶמֶז לְכָל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ, כִּי גַּם הַצִּפֳּרִים יָבוֹאוּ לְכַפָּרָה וּלְטַהֲרָה, כִּי כֵן אָמַר בְּנֶגַע הַבַּיִת (ויקרא י"ד:נ"ג) "וְכִפֶּר עַל הַבַּיִת וְטָהֵר":

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND THE REST OF THE OIL THAT IS IN THE PRIEST’S HAND HE SHALL PUT UPON THE HEAD OF HIM TO BE CLEANSED; AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HIM BEFORE THE ETERNAL. This atonement is accomplished by means of the priest’s acts with the blood of the guilt-offering [as prescribed in Verse 14] and the oil [as set forth in Verses 15-18]. Similarly, the verse stating [in connection with a leper who is poor], *to make atonement for him before the Eternal*,⁷² [carries the same meaning]. And in the Torath Kohanim we find it said:⁷³ 3:12. “*And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, and the priest shall make atonement*. ‘If he put [the rest of the oil upon his head], he effected atonement for him, and if he did not put it thereon, he did not effect atonement.’ These are the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri said: ‘This is the *residue* of a commandment, [and therefore is not part of the commandment itself, and thus not indispensable]; whether he put it thereon or did not put it thereon, he has effected atonement.’” Now if so, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan the son of Nuri, the expression *and the priest shall make atonement for him*, refers [only] to the guilt-offering [which *is* indispensable in the final purification of the leper].
Now Scripture states [here] in the case of the guilt-offering, *and the priest shall make atonement*, and then states again in the case of the sin-offering, *and he shall make atonement for him that is to be cleansed because of his uncleanness*,⁷⁴ and with reference to the burnt-offering and meal-offering it also states, *and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean*.⁷⁵ But we do not know the purport of all these expressions of atonement. Perhaps the guilt-offering effects atonement for the trespass that he committed before he was affected by his plague, and the sin-offering effects atonement for his sin which he committed during the time of the plague. For perhaps in his anguish *he ascribed aught unseemly to G-d*,⁷⁶ this being the significance of the expression *because of his uncleanness*⁷⁴ [used in connection with the sin-offering that he must bring]. The burnt-offering and meal-offering constitute a ransom for his soul, that he be worthy to be purified and return to his dwelling. Therefore He said, *and the priest shall make atonement for him, ‘and he shall be clean*.’⁷⁵
Now in the Torath Kohanim it is stated:⁷⁷ 3:13. “*And the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement*.⁷⁴ Why is this said?⁷⁸, when at the end of the section (in Verse 20) it concludes, *and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean*? (Malbim in his commentary to the Torath Kohanim). Since it is said, *And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar*,⁷⁵ I might think that they are all indispensible for the purification of the leper, therefore Scripture states, *and the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make atonement*,⁷⁴ thus teaching that the atonement is dependent [only] upon the sin-offering.” It is possible that the expression *and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean*⁷⁵ alludes to everything that has been done for him [i.e., for the leper’s purification],for the birds [which he brought at the very beginning of his purification, followed by the three offerings brought on the eighth day, as discussed here] also came for the purpose of atonement and purification, for so He also said in connection with a plague in the house, *and he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean*.⁷⁹ clearly refers to the birds mentioned in that verse. Here too, then, (in Verse 20) the reference is similar.

footnotes:
⁷² Further, Verse 29.
⁷³ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁷⁴ Verse 19.
⁷⁵ Verse 20.
⁷⁶ Job 1:22.
⁷⁴ Verse 19.
⁷⁵ Verse 20.
⁷⁷ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁷⁴ Verse 19.
⁷⁸ I.e., why does it say here, and he shall make atonement
⁷⁵ Verse 20.
⁷⁴ Verse 19.
⁷⁵ Verse 20.
⁷⁹ Further, Verse 53. There the expression, and the priest shall make atonement … and it shall be clean


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:34:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:34:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:34:1)

