Tum'at Tsara'at - Chapter 6

The commentaries maintain that this also includes the tongue.

For the folds of skin are not considered as revealed.

Here, as well, the literal translation of the Rambam’s words is “on the beard.”

For these surfaces incur impurity only from netekim as explained in Chapter 8.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 3, for a more precise definition of the Hebrew terms.

I.e., if a blemish is found on such a surface, the person is not deemed impure.

If there is a blemish on such a surface and a blemish that was less than a gris in size located adjacent to it on ordinary skin, the two are not combined to produce the measure of a gris [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 6:8); Kessef Mishneh].

One of the signs of impurity is for a blemish to expand onto adjacent flesh. If, however, such surfaces are adjacent to a blemish, the fact that the blemish expands to them is not significant (ibid.).

One of the signs of impurity is for healthy flesh to be manifest in a blemish. If one of these surfaces is found within a blemish, it is not considered as a sign of impurity (ibid.).

As explained in Chapter 7, Halachah 1, when a person’s entire body is covered with tzara’at, he is considered as pure.

E. g., one’s nails. Similarly, because the skin on the underside of the foot has hardened, it is not considered as ordinary flesh.

The inside of the eye, of the ear, etc. These places are referred to as beit haseterim, “hidden places.”

Because when a person closes his mouth, this portion of the lips cannot be seen. The Kessef Mishneh cites Rav Yosef Corcus who notes that in other contexts [e.g., immersion (Hilchot Mikvaot 4:13), sprinkling the ashes of the red heifer (Hilchot Parah Adumah 12:1)], these portions of the mouth are considered as revealed flesh. He explains that with regard to the determination of the impurity of blemishes, it is stated (Leviticus 13:3): “And the priest shall see it.” Hence the surface in question must be visible at all times.

Chapter 5, Halachot 3 and 9.

A blemish on one of these surfaces is not combined with an adjoining blemish on another one of these surfaces to produce the minimum size of a gris [the Rambam.’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

In contrast to the lack of a blemish on the surfaces mentioned in Halachah 1, the lack of a blemish on these surfaces prevents a person from being placed in the category of being entirely covered by a tzara’at affliction. The rationale for the distinction is that these surfaces — unlike those mentioned in Halachah 1 — are fit to contract blemishes.

The Ra’avad protests the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that as long as a blemish is fit to contract impurity because of one sign, it is sufficient even though it is not fit to contract impurity through all three. Similarly, in the instance at hand, although a blemish on skin next to such a surface is not fit to contract impurity due to an increase in size, it is fit to contract impurity due to white hair or healthy skin. Moreover, it is even fit to contract impurity due to an increase from other directions. The Kessef Mishneh finds support for the Rambam’s ruling in the Tosefta (Nega’im 1:19).

All of the laws that follow are derived from the same general principle. Commenting on Leviticus 13:2: “When a man will have si’eit... on the skin of his flesh,” the Sifra emphasizes that the use of the future tense indicates that from the time a blemish appear on flesh, it must be fit to be deemed impure. If not, even if circumstances change afterwards and a new baheret on such a surface would be fit to be deemed impure, the status of the original baheret never changes.

For there is no concept of a gentile incurring ritual impurity.

While the fetus is being carried, there is no concept of its blemishes causing ritual impurity.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 7:1), the Rambam explains that this is referring to a fat person whose flesh has creases and folds. These are not fit to incur impurity (Halachah 1). Afterwards, he lost weight and his flesh straightened.

In which instance, they would not cause impurity.

A baheret on such a surface would normally cause ritually impurity (Halachah 2). Nevertheless, since this baheret would not cause impurity at the outset, it does not do so even after the original circumstances change.

And the baheret remained the entire time.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. 7:1), the Rambam explains that since judgment regarding this baheret was withheld once, it remains withheld forever.

As if it was a new blemish. Thus it could now render the person impure.

I.e., the whiteness became stronger.

I.e., the whiteness became weaker.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 9; Chapter 4, Halachah 6.

A much larger measure.

I.e., the priest forgot.

Because of the doubt involved. According to law, one should be considered as impure and the second should be isolated for a second week. Nevertheless, since there is a doubt involved, they are released [from the inspection process]. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 5:4).

For as the Sifra to Leviticus 13:3 states, the priest must have definitive knowledge about a blemish when declaring someone impure.

Even if the priest does not know which one originally had the smaller blemish and which, the larger one, they are both impure. The rationale is that both blemishes increased in size.

And thus he would be fit to regain his purity.

For in this instance, both blemishes have receded to their original size or less.

Which is not a sign of ritual impurity, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

Even though there are definitely two hairs that were turned white by the blemish, since the priest is not aware of which ones they are, the person is deemed pure, as was the ruling with regard to an increase in the size of the blemish, as stated in Halachah 5.

I.e., originally the priest was able to distinguish between the set of white hair that existed before the blemish and the set turned white by the blemish. Afterwards, he was unable to make this distinction.

If the white hair which fell off had come from the pair that was turned white by the blemish, the person would be deemed pure. In this situation, however, since it is not known from which pair the hair fell, he is still considered as pure.

For the blemish itself has not disappeared, only the signs of impurity.