Comentario sobre Negaim 13:19

עשרה בתים. הכהה בראשון (ten conditions which develop concerning plagues in houses) – at the end of the first week it grows dim, or the plague goes away completely. These are two plagues, for they are considered as two.

Introduction I bet you are excited to learn that chapter thirteen continues to discuss negaim that afflict houses!

קולפו – he scrapes it (between one stone and another) in the place of a plague alone, and the house is pure/clean.

This mishnah goes through the entire procedure of inspecting houses for a nega and categorizes them into ten different situations.

הכהה – at the end of the second week, and it goes away completely. Two others, that makes four.

There are ten [laws concerning the negaim in] houses:
(1 + 2) If during the first week a nega became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and is then clean. These are the first two laws concerning affected houses. If the nega grows fainter or disappears entirely during the first week, then all he must do is scrape the place where the nega was and the house is clean.

הפושה בשבוע ראשון חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע (if it spreads in the first week, he must tear out – the leprous stone – and scrape – the wall – and plaster and give it a week) – but if it (i.e., the plague) returned, he tears it down by chipping off his part of the house. This is five.

(3 + 4) If during the second week it became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and the owner must bring the birds. If it grows faint or disappears after the second week, he needs to scrape the stones, but in this case he also has to bring bird sacrifice (see Leviticus 14:49).

לא חזר טעון צפרים – this makes six.

If it spread during the first week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (5) If it then returned the entire house must be pulled down; (6)If it did not return, the birds must be brought. If it spread during the first week, he must remove the affected stones as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. If the nega returns, then the house must be torn down. This is situation 5. If it doesn't return, then he must still bring the bird sacrifices (situation 6).

עמד בעיניו בשבוע ראשון ופשה בשני חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע – if it returned, he tears it down by chipping. This makes seven.

If it remained unchanged during the first week but spread during the second week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (7) If it then returned, the house must be pulled down; (8) If it did not return the birds must be brought. This section addresses a scenario we have not yet talked about. If the nega doesn't spread during the first week, then he doesn't need to scrape the stones clean at the end of that week. The isolation continues and then it spreads during the second week. In this case, another week is given. Otherwise, this is the same as section three. We are now through 8 types.

לא חזר טעון צפרים – this makes eight.

If it remained unchanged in both weeks, the stones must be taken out, and the wall scraped and plastered, and a week must be allowed. (9) If it then returned the house must be pulled down; (10) If it did not return, the birds must be brought. Now we learn the rule if the nega remains unchanged through two full weeks. Although it did not spread, since it still remained, the affected stones are removed. Following this, the procedure is the same as above. If it returns, the house is torn down, if not only sacrificial birds must be brought.

עמד בעיניו בשבוע ראשון ובשבוע שני, חולץ וקוצה וטח ונותן לו שבוע – that the law for remaining unchanged in the second week is like the law of spreading, if it returned, he tears it down by chipping. This is nine.

If before cleanness was attained through the birds a new nega appeared, the house must be pulled down; But if it appeared after cleanness through the birds had been attained, it must be inspected as if it had appeared for the first time. If the house is clean but before sacrificial birds are brought a new nega appears, it counts as a return of the old nega and the house must be torn down. If however, the birds are sacrificed and then the nega appears, it counts as a new nega, and the whole procedure begins again.

לא חזר טעון צפרים – this makes ten.

אם עד שלא טיהרו בצפרים נראה בו נגע – this is like [the plague] returns, and requires cutting out/breaking up, but from when he purifies it, it is for him like a new plague and he shuts it up/quarantines it.

האבן שבזוית – that is between him and his neighbor jointly.

