Tum'at Tsara'at - Chapter 2

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 4:4). Others (including the standard published text of that source) translate zug as “scissors.”

Or any color other than white.

The Sifra derives this law from Leviticus 13:3: “If hair in the blemish has turned white,” i.e., it is the portion of the hair next to the blemish which appears to be the determining factor.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam. explains this law based on the rationale mentioned in the previous note.

We do not say that since the hair is not white, it is not considered as part of the blemish and thus the blemish is smaller than a gris.

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:1), it appears that the person is impure even if the hair is not as white as the membrane of an egg.

Sh’chin in Hebrew. This term is discussed in Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

This term is also discussed in Chapter 5, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 4. In his gloss to this halachah, the Kessef Mishneh raises a question, noting that white hair is always a sign of impurity, even when in a boil or a burn. He resolves that issue by stating that this is speaking about an instance where the boil or burn is an open wound, in which instance, they cannot contract impurity (ibid.:3). The commentaries, however, note that here the Rambam also speaks about a burn and a boil that have healed. Perhaps the Rambam’s intent here is that it does not contract impurity as a baheret and that the laws that apply within the context of sh’chin will be discussed later.

As described in Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

As the Rambam has illustrated, to confer impurity, the white hairs must be in the skin of the baheret itself.

And thus divide the baheret into two non-contiguous portions.

I.e., the two hairs are in a baheret that is smaller than a gris. Hence, that baheret is not considered as a sign of impurity. And since the smaller baheret is separated from the larger one, the larger one is also not considered as impure.
The Kessef Mishneh questions: Since white hairs in a boil or in burnt flesh are signs of impurity, the fact that the white hair is found in the boil should be sufficient to impart impurity, regardless of the baheret. He explains that this is speaking about an instance where the boil or the burn have not started to heal at all. Hence, they do not contract impurity, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 3. This resolution is, however, difficult to accept, because the Rambam speaks of a boil and burn that are healed.

I.e., they are healed entirely and thus there is no separation between the hairs and the baheret.

And considered pure, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

Even though the white hairs remained.

“It is as if the first baheret that disappeared deposited the white hairs here as an entrusted article that would later be discovered” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 5:3)].

I.e., the intent is not only that the change in the hairs’ color was brought about by a baheret, but that it must be brought about by the baheret in question.

There is more room for stringency here than in the instance described in the previous halachah, because here, the part of the baheret that changed the color of the hairs remained and they were located in it. Nevertheless, since the new baheret that came into being was not the one that changed their color, they are not considered as a sign of impurity.

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 10. This clause does not contain any new insight and is mentioned only as an introduction to the clauses that follow.

Even though there is now a baheret that is the size of a gris with two white hairs inside of it, the person is not deemed definitively impure. The rationale is that the first white hair was caused to change its color by a baheret that was not the size of a gris.

I.e., when the hairs turned white, they were situated in a baheret that was a gris in size.

Bava Metzia 86a relates that this instance was the subject of a difference of opinion between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Heavenly Court. The Holy One, blessed be He, ruled that the person should be considered pure, while the Heavenly Court deemed it impure. They asked: “Who will give the determining ruling?” and replied: “Rabbah bar Nachmeini.” Rabbah also ruled that the person is pure. Nevertheless, since he issued this ruling at the time of his passing, it is not considered as having been issued by a soul enclothed in a body. Hence we follow the principle (Bava Metzia 59b): “The Torah is not in the heavens” and allow his ruling to be countermanded (Kessef Mishneh).

For he cannot be definitively declared as impure, it is just that he must observe the stringencies required as if he was.