Tum'at Tsara'at - Chapter 9

Arachin 3a derives this concept from Leviticus 13:2 which states: “A man, when there will be a blemish....” “A man” implies any man, regardless of his age or state.

Since they are obligated in the observance of certain mitzvot, the laws of impurity also apply to them.

For these laws apply only to members of the Jewish people.

As stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:7, this term refers to “a non-Jew who makes a commitment not to worship false deities and to observe the other [six] universal laws commanded to Noah’s descendants. He does not circumcise himself or immerse [in a mikveh].” See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 10:6; Hilchot Melachim 8:10.

The Kessef Mishneh and others have noticed the apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s ruling here and Chapter 1, Halachah 3, where he states: “Any priest who does not recognize the different appearances [of blemishes] and their names when he is taught and informed, should not assess a blemish until he understands [them] and recognizes [them].” On the basis of Arachin 3a, the Kessef Mishneh resolves the issue, explaining that the ruling in Chapter 1 applies when a person relies on his own judgment, while here, he is willing to follow the guidance of others, as stated in Halachah 2.
Kin’at Eliyahu notes that source, but maintains that this ruling is complemented by Halachah 2. Here the Rambam is stating that any person can develop the expert knowledge to determine what is a blemish and what is not; i.e., he can serve as a resource for such a ruling. The pronouncement of that ruling, however, is dependent on a priest, as stated in Halachah 2.

The Torah does not allow him to pass judgment on his own condition. The sages of mussar (ethical development) have drawn a homily from this law. A person may be able to appreciate the personal blemishes of others, but when it comes to his own, his self-interest prevents him from being objective and seeing his faults, no matter how serious they are.

As stated in Halachah 5, a challal, a person whose priestly lineage is tainted, is also unacceptable.

I.e., he is not an expert in determining what is a blemish and what is not. Based on Arachin, op. cit., the Kessel Mishneh explains that the priest may not be totally unknowledgeable. He must be able to understand why the sage makes the ruling he does even if he is incapable of reaching it on his own.

The prooftext specifically mentions a priest.

The Kessel Mishneh cites the commentary of Rabbenu Asher to Nega’im 3:1 which explains that we are not speaking of a person who is mentally incapable in a simple sense — for he will not be able to comprehend the words of the sage (see note 8). Instead, we are speaking about a man of understanding who is referred to as mentally incapable only when compared to a Torah sage. Nevertheless, the terms the Rambam uses are never interpreted as suggested by the Kessel Mishneh.

I.e., even one that is obvious.

See Chapters 12-15. From the Rambam’s words, it appears that even if a priest is knowledgeable with regard to blemishes that affect humans, he cannot pronounce judgment upon them unless he is also familiar with the other blemishes [Rav Yosef Corcus, based on the Toselta (Nega’im 1:1)].

Significantly, the Rambam alters the order in which the verses appear in the Torah. Also, the quote from the verse is not exact. Some suggest that a printing error crept into the text.

The implication is that the priest’s declaration must correspond to the halachic reality.

I.e., he must be able to compare the condition of the blemish to that of the healthy skin next to it (Rav Yosef Corcus). See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.

In which instance, it would not be a sign of impurity (Chapter 2, Halachah 6).

A challal is the son of a priest conceived through relations forbidden to a priest or the son of a challal. None of the mitzvot of the priesthood apply to him. See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 19:10.

See Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash, ch. 6, which explains the commandment forbidding a priest with a blemish from serving in the Temple and, ch. 7, which describes those disqualifying blemishes.

For his priesthood is intact.

Implied is that his vision must be intact in its totality. A priest who is color blind is unfit to make these determinations. If the priest requires glasses, it can be said that the following ruling applies. If he could make an appropriate determination without glasses while standing very close to a person and the glasses merely enable him to do so from further away, he is acceptable. If, however, he requires glasses to make the determination even when standing close, he is disqualified.

Leviticus 13:5, 6, 14, et al.

When the sun shines brightly.

I.e., on a day when the sun rises at 6 AM and sets at 6 PM, between 9 and 10 AM. In this context, an “hour” is understood as one twelfth of the time between sunrise and sunset.