In the case of a stone in a corner, when the stone is taken out it, he must take it all out; But when [the house is] torn down he tears down his own [part] and leaves that which belongs to his neighbor. Thus it follows that there is a greater stringency for taking out than for tearing down. The stone at the corner of a wall is a large stone shared by two houses. If one side is afflicted with a nega and he has to remove that stone only, he takes out both sides of the stone, even though the side that is in his neighbor's house does not have a nega. However, if the law mandates that his whole house be torn down, then he need not remove both sides of the stone. An explanation for this would seem to be that when the Torah mandates the removal of the stone, the whole stone must be removed. But if it mandates tearing down the house, only the house must be torn down. The side that is on his neighbor's side need not be torn down. We should note that this same rule applies to other stones shared by both houses. It only uses the example of the cornerstone because this would have been common.

חולץ את כולו – for when they (i.e., the Rabbis) expound "וחלצו /]“the priest shall order the stones with the plague in them] to be pulled out,” (Leviticus 13:40 – with a plural construction), teaching that both of them pull out/tear out [the stones].

Rabbi Eliezer says: if a house is built of rows of head stones and small stones, and a nega appears on a head stone, all of it must be taken out; but if it appeared on the small stones, he takes out his stones and leaves the others. Albeck explains that the walls of their houses would have stones with "heads" that jut out on both sides of the wall. Between the "head stones" would be other stones that are also visible from both sides of the house. However, these stones would go into the wall and be subsumed inside the head stones. If the nega appears on the head stones, all of the stone must be removed. Similarly, if he has to tear down the house, all of the head stone must be torn down. However, if it occurs on one of the small stones, he only needs to remove his own side; the stone on the other person's side need not be removed.

בזמן שהוא נותץ (and at the time when he has to tear down – see Leviticus 13:45) – the entire house.

נותץ שלו – for concerning cutting out/breaking up, it is written (Leviticus 13:45): “its stones and timber”/”את אבניו ואת עציו" , its stones that are his and its timber that is his.

ראש ופתין (if a [twin] house is built with cross-beam and king-beam/principal beam common to both compartments) – it explains in the Arukh, that particular stone or that piece of wood that takes hold from the western side of the course of stones is his, and of the eastern side, the course of stones is his neighbors, he put the stone or that piece of wood is the cross beam. And those stones and pieces of wood that are in this course of stones on the west is one, and that course of stones in the east is one, for they are from the principal beam common to both compartments.

נותן את הקורות לעלייה – and he supports them with pillars and does not tear them down with the house, as it is written (Leviticus 13:45): “its stones and timber and all the coating on the house”/את-אבניו ואת-עציו ואת כל-עפר הבית", but not the stones and timber and coating of the upper story.

A house in which a nega appeared if it had an upper chamber above it, the beams are considered part of the upper chamber. The beams referred to hold up the ceiling of the bottom floor, which is the floor of the upper story. If the nega appears in the lower story, he need not tear down these beams. Rather, he can leave them and prop them up temporarily in order to use them to rebuild the house.

נתצין עמו (are torn down with it) – for [the Rabbis] expound on: "את-אבניו ואת-עציו ואת כל-עפר הבית"/ “its stones and timber and all the coating on the house” (Leviticus 13:45), all the stones that were built with it and all the pieces of wood that were built with it and all of the coating that was built with it,” for since there is no upper story on top it, all of them were built with it.

If the nega appeared in the upper chamber the beams are considered part of the lower room. If the nega appeared in the upper chamber, he can consider the beams as part of the bottom story and leave them there. We see that the rule is lenient in both cases.

מלבנים (a casing to protect that portion of the beam which rests on the wall) – kinds of square bricks that one spreads out/stretches on the roofs. But there are those who explain that they are similar to door-posts that they make in windows from the outside for beauty, but they are not attached with plaster on the window.

If there was no upper chamber above it, its stones and wood and earth must be torn down with it. He may save the frames and the window lattices. Rabbi Judah says: a frame that is built over the house must be torn down with it. This is the standard rule with regard to tearing down the house. He must tear down all of the stone, woods and earth parts of the house, even if they were not afflicted with a nega. In this case, because there is no upper chamber, the beams used as part of the ceiling can only be considered part of the house, therefore they too must be torn down. He may save the frames of the doors and the windows and the window lattices. Assumedly, he can use these in rebuilding the house. Rabbi Judah says that if there is a square frame that is built over the house, it is considered part of the house and it too must be torn down.

