Tum'at Tsara'at - Chapter 8

Based on this, the Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 8) asks: What is the difference between the baldness that causes a person to be classified as a keireiach or a gibeiach and a netek? In resolution, he explains that those types of baldness are ordinary phenomena that result from a person's changing hormonal condition. The disappearance of hair from a netek, by contrast, is a departure from the norm and comes about as a result of a tzara’at affliction.
Based on this, the Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 8) asks: What is the difference between the baldness that causes a person to be classified as a keireiach or a gibeiach and a netek? In resolution, he explains that those types of baldness are ordinary phenomena that result from a person’s changing hormonal condition. The disappearance of hair from a netek, by contrast, is a departure from the norm and comes about as a result of a tzara’at affliction.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 10:6), the Rambam cites the Sifra that notes that Leviticus 13:31 mentions “the blemish (nega) of the netek,” establishing an equivalence between the two. Just as a blemish must be a gris to impart impurity, so too, a netek must be a gris to impart impurity.

In contrast to blemishes on ordinary flesh that must appear “deep,” i.e., beneath the surface of the skin (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).

In the above passage from Leviticus, the term appears several times.

A man who was born without sexual potency or castrated (Hilchot Ishut 2:11-13).

See the conclusion of Chapter 5.

As there is for other blemishes. See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

Leviticus, op. cit.

Our text follows the version found in authoritative manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard published text follows a different — and more problematic — version.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 10:1), the Rambam states that this hue appears as a blend between yellow and red.

See Halachah 4.

Or other ordinary colored hair. See Rashi’s Commentary to Leviticus 13:37.

I.e., more of his hair fell out, leaving a greater area bare.

See Halachah 6.

Since ordinary hair is growing in that area, it is no longer considered as a netek.

I.e., leaving two hairs on all sides of the netek (Sifra; see the following halachah). The intent of the adjuration (Leviticus 13:33): “He shall not shave the netek” is that these hairs be left; since the netek is hairless, there is obviously no point in shaving it (Sifra). As mentioned in Chapter 10, Halachah 1, shaving these hairs is considered as a Scriptural prohibition.

As is the ruling with regard to an ordinary baheret (Chapter 1, Halachah 10).

In contrast to a shaving to achieve purity that must be performed by a priest (Chapter Halachah 1).

Note the Mishneh LeMelech who debates whether this charge should be considered as an independent mitzvah. Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 101) mentions this as part of the mitzvah to rule regarding a tzara’at blemish.

In contrast to the shaving cited that must be performed with a razor (ibid.).

Who is forbidden to shave his hair.

And the priest should judge whether or not the netek spread.

Leviticus 13:30, et al.

I.e., shorter than ordinary hair; note, however, the conclusion of the following halachah. Nega’im 10:1 explains that dak means “damaged” and explains that the intent is that the hair is short..

In contrast to the white hair mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1, for an explanation of this translation.

This measure is significant in several halachic contexts. See Hilchot Ishut 2:16; Hilchot Nizirut 6:1. This is a larger measure than the one mentioned in the previous halachah.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, this criterion applies only when such hair remains after a netek erupted. Different rules apply if such hair grew within an existing netek.

For they are not considered as being part of the netek, but as being part of the hair around it.

Because the growth of such hair indicates that the netek has undergone a change.

Although a white hair is not a sign of impurity in this context, it also does not save the netek from being categorized as impure. From Rashi’s Commentary to Leviticus 13:37, some commentaries maintain that hairs of two colors other than white can prevent the person from being categorized as impure.

The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Yosef Corcus as explaining that this clause is referring to an instance where the netek has spread and two hairs grow, one black and one golden. Nevertheless, a golden hair — which could serve as part of a sign of impurity — cannot become a sign of purity.

I.e., less than the measure mentioned in the previous halachah.

This clause does not begin with the term “originally,” because the spreading of a netek requires an interval of a week’s isolation.

Each at least the size of a gris.

The line of hair does not prevent them from being classified as netakim, because it is at the side of each netek and not in the midst of them. See Halachah 6.

Thus the person is considered as impure (Nega’im 10:6). Here the Rambam does not use the term “impure,” leading commentaries to infer that he is speaking about a person in isolation to determine whether the netek will become impure or not. On that basis, there are those who raise a question concerning the Rambam’s ruling, for seemingly, by increasing to cover part of the line of hair, the size of the netek increased sufficiently to render the person impure. Diagram

And thus causes the person to be considered as pure, as stated there.

Otherwise, the hair is not considered to be in the center of the netek (Halachah 6).

The Ra’avad writes that this ruling applies even if the hair is broken through in two places the size of a gris. It is, however, questionable whether the Rambam would agree, for seemingly, in such an instance, the black hair would be in the center of the netek.

Thus despite the increase of the size of the netek, the person is considered as pure.

For it is considered as an extension of the existing netek(im) and the signs of impurity that appear in it render that netek impure.

For it is considered as having grown in the existing netek(im).

For the hairs are not considered in the midst of the netek, but at its side, as evident from Halachah 6. Only when the strand is a gris wideis it possible for the existing hairs to save it from impurity. Note also the parallels to Chapter 4, Halachah 7.

As long as the person does not have a place on his head with two hairs together, this leniency applies.

Note the contrast to Chapter 7, Halachah 1, with regard to a baheret that spread over a person’s entire body.

This also applies to the skin on top of a person’s head.

Chapter 5, Halachah 11; Chapter 6, Halachah 2. Diagram

This parallels the ruling that applies with regard to a baheret as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 2. In both instances, to be considered pure when the blemish covers the entire area, the blemish must have been viewed by the priest previously.

I.e., the only sign of impurity that is relevant for such an individual.

I.e., as is the law regarding a smaller netek.

The Ra’avad states that if black hair grows, even if it later falls off and golden hair remains, the netek is pure. (The Kessef Mishneh notes that this can be inferred from Halachah 8.) The Ra’avad continues that the above applies, however, when the black hair grows after the person was released from the inspection process and then deemed pure. If the black hair grows in an initial situation, he can become impure again as stated in the following clause.
The Kessef Mishneh cites Rav Yosef Corcus who explains the difference between the two situations. When the person had already been deemed impure and then black hair grows, it is appropriate to apply the words of Leviticus 13:37: “The netek has been healed.” When, by contrast, the person was not deemed impure, it is not appropriate to speak of the existence of a netek and thus it cannot be defined as having been healed.

I.e., it spread to the area covered by the black hair. The Kessef Mishneh states that this ruling applies only when the black hair grew at its side. If it grew in the center, he is pure, because there is no concept of a blemish increasing into its own midst.

I.e., if a person’s entire head grows bald because of a netek and his beard remains, he is deemed pure. The fact that his beard remains is not relevant. Conversely, hair on his head does not affect the ruling with regard to hair falling from his beard. The two areas are viewed independently [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 10:9)].

I.e., if two netakim less than a gris each are next to each other, one on the head and one, on the area of the beard, they are not combined and considered as a netek of the minimum size.

I.e., spreading from one to the other is not considered as a sign of impurity, but as a new netek.

From the mention of the term (HEBREW_TEXT) before the term tzara’at, we derived that the two are separate categories.

See Hilchot A vodat Kochavim 12:7 where the Rambam gives a similar prohibition with regard to the prohibition against shaving.

Our translation of the latter term is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).