Mechussarey Kapparah - Chapter 1

Literally, “lacking atonement.”

This term is defined in Halachah 6.

Included in this category is also a woman who miscarries; see Halachot 6-8 and the sources mentioned there.

This term is defined in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

A skin affliction similar, but not analogous, to leprosy that causes a person to become ritually impure. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 2:1), the Rambam elaborates in explaining that unlike a zav and a zavah who are listed separately, because the nature of their impurity is different, both a male and a female afflicted by tzara’at are placed in the same category, because their impurity is of the same type.

A preparatory step for regaining ritual purity. This applies to all the individuals mentioned aside from a zav. Such a person must immerse in a stream of living water. See Hilchot Mikveot 1:5.

In which instance, one generally regains ritual purity. I.e., in most instances when one is impure, ritual purity is regained by immersing in a mikveh and waiting for nightfall that day.

He may, however, partake of terumah once the sun sets on the day of his immersion.

Yevamot 74b derives this from Leviticus 12:5: “And the priest shall make atonement for her and she will become pure,” i.e., until then she was not pure in a complete sense.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14. As stated in that halachah, although a person who partakes of sacrificial food in such a state is liable for lashes, he or she is not liable for karet for the full measure of ritual impurity is not upon them. See also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:9, 19; Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:7; 4:5.

I.e., the term “requiring in atonement” refers to a full-fledged Jew who may not partake of sacrificial food until he brings the required sacrifices. A convert is not a full-fledged Jew and cannot partake of sacrifices until he becomes one. Note that the Rambam’s explanation here differs slightly from that given in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

In Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:1, 4, the Rambam writes: Israel entered the covenant [with God] with three acts: circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.... Similarly, for [all] future generations, when a gentile desires to enter into the covenant, take shelter under the wings of the Divine presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah, he must undergo circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice. A woman [who converts] must undergo immersion and bring a sacrifice.
In the era when the Temple is not standing, all that is necessary is circumcision and/or immersion. Nevertheless, when the Temple is rebuilt, converts from the previous time, must bring sacrifices (ibid.:5).

But not until the evening. As evident from Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:7, he is considered as one who emerged from ritual impurity.

He is still under obligation to bring the second dove.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:6. There the Rambam also mentions a third option: two domesticated animals, one as a burnt-offering and one as a peace-offering.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 74-75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 179, 183) count bringing these sacrifices as commandments in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. See Leviticus 15:14-15, 29-30.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 77) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 168) count bringing these sacrifices as a commandment in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. See Leviticus 12:6.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 176) count bringing these sacrifices as a commandment in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. See Leviticus 14:10, 21-22.

In all these instances, the requirement to wait until the eighth day is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, Leviticus 14:8-10; 15:13-14; 15:28-29.

Leviticus 12:2-6 explains that if a woman gives birth to a son, she is impure for seven days. Afterwards, for a 33 day period, uterine bleeding does not render her ritually impure. When these 40 days are concluded, she must bring these sacrifices. If the woman gives birth to a daughter, she is impure for 14 days. She is then granted a 66 day period of purity and then she is required to bring these sacrifices.

Although the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel differ on certain dimensions of the laws of purity applying to a woman after childbirth, they both agree that she may not bring her sacrifices on the fortieth or eightieth days.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:9, she is considered “as lacking in time,” and she is disqualified from bringing a sacrifice.
The Ra’avad questions this ruling. True, he argues, the woman herself would not be able to bring these sacrifices, but she could send them to the Temple and have them offered on her behalf by others. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that since the prooftext from Leviticus states explicitly that the sacrifices should not be brought until “the completion of her days,” they are unacceptable even when brought by others.

For which she did not bring the sacrifices at the appropriate time.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why offerings required for previous births are not acceptable if the required period for those births has already passed, noting that there is a specific teaching from the Sifra that implies that she may have them brought. He explains that it is possible that the Rambam had a different version of the Sifra. That version is favored based on a passage from Keritot 10a.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that based on Halachah 8, it is obvious that the Rambam is speaking about a birth that took place well before the birth for which the woman is bringing her present sacrifice. For if he was speaking about a birth that took place immediately beforehand, the atonement would be achieved by the sacrifice she brings after this birth regardless. He brings support for the Rambam’s ruling, from Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:12 which states that, at times, a person’s state of ritual impurity may prevent him or her from having a sacrifice offered on their behalf even via an agent.

I.e., all four.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the mention of the guilt-offering is a printing error and, in fact, failure to bring it prevents a woman from partaking of sacrifices. One might argue that Hilchot Nezirut 6:12-13, 10:8 indicate that this version of the text is correct. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Corcus notes that Hilchot Shegagot 3:11 states: "All of the guilt-offerings [required by] the Torah hold back atonement with the exception of the guilt offering of a nazirite." Hence, in these instances, until the guilt-offering is brought, the person may not partake of sacrificial food.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 14:10.

In such an instance, it is always considered as if the sacrifice was offered without the principal’s consent. Since they are below majority, the consent they give is of no consequence.

As Leviticus 15:25 states: “If a woman experiences a flow of blood for many days outside the time for her menstrual flow.... “

I.e., seven days without any sign of uterine bleeding.

