Rambam - 3 Chapters 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.

As stated in Chapter 13, Halachah 1, only garments of wool, linen, and leather contract this type of impurity.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

The Sifra states that ordinary red or green shades are not sufficient for the anomaly to be considered as tzara’at.

Leviticus 13:49, 51.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 11:4), the Rambam writes that the repetition of the root letters — yerakrak instead of yarok, adamdam, instead of adom — implies additional intensity. See also the Sifra to the above verse.

I.e., if half a gris is intense red and half, intense green, the affliction is considered to be a gris in size.

After the passage of one week.

As stated in Leviticus 13:50.

Ibid.:51-52.

I.e., it is no longer intense red or intense green. Nevertheless, since a blemish was originally present, it should be isolated for another week. The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam concerning this point and maintains that if the blemish is no longer intensely red or green, it is pure even if it increased in size. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s interpretation.

Here the term kives should be understood according to its literal meaning (see Halachah 5). It is not referring to immersion in the mikveh as is sometimes the case.

Leviticus 13:54.

For the seventh day is considered the last day of the first week and the first day of the second week.

I.e., any color other than intense red or intense green, or even a weakened shade of those colors.

This can be derived from Leviticus 13:57 which states: “If the blemish will be seen again.” Implied is that it will be seen in its original place. Now if that original place was ripped out, how could it be seen there? Because a patch was placed on the garment.

Ibid.:58.

Ibid.:55.

I.e., and not a new blemish.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 14:7), the Rambam explains that since the Torah mentions an “increase,” even the slightest enlargement is sufficient to render it impure. The Ra’avad notes that this concept applies not only to blemishes on garments, but also to blemishes on a person’s flesh and on buildings.

Leviticus 13:51 states: “for the blemish has spread on the garment.” The term “blemish” indicates a blemish the size of a gris. Hence, if the new blemish is not of that size, it is not significant (ibid.).

Towards the conclusion of Halachah 1.

Even to the slightest degree, as stated at the beginning of this halachah.

I.e., because the color of the blemish weakened, as stated in Halachah 1.

I.e., it is considered as if the blemish expanded during the three week period.

In Halachah 1.

Since the verse does not merely say that the blemish should be washed, but “that on which the blemish is found,” one can infer that part of the garment should also be washed.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 9:37-38. The seven detergents are: the saliva of a person who has not eaten, beans that have been chewed, urine that has become sour, lye, natron, cumin powder, and bleach.

It is considered as a different blemish [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 11:6)].

As explained in note 15, this is the meaning of Leviticus 13:57: “If the blemish will be seen again... it should be burnt in fire.”

Our translation follows — and will continue to do so throughout this halachah — the standard printed text of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.). It must be noted that Rav Kappach’s edition of that commentary offers an entirely different interpretation, explaining that this is speaking about an instance when the blemish is found on the new garment

It is still considered as a part of the garment from which it was detached. Since that garment must be burnt, the patch should also be burnt with it.

Because it is as if a blemish appeared on it again.

For in this respect, it is considered as part of the second garment.

As stated in Halachah 1.

As is the law regarding a small blemish.

Compare to the laws regarding a person whose entire body was covered by a blemish (Chapter 7, Halachah 2).

The Ra’avad accepts the first clause of the Rambam’s ruling, but maintains that the second clause appears to run in opposition to the standard text of Sanhedrin 87b-88a. Moreover, he maintains that just like with regard to blemishes on a person’s body, if they cover the entire body after the person was released, he is impure (Chapter 7, Halachot 1-2), so too, here, if the blemishes appear after the garment was released from the inspection process, it is impure. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rav Yosef Corcus who explains that a connection is made between blemishes on a garment and netakim, for with regard to both, the terms karachat and gabachat are used. Hence, just like a netek that covers the person’s entire head is pure even if it appears after he was released (Chapter 8, Halachah 12), so too, a blemish on a garment is pure, even if it appears after the garment was released from the inspection process.

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

This interpretation is found in the Sifra and in Unkelos’ translation.

If it appears white, it contracts impurity. If it appears colored, it does not.

I.e., a thumbreadth (Hilchot Bikkurim 6:15); 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah, 2.4 cm according to Chazon Ish.

A cloth less than that size is not considered significant.

Because at the outset, the surface on which a blemish was discovered must be fit to contract impurity. See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.

Each of the patches is less than three fingerbreadths by three fmgerbreadths [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 11:7)].

In that source, the Rambam. writes that it was common for checkered garments of this type to be worn in the era of the Mishnah.

If, however, a blemish is discovered on a colored path, the garment is not isolated, because, as stated in Halachah 10, colored garments do not contract impurity due to tzara’at.

The minimum size of a blemish. If the white spot is only a gris in size, the blemish does not have the potential to increase in size. Nevertheless, it can be deemed impure, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

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).