Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In the previous chapters, the Rambam discussed the appearance of tzara’at on healthy skin. In this chapter, he focuses on its appearance on burns, boils, and blisters, based on the principles stated in Leviticus 13:18-28.

Our text is based on authentic manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text follows a slightly different version.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 6:8) for more detailed explanations of these terms.

Although the same basic laws apply to both a burn and a boil, they are considered as different types of afflictions and, as stated in Halachah 5, they are not combined with each other. Hence, it is important to know in which category a blemish is placed.

And thus it is possible that it would pierce the skin before burning it. From Chulin 8a, it appears that we are not speaking about a spit with a very sharp end. In such an instance, it would be apparent that the skin would be pierced before it is burnt.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 9:1), the Rambam emphasizes that these hot springs derive their heat from passing over minerals and are not considered to have been heated by fire.

These dregs produce a certain amount of heat, as stated in Hilchot Shabbat 4:1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 9:2), the Rambam defines this as a festering wound from which the outer layer of skin has been removed. In that same source (6:8), he explains that the term mored, meaning “rebels” is used to describe such a wound, because a person will suffer pain from being touched in such a place and will “rebel” against any such contact.

The Sifra notes that Leviticus 13:18 speaks of a “boil that healed.” It asks: “Does a fresh wound impart impurity?” and answers that it does not for the verse speaks of a wound “that healed.” If so, it asks, “Does it impart impurity even if it is healed to the extent that there is a scar?” and answers that it does not, as indicated by the fact that the verse speaks of a boil. Instead, the verse is speaking about a wound that has begun to heal, but has not healed, as explained in the following halachah.

White hair, healthy flesh, and an increase in the size of the blemish.

Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

Leviticus 13:23.

Ibid.:24.

Healthy flesh does not serve as a sign of impurity.

Instead of two.

Since they are of a different type than ordinary skin, if a baheret spread from one to the other, they are considered as two different entities and not as an extension of the same one.

For hair does not grow on the palm of a person’s hand [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 9:3)].

Because it has already encompassed the healed boil. Thus one might think that there is no reason to isolate the person, for there is no way that he can become impure. This is not so, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

And, in the future, it can combine only with a burn.

And, in the future, it can combine only with a boil.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s ruling is based on the Tosefta (Nega’im 3:12). However, the Rambam had a different version of that source than the standard published text. From this ruling, it is obvious that when determining whether or not a blemish is impure, it is not necessary to know all the particulars involved. However, as indicated from Chapter 6, Halachah 5, it must be known which is the subject of the doubt.
A distinction can be made between this situation and that one, however. For here it is known that there is a tzara’at affliction, It is just not known exactly which type.

Writing separate passages for each one.

But the baheret remained.

I.e., even if it appears that it is the same baheret that remains, it is considered as a new blemish and not a continuation of the previous one.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 10:10), the Rambam speaks of extra moistness that damages the body or extraordinary dryness. The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s ruling differs with the standard published text of the Sifra {Leviticus 10:10). He maintains that the Rambam had a different — and more accurate — version of that text.

Both of these terms mean bald. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, they refer to two different areas of baldness. This distinction is based on Leviticus 13:40-41, which uses both these terms and emphasizes that they refer to baldness in two different areas.

The Kessel Mishneh notes that there is a difference of opinion regarding this issue among the commentaries. Rabbenu Shimshon (Nega’im, op. cit.) maintains that these types of baldness must be irreversible to contract impurity. The Kessel Mishneh explains that, according to the Rambam, it is necessary to distinguish between these conditions and a netek as described in Chapter 8. He explains that the Rambam’s view is similar to that of the Ramban in his commentary to Leviticus 13:29: that these types of baldness do not result from diseased skin. On the contrary, the skin appears like that of ordinary flesh. A netek, by contrast, involves diseased skin.

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

I.e., the term keireiach refers to baldness on the top of the head.

I.e., the term gibeiach refers to baldness on the temples.

As Chapter 1, Halachah 10, states with regard to the blemishes on ordinary skin.

Implied is that the signs of impurity are the same as those on ordinary flesh [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 3:6)].

As it is with regard to a blemish on ordinary flesh.

