“And the Kohain will give instructions (to the homeowner whose house might be afflicted), and they shall empty the house before the Kohain comes to inspect the affliction, [so that] everything in the house will not become ritually impure” (Vayikra 14:36). Rashi, based on Nega’im 12:5 and Toras Kohanim, explains which items the Torah is trying to prevent from possibly becoming ritually impure: “If it was for vessels that can be purified through immersion (in a mikveh), let them be immersed and purified (i.e. the Torah would not force the homeowner to avoid the possible hassle of having to immerse them later by making him go through the hassle of removing them from the house now, just in case); if it was for food and drink, let him eat/drink them when he himself is ritually impure (and the food being ritually impure is irrelevant); the Torah is only concerned about earthenware vessels that can not be purified in a mikveh.”

Mishneh Acharona (Nega’im 12:5) asks why Rashi includes food and drink in this list. After all, T’rumah that becomes ritually impure can never be eaten (even by a Kohain who is ritually impure), and there is no prohibition against eating regular food that is ritually impure. Why would we think that the purpose of removing everything from the house is to prevent regular food from becoming ritually impure if it can be eaten even if it does? And why would Rashi disqualify preventing regular food from becoming ritually impure from being the reason everything must be removed based on the fact that it can be eaten by those who are ritually impure, if even those who are not ritually impure can eat it? This question is also asked by Panim Yafos (http://tinyurl.com/cmqs27e, who suggests a pilpul-style answer), and is included in volume #55 of “Iyun HaParasha” (http://tinyurl.com/bq8esny).

Mikdash Dovid (Taharos #41, http://tinyurl.com/bum35qe, referenced by Iyun HaParasha) discusses whether one is required to maintain ritual purity for regular food. Rashi (Chulin 35a, d”h d’leka k’zayis, also referenced by Iyun HaParasha) seems to be saying that it is a requirement. If so, we can understand why Rashi had to explain the reason that preventing regular food from becoming ritually impure could not be why the Torah had everything removed from the house. However, Rashi’s source (a Mishnah and a major halachic Midrash) does not mention food, only items that can be purified in a mikveh. If ritually impure food couldn’t normally be eaten, why didn’t Rabbi Mayer (whose opinion is being stated in the Mishnah/Midrash) mention it as well? And since T’rumah that becomes ritually impure must be burned and can never be eaten, why couldn’t saving T’rumah have been the reason the Torah required the house to be emptied?

Because of the seriousness of ritually impure T’rumah, care was always taken, both by the farmer before it was given to the Kohain and by the Kohain himself, to maintain its ritual integrity. (Many of the impurity laws, including washing our hands before eating bread, were designed to protect the ritual purity of T’rumah.) It is therefore likely that any T’rumah that had been in the house was removed even before the Kohain was called; accordingly, the Kohain’s instructions to remove everything would not have been meant to prevent T’rumah from becoming ritually impure, and there is no reason for Rabbi Mayer to mention it. His not mentioning regular food indicates that he did not think there was a problem consuming regular food that was ritually impure, and there was therefore no reason to prevent it from becoming so. Rashi (and others, such as Rabbeinu Bachye, who also discuss regular food in the same context) might be following the opinion that eating ritually impure food is problematic, or might have included it in their commentary on our verse because such an opinion exists. Nevertheless, there’s another aspect that might be at work here.

The point Rabbi Mayer is making, one that Rashi quotes several times in his commentary on the Talmud (e.g. Rosh Hashanah 27a, Yuma 39a and Chulin 59b), is that G-d is concerned about our money (i.e. things that have monetary value). Earthenware vessels are not very valuable, and, in this circumstance, are owned by individuals who deserve to be punished by having their house afflicted. Yet, G-d made sure that everything was removed so that even things that the homeowner himself might not have bothered saving, such as small earthenware vessels, could still be used and wouldn’t need to be replaced. Even though this is a very powerful point, Rashi doesn’t include it in his commentary on our verse–and it’s not as if Rashi is averse to making this point in his commentary on Chumash, as he does so elsewhere (see Bamidbar 20:8). It therefore seems as if Rashi is using Rabbi Mayer’s line of thinking, which Rabbi Mayer used to prove that G-d cares about our money, to make a different point about our verse.

Rashi is commenting on the words “and all that is in the house will not become ritually impure,” explaining that if everything isn’t removed before the Kohain determines whether or not there really is an affliction, it will be too late to remove anything once it’s determined that there is (if there is), and everything inside will become ritually impure. By removing everything ahead of time, this is avoided. Rashi then continues by explaining what practical impact this has, using Rabbi Mayer’s line of thinking to show that the only things that this really impacts are earthenware vessels. Rashi is not using the verse to teach us about G-d’s kindness, but using Rabbi Mayer’s thought process to explain the practical implication of removing things from the house before the Kohain looks at it.

Whether or not there is a requirement to only eat food that is ritually pure (when one is ritually pure), it was certainly considered preferable. And, historically, there was a significant segment of our population that were careful to do so. Therefore, when explaining what practical implications removing everything from the house had, Rashi points out that removing the food and drink did not make a major difference–even for those who avoided eating food that was ritually impure. After all, having someone in the house who was ritually impure was a regular occurrence (see Tiferes Yisrael on Nega’im 12:5), and those who were ritually impure could eat food that had become ritually impure. Just as it’s not worth the hassle of having to remove items that can be purified just to avoid possibly having to purify them later, it’s not worth the hassle of removing all food items just to avoid having to set it aside for times of impurity. If so, what was the practical benefit of emptying the house? Saving the earthenware vessels.