Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

The term is defined in Halachah 6.

As stated in Leviticus 4:22-23.

lbid.:3.

I.e., instead of asking others, he considers the question involved himself, rules, and acts on his own ruling.

I.e., as opposed to an instance where he rules together with the Sanhedrin, see Halachah 4.

All of these specifications are mentioned at the conclusion of ch. 12 and explained in chs. 13 and 14.

As stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 2, since he acknowledged that transferring an article from one domain to another is a forbidden activity and ruled erroneously only with regard to throwing, he is considered to have nullified part of a prohibition and maintained part. Hence, he is liable.

E. g., he did not know that it was the Sabbath and threw an article from one domain to another in inadvertent violation of the prohibition.

In which instance, his ruling is of no consequence.

See Chapter 14, Halachah 2.

E. g., he erroneously ruled that the fat on the stomach was permitted, but then partook of it accidentally, thinking he was eating fat from another portion of the animal’s body.

He is not obligated to bring a she-goat or ewe like an ordinary individual, but rather is exempt entirely.

The distinction between an anointed priest and a nasi is only made in the passage concerning these offerings in the Book of Leviticus which deals with prohibitions other than the worship of false deities. The passage that deals with atoning for that prohibition in the Book of Numbers does not make such a distinction at all.

In the previous two halachot.

Although the anointed priest is not singled out with regard to bringing a different sacrifice for the inadvertent worship of false deities, our Sages established an equation between the two ways of securing atonement. Hence just as he is absolved from the responsibility of bringing a sacrifice for the commission of other transgressions in certain instances, so too, he is absolved from bringing a sacrifice for the worship of false deities in those situations (see Horiot 5b).

The commentaries debate whether this is speaking about an instance when he actually served on the Sanhedrin or just was aware of their ruling and was influenced by them when making his own ruling.

I.e., the majority of the nation did not transgress or there was another factor for which reason the court was not required to bring a sacrifice as explained at the conclusion of ch. 12.

See Halachah 3.

Because his ruling and his deed concerned a separate prohibition.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that Horiot 7b leaves the High Priest’s liability in this instance as an unresolved question and, hence, queries why the Rambam requires him to bring a sacrifice. He suggests that perhaps the intent is that he brings it conditionally, stipulating “If I am liable, it is a sin-offering and if I am exempt, it is a free-will offering.” Others explain that Rabbenu Chananel followed a slightly different version of that Talmudic passage and according to his version, the question is not left unresolved. It is possible that the Rambam followed this version of the text.

As a private individual would.

See Chapter 12, Halachah 2.

Instead, he is bound by the same laws as apply to an ordinary individual. The only difference between them is the sacrifice brought.

Leviticus 4:22.

Horiot lib explains that this does not include the nesi’im who ruled in the Second Temple era, because they were in certain ways subservient to the Exilarch in Babylon.

See Hilchot Melachim 1:7-8 which explains that although kingship was endowed to David and his descendants forever, there can be halachic legitimacy to the rule of other kings over tribes other than the tribe of Judah.

I.e., each is considered as a king in his own right.

Used by Leviticus 4:3.

We have translated the term merubah babegadim, literally, “whose garments were increased,” according to its figurative meaning. As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1 and in Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash 4:12-14, according to Scriptural Law (Leviticus 21:10), the High Priest was to be initiated into his office by anointing him with the special anointment oil. Nevertheless, toward the conclusion of the First Temple era, King Josiah ordered the Holy Ark entombed in mazelike vaults beneath the Temple and the anointment oil was entombed together with it. From that time onward, the High Priest was installed in his office by wearing the garments appropriate to it. There are eight garments worn by the High Priest as opposed to four worn by an ordinary priest; hence, the term “whose garments were increased.”

As explained in Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, ch. 6, a priest who has a disqualifying physical blemish may not serve in the Temple. The disqualifying blemishes are listed in chs. 7-8 of those halachot.

See ibid. 7:12. There the Rambam does not give a chronological age, but states that this refers to a priest whose hands are unsteady because of his advanced age.

I.e., the bull brought as atonement for his sins and the sins of his household; see Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim 1:1.

The chavitan offering; see Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 13:2; Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 3:18.

Chapter 12, Halachah 1; Chapter 13, Halachah 2.

A skin affliction similar, but not analogous, to leprosy that causes a person to become ritually impure.