שריגות (lattices) – like a kind of net-work that they make in the window that they look out from there to the public domain.

Its stones and wood and earth convey uncleanness if they are of the minimum size of an olive. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: whatever their size. The stone, wood and earth that have been removed from the house are ritually unclean. They convey uncleanness if there is a minimum amount the size of an olive, the typical amount required to convey ritual uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma rules more stringently. It doesn't matter how little there is it ritually defiles even if there is the smallest amount.

מלבן (frame)– a long piece of wood that is on the wall that is made to hold upon it the heads of the beams that they should not rot from the moisture of the wall.

בכזית – because leprosy is made an analogy to a corpse, as it is written (Numbers 12:12): “Let her (i.e., Miriam) not be as one dead, [who emerges from his mother’s womb with half his flesh eaten away].”

במשהו – like the limbs of a corpse, as it is taught in [Tractate] Ahilot [Chapter 1, Mishnah 7]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

בית המוסגר מטמא מתוכו – as it is written (Leviticus 14:46): “Whoever enters the house while it is closed up shall be impure until evening.” But the leprous stones themselves, even when locked up, defile from their outsides.

Introduction Today's mishnah deals with the impurity of the afflicted house.

והמוחלט מתוכו ומאחוריו – a person who touches/comes in contact with a house from its outside, is impure. As it is written regarding a [house] that is certified unclean (Leviticus 14:44): "צרעת ממארת היא בבית טמא הוא"/”it is a malignant eruption in the house; it is impure.” What does the inference of "טמא הוא" /”it is impure” teach us? It adds that a person is impure whether from the inside or whether from the outside.

A house that has been isolated conveys uncleanness from its inside; Someone who touches the inside of a house that has been isolated is impure, even if he doesn't go into the house. However, if he touches the outside, he remains pure.

זה וזה מטמאין בביאה – to defile all who enters inside of it.

And one that has been certified unclean, both from its inside and from its outside. A house which is certified unclean also conveys uncleanness from its outside.

Both convey uncleanness if one enters in. In both cases, if one enters the house he is unclean, even if he doesn't touch the walls of the house (see Leviticus 14:46).

הבונה מן המוסגר בטהור – after he had torn out and scraped and [re-] plastered and gave it a week, within the days of [the house] being shut up he took from that same house stones and built them in another house.

If one who builds in cleanliness with stones from a house that was isolated and the nega returned to the [former] house, the stones must be taken out. The stones were taken out of a house that was isolated and then used to build a clean house elsewhere. If the nega returns to the former house, the stones in the new house are still considered part of the afflicted house and therefore they must be removed from the new house and discarded.

וחזר נגע לבית – that was shut up/quarantined.

If it returned to the stones, the first house must be torn down, and the stones serve the second house while the signs are under observation. If the nega reappears in the stones themselves, then the first house must still be torn down, as if the nega returned to the house itself. The second house now begins the process of a house afflicted by a nega. The stones remain in the house and they serve as the basis to see if the nega spreads at the end of the second week.

חולץ את האבנים – that he took from it, and removes them from the pure [house], and they are impure like the uncleanness of the house that he took them from.

חזר הנגע לאבנים – that he built in the pure [new] house.

הבית – that is shut up, should be torn down/chipped off, as if they were fixed in it. And they stones also require tearing out, but that we wait for them until they will serve in the second house [for the purpose of inspecting whether] tokens [of uncleanness recur in the second house] , that require shutting up/quarantining , and its law for every manner like every house in which a plague appears at the outset.

בית שהוא מיסך על גבי בית המנוגע – as for example, that the house that is certified as leprous is built within another house. And similarly, a tree that the leprous house is built underneath it.

If a house overshadowed a house with a nega and so also if a tree overshadowed a house with a nega, anyone who enters the outer [of the two] remains clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. This mishnah discusses a house that overshadows another house with a nega or a tree that overshadows a house with a nega. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah one who enters the outer house or goes under the tree, meaning the structure that overshadows, is not impure.

