Leviticus 13:52

Verse 52. He shall therefore burn that garment] There being scarcely any means of radically curing the infection. It is well known that the garments infected by the psora, or itch animal, have been known to communicate the disease even six or seven years after the first infection. This has been also experienced by the sorters of rags at some paper mills.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(52) He shall therefore burn.—As this distemper could never be eradicated from stuffs, the garments which have once become possessed of leprosy had to be burnt.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is,.... The priest did not wash it himself, but ordered others to do it; and this was either the part in which the plague was, or the whole garment or skin in which it was; which may be typical of the washing of the garments of men in the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all sin, Rev 7:14,

and he shall shut it up seven days more: the garment or skin in which the leprosy was, or suspected to be, to see what alteration would be made by that time through the washing, whether the colour would be altered, or whether it would spread any more or not.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

בצמר ובפשתים means OF WOOL OR OF FLAX. This is the plain meaning. And the Midrashic explanation is: One might think that he must bring fleeces of wool or stalks of flax and burn them together with it, (the garment, in order to make a flame in which to burn it; then the verse will mean: he shall burn the garment with wool etc.) Scripture, however, states, in this verse, היא באש תשרף “it (the garment) shall be burnt in fire” — no other thing being required with it. If this be so why does it state בצמר או בפשתים? To exclude from being burnt the אומריות, the hems, that are on it if these are made of a different material than wool or flax respectively. The word אומריות means a hem; it is the same as the better-known word אימרא. (The translation is therefore: he shall burn [apply fire to] the garment etc., on the woolen parts only) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 1).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

FOR IT IS A LEPROSY THAT IS ‘MAM’ERETH’ (FRETTING). “Mam’ereth is an expression of ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier). The Midrashic interpretation is: attach a me’eirah (curse) to it — so that you will have no benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos translated: “a leprosy that is mechasra (pricking).” This interpretation he also derived from ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier), for in Aramaic any shrub which causes a pricking pain is called chisra. Thus: “k’chizra (as a thorn) in a ball of wool;” “take thy good-natured advice and throw it over achizri (the hedge).” And the truth of the matter is that mam’ereth is indeed an expression of curse, that it is to say, it is G-d’s curse upon the garment and house, as I have mentioned. But the Midrash which states that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it [a leprous garment] is based [not on the word mam’ereth as Rashi had it, but] on the redundancy of expression. appears in Verses 51 and 52 in the same connection. Since one is redundant, it serves as the basis for the Midrashic interpretation mentioned. The same law applies to a leprous house, and it is derived from the verse, And he shall break down the house. Thus also I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi of Tractate Orlah: “If stones were removed from a house affected with leprosy and made into plaster, some Rabbis taught that they become free of their impurity, and some taught that they do not become free of their impurity. Those who said that they become free, are also of the opinion that they may now be used [for some benefit], and those who say that they do not become free are also of the opinion that they are still forbidden [to be made use of], for it is written: it is a leprosy that is ‘mam’ereth’, meaning, attach a curse to it and derive no benefit from it. Rabbi Abohu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: All things which must be burnt, one may derive benefit from their ashes, except for the ashes of an idol. Rabbi Chiya the son of Yosei asked Rabbi Yochanan: ‘There is the case of the ashes of a house [affected with leprosy], which is not related to idolatry, and yet you say that the ashes thereof are forbidden for any use [like the stones which have been turned into lime or plaster]! Said Rabbi Yochanan to him: ‘This is different,’ since [concerning a house affected with leprosy] it is written that it be ‘broken down.’” (Deuteronomy 12:3), we derive from a similarity of phrases the law that just as it is forbidden to have any benefit from idols, so we are under the same stricture of making any use from the stones of a house which had been affected with leprosy (P’nei Moshe, ibid.).Metzora

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.