The Rambam is referring to an historical event that is mentioned in the Bible (II Kings 15:5; II Chronicles 26:16-21) and discussed by the commentaries and the Talmud (Horiot 10a). King Azariah (Uzziah) became proud and sought to offer incense on the altar. He was reproached by the priests and afflicted by tzara’at by the hand of heaven. Because of his affliction, he was removed from his office and forced to seek asylum in a private place.

Note the contrast to the laws governing the anointed priest mentioned in Halachah 7.

As stated in Halachah 6, a High Priest does not ordinarily bring a provisional guilt-offering. Nevertheless, this instance is an exception, because the obligation results from an action performed before the person was appointed to this office. The Rambam does not mention a king in this instance, because a king must bring a provisional guilt-offering.

For he partook of both of them while an ordinary person. The fact that there was a significant amount of time between them is of no consequence.
This question does not apply with regard to a High Priest, because even after he is removed from his office, he must receive atonement as a High Priest, as stated in Halachah 7.

Literally, “lacking atonement.”

This term is defined in Halachah 6.

Included in this category is also a woman who miscarries; see Halachot 6-8 and the sources mentioned there.

This term is defined in Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

A skin affliction similar, but not analogous, to leprosy that causes a person to become ritually impure. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 2:1), the Rambam elaborates in explaining that unlike a zav and a zavah who are listed separately, because the nature of their impurity is different, both a male and a female afflicted by tzara’at are placed in the same category, because their impurity is of the same type.

A preparatory step for regaining ritual purity. This applies to all the individuals mentioned aside from a zav. Such a person must immerse in a stream of living water. See Hilchot Mikveot 1:5.

In which instance, one generally regains ritual purity. I.e., in most instances when one is impure, ritual purity is regained by immersing in a mikveh and waiting for nightfall that day.

He may, however, partake of terumah once the sun sets on the day of his immersion.

Yevamot 74b derives this from Leviticus 12:5: “And the priest shall make atonement for her and she will become pure,” i.e., until then she was not pure in a complete sense.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:14. As stated in that halachah, although a person who partakes of sacrificial food in such a state is liable for lashes, he or she is not liable for karet for the full measure of ritual impurity is not upon them. See also Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:9, 19; Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:7; 4:5.

I.e., the term “requiring in atonement” refers to a full-fledged Jew who may not partake of sacrificial food until he brings the required sacrifices. A convert is not a full-fledged Jew and cannot partake of sacrifices until he becomes one. Note that the Rambam’s explanation here differs slightly from that given in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

In Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13:1, 4, the Rambam writes: Israel entered the covenant [with God] with three acts: circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice.... Similarly, for [all] future generations, when a gentile desires to enter into the covenant, take shelter under the wings of the Divine presence, and accept the yoke of the Torah, he must undergo circumcision, immersion, and the offering of a sacrifice. A woman [who converts] must undergo immersion and bring a sacrifice.
In the era when the Temple is not standing, all that is necessary is circumcision and/or immersion. Nevertheless, when the Temple is rebuilt, converts from the previous time, must bring sacrifices (ibid.:5).

But not until the evening. As evident from Hilchot Korban Pesach 6:7, he is considered as one who emerged from ritual impurity.

He is still under obligation to bring the second dove.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 1:6. There the Rambam also mentions a third option: two domesticated animals, one as a burnt-offering and one as a peace-offering.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandments 74-75) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 179, 183) count bringing these sacrifices as commandments in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. See Leviticus 15:14-15, 29-30.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 77) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 168) count bringing these sacrifices as a commandment in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. See Leviticus 12:6.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 76) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 176) count bringing these sacrifices as a commandment in their reckoning of the 613 mitzvot. See Leviticus 14:10, 21-22.

In all these instances, the requirement to wait until the eighth day is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, Leviticus 14:8-10; 15:13-14; 15:28-29.

Leviticus 12:2-6 explains that if a woman gives birth to a son, she is impure for seven days. Afterwards, for a 33 day period, uterine bleeding does not render her ritually impure. When these 40 days are concluded, she must bring these sacrifices. If the woman gives birth to a daughter, she is impure for 14 days. She is then granted a 66 day period of purity and then she is required to bring these sacrifices.

Although the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel differ on certain dimensions of the laws of purity applying to a woman after childbirth, they both agree that she may not bring her sacrifices on the fortieth or eightieth days.

As stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 18:9, she is considered “as lacking in time,” and she is disqualified from bringing a sacrifice.
The Ra’avad questions this ruling. True, he argues, the woman herself would not be able to bring these sacrifices, but she could send them to the Temple and have them offered on her behalf by others. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that since the prooftext from Leviticus states explicitly that the sacrifices should not be brought until “the completion of her days,” they are unacceptable even when brought by others.

