Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

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.

I.e., a lentil is oval. A square is superimposed over it to reach the desired measure.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the healthy flesh does not reduce the size of the baheret. Thus if there was a baheret exactly the size of a gris and it contained healthy flesh the size of a lentil, it is not considered to have been reduced less than the minimum size, as the Rambam states in Halachah 5.

I.e., the four shades of whiteness that impart impurity described in Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 4, where a parallel to this law is explained with regard to white hairs. All of the terms mentioned here are described in the notes to that halachah.

Thus the healthy flesh is not within the baheret itself.

And thus the healthy flesh is still not considered as within the baheret.

And he is considered as pure.

In contrast to white hair which must be turned white by the blemish, as implied by the use of such an expression concerning it, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

The Sifra derives this concept from the exegesis of another verse. The commentaries explain that the Rambam derives it in this manner, because, as is his practice in other instances, he uses the method of derivation most obvious from the words of the Torah.

And thus "and it turned" refers only to the hair and not to the healthy flesh.

The fact that there is not a gris of afflicted flesh is not significant.

Because either the baheret or the healthy flesh lack the minimum measure to impart impurity.

And if the baheret is exactly a gris and the healthy flesh larger than a lentil, there will not be margins of this size, for a gris is six hairs in size and a lentil is two hairs in size.

I.e., the baheret penetrated or totally covered the healthy flesh.

The person is not considered pure (Ra’avad). Instead, he should be isolated. Even though the baheret increased, since the increase came within its original boundaries and did not extend beyond them, the person is not deemed impure [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 6:3)].

Halachot 1 and 5.

Because the healthy flesh is outside of it.

The fact that there is an inner baheret is not of consequence.

Even though the size of the inner baheret increased and that would be sufficient to cause the person to be deemed impure, since it spread into healthy flesh that was in the midst of a baheret, that ruling is not given [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 6:5)]. Instead, the person is isolated.

I.e., the limbs enumerated below.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 6:7), the Rambam writes that the blemish does not impart impurity, because: “He does not see the blemish as a whole and the healthy flesh on the same surface.” This leads to the interpretation advanced by the Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus, that according to the Rambam, the difficulty is that there was a blemish and healthy flesh. Generally, if there is a blemish on a flat surface at the tip of a limb, the person is impure, as explained in the following halachah. Nevertheless, if there is healthy flesh there, it divides the blemish.

The two breasts and the two ears are considered as one (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, op. cit.). Diagram

I.e., one of the four shades mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 2. Even if the increase is not the same shade as the original blemish, if it is one of these four, it imparts impurity.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 1, for a definition of this term.

Thus the person is not impure because of the healthy flesh.

For the head and beard are governed by special laws, as stated in Chapter 8.

I.e., only when it spreads on skin is it considered an increase.

The term the Rambam uses, om, relates to the word aim, literally, “the mother.”

This is speaking about a situation where the increase was not located immediately adjacent to the original blemish, but separated from it by one of these skin conditions. Accordingly, the increase is considered as a new blemish and not an increase of the existing one.

From another side.

The rationale is that since more than half the original blemish receded, it is considered to have disappeared entirely. Hence the new blemish is judged entirely independently. Since, in and of itself, that new blemish is not the size of a gris, the person is not required to be isolated.

Leaving a blemish larger than a gris, but not the same blemish that was observed originally.

I.e., it is considered as a new blemish and is observed for two weeks like other new blemishes.

This is speaking about an instance where the blemish was not observed by a priest and declared pure after it disappeared. Were that to have been the case, it would be considered as a new blemish.

I.e., we do not consider it as a new baheret that should be observed for two weeks, but as the initial one. And thus it is given only one more week of observation.

If he is at the end of his first week.

If he is at the end of his second week. The Rambam is clarifying that all the fluctuations in the size of the blemish during the period of isolation are not significant. The determining factor is the size of the blemish when it is inspected at the conclusion of the seven days.

And the afflicted person was declared definitively impure because of the increase.

I.e., after he was declared definitively impure. If he was not declared impure until after the white hair or the healthy skin erupted, he would be considered as impure even though the original blemish disappeared.

Which are considered signs of impurity independently.

If the person would be impure according to the laws that govern such blemishes, he is declared as such. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 4:10).

A coin of the Talmudic period, substantially larger than a gris.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the blemish must be in some way different from the original one. Otherwise, there would be no room for doubt.

I.e., we consider this as the original blemish. Were it to be considered a new blemish, he would require isolation for another week.
Here, the Rambam does not state whether the person is deemed definitively impure or considered impure only because of a doubt. From his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 5:1), it appears that the person’s impurity is a matter of question, parallel to that mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 9, and indeed, the Rambam intimates this point in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.

I.e., the stretch of afflicted flesh is considered as an extension of the original blemish and not an independent entity.

As stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 5. Since the entire width of this stretch of flesh is the width of two hairs, that condition cannot be met.

As the Kessef Mishneh explains, this ruling is significant if there is one white hair in each baheret. If the two are considered as a single blemish, the person should be deemed impure. If they are considered as separate blemishes, he is not placed in that category.

I.e., the two weeks of evaluation mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

I.e., we do not consider it a new blemish which requires a new evaluation.

And no signs of impurity appear in the two weeks of isolation.

I.e., if signs of impurity reappear, he is not isolated again. He may, however, be deemed definitively impure, as stated in the previous halachah.

Because no signs of impurity were manifest.

The Ra’avad interprets this as referring to a situation in which the blemish was originally exactly the size of a gris. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam would accept this interpretation.
Even though an increase in the size of a blemish after the person was declared pure causes him to be considered as impure, that applies only when the increase extends beyond the original parameters of the blemish.

Before inspection.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 4:6), the Rambam explains that this is speaking about an instance where the lentil-sized portion of healthy flesh comes in addition to the blemish which is the size of a gris.

The white hair was located in the healthy flesh and not in the blemish. Now, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6, white hair is not considered as a sign of impurity unless it is turned white by the blemish. Thus there is reason to argue that, in this instance, the white hair should not be considered as a sign of impurity. Nevertheless, since the healthy flesh is in the blemish, the hair is considered to have been turned white by the blemish [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.)].

But the healthy flesh still remained.

This clause is speaking about an instance where together the healthy flesh and the blemish were exactly the size of a gris. Hence, there is reason to argue that the white hair should not be considered as a sign of impurity, because there was not a portion of afflicted flesh the size of a gris at the time it turned white. Nevertheless, since the healthy flesh was in the blemish, the blemish itself is considered to be the size of a gris and the white hair is deemed a sign of impurity (ibid.).

I.e., there was healthy flesh or two white hairs within the affliction.

For either of the above reasons or because the size of the blemish increased.

The person was released after two weeks of isolation, but manifested a sign of impurity afterwards, in which instance, he is deemed definitively impure, as stated in Halachah 7.