Rambam - 1 Chapter 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.