אָמַר הַכָּתוּב בְּנִגְעֵי הַבָּתִּים **וְנָתַתִּי נָגַע צָרַעַת**, לִרְמֹז כִּי יַד ה' תַּעֲשֶׂה זֹאת לֹא טֶבַע כְּלָל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁתִּי (רמב"ן על ויקרא י"ג:מ"ז). וְאָמַר "כִּי תָבוֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן וְגוֹ' בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם", כִּי עִם כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יְדַבֵּר. וְהָיָה רָאוּי אַחֲרֵי "וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן" שֶׁיֹּאמַר "דַּבְּרוּ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", אֲבָל יְקַצֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּמּוּבָן, אוֹ שֶׁיְּדַבֵּר עִמָּהֶם בִּמְקוֹם כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיִרְמֹז כִּי אֵין הַכַּוָּנָה עַתָּה רַק לְלַמֵּד לָהֶם דִּינֵי הַצָּרַעַת כֻּלָּם וְשֶׁיְּלַמְּדוּ אוֹתָם לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְלֹא יַזְהִיר מֹשֶׁה עַתָּה אֶת כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל רַק לְבָאֵי הָאָרֶץ יַזְהִיר (דברים כד ח) "הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד" וְגוֹ', כִּי לָהֶם צִוָּה מִתְּחִלָּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים הָאֵלֶּה:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
Scripture states with reference to plagues in houses, *and ‘I’ shall put the plague of leprosy*, in order to allude to the fact that it was G-d’s hand that did this, and not an act of nature at all, as I have explained.⁸⁰ It states, *When ye are come into the land of Canaan* etc. *in a house of the Land of your possession*,⁸¹ because He is speaking to all Israel [since Moses and Aaron did not come into the Land]. Now it would have been proper that after the verse, *And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying*,⁸² He should continue to state, “Speak ye unto the children of Israel.” But Scripture shortens the account since it is self-understood [that the command was to be given to the children of Israel who would enter the Land]. Or it may be that He spoke to them in the place of [i.e., as representing] all Israel, and hinted that the intention [of giving the commandment] now is merely to teach them all the laws of leprosy, and that they in turn should teach them to the priests, and Moses did not warn all Israel now [about these laws, as they did not apply until they came into the Land]. It was only those who came into the Land that he warned, *Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that thou observe diligently* etc.,⁸³, 1:3 where it says that the Book of Deuteronomy was said *in the fortieth year*, i.e., to those about to enter the Land. for it was to them that he commanded at first to take heed in these ordinances.

footnotes:
⁸⁰ Above, 13:47.
⁸¹ Verse 34 before us.
⁸² Verse 33.
⁸³ Deuteronomy 24:8. See ibid.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:43:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:43:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:43:1)

**וְאִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע וּפָרַח בַּבַּיִת** הִנֵּה הַנֶּגַע הַזֶּה שֶׁבָּא בָּאֲבָנִים הָאֲחֵרוֹת וּבֶעָפָר הָאַחֵר אֵינֶנּוּ הַנֶּגַע הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה לַפְּרִיחָה הָאֲמוּרָה בָּאָדָם וְלַפִּשְׂיוֹן, שֶׁהוּא שָׁב לִמְקוֹמוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּטִבְעוֹ, כִּי פְּעָמִים רַבִּים תִּסְתַּתֵּר הַלֵּחָה תַּחַת הָעוֹר וְתָשׁוּב אֶל פְּנִימִית הַגּוּף, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן תָּשׁוּב וְתִמָּשֵׁךְ אֶל הָעוֹר וְאֶל חִיצוֹנָיו. אֲבָל הָעִנְיָן הוּא כַּאֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי בְּסֵדֶר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ (רמב"ן על ויקרא י"ג:מ"ז), שֶׁהוּא נֶגַע וּמַכַּת אֱלֹהִים שֶׁתִּהְיֶה רוּחַ ה' רָעָה בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא. וּבְתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (פרשה ז א) אָמְרוּ, "וְאִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע וּפָרַח בַּבַּיִת", מָשָׁל חָזַר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי לִמְקוֹמוֹ. וְהַכַּוָּנָה לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין "וּפָרַח" הָאָמוּר כָּאן פִּשְׂיוֹן, כְּמוֹ "וְאִם פָּרוֹחַ תִּפְרַח הַצָּרַעַת בָּעוֹר" (ויקרא י"ג:י"ב), אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא צוֹמֵחַ בַּמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, כְּעִנְיַן "פָּרַח מַטֵּה אַהֲרֹן" (במדבר יז כג). וְהַמָּשָׁל שֶׁהִזְכִּירוּ לִרְמֹז הָעִנְיָן שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ, שֶׁאֵין זֶה נֶגַע נוֹלָד וּפוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא צוֹמֵחַ וְחוֹזֵר וְצוֹמֵחַ, כְּאִישׁ שֶׁהָלַךְ לוֹ וְחָזַר לֵישֵׁב לִמְקוֹמוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּכִסֵּא אַחֵר אֲשֶׁר הוּכַן לוֹ שָׁם. וְטַעַם הַפְּרִיחָה כְּבָר פֵּרַשְׁתִּיהָ. וְכֵן צָרַעַת "פּוֹרַחַת הִיא" (ויקרא י"ג:נ"ז) בַּבְּגָדִים. וְלֹא אָמַר הַכָּתוּב "וְאִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע וּפָרַח בָּאֲבָנִים הָהֵם" אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ נוֹלַד בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר מִן הַבַּיִת, וַאֲפִלּוּ מִמַּרְאֶה אַחֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְּמַרְאֵה הַנֶּגַע הָרִאשׁוֹן, נָדוּן אוֹתוֹ כְּחוֹזֵר וּפוֹרֵחַ וְאֵינוֹ נִדּוֹן כְּנֶגַע הַנּוֹלָד מִתְּחִלָּה. וְזֶהוּ טַעַם "בַּבַּיִת", כִּי בְּכָל הַבַּיִת יִהְיֶה דִּינוֹ כֵן. וְהַטַּעַם כִּי הָרוּחַ הָרָעָה לֹא תָּסוּר מִן הַבַּיִת הַהוּא, אֲבָל תָּמִיד תִּהְיֶה בַּבַּיִת הַהוּא בְּאַחַת הַמְּקוֹמוֹת לְהַבְעִית אֶת בְּעָלָיו. וְכֵן אָמְרוּ בְּת"כ (פרשה ז א ג), אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מְקוֹמוֹ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת כָּל הַבַּיִת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר "בַּבַּיִת". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּמַרְאָיו, שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַרְאָיו מִנַּיִן, ת"ל "וּפָרַח". וְעִנְיַן הַכְּתוּבִים הָאֵלֶּה כְּפִי הַמִּדְרָשׁ, וְאִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְחָזַר בַּבַּיִת אַחַר חִלֵּץ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים וְאַחֲרֵי הִקְצוֹת וְהִטֹּחַ, אוֹ בָּא הַכֹּהֵן בִּיאָה שֵׁנִית וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה עַתָּה פָּשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בַּבַּיִת כַּמִּשְׁפָּט הָרִאשׁוֹן, צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת הִיא, וְנָתַץ אֶת הַבַּיִת, לוֹמַר כִּי הַפּוֹשֶׂה בָּרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ הַפּוֹשֶׂה בַּשֵּׁנִי מִשְׁפָּט אֶחָד לָהֶם. וְלֹא הֻצְרַךְ לוֹמַר "וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה פָּשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בַּבָּיִת וְצִוָּה וְחִלְּצוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים" וְכָל הַפָּרָשָׁה, כִּי הַכָּתוּב נִמְשָׁךְ לְמַעְלָה, לֵאמֹר אִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע אַחַר חִלֵּץ הָאֲבָנִים בָּרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בַּשֵּׁנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה הַפִּשְׂיוֹן - צָרַעַת מַמְאֶרֶת הִיא. וְאָמַר עוֹד (ויקרא י"ד:מ"ח) "וְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן" בַּבִּיאָה הַשֵּׁנִית הַנִּזְכֶּרֶת, "וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה לֹא פָשָׂה הַנֶּגַע בַּבַּיִת אַחֲרֵי הִטֹּחַ אֶת הַבָּיִת", וְטִהַר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַבַּיִת כַּאֲשֶׁר נִרְפָּא הַנֶּגַע מִמֶּנּוּ, כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא חָזַר בּוֹ. וְנִלְמַד עַתָּה שֶׁהָעוֹמֵד בְּעֵינָיו בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי - חוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, וְאִם חָזַר - נוֹתֵץ. וְזֶה תִּקּוּן הַמִּקְרָאוֹת כְּמִדְרָשָׁם, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְחָתְכָם בְּסַכִּין לְהַקְדִּים וּלְאַחֵר בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְּלָל בְּמַשְׁמָעָם. וְיִתָּכֵן עוֹד שֶׁנֹּאמַר בְּתִקּוּן הָעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, כִּי "פָּשָׂה" בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה כְּטַעַם "פָּרַח", וּשְׁנֵיהֶם עִנְיַן צְמִיחָה, כִּי כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם נֶגַע יֹאמַר פָּשָׂה בְּגִדּוּלוֹ וְהִתְפַּשְּׁטוֹ, וּכְשֶׁאֵין שָׁם נֶגַע יֹאמַר פָּשָׂה בִּצְמִיחָתוֹ וְשׁוּבוּ, כִּי הַכֹּל עִנְיַן גִּדּוּל. וְכֵן אוּנְקְלוֹס פָּתַר בְּכֻלָּן "אוֹסֵיף", וּלְשׁוֹן תּוֹסֶפֶת יֵאָמֵר בְּדָבָר הַגָּדֵל וְנוֹסָף עַל הָאַחֵר, כְּגוֹן "וְנוֹסַף גַּם הוּא עַל שֹׂנְאֵינוּ" (שמות א י), "וְנוֹסְפָה נַחֲלָתָן" (במדבר לו ד), וְיֵאָמֵר בְּדָבָר הַחוֹזֵר, כְּגוֹן "יוֹסִיף ה' שֵׁנִית יָדוֹ" (ישעיהו יא יא), "וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ וְלֹא יָסָפוּ" (במדבר יא כה), לֹא חָזְרוּ עוֹד לְהִנָּבֵא. וְהִנֵּה עִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁחָזַר הַנֶּגַע. וְהִנֵּה אַחַר חִלֵּץ הָאֲבָנִים כְּשֶׁיַּזְכִּיר הַכָּתוּב פִּשְׂיוֹן יִהְיֶה עִנְיָנוֹ כְּטַעַם צְמִיחָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר הִזְכַּרְתִּי בְּמִלַּת פְּרִיחָה, וְאִם כֵּן יֹאמַר הַכָּתוּב, וְאִם יָשׁוּב הַנֶּגַע וְצָמַח בַּבַּיִת אַחַר חִלֵּץ הָאֲבָנִים, וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה צָמַח הַנֶּגַע בַּבַּיִת, וְנָתַץ אוֹתוֹ, כִּי כָּל נֶגַע הַחוֹזֵר טָמֵא מֻחְלָט. וְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה שֶׁלֹּא צָמַח הַנֶּגַע כְּלָל בַּבַּיִת אַחֲרֵי הִטֹּחַ - יְטַהֲרֶנּוּ, כִּי נִרְפָּא בַּחֲלִיצָה וְטִיחָה. וְהִנֵּה נִתְפָּרֵשׁ כָּאן דִּין הַבַּיִת בְּפוֹשֶׂה בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁחוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ, וְאִם חָזַר טָמֵא וְאִם לֹא חָזַר טָהוֹר. אֲבָל הָעוֹמֵד בְּעֵינָיו בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּפוֹשֶׂה בַּשֵּׁנִי, לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה דִּינוֹ, אֲבָל נָדוּן בּוֹ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה (תורת כהנים ז ז), לוֹמַר שֶׁדִּין הַבִּיאָה שֶׁהִיא אֲמוּרָה בְּסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי כְּדִין הַשִּׁיבָה שֶׁהִיא אֲמוּרָה בְּסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ רִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן אִם פָּשָׂה בּוֹ חוֹלֵץ וְקוֹצֶה וְטָח וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ שָׁבוּעַ. וְכֵן הָעוֹמֵד בְּעֵינָיו בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי וּפוֹשֶׂה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא הֻזְכַּר בַּתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל נִלְמַד (בתורת כהנים שם ה-י) מִגְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה אַחֶרֶת, שֶׁאָמַר (ויקרא י"ד:מ"ח) "וְאִם בֹּא יָבֹא הַכֹּהֵן", שֶׁנָּדוּן בִּיאָה שְׁלִישִׁית כְּבִיאָה שְׁנִיָּה. וְהִנֵּה הַכְּתוּבִים כְּמַשְׁמָעָם, וְהַמִּדְרָשׁוֹת לָמְדוּ אוֹתָן מִגְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי. וּמַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּת"כ (פרשה ז ז), בַּמֶּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר וכו', סֶמֶךְ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם, שֶׁיִּרְצוּ לְהַזְכִּיר בַּכָּתוּב הָעִנְיָן הַמְקֻבָּל לָהֶם בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה. וְכֵן מַה שֶׁאָמְרוּ שָׁם (בתורת כהנים פרשה ז ו), אִם סוֹפֵנוּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַחוֹזֵר אע"פ שֶׁאֵינוֹ פוֹשֶׂה, מַה ת"ל "וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן וְרָאָה וְהִנֵּה פָּשָׂה", הַנַּח לוֹ. לוֹמַר, שֶׁנַּנִּיחַ הַכָּתוּב כְּמַשְׁמָעוּתוֹ וְנֵלֵךְ אַחַר הַמִּדְרָשׁ, לֹא שֶׁנַּעֲקֹר הַכָּתוּב מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְנִקְבָּעֶנּוּ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. זֶהוּ הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלַי בְּעִנְיַן הַפָּרָשָׁה הַזֹּאת כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים קַיָּמִים, וְהוּא דָּבָר נָאֶה וּמִתְקַבֵּל:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
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 person⁸⁴ 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*,⁸⁰ that it is a plague and Divine intervention implying that *the evil spirit from G-d*⁸⁵ is in that place. And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁸⁶ 7:1. “*And if the plague come again, and break out in the house*.⁸⁷ 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*,⁸⁸ but here it denotes a [fresh] outbreak in that place just like the expression, *the rod of Aaron ‘parach’* (*was budded*).⁸⁹ 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 explained⁸⁰ the meaning of this “breaking out” [of leprosy in a house], as well as of the “breaking out” of leprosy in garments.⁹⁰
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’*],⁸⁷ 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’*],⁸⁷ 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:⁹¹ 7:1; 3. “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*.⁸⁷ 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*⁸⁷ [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*,⁸⁷ or⁹² of Verse 44, which is generally translated “*‘and’* the priest shall come,” Ramban interprets to mean “‘or’ the priest shall come.” See further, Note 95, on the significance of this interpretation. *the priest shall come* a second time *and see, and, behold*, that now *the plague has recurred*⁹³, which is generally translated as “spread.” But Ramban has already explained above that in this section dealing with leprosy of a house, the term means “recur” and not “spread.” See Note 95. *in the house* as it was at first, *it is malignant leprosy … and he shall break down the house*,⁹⁴ 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].⁹⁵. This is followed by Verse 45 which states: *And he shall break down the house* etc. Now Rashi, who interpreted the word *pasah* here in Verse 44 in the same way as in leprosy of man, meaning that “it spread out,” found this difficulty: since the Rabbis have said that every plague that recurs in a house after the removal of stones, scraping and replastering, is a sign of impurity, and requires the whole house to be demolished, why then does the verse state here *pasah*, since the same law applies even if the plague did not spread out? Accordingly Rashi transposed the order of the verses, placing Verse 45 [*And he shall break down the house …*] after Verse 43 [*And if the plague come again …*], and Verse 44 [*And the priest shall come …*] after Verses 46 and 47 [*and he that eateth in the house …*]. Ramban later remarks that this transposition of the verses is like “cutting the verses with a knife.” Ramban on the other hand explained the verses on these two premises: (a) the term *pasah* in this section on leprosy of a house, means “recur,” and not “spread.” (b) *‘u’va hakohein’* in Verse 44 does not mean “*then* the priest shall come,” or “*and* the priest shall come,” but rather “*or* the priest shall come.” Thus Verse 43 speaks of the recurrence of the plague at the end of the *first* week [after the removal of the stones etc.], and Verse 44 speaks of the case when it recurred at the end of the *second* week. In each of these cases the law is as stated in Verse 45: *And he shall break down the house …* Thus according to Ramban all the verses are in order. The text of Ramban which follows sets forth this exposition in more detail. 