Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 110) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 170) count this charge as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. The purification of a person and the purification of a house are considered as components of the same mitzvah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 111) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 174) count this charge as a separate mitzvah and include it among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Sefer HaMitzvot explains that this refers to the second shaving performed before the person brings his sacrifices. In that source, he explains at length why this shaving is not considered as a component of the mitzvah (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1) for a person who had been afflicted with tzara’at to bring his sacrifices. That explanation is particularly necessary for he considers the shaving of a nazirite as a component of the mitzvah for him to bring his sacrifices [Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 93); Hilchot Nizirut 8:1-3)].
The Rambam differentiates between the two as follows: There is no difference between the status of a nazirite between the time that he shaves and the time he brings his sacrifices. Both activities serve the same purpose: to enable him to partake of wine. The status of a person who was afflicted with tzara’at changes after his second shaving. From that time, he is ritually pure. Although his purification is not complete until he brings his sacrifices and only then can he partake of sacrificial foods (see Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:1), from the time he shaves onward, he does not impart impurity to others.

With the following explanation, the Rambam is clarifying how the first of the two mitzvot he mentioned is fulfilled.

Sotah 15b derives this concept by developing an association between this container and the water used in this purification process. The Rambam apparently considers that as merely an asmachta, an allusion, and maintains that the concept was communicated orally, without any direct connection to the Written Law (Rav Yosef Corcus).

This measure, known as a revi'it, is equivalent to 86 cc, according to Shiurei Torah, 150 cc, according to Chazon Ish.

I.e., Water from a flowing spring or river. See Hilchot Parah Adumah 6:1, 9-14; see also Hilchot Mikvaot 9:8, 13.

The term dror means “free” or “wild.” Later authorities have identified this species with the sparrow.

As reflected by Halachah 8, they need not, however, be taken with the intent of purifying any specific person. Indeed, even fowl taken for the purification of a house may be used for a person (see Sifra to the verse cited).

Although this measure is mentioned by Nega’im 14:6, it is not quantified by the later authorities.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 14:13), the Rambam mentions a requirement that he omits here: that the branch have a leaf at its top.

Hilchot Parah Adumah 11:5.

A dye made from very red berries that resemble carob seeds. See ibid. 3:2.

A silver coin of the Talmudic era, equivalent to 19.2 grams in contemporary measure. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 8:8) where he discusses this subject in detail.

See Hilchot Tzitzit 2:3.

And are not acceptable without the other.

Although the Rambam uses a different Hebrew term, he is referring to the same crimson thread mentioned previously.

But not tied together with them (Sifra).

This obligation is, however, completed once the bird reaches the field. Afterwards, no attention need be paid to it, regardless of whether it returns to the town or not. See Halachah 7.

See Halachah 3 for details.

Although this phrase is stated with regard to the second shaving, an association is established between it and the first one.

The mention of the shaving of the beard is significant, for that is forbidden under ordinary circumstances. Nevertheless, we follow the principle that the performance of a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment and shaving them - and the comers (payot) of the head — is performed. See also the notes to Halachah 6.

I.e., by mentioning them, the Torah defines the general category.

See the Kessef Mishneh who explains that since the verse first spoke in general terms, even hair that is not always visible is included. Nevertheless, since it then listed specific cases, there are restrictions and the obligation applies only to hair visible when a person stretches his body out and not hair that is hidden entirely.

I.e., immerses them in a mikveh to purify them from the severe impurity which they had contracted previously.

In contrast to his previous state (see Chapter 10, Halachot 11-12). He is not, however, considered as pure entirely and can impart impurity to others if he touches them, as stated in the following halachah.

Which was previously forbidden him (ibid.:7).

This interpretation is found in Mo’ed Kattan 15b. The term “tent” is interpreted as a euphemism for physical intimacy in several other contexts; see Sanhedrin 59b, et al.

I.e., the seventh day after the initial purification.

This translates the term t’vul yom, literally, “one who immersed [that] day.”

Which must be eaten in Jerusalem in a state of purity. See Hilchot Ma’aser Sheni 3:1, 4.

I.e., if he is a priest. Terumah must also be eaten in a state of ritual purity. See Hilchot Terumot 7:1-2.

Which, as stated in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:4, may be brought from the day following their immersion onward.

Ibid. 1:1. As stated there (Halachah 3): “The sacrifice of a person afflicted by tzara’at is three sheep, one as a burnt-offering, one as a guilt offering, and a ewe as a sin-offering. If he does not have the means, he may bring two doves, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering, and a sheep as a guilt-offering.”

