Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The measure for impurity for tzara’at on humans and on garments is a gris (Chapter 1, Halachah 7). For houses, the measure is twice this size. The Sifra derives this concept as follows: With regard to tzara’at that affects houses, Leviticus 14:37 states: “And he shall see the blemish and behold the blemish.... “The repetition of the term indicates that two measures are required [see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 12:3)].

As stated in Chapter 1 there.

See the description of these hues in Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

Leviticus 14:37, 39.

I.e., if a portion of the two grisim is intense red and another portion, intense green, it is considered to be of the minimum measure to impart impurity.

Note the parallels to the spread of afflictions on garments described in Chapter 12, Halachah 4.

See Chapter 15, Halachah 2.

Thus they are parallel to tzara’at afflictions for humans which must be “deep, [under the surface] of the skin” (Chapter 1, Halachah 6).

I.e., intense red or green.

The Rambam is quoting Leviticus 14:35. As stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 2, the determination of whether a blemish is impure or not is dependent on a priest.

So that they will not be deemed impure.

I.e., even articles of little value.

I.e., one without windows.

Nor is a candle used to inspect it. Instead, the inspection is carried out according to the light available to a person in the house [Mo’ed Kattan 8a, cited by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 2:3)].

The Biblical prooftext and, similarly, Nega’im 12:6, the Rambam’s source, mentions these concepts only with regard to isolating the house. However, the Rambam understands that they apply to any ruling made by a priest with regard to the status of a house.

The Mishneh LeMelech emphasizes that these rulings clarify the Rambam’s understanding of the term segirat habayit which we have translated as the isolation of the house, although literally, the term means “the closing of the house.” Although there are authorities who maintain that the concept should be taken literally, the priest should actually close the house to entry, the Rambam does not rule that way. Instead, he understands the term as referring merely to delivering a ruling on the status of the house.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 12:1), the Rambam quotes the Sifra which derives this requirement from Leviticus 14:34: “I will place a tzara’at blemish in a house in the land of your heritage.”

See Halachah 8.

A house less than this size is not considered as a house in many Halachic contexts. See, for example, Hilchot Mezuzah 6:2; Hilchot Shabbat 28:2; Hilchot Shechenim 1:4, et al.

I.e., it has any number of walls more or less than four.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger draws attention to Hilchot Mezuzah 6:9 which states that a house built on a ship is not considered as a house with regard to the obligation to affix a mezuzah. See also Hilchot Bikkurim 2:9 which states that crops growing on a ship are not considered to have grown “in your land.”

From the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), it appears that this refers to a structure built on beams that project from another building

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam does not interpret this as referring to a house with a floor built on pillars, but to four pillars implanted into the earth with a roof built over them. Although it is open on all four sides, it is considered as a house in this context.

See Halachah 1.

I.e., the plural term indicates that at least two stones must be blemished.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 12:4). There he explains that when a wall is made with broken stones, the space between one half and the other is filled with earth.

Our text is based on authentic manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah. The standard printed text (based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh and also Nega’im 12:2, the Rambam’s source) uses the term levanim, “bricks,” instead.

I.e., all four walls must be susceptible to ritual impurity due to blemishes (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Even if the blemish remained. Since it was not susceptible to impurity when the blemish was originally discovered, it does not contract impurity afterwards. Note a parallel in Chapter 12, Halachah 11.

I.e., they are serving as a roof.

I.e., instead of being considered as food, which is not susceptible to such severe impurity, they are considered as part of the building.

See Chapter 16, Halachah 1.

I.e., Eretz Yisrael, thus excluding the Diaspora.

All of the other cities in Eretz Yisrael are located in the ancestral heritage of a particular tribe. That is not true of the city of Jerusalem. As such, it is not considered as “in the land of your ancestral heritage.” Note other parallel rulings in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:14.

This is also derived from the above prooftext, because a house owned by gentiles is not part of “your ancestral heritage” [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 12:1), based on the Sifra to the above verse].

Even if there was a blemish manifest there beforehand, it is not significant until the house passes into the ownership of a Jew.

I.e., for a house to contract impurity due to blemishes, the walls do not have to be white [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 11:3)]. Note the contrast to all types of colored clothes which are not susceptible to impurity because of blemishes, as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 10, and leather garments which, as stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, are not susceptible to impurity because of blemishes if colored naturally.

Since the Torah passages describing this impurity are all stated in the masculine, it is necessary to emphasize that a house owned by a woman is also susceptible to this impurity (Yoma 11a).

Since these houses are not owned by a specific individual, one might think that they are not “a house in the land of your ancestral heritage” (ibid.).

For a building that does not serve as a dwelling is not susceptible to the impurity stemming from a blemish. See Yoma, loc. cit.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 12:4), the Rambam explains that this is referring to walls built to provide shade for animals in a barn.

I.e., it is considered as the seventh day of the first week and the first day of the second week. Note the parallel in Chapter 9, Halachah 9.

Leviticus, ch. 14, speaks of a house being isolated and several times mentions a priest returning to inspect the blemish. Nevertheless, the particular laws are not explicit in the Written Law.

Chapter 14, Halachot 2-3.

For the seventh day is counted as part of both the first and second week, as stated in Halachah 1.

As described in Halachah 8.

The Sifra to Leviticus 14:42 derives this law from a parallel to the law regarding blemishes on garments that is described in Chapter 12, Halachah 1.

Even if the blemish is manifest only on one. This is derived from Leviticus 14:40 which speaks of removing “the stones,” using a plural form.

For Leviticus 14:40 speaks of taking stones and bringing stones, using a plural term in each instance.

