Tum'at Tsara'at - Chapter 13

For Leviticus 13:47-48 mentions only garments of wool, linen, and leather. Thus all of these laws do not apply to cloths or garments made from other fabrics.

In contrast to cloth, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 10. Nevertheless, leather that is dyed a color different than its natural hue cannot contract impurity because of blemishes (Kessef Mishneh).

This ruling is echoed by Hilchot Keilim 1:11.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 11:1), the Rambam emphasizes that this includes garments belonging to adults and children, men, women, and servants. It refers only to garments made for humans, not cloths used for animals.

I.e., even though a blemish was detected on it for an extended period while it was in the gentile's possession, after it was acquired by the Jew, it should be considered as if the blemish was first discovered.

And thus is forbidden as sha’atnez (see Deuteronomy 22:11, Hilchot Kilayim 10:1).

Note the parallel in Hilchot Kilayim 10:6.

The animal's father was a sheep, but its mother was a goat.

Note the parallels in Hilchot Kilayim 10:2; Hilchot Tzitzit 2:1.

Seemingly, this applies even if it had already been processed (Mishnah Achronah).

Implying that the laws mentioned do not apply to something which is not a useful article.

Compare to Hilchot Keilim 1:10.

See Hilchot K. eilim 1:3, which quotes the derivation of this concept from its Biblical source.

1. e., even the hide of the sea animal becomes impure if a blemish is seen on the portion coming from linen, wool, or ordinary leather [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 11:1)].

I.e., two stitches (the gloss of Rabbenu Shimshon to the abovementioned mishnah).

E. g., the impurity that results from contact with a human corpse or a dead lizard.

I.e., articles which are sat upon or lain upon. See Hilchot Mishkav UMoshav 7:8, Hilchot Keilim, ch. 25, where the Rambam defines what is meant by the term "fit to contract impurity if it was trodden upon by a zav."

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.:11).

See Hilchot Keilim 22:6.

For that is the minimum width of a blemish.

Our translation is taken from Rav K. apach’s notes to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Kilayim 9:2). He interprets the Arabic term the Rambam employs as referring to cushions one places behind his back for support.

I.e., it is not necessary to spread out the portions that are sewed or to turn them inside out [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

From this statement, one can infer that a blemish on a cloth garment is not considered to have increased in size if it spreads from the inside to the outside (Rav Yosef Corcus).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:8), the Rambam explains that woolen threads used for the warp are thinner than those used for the woof, but linen threads are the same for both.

By soaking them in boiling water (ibid.).

In that source, the Rambam explains that this process softens the wool and makes it pliable.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.).

As stated in Hilchot Keilim 22:12, this is the minimum size for a cloth to be considered as a significant entity.

I.e., although these thread were intended to be used for only the warp or the woof, we see if hypothetically, a cloth three by three could be made using this thread for both the warp and the woof. If it can, it is susceptible to impurity.

In his Commentary to that Mishnah, Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura states that if the threads are tied together, they are susceptible to impurity.

In the Talmudic era, cloaks were made by connecting two squares of fabric, one which hung over the front of a person and one which hung over his back.

I.e., even though they are connected, since they are fundamentally separate entities, the existence of a blemish on one does not render the other impure.

The strand of the woof that passes through the warp to create the weave [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 11:9)].

I.e., the portion of the warp through which the woof has not passed. Thus it is a distinct entity, but connected to the cloth that has been woven.

Since they are connected and the blemish appears on both of them, it is considered as one blemish and they are both impure.

I.e., a cloth used to wrap a child. Our translation is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:10).

That are often left there as a decoration.

For they are considered subsidiary to the blanket.

For the blanket is not subsidiary to its strands.

Pieces of fabric sewn onto a garment for decorative purposes or for identification that may be of a difef rent color or fabric than the original [Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

I.e., they are considered as distinct entities and not as part of the garment. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam quotes the Sifra which explains this law as follows. Leviticus 13:52 states: “He shall burn the garment or the warp or the woof of the wool or of the linen.” The verse could have said: the garment of the wool or of the linen. The words “or of the warp or of the woof’ are superfluous. Their inclusion indicates that a garment can be considered of being made up of two entities, one which is burnt and one which is saved.

As opposed to other fabrics which are not deemed as impure because of blemishes (Halachah 1). Not only when the borders are made from other fabrics, but even when they are made from wool or linen, they are considered as distinct from the garment. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that it appears that the Rambam rules that even if the borders are white wool or linen, they are distinct and may be saved. (Other authorities permit only colored woolen or linen border to be saved.)

Both of these acts would cause a garment to be deemed as not susceptible to impurity from blemishes (see Chapter 12, Halachah 10 and Halachah 2 of the present chapter). This halachah is emphasizing that even though these acts were performed after the garment was isolated, the law is not changed.

And its identity cannot be determined. Kin'at Eliyahu questions: How could it become mixed with others? Seemingly, the blemish would distinguish it from them. In resolution, it can be explained that the Rambam is referring to a blemish that has faded. Nevertheless, until it is explicitly declared pure by a priest, it is still considered impure. As such, because it is intermingled with other garments, this stringency does not apply.

Since the identity of the isolated cloth is unknown and its status was as still undefined, all of the garments are permitted.

Thus each strand is considered of a size too small to be significant, as evident from Halachah 8.

A garment that is definitively impure must be burnt and one is forbidden to derive benefit from it. The garment that was isolated had not, however, been placed in that category yet.

We do not say that since it came from the larger cloth, all the other strands taken from the larger cloth also become impure.

Here it is difficult to conceive of how the blemished garment would not be distinct. Seemingly, the blemish would distinguish it from others. See Note 44.

Once a garment is deemed impure, it remains in that category even if it is cut into smaller pieces which themselves would never be considered impure.

Indeed, they must be burnt.

See Chapter 10, Halachot 11-12.

Which itself does not contract impurity.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling. The Kessel Mishneh, however, substantiates the Rambam’s decision, maintaining that the Ra’avad did not understand the Rambam’s intent and perhaps based his objection on an incorrect version of the Mishneh Torah.

The minimum measure to convey ritual impurity in many other contexts as explained below.

I.e., part of the Oral Tradition that does not have an explicit source in the Written Law.

With regard to Miriam who was punished with tzara’at for speaking against Moses.

See Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 2:2.

Who are only sent outside walled cities (Chapter 10, Halachah 7).