הנכנס לחיצון טהור – for this one stands alone and that one stands alone. And it is similar to a house and the upper story, for if leprosy is in the house, the upper story is pure.

Rabbi Eliezer said: if one stone of it causes uncleanness by entering, should not the house itself cause uncleanness by entering? Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, drawing a sort of "a fortiori" argument. If the impurity of an afflicted house is strong enough that if one enters the house he is impure, then all the more so it should cause one who enters an "ohel," an overshadowing structure, to be impure.

ומה אם אבן אחת – that is from the house with leprosy, which defiles all that is in the tent.

הבית כולו – that is underneath another house, all the more so that it would defile all that is within the outer house. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer (see also Tractate Negaim, Chapter 11, Mishnah 6).

והטהור עובר טמא – as it is written regarding the leper (Leviticus 13:46): “[Being impure, he shall dwell apart;] his dwelling shall be outside the camp.”/ "מחוץ למחנה מושבו" , from here that his dwelling is impure, therefore, when the impure individual stands underneath the tree, the place of the tree becomes his dwelling place and the pure person that passes there is impure. But when the impure person passes and doesn’t stand to rest himself, this is not called his dwelling, and even though that the pure person sits there, the pure person is not susceptible to receive defilement.

Introduction In yesterday's mishnah we discussed the topic of "overhanging (ohel)" in connection with a house that has a nega. Today's mishnah deals with impurity conveyed by overhanging in connection with a person that has a nega.

ואם עמד – the impure person, the place of the tree is defiled and the pure person is defiled who passes there.

If an unclean person stood under a tree and a clean person passed by, the latter becomes unclean. The unclean person has a nega and has either been isolated or declared unclean. He stands under a tree and a clean person passes under the tree without stopping. Despite the fact that he didn't stop, the clean person is defiled.

וכן באבן המנוגע – if a person who carries it (i.e., a leprous stone) passes underneath the tree, the pure person standing there is not defiled.

If a clean person stood under a tree and an unclean one passed by, the former remains clean. However, if a clean person stands and the unclean person passes under the tree without stopping, the clean person remains clean. This is a special rule with regard to those who have a nega he only conveys impurity if he stops or sits under the ohel (the tree). See next section.

ואם הניחה טמא – and the same law applies even if he did not place it down, but rather that the person carrying it stood.

If the latter stood still, the former becomes unclean. As stated above, if the unclean person stands under the tree and the clean person is standing there at the same time, the uncleanness is conveyed to the clean person by the overshadowing tree. This halakhah is derived from Leviticus 13:46 which states, "Outside of the camp shall be his sitting place" according to rabbinici interpretation he must "sit" or at least stop moving, for him to convey uncleanness through overshadowing.

Similarly in the case of a leprous stone he remains clean. But if it was set down he becomes unclean. The same rules as above apply to a stone that has been removed from a building because it has a nega in it. If the stone is carried by a person who is moving, it does not convey uncleanness. But once it has been set down, it does convey uncleanness.

טהור שהכניס ראשו ורובו – for less than one’s head and the majority of one’s body is not considered coming in.

If a person who was clean put his head and the greater part of his body inside an unclean house, he becomes unclean. For the clean person to become unclean by entering a house afflicted with a nega he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.

שהכניס ממנה שלש אצבעות על שלש אצבעות – it is considered as if all of the cloak had entered. But not less than this, for less than three [fingerbreadths] by three [fingerbreadths] is not susceptible to receive defilement and is not considered.

And if an unclean man put his head and the greater part of his body inside a clean house he causes it to be unclean. Similarly, for an unclean person to defile the contents of a house through overshadowing, he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.

וטמאה – as for example, a cloak afflicted with leprosy that an olive’s bulk of it entered into a pure house.

If he put three fingerbreadths square of a clean cloak into an unclean house, the cloak becomes unclean; A piece of cloth smaller than three by three fingerbreadths is not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if he puts at least this much of a cloak into an impure house, it becomes impure.

