Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Moreover, he must wear close fitting clothing at the conclusion of the day to make sure that in fact he did conclude the day without experiencing a discharge (i.e., carry out a hefsek taharah) so that he is certain that he begins the seven clean days without discharges.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 6:8, 11.

I.e., he should not wait until nightfall to carry out this immersion. As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 4:6 and Hilchot Mikvaot 1:6, those seeking to regain ritual purity - except a nidah and a woman after childbirth - must immerse during the daytime.
After the immersion, he is tentatively ritually pure. Nevertheless, he should not touch sacrificial foods or enter the Temple that day lest he discover a discharge which would return him to a state of ritual impurity. See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 5:9.

At that point, his purity is established. If he experienced only two discharges, this is all that is required.

He may then partake of sacrificial food, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

I.e., beginning that night, so that the next seven days will be his seven “clean” days.

I.e., after counting four clean days.

I.e., without a discharge.

Although as an initial preference, it is desirable for him to check himself every day, that is not an absolute requirement and, after the fact, as long as he does not find any evidence of a discharge and does check himself on the last day, we assume that he did not experience a discharge. The rationale is that since a man’s natural state is not to experience such discharges, even though he had experienced them previously, we presume that he will not experience further ones. Note the parallel in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 6:21.

I.e., as long as he initially checked himself and did so at the end of seven days and did not discover any sign of a discharge in the interim, after the fact, it is acceptable. Note the parallel to ibid.:22.

Or any subsequent day.
The commentaries have raised a question with this ruling, because from the above source, it appears that it is necessary that an inspection be made either on the first or last days of the seven clean days. Both Rav Yosef Corcus and the Kessef Mishneh suggest that it is possible that there is a scribal error in the text of the Mishneh Torah, but admit that the Rambam’s wording does not appear to reflect that.

And he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice. See Chapter 2, Halachah 8.

In Halachah 1.

In which instance, he would ordinarily be considered as a zav.

I.e., the night between the seventh day and the eighth day, when his counting has already been completed.

But instead are considered independently. Were there to have been only one discharge, he would not be considered a zav because of it. He could immerse himself and be purified.

And thus was already obligated to bring a sacrifice.

Although he is impure and must count seven clean days again, at the conclusion of that counting, he brings one sacrifice not two.

For the sacrifice may only be brought on the eighth day.

See Hilchot Bechorot 6:15.

I.e., the night between the eightieth and the eighty-first day.

The commentaries note that in Chapter I, Halachah 8, the Rambam emphasizes that a woman who miscarries within the eighty days associated with the birth or miscarriage of a female must bring only one sacrifice for the two events. He does not explicitly mention, however, the law that would apply if she miscarried on the night of the eighty-first day. Although inferences can be derived from his wording there, that she would have to bring a separate sacrifice, there is no explicit statement to that effect.

Although there is an allusion to her obligation in Leviticus 12:6, it is not explicitly stated there, but rather derived by our Sages in Keritot 8a.

I.e., it is of intermediate status. On one hand, it can lead to zav impurity. On the other hand, since it is only one discharge, it is not considered as that type yet. Therefore it is not reckoned as a zav discharge with regard to the nullification of the seven clean days. As a result, its own significance is not nullified and it can be counted with regard to subsequent zav discharges.

For these are significant as zav discharges. Hence they are considered as nullifying the seven clean days and are not given independent importance, as stated in the previous halachah.

Although the latter two individuals are considered as not able to control their conduct and hence, are absolved from the responsibility of observing all the mitzvot, they still can contract impurity. If they do, they should be purified so as not to spread ritual impurity.

I.e., others bring sacrifices on their behalf.

The expression “it appears to me” connotes a ruling for which the Rambam has no prior explicit Talmudic or Midrashic source, but rather deduced through his own logic. In this instance, these two types of individuals are not obligated to perform any of the mitzvot. Hence, one might think that there is no reason for them to have their sacrifices offered. The Rambam explains that this should be done, lest one desire to feed them sacrificial food. Although they would not be held responsible for the transgression, it is forbidden for another person to feed them food that they are forbidden to eat.

And as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 5, a child’s sin-offering is eaten.

See Hilchot Ishut 2:14 for a more specific definition of these terms.

Even though there is no concept of such a person contracting ritual impurity because of the release of semen, he may contract ritual impurity because of a zav discharge.

A person whose gender is masked by a piece of flesh.

A person who possess both male and female genital organs. As explained in Hilchot Ishut 2:24-25, with regard to a tumtum, his gender is not known and with regard to an adrogynus, there is an unresolved halachic question how to classify such a person. Hence, the stringencies applying to both males and females are applied.

I.e., either because of nidah (menstrual) or zivah (non-menstrual) uterine bleeding.

I.e., either semen or the secretion of a zav. See Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:7; Hilchot Nizirut 2:11, where these laws are also stated.

Because of the questions regarding their gender mentioned above. Rav Ovadiah of Bartinura (in his gloss to Zavim 2:1) states that if such a person experiences both zav discharges and zavah bleeding, he is definitely impure.

In which instance, a male is required to bring a sacrifice.

In which instance, a female is required to bring a sacrifice.

Because it is brought because of a doubt.
Based on Hilchot Mitamei Mishkav UMoshav 1:7, Kin’at Eliyahu opines that even if such a person experiences both zav discharges and zavah bleeding, he should not bring a sacrifice, because it is possible to say that a sacrifice may be brought only by a person who is either definitely male or definitely female.