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 6. As explained in the notes to that chapter, the Rambam’s definition of the days of nidah and the days of zivah differs from that of most authorities. Nevertheless, regardless of the definition of “days of nidah,” all authorities agree that when a woman discovers uterine bleeding for three consecutive days outside “the days of nidah,” she is a zavah.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:10. See also Hilchot Shegagot 11:2; Hilchot Nizirut 10:4. Note also the following halachah.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 10.

See Ibid. 5:13-15.

As explained in the previous halachah.

For, otherwise, neither of them will be able to enter the Temple, nor partake of sacrificial food.

For, in truth, only one of them is obligated to bring the sacrifice.

The commentaries note a contradiction in the Rambam’s rulings, for the source in Hilchot Shechitah cited states that one should bury the ordinary animals, not burn them. Kin’at Eliyahu attempts to resolve the matter, stating that Hilchot Shechitah is speaking about an instance where we know that the animal was not sacred, while here, the possibility exists that it was. Hence, it is proper that it be burnt, as befits a sacrifice that was disqualified.

Hilchot Shechitah 2:2.

I.e., the forty days associated with the birth of a boy or the eighty days associated with the birth of a girl, as mentioned in note 20.

Keritot 9b derives both these concepts from the exegesis of Leviticus 12:6.

Or miscarries a female fetus.

The Rambam mentions this instance in connection with the birth of a female, because it is impossible for such a scenario to take place after the birth of a male. For there are only 40 days associated with the birth of a male and any time a miscarriage takes place within forty days of conception, a sacrifice is not required for the fetus is not considered to have developed sufficiently.

Since the time when she was obligated to bring the first sacrifice already arrived, the miscarriage is considered as an independent event (Rav Yosef Corcus).
Keritot 7b cites a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel concerning the night between the eightieth and the eighty-first day. On one hand, the days associated with the birth of a girl have been completed. Hence, if she miscarried that night, the School of Hillel maintain that the miscarriage is not included in the sacrifice for the previous birth or miscarriage. On the other hand, the woman may not bring her sacrifice until the next morning. Hence, the School of Shammai maintain that it can be included in that sacrifice. As is well known, the halachah follows the School of Hillel. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that this is intimated by the Rambam’s words: “provided the births [or the miscarriages] take place within the days [associated with the prior birth or miscarriage]” and “until the conclusion of the eightieth day.” See also Chapter 3, Halachah 4, and notes where this issue is discussed.

We have translated the Rambam’s words literally. The intent is the third pregnancy, for the first could have ended in a birth or a miscarriage.

There is no limit to the number of miscarriages that could be included in one sacrifice.

A person whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus it is impossible to determine his or her gender.

A hermaphrodite who possesses both male and female sexual organs. There is an unresolved halachic question with regard to the classification of such a person's gender.

And thus the animal offered is considered as an ordinary animal slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard which is forbidden to be eaten, as explained above.

I.e., multiple; the same laws apply if more or fewer than five situations are involved.

Previously, it was emphasized that even though her obligation was questionable, the woman could not partake of sacrificial food until she brought her sacrifices. Here the Rambam is underscoring that she may fulfill several of these questionable obligations with one set of sacrifices. For, indeed, the license to offer even that set was granted only as a leniency to enable her to partake of sacrificial food.

For each one took place after the forty or eighty days associated with the previous birth or miscarriage.

When the letter vav is used as a prefix, it usually translates as the word “and.” In this instance, however, it means “or,” because one set of sacrifices cannot bring atonement for both a birth and zivah (Rav Yosef Corcus). See Sifra, Parshat Metzora.

Rashi, Keritot 8a, compares this situation to immersion in a mikveh. Immersing oneself once brings purity for several situations that would each require immersion.

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that, in these circumstances as well, the woman is not obligated for her remaining sacrifices. Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s position.

I.e., if there were five situations where it is questionable whether or not he would be deemed a zav, he must bring one set of sacrifices and the sin-offering is not eaten. He is not obligated for the remainder. If he was liable for five sets of sacrifices, he must bring one set of sacrifices and then he can partake of sacrificial food. He must, however, bring the other sets of sacrifices.

Had she converted before giving birth, she would be required to bring a sacrifice to attain ritual purity. If she converted afterwards, she would not. Kin’at Eliyahu asks how it is possible for her not to know whether or not the birth preceded the conversion. Beior Moshe explains that this refers to an instance where the woman immersed before her birth and then a question arose whether the immersion was acceptable or not.

Hilchot Shegagot 3:11.

And Yom Kippur does not bring about that change (Keritot 26a).

As explained in Hilchot Shekalim 2:2, there were thirteen chests in the Temple, each shaped like a shofar. The third chest was for those who had to bring offerings of doves. The people would deposit the money for the doves in the chest. The priests would take the money, purchase doves, and offer the sacrifices.

Hilchot Shekalim, foe. cit.; Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash VeHaOvdim Bo 7:9.

For a birth or for zivah.

If, however, she did not bring her sin-offering, it should not be brought after her death, because a sin-offering may be brought only during a person’s lifetime.