Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Used by Leviticus 14: 14.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 14:9).

Optimally, however, the oil and the blood should be placed on the upper side of the thumb and large toe, i.e., the side with the nail.

I.e., the side of the palm of the hand and the sole of the foot. The literal meaning of the Rambam’s words (taken from Menachot 10a) is “the sides of the sides.”

I.e., the Torah does not require that the oil be applied on the blood, but to “the place of the blood.” Thus any place to which the blood could be applied, the oil may be applied (Sifra to the verse).

For it is only through fulfilling every detail of the purification process that one afflicted with tzara’at can change his status.

E.g., the animal was slaughtered with the conception that it was to be offered for a different type of sacrifice or for a different person.

And offered there (see Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 15:17).

Flour, wine, and oil, as stated in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 2:2,6.

For it must be offered like a guilt-offering and a guilt-offering requires these additional offerings.

Although the sacrifice is acceptable, it does not fulfill the purpose for which it was offered (Zevachim 2a).

I.e., the guilt-offering must be brought before the sin-offering, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. One might say, however, that a priest could stir the blood of the sin-offering to prevent it from congealing and then offer it after the blood of the guilt-offering (see parallels in Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 9:4, Hilchot Karban Pesach 1:4).

At which time it will be disqualified. The literal meaning of the Rambam’s words are “leave it until its form decomposes.” See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:26.
Since there is nothing inherently wrong with the sacrifice, it may not be burnt immediately. Nevertheless, it is unfit to be offered. Hence, we cause it to be disqualified by allowing it to remain overnight.

Or after any length of time.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

The rationale is that until the oil is poured, the remaining oil is not disqualified.

Towards the Holy of Holies, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

For all seven sprinklings are considered as a single unit.

He does not have to repeat the sprinklings.

For the application to the ear, thumb, and toe is considered as a single act.

The commentaries have questioned the Rambam's intent, for this appears in direct contradiction to his statements in Chapter 4, Halachah 2, that the application of the oil to the head must be performed for the purification process to be completed. Among the resolutions offered is that as long as the oil is present and it was not applied, the purification process if not completed. If it spilled, however, there is no need to bring other oil. Alternatively, in a complete sense, his purification process is not completed.
He may, however, enter the Temple and partake of sacrificial foods (Rav Yosef Corcus). Rambam Le’am offers a more simple explanation. Here we are speaking about the remainder of the oil in the log being spilled. There still remains some oil in the priest’s palm. He must apply that oil to the head of the person being purified.

The sequence in which the sprinklings and applications are made is described in Chapter 4, Halachah 2.

Because the measure of the log was reduced in a manner not prescribed by law. Nevertheless, an entire new log of oil need not be brought. It is sufficient merely to fill it with additional oil.

Because, as mentioned in the verse cited above, the oil must be applied “on the place of the blood of the guilt-offering” (Kiryat Sefer).

A superficial reading of the Rambam’s words leads to the impression that the priest must repeat the seven sprinklings as well. Since the log was not full when the initial sprinklings were made, they were disqualified. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Corcus elaborates in proving that the initial sprinklings are acceptable and all that is necessary is for the priest to apply it to the afflicted person’s body.

By the phrase “This is.”

E.g., they were not made with the purification of this afflicted person in mind.

In his gloss to Yoma 61 b, the Meiri explains that the intent is that although the afflicted person regains his status of purity, the oil is unacceptable and may not be eaten. Rashi (Menachot 28a) gives a diametrically opposite ruling.

Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam is not stating that the first guilt-offering cannot be considered part of his process of purification for the second affliction, because that is obvious. Instead, his intent is that since the guilt-offering is the fundamental element of the afflicted person’s sacrifices, once he brings that sacrifice for the first affliction, a distinction is made between the two afflictions. Hence after he becomes purified from the second affliction, he is liable to bring his sin-offering and burnt-offering for the first affliction as well as an entire set of sacrifices for the second affliction.

The two birds he is required to bring, as mentioned in Leviticus, ch. 14; Chapter 4, Halachah 1, above.

I.e., bringing the birds does not create a distinction between the two afflictions. Instead, the entire period is considered as one long affliction and he brings one set of sacrifices when it is concluded.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 3, the offerings brought by an afflicted person depend on his financial standing. If he is wealthy he brings a sheep as a burnt-offering and a sin-offering. If he is poor, he brings doves for those offerings. Both bring a sheep as a guilt-offering.

As mentioned above, this is the first of the offerings brought by the afflicted person.

Both were wealthy and required to bring animals.

The problem arises only if that afflicted person dies. If he did not die, the sacrifice could have been offered conditionally: “If Reuven’s sacrifice was offered beforehand, this sacrifice is being offered for the sake of Shimon. If Shimon’s sacrifice was offered before- hand, this sacrifice is being offered for him.” Once, however, the other person has died, that is no longer possible, because a sin-offering may not be brought for a person who is deceased. Instead, the animal set aside for that sin-offering should be consigned to death (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 4:1).

The Tosefta (Nega’im 9:8) relates that the inhabitants of Alexandria asked this question of Rabbi Yehoshua and he responded: “Now you have asked a wise point.”

See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 7:10.

See Hilchot Shegagot 10:13; Hilchot Nizirut 10:4.

Making the conditional stipulation mentioned above.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 7.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that if the person’s guilt-offering had not been offered, there is a difficulty because a guilt-offering may not be brought with a conditional stipulation. (Moreover, the sin-offering should not be offered before the guilt-offering.) And if he had already brought the guilt-offering, then the advice the Rambam gives: to bring about a situation where he is poor and hence, may bring a poor man’s offering is irrelevant, because as mentioned in the previous halachah, everything depends on a person’s status at the time his guilt-offering is brought

Arachin 17a derives this from the seemingly redundant wording of Leviticus 14:21: “If he is poor and he does not have the capacity.” Obviously, a poor person does not have the capacity. Why is this phrase added? For a situation like the one above when the person responsible for the sacrifices has the capacity to bring a wealthy man’s offering.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 14:9 which states that this concept also applies with regard to one who vows to bring the sacrifices of a woman after childbirth.