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],⁹⁶ as “spreading,” he was also forced — besides transposing Verse 44 [*And the priest shall come and see …*] to follow after Verse 47 as mentioned above — to explain that if at the end of the second week after the house was shut up, the priest found that the plague has spread then Verse 40 (!) reapplies: *then the priest shall command that they take out the stones …* and he gives it another week. If it returns, he demolishes the house, and if it does not return, it is pure. [[illegible]] It is this re-introduction of Verse 40 here in the order of the verses that Ramban finds unnecessary, as explained in the text. 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*,⁹⁷ that is, at the end of the second week mentioned above [in Verse 44], *and see it, and, behold, the plague hath not recurred*⁹⁸, which Rashi would explain as “spread” or “extended” [and it is so rendered in most translations], but Ramban explains it as meaning “recur.” *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 knife⁹⁹ 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;*¹⁰⁰ *‘v’nosphah nachalathan’* (*then will their inheritance be added*),¹⁰¹ and it may also be used of a matter which “returns,” such as: *the Eternal ‘yosiph’* (*will set again*) *His hand;*¹⁰² *and they prophesied ‘v’lo yasaphu’* (*but they did so no more*),¹⁰³ 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*.¹⁰⁴ 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*,¹⁰⁵ 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*¹⁰⁶ 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.¹⁰⁷ 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:*¹⁰⁶ *‘v’im bo yavo hakohein’* (*and if the priest shall come in*),¹⁰⁸ thus establishing that the priest’s third coming is identical in law to his coming the second time.¹⁰⁹ (coming) together with the verb *yavo* (he will come) suggest two “comings” — thus making the priest’s coming into the house to examine the status of the plague at the end of the third week, comparable in its law to that of his second visit, as explained in the text. Thus the verses are explained in line with their simple meaning, while the [Rabbinical] interpretations were derived by a *gzeirah shavah*¹⁰⁶ taught to Moses on Sinai. And that which the Rabbis said in the Torath Kohanim:¹¹⁰ 7:7. “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*.¹⁰⁶ Similarly, what the Rabbis said there:¹¹¹, 6. “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*)?¹¹² Leave it.”¹¹³ as meaning “spreading” or “extending.” The phrase in the Torath Kohanim *hanach lo* (“Leave it”) is therefore interpreted as explained above [on the basis of the Rabad’s commentary there, which follows Rashi’s interpretation]. Ramban who has explained the term differently, as explained above in the text, is therefore bound to give a different interpretation of the expression in the Torath Kohanim, which now follows in the text: “That is to say, that we are to leave etc.” 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.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ Above, 13:12; 20.
⁸⁰ Above, 13:47.
⁸⁵ I Samuel 16:16.
⁸⁶ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁸⁷ Further, Verse 43.
⁸⁸ Above, 13:12.
⁸⁹ Numbers 17:23.
⁸⁰ Above, 13:47.
⁹⁰ Above, 13:57.
⁸⁷ Verse 43.
⁸⁷ Further, Verse 43.
⁹¹ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
⁸⁷ Further, Verse 43.
⁸⁷ Further, Verse 43.
⁸⁷ Further, Verse 43.
⁹² The expression u’va hakohein
⁹³ The Hebrew word is pasah
⁹⁴ Verse 45.
⁹⁵ Ramban thus avoids a great exegetical difficulty which Rashi found in these verses. Principally it is as follows: Verse 44 states: And the priest shall come and see, and, behold, the plague be ‘pasah’ in the house, it is a malignant leprosy; it is unclean
⁹⁶ Since Rashi explained the word pasah
⁹⁷ Verse 48.
⁹⁸ Here too (in Verse 48) the word is pasah
⁹⁹ Reference is to Rashi’s exposition of the verses. See above, Note 95.
¹⁰⁰ Exodus 1:10.
¹⁰¹ Numbers 36:4.
¹⁰² Isaiah 11:11.
¹⁰³ Numbers 11:25.
¹⁰⁴ In the beginning of this verse, in the text before Note 88.
¹⁰⁵ Verses 43-45.
¹⁰⁶ Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy.
¹⁰⁷ This is clearly stated in Verse 40 with regard to the end of the first week. The above analogy establishes that the same law applies to the end of the second week, although it is not clearly specified.
¹⁰⁶ Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy.
¹⁰⁸ Verse 48.
¹⁰⁹ The root bo
¹⁰⁶ Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy.
¹¹⁰ Torath Kohanim, Metzora
¹⁰⁶ Literally: “a similarity of phrases.” It is one of the Thirteen principles of exegesis established by Rabbi Yishmael, by which the Torah is expounded (see above, Note 64). Thus where a similarity of phrases occurs in two different texts, the strictures mentioned in one text may equally apply to the second text, even though they are not mentioned there. It is important to note in this connection that an analogy from such congruent expressions cannot be established of one’s own accord; it must be an authorized tradition that this similarity of phrases is to be applied, in order to establish such an analogy.
¹¹¹ Ibid.
¹¹² Verse 44. See also above, Note 98.
¹¹³ I.e., “This is not the proper place of the verse, since that verse speaks of the case of a plague that remained as it was during the first week, to which the priest has therefore given a second week to be shut up, and at the end of the second week he comes and sees that it has spread.” See above, Note 96, that Rashi transposed Verse 44 and read it after Verse 47. This is all predicated upon the interpretation of the term pasah