As mentioned with regard to a boil and a burn in Halachah 5.

Because these areas are no longer fit to grow hair at all.

The literal translation of the Rambam’s words is “on the beard.” Here the Rambam is speaking about an infant (with regard to the head) or a youth (with regard to a beard).

As stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

As stated in Hilchot Ishut 2:1-15, a seris, the term used by the Rambam, refers to a male who never manifested male characteristics from childhood or lost his sexual potency entirely due to disease or castration.

See Chapter Eight.

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.

I.e., at the end of the first or second week.

As Leviticus 13:12 states: “If... the tzara’at will cover the entire skin... then he shall declare the affliction to be pure.”

Nega’im 8:1 relates this general principle: “If [the tzara’at] spreads [over one’s entire body], while he is impure, then he is pure...; while he is pure, then he is impure.” Even a person who is isolated is considered as impure in this context.
Note the contrast to the law stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 12, with regard to a netek that spreads over a person’s entire head. The Kessef Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 8, Halachah 12) cites Rav Yosef Corcus who explains that the laws regarding a baheret are more stringent, because Leviticus 13:11 specifically states: “He is impure.” Implied is that the leniency that a person is considered pure if the baheret covers his entire body applies only when he had previously been deemed impure.

Without having been examined for this tzara’at condition previously.

I.e., they are signs of impurity. Since he is seeking a ruling while pure, based on the principle mentioned in note 3, he is deemed impure.

The one covering his entire skin.

Which are described in Chapter 10, Halachah 1. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

Or any other color.

Less than the minimum measure stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

In which instance, the white hair which would serve as a sign of impurity is not considered to be in the baheret, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 4.

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

In which instance, the two hairs are not considered to be in the same baheret, as stated in Chapter 2, op. cit.

The last phrase is explaining why the white hair is considered as a sign of impurity: because it was turned white by an existing blemish. See Chapter 2, Halachah 6. This requirement does not apply with regard to healthy flesh.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

A white hue with slight redness mixed in (Chapter 1, Halachah 4).

If the blemish covered him entirely.

If it did not cover his entire flesh, but was larger than a gris.

Chapter 1, Halachah 5.

The tzara’at spread before a priest could declare him pure because the sign of impurity had disappeared (Kessef Mishneh).

For his entire flesh was covered with tzara’at while he was impure, as stated in Halachah 1.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 8.

Implied is that if there is less than a lentil-sized portion of healthy flesh, the person is pure.

Note the contrast to the portions of the body mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

This concept applies to the entire body, not only to the tips of the limbs.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 8:6), the Rambam derives this concept from a different verse.

I.e., while a bohak is not considered as tzara’at, it also cannot be considered as healthy flesh.

For there is not a lentil’s size portion of healthy flesh.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, citing a teaching from the Sifri that when a bohak is mixed with healthy flesh, the person is impure. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling.

These two clauses restate information mentioned previously. They are mentioned only as an introduction to the coming concepts. The Rambam’s words imply that if there is less than a lentil’s size portion of healthy flesh, he remains pure.

One hundred is merely a figure of speech. Whether the cycle repeats more or less than one hundred times, the law remains the same.

Because the areas mentioned are not fit to contract impurity; see Chapter 6, Halachot 1 and 4.

As stated in ibid.:2.
The Kessef Mishneh follows a different understanding of Nega’im 8:5 (the Rambam’s source). Hence he objects to the Rambam’s ruling.

Healthy skin, white hair, or it had spread (Chapter 1, Halachah 10).

I.e., it lacked any sign that could cause it to be deemed impure.

Because of the other baheret.

I.e., generally, when a baheret that is pure spreads over the person’s entire body, he is impure (Halachah 1). Nevertheless, that ruling is not given in this situation, because the person was impure previously [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 8:6)].

The Rambam’s ruling is based on the above mishnah. The logic appears to be that even though the two beharot appear as one and thus there is more reason to think that it is the pure baheret that spread, since the person was considered as impure beforehand, he is considered as pure. It must be noted that the other commentaries to the mishnah — and even the Rambam’s own Commentary to the Mishnah — interpret that clause differently.

Because his tzara’at covered his entire body while he was deemed impure [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 8:10)].

See Halachah 1.