the Tribes, or even divided it among the Tribes but not divided it among the families, or even divided it among the families but not given each person his holding, then house plagues would not yet affect the Israelites. It is to teach this result that says, "he who has the house," teaching that house plagues can occur only to those in the Land of Israel to whom alone the house belongs, excluding these houses that do not belong to an owner alone. Thus the Gemara rejected the explanation based on differences between urban and rural synagogues. The Mishnah interpreted the words, "there seems to me to be as it were a plague in the house" in to teach that even a learned sage who knows that he has definitely seen a sign of plague in a house may not speak with certainty. Rather, even the sage must say, "there seems to me to be as it were a plague in the house." The Mishnah interpreted the instruction to empty the house in Rabbi Judah taught that they removed even bundles of wood and even bundles of reeds. Rabbi Simeon remarked that this (removal of bundles that are not susceptible to uncleanness) was idle business. But Rabbi Meir responded by asking which of the homeowner's goods could become unclean. Articles of wood, cloth, or metal surely could be immersed in a ritual bath and become clean. The only thing that the Torah spared was the homeowner's earthenware, even his and his ewer (which, if the house proved unclean, indicates would have to be broken). If the Torah thus spared a person's humble possessions, how much more so would the Torah spare a person's cherished possessions. If the Torah shows so much consideration for material possessions, how much more so would the Torah show for the lives of a person's children. If the Torah shows so much consideration for the possessions of a wicked person (if we take the plague as a punishment for the sin of slander), how much more so would the Torah show for the possessions of a righteous person. Reading to say, "And he shall look on the plague, and behold the plague," the Sifra interpreted the double allusion to teach that a sign of house plague was no cause of uncleanness unless it appeared in at least the size of two split beans. And because addresses