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:53:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:53:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:53:1)

**וְכִפֶּר עַל הַבַּיִת וְטָהֵר** הִנֵּה הַכַּפָּרָה הַזֹּאת בַּצִּפּוֹר הַמִּשְׁתַּלַּחַת, שֶׁתִּשָּׂא הַצִּפּוֹר אֶת כָּל עֲוֹנֹתָיו אֶל מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה, כְּעִנְיַן הַכַּפָּרָה בְּשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ. וּבַעֲבוּר שֶׁאֵין עֹנֶשׁ הַנֶּגַע הַנִּרְאֶה בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּעֹנֶשׁ הַנֶּגַע שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ, לֹא הִצְרִיכוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְאָשָׁם וְחַטָּאת, כִּי דַּי לוֹ בַּכַּפָּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁיָּבִיא הַמְּצֹרָע לְטָהֳרָתוֹ, שֶׁהֵם הַצִּפֳּרִים וְעֵץ הָאֶרֶז וְהָאֵזוֹב:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
AND HE SHALL LET GO THE LIVING BIRD OUT OF THE CITY INTO THE OPEN FIELD, AND MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THE HOUSE, AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. Now this atonement was effected by the bird which is to be sent away, the bird carrying away all his sins *out of the city into the open field*, like the atonement effected by the goat that is to be sent away.¹¹⁴ Now since the punishment of the plague which appears in a person’s house is unlike [i.e., less in severity than] that of a plague which afflicts his body, Scripture did not make it necessary for him [the owner of the house] to bring a guilt-offering and sin-offering [as it required for the purification of a leper], because the first [stage of] atonement that the leper brings for his purification — namely, the birds, the cedar-wood and the hyssop¹¹⁵ — is sufficient for him [i.e., the owner of the house].