For which she did not bring the sacrifices at the appropriate time.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why offerings required for previous births are not acceptable if the required period for those births has already passed, noting that there is a specific teaching from the Sifra that implies that she may have them brought. He explains that it is possible that the Rambam had a different version of the Sifra. That version is favored based on a passage from Keritot 10a.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that based on Halachah 8, it is obvious that the Rambam is speaking about a birth that took place well before the birth for which the woman is bringing her present sacrifice. For if he was speaking about a birth that took place immediately beforehand, the atonement would be achieved by the sacrifice she brings after this birth regardless. He brings support for the Rambam’s ruling, from Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 2:12 which states that, at times, a person’s state of ritual impurity may prevent him or her from having a sacrifice offered on their behalf even via an agent.

I.e., all four.

The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the mention of the guilt-offering is a printing error and, in fact, failure to bring it prevents a woman from partaking of sacrifices. One might argue that Hilchot Nezirut 6:12-13, 10:8 indicate that this version of the text is correct. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Corcus notes that Hilchot Shegagot 3:11 states: "All of the guilt-offerings [required by] the Torah hold back atonement with the exception of the guilt offering of a nazirite." Hence, in these instances, until the guilt-offering is brought, the person may not partake of sacrificial food.

Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 14:10.

In such an instance, it is always considered as if the sacrifice was offered without the principal’s consent. Since they are below majority, the consent they give is of no consequence.

As Leviticus 15:25 states: “If a woman experiences a flow of blood for many days outside the time for her menstrual flow.... “

I.e., seven days without any sign of uterine bleeding.

Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 6. As explained in the notes to that chapter, the Rambam’s definition of the days of nidah and the days of zivah differs from that of most authorities. Nevertheless, regardless of the definition of “days of nidah,” all authorities agree that when a woman discovers uterine bleeding for three consecutive days outside “the days of nidah,” she is a zavah.

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:10. See also Hilchot Shegagot 11:2; Hilchot Nizirut 10:4. Note also the following halachah.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, ch. 10.

See Ibid. 5:13-15.

As explained in the previous halachah.

For, otherwise, neither of them will be able to enter the Temple, nor partake of sacrificial food.

For, in truth, only one of them is obligated to bring the sacrifice.

The commentaries note a contradiction in the Rambam’s rulings, for the source in Hilchot Shechitah cited states that one should bury the ordinary animals, not burn them. Kin’at Eliyahu attempts to resolve the matter, stating that Hilchot Shechitah is speaking about an instance where we know that the animal was not sacred, while here, the possibility exists that it was. Hence, it is proper that it be burnt, as befits a sacrifice that was disqualified.

Hilchot Shechitah 2:2.

I.e., the forty days associated with the birth of a boy or the eighty days associated with the birth of a girl, as mentioned in note 20.

Keritot 9b derives both these concepts from the exegesis of Leviticus 12:6.

Or miscarries a female fetus.

The Rambam mentions this instance in connection with the birth of a female, because it is impossible for such a scenario to take place after the birth of a male. For there are only 40 days associated with the birth of a male and any time a miscarriage takes place within forty days of conception, a sacrifice is not required for the fetus is not considered to have developed sufficiently.

Since the time when she was obligated to bring the first sacrifice already arrived, the miscarriage is considered as an independent event (Rav Yosef Corcus).
Keritot 7b cites a difference of opinion between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel concerning the night between the eightieth and the eighty-first day. On one hand, the days associated with the birth of a girl have been completed. Hence, if she miscarried that night, the School of Hillel maintain that the miscarriage is not included in the sacrifice for the previous birth or miscarriage. On the other hand, the woman may not bring her sacrifice until the next morning. Hence, the School of Shammai maintain that it can be included in that sacrifice. As is well known, the halachah follows the School of Hillel. Rav Yosef Corcus maintains that this is intimated by the Rambam’s words: “provided the births [or the miscarriages] take place within the days [associated with the prior birth or miscarriage]” and “until the conclusion of the eightieth day.” See also Chapter 3, Halachah 4, and notes where this issue is discussed.

We have translated the Rambam’s words literally. The intent is the third pregnancy, for the first could have ended in a birth or a miscarriage.

There is no limit to the number of miscarriages that could be included in one sacrifice.

A person whose genital area is covered by a mass of flesh and thus it is impossible to determine his or her gender.