Thus he must wait seven days and shave a third time.

I.e., from sunrise until sunset.

The Ra’avad and other commentaries note that the Rambam’s ruling is in direct contrast to the standard text of the Tosefta (Nega’im 8:6). The Kessef Mishneh first suggests that a printing error crept into the text of the Mishneh Torah. (Study of the authoritative manuscripts indicate that this is not the case.) Alternatively, he explains that each of these acts are independently valid and achieve its goal in the purification process, regardless of whether the others were performed or not.

The slaughter and sending of the birds are necessary for the cedar branch, and it is necessary for the hyssop, and scarlet cord (Kessel Mishneh).

Taking the birds, slaughtering them, immersing his garments, and immersing himself.

Needless to say, the offering of the sacrifices can be performed only in the Temple. Nevertheless, as above (Halachah 2), the purity of the afflicted person is not dependent on the offering of the sacrifices.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 14:13), the Rambam writes that the purification of a person afflicted with tzara’at “has no connection” to Eretz Yisrael or the Temple.
In that source, the Rambam questions why one would perform the second shaving in the present age. For in this instance, the goal of the second shaving, the purification of the person, is not performed in a complete way. Now, as mentioned above, this shaving involves the violation of negative commandments, shaving the beard and peyot and the principle that the performance of a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment applies only when the positive commandment is fulfilled in a complete manner. He does not resolve that question. He does, however, cite the Sifra which states that Rabbi Tarfon performed the purification of persons afflicted with tzara’at in the Diaspora and in the era after the destruction of the Temple.

This is a general principle applicable in other contexts as well. See Hilchot Rotzeach 10:5. The rationale is that by performing two mitzvot at the same time, neither is given its proper token of respect.

In the passage from the Sifra cited in note 38, Rabbi Tarfon related that he purified three persons afflicted with tzara’at with the same staff. See also Hilchot Parah 11:5.

I.e., if it reached the field and returned or was captured afterwards, as evident from Halachah 1.

And thus the purification process cannot be completed, as stated in Halachah 1.

See another example of this principle in Hilchot Shechitah 12:6.

This is the minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of forbidden substances.

The Torah proceeds to list the different species of non-kosher fowl.

I.e., it does not have the severity of a negative commandment. Hence its violation is not punishable by lashes.
The Rambam’s intent is that the Torah is not commanding us to eat kosher species, for there is no obligation to partake of them. Instead, it is commanding us to take precautions against partaking of non-kosher ones. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 6) where the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the concept of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. This principle is mentioned in several other contexts. See Hilchot Ishut 1:8, Hilchot Yibbum 1:12, Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 2:1, et al.

This term refers to the Hebrew phrase, ir hanidachat, a city whose inhabitants worshiped false divinities. Such a city and all its property must be destroyed. See Deuteronomy 13:12-19; Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, ch. 4. Since the fowl are part of its property, they are also condemned and it is as if they no longer exist.

As stated in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 8:1 and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 145:9, it is forbidden to benefit from anything exchanged for a false divinity. Needless to say, that it is not appropriate to use such articles for a mitzvah.

An animal which killed a person is condemned to death and it is forbidden to benefit from it (see Hilchot Nizkei Mammon 11:9).

For the Torah considers themas a pair. Compare to HilchotAvodat YomHaKippurim 5:14.
The commentaries have raised the question: If they are alike, how is it possible for Halachah 1 to speak of “the healthier” of them? In resolution, it is explained that even though in general, they are alike, one will always be slightly healthier than the other.

As stated in Halachah 1, this prooftext teaches that the fowl must be taken for the sake of purifying a tzara’at affliction. What type of affliction, however, need not be specified.

Or two entirely new fowl can be taken (Kessef Mishneh).

Generally, this fowl must be buried. In this instance, however, since the slaughter was performed by mistake, it is not forbidden. The Rambam’s ruling is based on the Tosefta (Nega’im 8:8). There is discussion among the Ra’avad, Kessef Mishneh, and others concerning the precise wording of the Tosefta and hence, the resulting laws.

Possessing a blemish that will cause it to die within a year. Accordingly, it is forbidden to be eaten.

Before being sprinkled on the person.

In contrast to the law mentioned in the previous halachah, with the slaughter of the first, the second is designated as its pair and cannot be used again.

I.e., it is placed in a closed place and left there to die. A parallel can be found in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1. Afterwards, it is forbidden to benefit from both of the fowl.

If, however, it dies after the sprinkling, the purification process is completed even though it was not sent away.