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ Further, 16:21-22.
¹¹⁵ Above, Verse 4. And here too, in the purification of a house from leprosy, these are the requirements as stated in Verse 52.


###### Ramban on Leviticus 14:54:1
[Ramban on Leviticus 14:54:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ramban%20on%20Leviticus/r/14:54:1)

**זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לְכָל נֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת** הוּא צָרַעַת הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה, וְהִזְכִּירָם בְּכָאן תְּחִלָּה מִפְּנֵי תְּדִירוּתָן, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן הִזְכִּיר הַנֶּתֶק שֶׁהוּא גַּם כֵּן מָצוּי, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן הִזְכִּיר צָרַעַת הַבֶּגֶד וְהַבַּיִת, וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן אָמַר "וְלַשְׂאֵת וְלַסַּפַּחַת וְלַבֶּהָרֶת", הֵם הַנְּגָעִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁפָּתַח בָּהֶם (ויקרא י"ג:ב') "אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ" וְגוֹ'. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם יְאַחֵר הַבַּהֶרֶת בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהִיא הָעַזָּה וְהַקָּשָׁה שֶׁבְּכֻלָּן:

**Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976:**
THIS IS THE LAW FOR ALL MANNER OF PLAGUE OF LEPROSY. This refers to leprosy of inflammation and the burnt part in the skin. Scripture mentioned them here first [although in the section on leprosy above they are not mentioned first]¹¹⁶, 13:18-28. because of their frequency. Then it mentioned *and for a scall*, which is also frequent. Then Scripture mentioned here, *and for the leprosy of a garment, and for a house*,¹¹⁷ followed by, *and for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot*,¹¹⁸ which are the first plagues with which Scripture opened this discussion: *When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising* etc.¹¹⁹ Scripture always mentions the *bahereth* (bright spot) last, because it is the strongest and worst form of all the plagues.

footnotes:
¹¹⁶ Ibid.
¹¹⁷ Verse 55.
¹¹⁸ Verse 56.
¹¹⁹ Above, 13:2.