טמאתו – for an analogy is made between leprosy and a corpse. But a leprous cloak that became defiled through oming in, we derive if from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 14:55): “for an eruption on a cloth or a house.”/"ולצרעת הבגד והבית", an analogy is made from a cloth to a house, for just as aa house defiles when one enters it, for it is written (Leviticus 14:46): “Whoever enters the house”/"והבא אל הבית וגו' ", even a cloth defiles through entry. From where do we learn that this includes everything as for example warp and woof and hides, the inference teaches us (Leviticus 13:59): "זאת תורת נגע-צרעת בגד הצמר [או הפשתים או השתי או הערב או כל כלי-עור לטהרו או לטמאו]."/ “Such is the procedure for eruptive affections of cloth, [woolen or linen, in warp or in woof, or of any article of skin, for pronouncing it pure or impure.],” an analogy is made between all of them to a cloth, just as a cloth defiles through entry, so all of them defile through entry.

And if he put even the size of an olive of an unclean [cloak] into a clean house, the house becomes unclean. However, to convey impurity the piece of cloth need not be three by three fingerbreadths a piece the size of an olive is sufficient. Therefore, all he has to do is put a piece of the impure cloak the size of an olive into the house and it will defile the contents through overhanging.

וכליו על כתפו – folded and placed on his shoulder in the manner of a burden [to carry].

Introduction Today's mishnah teaches that with regard to the time it take to become defiled there is a distinction between clothes carried into a house afflicted with a nega and clothes worn into such a house.

וטבעותיו בידיו – placed in the palm of his hand that is not according to the manner of dressing.

If a person entered a house afflicted with a nega, carrying his clothes upon his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands, both he and they become unclean immediately. In this case, since he wasn't wearing the clothes, shoes or jewelry, they are considered to be vessels which are brought into a house. They become impure immediately upon entrance to the house.

הוא והן טמאין מיד – for we call them also with vessels (Leviticus 14:46): “Whoever enters the house [while it is closed up] shall be impure [until evening].”/"והבא אל-הבית...יטמא" .

If, however, he was wearing his clothes and had his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands, he becomes unclean immediately, but they remain clean, unless he stayed as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf of wheat bread and not of barley bread, while in a reclining posture and eating with some condiment. However, if he is wearing his clothes, shoes or jewelry, they must be in the house for as long as it would take to eat half a loaf of wheat bread with some sort of condiment/dip, and while reclining (concerning this amount see Eruvin 8:2). This is derived from Leviticus 14:47 which states: "Whoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house must wash his clothes." For his clothes to be impure he need not actually eat or sleep in the house. Rather he must be there long enough so that he could eat a minimum measure of a meal, which is considered to be half a loaf of bread.

היה לבוש כליו – that now his vessels ae not impure, other than on account of himself.

והן טהורים עד שישהה בכדי אכילת פרס – as it is written (Leviticus 14:47): “Whoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house must wash his clothes.” And it is taught in a Baraita: I have established only eating and sleeping, but from where can I derive that not eating or not sleeping [is included]? The inference comes to teach us, "יכבס את-בגדיו"/he must wash his clothes – is an inclusion (i.e., widening the scope of the Halakha), if so, why does it state (in Leviticus 14:47): "השכב בבית...והאכל בבית"/one who sleeps in the house….and one who eats in the house? To give a measurement to (Leviticus 13:46): "והבא אל-הבית"/whoever enters the house, which does not require washing of clothes until he remains there long enough eats while he is lying down, meaning to say, when he is reclining. And how much is the measurement of eating? In order to eat a piece of bread, which is one-half of a loaf of an Eruv (see Tractate Eruvin 8b and the dispute between Rashi and Maimonides; according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, a full loaf is six eggs and half of it is three eggs; according to Rabbi Shimon, the loaf is eight eggs and half of it is four eggs; Maimonides decides according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka, whereas Rashi decides like Rabbi Shimon). According to the words of Rashi, they are four eggs, and according to the words of Maimonides they are three eggs.

