Study Moed Katan folio 8A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud explains that the halakha of leprous symptoms on a house constitutes a novelty, as by Torah law, wood and stones are generally not susceptible to ritual impurity, yet here in the case of house tzara'at they are susceptible to ritual impurity.
And R' Yehuda HaNasi said: It was necessary for the Torah to state both verses: “But on the day it appears in him” (Leviticus 13:14), as well as: “Then the priest shall command that they empty the house” (Leviticus 14:36). As, if God had written only: “But on the day it appears in him,” I would have
And conversely, if God had written only: “Then the priest shall command,” I would have said that for these utensils that are found in the house, yes, one may delay the priest’s examination, as this is not a case of impurity of the individual’s body but only that of his possessions; but in a case of
§ The Talmud proceeds to analyze the aforementioned baraita. The Master said that as the verse states: “But on the day it appears in him,” it may be inferred that there is a day when you examine the symptoms found in him and there is a day when you do not examine those symptoms.
The Talmud asks: From where in this verse may it be inferred? Abaye said: If it were so that the priest must always examine the symptoms immediately, God should have written simply: On the day it appears in him. What is implied by the actual formulation of the verse: “But on the day”? Learn from her