A hermaphrodite who possesses both male and female sexual organs. There is an unresolved halachic question with regard to the classification of such a person's gender.

And thus the animal offered is considered as an ordinary animal slaughtered in the Temple Courtyard which is forbidden to be eaten, as explained above.

I.e., multiple; the same laws apply if more or fewer than five situations are involved.

Previously, it was emphasized that even though her obligation was questionable, the woman could not partake of sacrificial food until she brought her sacrifices. Here the Rambam is underscoring that she may fulfill several of these questionable obligations with one set of sacrifices. For, indeed, the license to offer even that set was granted only as a leniency to enable her to partake of sacrificial food.

For each one took place after the forty or eighty days associated with the previous birth or miscarriage.

When the letter vav is used as a prefix, it usually translates as the word “and.” In this instance, however, it means “or,” because one set of sacrifices cannot bring atonement for both a birth and zivah (Rav Yosef Corcus). See Sifra, Parshat Metzora.

Rashi, Keritot 8a, compares this situation to immersion in a mikveh. Immersing oneself once brings purity for several situations that would each require immersion.

The Ra’avad takes issue with the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that, in these circumstances as well, the woman is not obligated for her remaining sacrifices. Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh justify the Rambam’s position.

I.e., if there were five situations where it is questionable whether or not he would be deemed a zav, he must bring one set of sacrifices and the sin-offering is not eaten. He is not obligated for the remainder. If he was liable for five sets of sacrifices, he must bring one set of sacrifices and then he can partake of sacrificial food. He must, however, bring the other sets of sacrifices.

Had she converted before giving birth, she would be required to bring a sacrifice to attain ritual purity. If she converted afterwards, she would not. Kin’at Eliyahu asks how it is possible for her not to know whether or not the birth preceded the conversion. Beior Moshe explains that this refers to an instance where the woman immersed before her birth and then a question arose whether the immersion was acceptable or not.

Hilchot Shegagot 3:11.

And Yom Kippur does not bring about that change (Keritot 26a).

As explained in Hilchot Shekalim 2:2, there were thirteen chests in the Temple, each shaped like a shofar. The third chest was for those who had to bring offerings of doves. The people would deposit the money for the doves in the chest. The priests would take the money, purchase doves, and offer the sacrifices.

Hilchot Shekalim, foe. cit.; Hilchot K’lei HaMikdash VeHaOvdim Bo 7:9.

For a birth or for zivah.

If, however, she did not bring her sin-offering, it should not be brought after her death, because a sin-offering may be brought only during a person’s lifetime.

Leviticus 15:2.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 2:2), the Rambam explains that a man’s reproductive glands have a natural ability to hold the fluids they produce within them until intimacy. This person’s organs are, however, damaged by sickness and these fluids are secreted without control. The condition is somewhat similar to, but by no means identical with, gonorrhea.

I.e., its consistency is thin (ibid.).

Some commentaries have suggested that there is a printing error and the text should read “the water of a barley dough” as is the wording of the Rambam’s source, Nidah 35b.

In the above source, the Rambam writes that a zav secretion is reddish. Some suggest that rather than kehah, dark, the text here should read deheh, a term the Rambam defines in his commentary to Nega’im 1:2 as meaning, “murky and not clear.”

I.e., an infirmity other than the zav condition.

I.e., placing the letter mem as a prefix can have both these implications.

See Halachot 5-6 which states that this applies only with regard to a person’s second zav discharge for that places him in a more severe category of ritual impurity. With regard to his first discharge, he is deemed impure even if the discharge was caused by an external factor.

Nazir 65b; Zavim 2:2.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that overeating weakens the body and impairs its functioning.

In this instance, the leniency applies even if he does not partake of a large amount of these substances (ibid.).

See the Tosefta, Zavim 2:2, which gives as examples, milk, cheese, aged wine, beans, eggs, and fish-brine.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 2:3), the Rambam explains that men who frequently engage in intimacy will often have painful, red discharges for a certain time. After 24 hours, however, the man does become impure, because beyond this time, the discharges can no longer be attributed to the seminal emission.

Usually, this will be considerably less than 24 hours.

This can be considerable longer than a day. Indeed, our Sages speak of three days of infirmity for circumcision. This is an extension of the principles mentioned above, that a discharge can be attributed to infirmity, for there is no greater infirmity than circumcision (Kessef Mishneh).