מיסב ואוכלן בלפתן (sits and eats them with their condiments) – that its measure is less than if he [would] eat them without their condiments, that through the taste of their condiments, he hurries to eat.

היה עומד בפנים – within the leprous house.

If he was standing inside, and he stretched his hands outside, with his rings on his hands, if he stayed [inside] as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf, they become unclean.
If he was standing outside, stretching his hands inside, with his rings on his hands: Rabbi Judah says that they are unclean immediately, But the sages say: only after he leaves them there as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf.
They said to Rabbi Judah: if when all his body is unclean he does not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf, when all of his body is not unclean, is it not logical that he should not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf?
Today's mishnah continues yesterday's topic: how long does it take for things which he wears to become impure in a house afflicted by a nega.
Section one: The person himself is impure immediately upon entering the house afflicted by the nega. The rings on his hands become impure even though they are outside the house. This is because his hands are part of his body and it is as if they are inside the house. However, the rings don't become impure until he stays in the house the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah.
Section two: In this case he stands outside and remains pure (because his head and body didn't enter the house see mishnah 8), but he stretches his hands inside while wearing his rings. Rabbi Judah says that this is like the situation of simply bringing rings into a house. As we saw in yesterday's mishnah, in such a case, the rings are impure immediately.
The other rabbis hold that the rings must stay in the house for at least the length of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. They argue that in section one, where his entire body was impure, the rings had to stay on his fingers (although they were outside of the house) for at least that amount of time. All the more so, if his body remains pure, the rings must be in the house for at least the amount of time it takes to eat half of a loaf of bread.

ופשט ידיו לחוץ וטבעותיו בידיו – here we are speaking that his rings are on his fingers like he wears them, and if he delayed in order to eat a piece of bread, they are impure, for they are clinging to his body, but if they were in the palm of his hand in the manner of burden, the Tosefta (Tractate Negaim, Chapter 7, Halakha 9) proves that they are impure immediately.

בזמן שאין כל גופו טמא – as for example, here when he stands outside and he is not defiled all the while that he did not put his head and the greater part of his body inside.

אינו דין שלא יטמא מה שעליו עד שישהה כדי אכילת פרס – And Rabbi Yehuda states, we found that the power of something impure to protect is greater than the power of something pure to protect, for an Israelite when they become susceptible to impurity, they protect vessels in the leprous house, for they don’t defile until he remains enough time to eat a piece of bread, but the heathen and cattle which are not susceptible to receive impurity, they do not protect vessels in a leprous house, for the clothing that is upon them are impure immediately. But the Halakha Is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

עד ארבע אמות – Rabbi Shimon holds that above four cubits is another domain, for the height of an average person is three cubits, and one cubit is for the prostration accompanied by stretched of hands and feet. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If a metzora entered a house all the vessels in it, even up to the roof beams, become unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: only up to a height of four cubits. A "metzora" is a person who has a nega. If he/she should enter a house, all of the vessels in the house are defiled. According to the first opinion, this includes even vessels that are placed high in the house, close to the roof beams. Rabbi Shimon says that the impurity only reaches as high as the height of an average person when he stretches his hands up. This is estimated to be 4 cubits (about 2 meters high). Above that is another domain and therefore any vessels found close to the roof beams remain pure.

כלים מיד טמאים – meaning to say, vessels that we stated even up until the beams according to the first Tanna/teacher, and until four cubits according to Rabbi Shimon, immediately become susceptible to impurity when he enters with them into the leprous house.

Vessels become unclean immediately. Rabbi Judah says: only if the metzora stayed there as much time as is required for the lighting of a lamp. According to the first opinion, as soon as a metzora enters a house, he immediately defiles all of the vessels therein. Rabbi Judah says that he must remain there the time that it takes to light a lamp. According to the Tosefta this only refers to a metzora who enters his friend's house without permission. In such a case, the vessels there are impure only if he stays long enough to light a lamp (at which point his friend, if he was there could tell him to leave?). But if a metzora enters his own house, or someone else's with permission, the vessels are defiled immediately.