For he is taking stones.

I.e., even when the blemish appeared on only one side of the wall, both owners must remove the stones and the mortar.

Leviticus 14:40-42 uses a plural form when mentioning the command to perform these actions. Concerning this Nega’im 12:6 employs the expression: “Woe to the wicked and woe to his neighbor.”

And thus it also becomes part of the wall of an adjoining house.

Including the portion that serves his neighbor. This is derived from the fact that the command to remove the stone uses a plural form.

Because the blemish returned.

For the command to destroy the house {Leviticus 14:45) is stated in the singular.

And the loft was not blemished.

I.e., when the house is destroyed, the loft is allowed to remain intact and pillars should be built under it to support it.

Our translation for both these terms is taken from the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 13:3).

These stones are still considered as part of the house in which they were originally located. Hence when that house must be destroyed, the law applies to them as well. As noted in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.:5), there is a parallel ruling with regard to blemishes on garments. See Chapter 12, Halachah 7.

Because a blemish was discovered on its stones. The fact that they were built into another house is not significant. This also parallels the ruling with regard to a blemish on garments (ibid.).

With regard to this house, the fact that the stones were originally part of another house is not significant.

Water from a flowing spring.

See Chapter 11, Halachah 1, for details regarding all these elements of the service.

See the definition of this term in Hilchot Tuma’at Meit 5:7.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 12. See also the laws regarding the impurity of garments in Chapter 13, Halachot 13-15.

As the Kessef Mishneh notes, the Rambam is borrowing the comment of the Sifra to Leviticus 13:52 and applying to houses.

On the contrary, the house was already in a state of isolation and impure.

Its roof projected over the blemished house.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger cites Tosafot, Yevamot 103b, who state that this leniency applies when the stone passes under a tree, because it is not enclosed with walls. If, however, one carries a blemished stone through a house, everyone inside becomes impure.

Because the tree is not considered the place of the blemished stone. As the Rambam proceeds to explain, the principles governing the stone are the same as those governing a person. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12.

I.e., garments or articles made from leather. See Chapter 13, Halachah 13.

Or it touches him. Thus the laws governing the impurity of ohel for a blemished stone are different than those governing ohel with regard to a human corpse.

The laws that apply when one enters in an ordinary manner are stated in the following halachah.

Even when he enters entirely, he does not contract impurity because he enters, but rather because he is found in a house that is impure.

I.e., his entire body, even those limbs that were not inserted into the impure house. As obvious from the previous halachah, this halachah is speaking about an instance, where he enters in the ordinary manner.

As mentioned in Chapter 12, Halachah 10, this is the minimum measure of a cloth or garment that is considered significant.

Because an earthenware container contracts impurity from its inner space.

That are also in the general category of keilim.

The Rambam mentions bread made from wheat in contrast to bread made from barley which takes longer to eat (Rashi, Sukkah 6a).

Eating bread with other accompanying foods causes it to be eaten faster [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 13:9)]. The person does not have to actually eat the bread; the law applies provided he remains in the house for the amount of time it would have taken him to eat it.
This measure, k’dei achilat p’ras, is the measure associated with mitzvot and prohibitions associated with eating, as stated in Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot 14:8. Rashi (Pesachim 44a) offers a different view and maintains that this measure is defmed as the time it takes to eat a portion of bread the size of four eggs. Shiurei Torah mentions several different opinions from between four minutes and nine minutes for this figure.

I.e., immerse them in a mikveh to absolve them of impurity.

Since the person or animal wearing them can never contract impurity, it is as if they are not worn, but rather carried in.

For according to Scriptural Law, the laws of ritual purity and impurity are relevant only to the Jewish people. See Hilchot Tum’at Meit 1:13.

Before he had remained in the house for the amount of time mentioned previously.

When the person remains in the afflicted house for the prescribed measure of time, he becomes impure. Since he becomes impure, his hands and anything on them also contract impurity.

I.e., according to Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, there is no concept of only a part of a person’s body becoming impure.

See Hilchot Tum’at Meit, the beginning of ch. 21.

Without being sealed.

See ibid.:6-8.

As explained previously, earthenware containers refer to containers made from clay fired in a kiln. Earthen containers refer to containers made from mud, baked in an oven.

More specifically, as stated in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Ohalot 5:6, et al), a bor is a pit dug in the ground. A chadut is a storage area that extends above the ground.

Kin’at Eliyahu notes that the Rambam’s wording could be interpreted as implying that tzara’at which affects humans is a natural occurrence and a physical illness. Note, however, the commentaries of the Ramban and R. Ovadiah of Sefomo to Leviticus 13:46 which maintain that human tzara’at afflictions are also Godly signs. It is possible to say that the Rambam also accepts this view. Indeed, the fact that he relates tzara’at blemishes of the skin to sin and repentance leads to that conclusion. See also the Guide to the Perplexed, Vol. III, ch. 47.

The Rambam describes the prohibition against lashon hora in Hilchot De’ot, ch. 7. Here he is speaking in more general terms.

As the Rambam proceeds to explain, Numbers, ch. 12, relates how Miriam spoke pejoratively of Moses. For a person of her level of righteousness, this was considered as lashon hora. As a result, she was punished by tzara’at.

See the narrative in Exodus, ch. 2.

See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:6, where the Rambam elaborates on the difference between Moses and the other prophets.

I.e., they talk about situations and circumstances far beyond their circle of influence. The Rambam is borrowing the wording of Psalms 12:4.

As the Rambam states in Hilchot Talmud Torah 6:11, “His words” refers to “those who convey His word.”

See Berachot 28b.