As stated in the previous halachah with regard to a Jew. The rationale for the distinction is that a convert is considered as a newborn infant (Yevamot 22a). Hence, we do not consider any factors that involved his previous existence as a gentile [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 2:3)].
The Ra’avad emphasizes that this is speaking about an instance where the gentile was circumcised before he converted. Otherwise, the discharge would be attributed to the circumcision. The Kessef Mishneh and Rav Yosef Corcus explain that this is implied by the Rambam’s words, for he mentioned circumcision in the previous clause.

Questions have been raised if this refers to a minor below the age of 12 or below the age of nine. It could be argued that since from nine onward, sexual relations in which a male engages are significant, it is possible for him to have sexual desires that will have physical effects.

Even if in fact the minor saw such sights or had such thoughts.

It is possible to contract zav impurity from birth.

I.e., her sickness can cause him infirmity and cause him to release such secretions.

From Hilchot Sukkah 6:1, we can understand this as referring to a minor until the age of five or six.

In the following halachah.

I.e., because of the affliction which characterizes him as a zav.

I.e., regardless of the nature of the first discharge, if the second discharge was of the type which renders a person a zav, he is placed in that category.

Although he is placed in the category of a zav regardless of the nature of the first discharge, he is not required to bring a sacrifice unless the first two discharges are both of the type that renders a person a zav (i.e., none of the factors mentioned above apply to them). It is not sufficient for the second or even the second and the third—to be of that type for such an obligation to be created (see Nidah 35a; Zavim 2:2).

Who is impure and must immerse in a mikveh to regain ritual purity, as stated in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah, ch. 5.

I.e., before he undergoes purification, there must be seven days without any discharges.

I.e., water from a natural stream, as required by Leviticus 15:13. Unlike others who are impure who may immerse in a mikveh, a pool of water collected from a natural source, a zav must immerse in a stream itself.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 3, for a description of the sacrifice.

For they are not alluded to clearly in the Written Law. The derivation of these concepts is found in Megilah 8a.

I.e., two to require immersion in a stream or three to require a sacrifice.

It is necessary to clarify this point because of the contrast to a zavah, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

As explained in Hilchot Issurei Biah 6:7, a zavah is not placed in that category unless she experiences uterine bleeding for at least three consecutive days.

Hence, as the Rambam stated above, if the two or three discharges occur on one day, the laws must be carried out.

I.e., a twenty-four hour period.

To obligate him for immersion in a spring or a sacrifice. He is, however, impure because of these discharges, as stated in Halachah 6.

This applies even if he did not purify himself in the interim (see commentaries to Zavim 1:1).

In which instance, he would be categorized as a zav.

Even though the discharges took place on two different Jewish dates.

The Rambam introduces this clause with the phrase “Needless to say,” because a Jewish day begins at night. Thus the two discharges took place on the same day.

This also applies with regard to the impurity generated by semen. See Hilchot Sha’ar Avot HaTum’ah 5:1.

The Tosefta, Zavim 1:1, interprets this as the time it takes an ordinary person to walk 50 cubits (approximately 26 yards).

And thus the person is considered as a zav.

Since the cessation did not last for a significant amount of time, it is not considered of consequence and if the person experiences another discharge, they are considered only as one. The Mishnah (Zavim 1:3) states that for an interruption to be significant, it must last that same measure of time - as long as it takes for a person to immerse and dry, as indicated in the following halachah.

And which is thus considered as two, as stated in the previous halachah.

And must bring a set of sacrifices.

This is a theoretical principle that has no direct application, because there is no undisputed halachic definition when the day ends and the night begins. Nevertheless, this theoretical principle leads to the conclusion at the end of the halachah.

The time between sunset and the appearance of three stars. As the Rambam proceeds to state, there is an unresolved difference of opinion between the Sages whether this time is considered as part of the day or part of the night. See Hilchot Shabbat 5:4.

I.e., whether he has contracted the severe impurity of a zav. He has definitely contracted the ritual impurity associated with the emission of semen.

For he has experienced two discharges.

For, as explained in the previous halachah, it might be considered as two discharges.

As explained in Chapter I, Halachah 6.

I.e., Friday night.

The intent is any two successive nights; Friday and Saturday are chosen merely as examples.

I.e., each of the discharges are considered independently. They impart ritual impurity, but since there is an interruption between them, the severity of zav impurity does not apply.

As explained in Halachah 12.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zavim 1:6), the Rambam mentions the possibility that both discharges took place at the turning point between day and night and thus it is as if there are four discharges.