כדי הדלקת הנר – when he enters with permission, Rabbi Yehuda agrees/admits that the become susceptible to impurity immediately, but he doesn’t dispute other than when he enters without permission, because the dwelling of a leper defiles as we stated (earlier in this Mishnah), and when he enters with permission it is his dwelling immediately, but when he enters without permission, it is not his dwelling unless he remains enough time to light a candle and it doesn’t go out. But if he didn’t remain enough time in order to light a candle, it is not his dwelling, and that fact that [the master] throw him out is because he was preoccupied in lighting the candle because it was the onset of the Sabbath or on weekdays, and he was not able to bring it forth.

נכנס בית הכנסת – a leper that comes to enter into a synagogue.

Introduction The final mishnah of chapter thirteen continues to deal with the status of vessels in a house into which a metzora has entered.

עושים לו מחיצה גבוהה עשרה טפחים – for less than ten [handbreadths] is not considered a partition to protect.

If he enters a synagogue, a partition ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide must be made for him. If a metzora enters a synagogue, they must make for him a partition (a mehitzah) ten handbreadths high to keep him from defiling the other people in the synagogue. It is interesting how lenient this law is. The Torah states that a metzora should be sent out of the camp (see Leviticus 13). In contrast, the rabbis assume that a metzora could enter a synagogue and the only thing that needs to be done is for a partition to be made for him. Perhaps we can sense here some hesitance on the part of the rabbis to isolate a metzora from their community (even if these rules are only theoretical).

ברוחב ארבע אמות – corresponding to the four cubits of prayer (see Tractate Berakhot 31b). Alternatively, because this is the measurement of the place of a person, as we stated in [Tractate] Eruvin, in the chapter מי שהוציאוהו /He who took forth beyond the Sabbath limits [folio 48a].

He should enter first and come out last. He should go in to the synagogue first so that he doesn't defile anybody before he arrives at his partitioned off spot. He should also go out last so that he doesn't defile anyone when leaving that spot.

נכנס ראשון ויוצא אחרון – in order that those who are standing in the synagogue do not become defiled through his entrance and his departure, when he passes from the entrance until the partition, for we are concerned lest he stand a bit at the time that he passes, and all of those standing there will be defiled.

Any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection by a tightly fitting cover in the house of one afflicted by a nega, And whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega, the words of Rabbi Meir. In Tractate Kelim we learned that there are vessels that protect their contents from becoming impure when found in a tent with a corpse if they have a tightly-fitting cover (see 10:1). According to Rabbi Meir these same vessels protect their contents from becoming impure in a metzora's house, as long as they have a tightly-fitting lid. And there are some cases where something needs only to be covered for it to protect its contents. It does not need a tightly-fitting lid. According to Rabbi Meir if something is protected by being covered in a tent of corpse, it is also protected by being covered in the house of a metzora. In short, the same rules that apply in the tent of a corpse apply in the house of a metzora.

כל המציל בצמיד פתיל – as for example an earthenware vessel and all of those are considered in Tractate Kelim in Chapter 10: “Which are the vessels that are protected by a tightly fitting lid?”

Rabbi Yose says: any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega; and whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse remains clean even when uncovered in a leprous house. Rabbi Yose rules more leniently. If a vessel's contents are protected by a tightly-fitting lid in the tent of a corpse, they only need to be covered to afford protection in the house of a metzora. And if a vessel's contents are protected with any type of cover in the tent of corpse, then the vessel doesn't need to be covered at all for its contents to be protected in the house of a metzora. In other words, each rule is slightly more lenient in the house of a metzora than it is the tent of a corpse.

כל המציל מכוסה אוהל המת – such as a pit and a cistern that don’t require a tightly fit lid but rather a covering, as is taught in Tractate Ahilot, Chapter 5 [The Oven] (Mishnah 6). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yossi.