For only the secretion whose type he is counting can cause the counting to be interrupted. If, however, the person sees three discharges while counting for uterine bleeding or experiences uterine bleeding for three days while counting for a zav discharged, he is impure because of the second factor as well and must count seven days to purify himself from this impurity.

See Leviticus, ch. 14; Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at, ch. 11, which describe in detail the purification process a person afflicted by tzara’at must undergo to regain ritual purity.

For until then, he was barred from entering that city and indeed, any other walled city, as stated in ibid. 10:7; Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:13, Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:2.

During these seven days, he still imparts ritual impurity to others, as stated in Hilchot Tuma’at Tzara’at 11:2.

Generally, when a person becomes impure, he must immerse himself in a mikveh during the day. At nightfall, he regains ritual purity. After his immersion until nightfall, he is not pure, but his impurity is not as severe as before. For example, he may partake of the second tithe. See also other distinctions in Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 10:2.

When he regains ritual purity.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

Since he was impure because of the tzara’at affliction, the lesser types of impurity were not significant, because they would not influence his status at all. For as part of his purification from tzara’at, he would immerse in the mikveh and that immersion would purify him from the lesser forms of impurity as well. Hence, we suspect that he became habituated to being careless with regard to these sources of impurity and would not realize if he contracted ritual impurity. Thus this immersion is a Rabbinic requirement that is not mandated by Scriptural Law.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:7-8. There was a mikveh in that chamber.

After completing the first shaving and the beginning of the purification process.

Nazir 6:6 (see the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah) contrasts a person afflicted with tzara’at and a nazirite. In the latter instance, if he immerses himself on the seventh day and shaves on the eighth day, he may bring his sacrifices on that day, for he has already waited until the day after his immersion. He need not wait until the ninth day to bring the sacrifices. The difference is that the nazirite’s attainment of purity is dependent on the passage of time alone. The attainment of purity by an afflicted person, by contrast, is dependent on his shaving. If he immerses himself beforehand, it is not effective. Hence, his attainment of purity takes place at nightfall of the day on which he immersed himself after shaving.

The three sheep mentioned in Chapter I, Halachah 3.

In the previous halachah.

The easternmost portion of the Temple Courtyard; see ibid.:12. He waits there, because until his sacrifices are offered, he should not enter the Temple Courtyard (Kessef Mishneh).

But not under the Gate, for the area under the Gate is considered as part of the Temple Courtyard.

See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:5.

I.e., facing the Temple Building. This reflects the commandment, Leviticus 14:11: “The priest... shall have the person being purified stand... before God, at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.”

I.e., also zavim, zavot, and women after childbirth, as mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah, ch. 1.

For these individuals are forbidden to enter the Temple Courtyard until their sacrifices are brought [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 14:9)].

As stated in Hilchot Sotah 3:3, a woman who is suspected of adultery is brought to the Temple and forced to drink water in which a curse that had been written on parchment was blotted out. She stands facing the Temple before this gate.

Waving it up and down and to all four directions. Although generally, the person bringing the sacrifice performs tenufah together with the priest. In this instance, the afflicted person may not enter the Temple Courtyard. Hence, the priest performs tenufah alone. Note the Tosefta, Nega’im, ch. 8, which maintains that the priest would take the sheep to the Gate of Nicanor and wave it together with afflicted person. The Ra’avad maintains that this teaching should be followed. Nevertheless, the Rambam relies on Menachot 5:6 which states that tenufah was performed in the eastern portion of the Temple Courtyard (Rav Yosef Corcus).

This is derived from Leviticus 14:12 which states that the waving must be “before God.” The implication is that one should be in the portion of the Temple Courtyard closest to the place where the Divine Presence rests.

The Gate of Nicanor, where the afflicted person is waiting.

Performing the rite of semichah. See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 3. As explained there (3:11), semichah must be performed in the Temple Courtyard. Since the afflicted person cannot enter, he inserts his hands so that the rite is performed in that holy place. Inserting one’s hands does not violate the prohibition against entering the Temple Courtyard in a state of impurity, as evident from Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:18.

As mandated by Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 3:12. There are those who maintain that the sacrificial animal must be taken to the portion of the Temple Courtyard where the animals are usually slaughtered. Nevertheless, in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 5:15-16, the Rambam explains that the northern portion of the Temple Courtyard where sacrifices of the highest order of holiness must be slaughtered extends from the wall of the Entrance Hall until the Eastern Wall of the Temple Courtyard. Hence, there is no need to move the animal.

The Sifra to Leviticus 14:14 explains that just as the priest applies the blood with his physical person, he must receive it with his physical person.

The afflicted person is forbidden to enter the Temple Courtyard. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to take the blood of the guilt-offering out of the Temple Courtyard. Hence, he must insert his head, hand, and foot, as described [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 14:9)].

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.) for a lengthy description of this portion of the ear.

A liquid measure equivalent to 346 cc. according to Shiurei Torah, 600 cc. according to Chazon Ish.

For Leviticus 4:27 states that the sprinklings must be “before God.”

He may not sprinkle the oil more than once for each dipping [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.:10)].

See Chapter 5, Halachah 3, for an explanation of this statement.

As the Rambam mentions in Hilchot Bikkurim 1:4, 13, this is one of the 24 presents given to the priests.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 10:3.

This indicates that the Rambam considers the prohibition Scriptural in origin. Rashi (Zevachim 44a) considers it a Rabbinic decree.

See Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 11:4.

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 beforehand, 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.