From Leviticus 14:54-55, the Sifra derives an equivalence between all blemishes.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 1:4), the Rambam states the rationale for this ruling: Determining whether a blemish is pure or impure resembles a legal judgment and legal judgments are not made on the Sabbath.

More specifically, the term yom tov refers to the sacred days of the festivals, excluding chol hamo’ed. Nevertheless, from Nega’im 3:2 and Mo’ed Kattan 7a, it appears that the determination of the status of blemishes should not be made on Chol HaMo’ed as well. Indeed, the Rambam himself rules this way in Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 7:16 and this conclusion can be deduced from Halachah 8. Accordingly, the term he uses here has attracted the attention of the commentaries.

On which the blemish is inspected for a second time by the priest.

The commentaries have raised a question: Since a blemish that reappears with signs of impurity is deemed impure (Chapter 1, Halachah 1 0), how is this a stringency, the person would have been deemed impure regardless? They explain that if the person had appeared on the Sabbath without signs of impurity, he would have been isolated. Thus (as stated in Halachah 9), even if signs of impurity appeared during the week, he would not be judged again for seven days and it is possible that in that time, the signs of impurity could have disappeared.

See Hilchot Ishut 10:12 which states that a man who weds a virgin should celebrate with her for seven days, refraining from pursuing his occupation. Celebratory feasts are held during these days.

In Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov, loc. cit., the Rambam gives the rationale for this ruling: “His festival will be transformed into mourning.”

I.e., remove the utensils contained within.

Celebrating a marriage, a festival, or the like.

If there is a blemish of the appropriate size without a sign of impurity.

If it possesses a sign of impurity.

If at the outset, it is not of the -appropriate size or if, after a period of isolation or impurity, it covered the entire area, or if after periods of isolation, no signs of impurity appeared.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 3:1), the Rambam. states that this is a Scriptural decree that is beyond our understanding.
If for some reason, an inspection was not made on these days, it may be made afterwards.

I.e., it is the seventh day of the first week and the first day of the second week.

I.e., if a person was isolated after the appearance of a tzara’at blemish and another blemish appeared during the week of isolation, the second blemish should not be examined by a priest and the person isolated because of it.

Although the sign of impurity would cause the person to be deemed impure when seen by the priest, the priest does not make his examination or deliver his ruling until the end of the week of isolation.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam cites the Sifra which sees an allusion to this concept in Leviticus 13:1: “He shall not isolate it, for he is impure.”

Although the blemish is of the type that would warrant these rulings, since the person is already definitively impure, the second blemish is not considered at the time it is discovered. Nevertheless, when the priest inspects the person for the first blemish, he also takes note of the second.

Before delivering a ruling regarding the first.

I.e., simultaneously, with the same glance. Instead, the priest must examine one, consider its status, and then examine the other.

I.e., an exclusion is implied; one, but not two. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.), the Rambam cites a different prooftext.

In this context, the phrase implies that the blemish must be able to be perceived by the person’s ordinary sight.

The priest need not examine the above portions of his body before deeming him pure, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

In which instance, he is required to spread his legs.

In which instance, he is required to stretch out his arms. Nevertheless, an olive tree is mentioned, because these trees are not all that high and the person need not strain when reaching up.

The bracketed addition is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nega’im 2:4).

In which instance, she spreads her legs some. She is not required to stand like a man who is hoeing, because this is not a natural and common position for a woman.

Lest there be a blemish on her breast.

Where she must stand and raise her arms, in contrast to a woman who sits and weaves with a needle.

The commentaries infer that according to the Rambam, the left underarm need not be inspected. This is also evident from his Commentary to the Mishnah (op. cit.).

It is considered as impurity of the hidden places and ignored.

As related in Chapter 1 1, Halachah 1, as part of the purification process of a person who was afflicted with tzara’at, all the hair on his or her body must be removed. Nevertheless, when inspecting the person’s body to see whether hair remains, a priest need not look in these areas, and, after the fact, hair that remains in these places does not disqualify the purification process.

Chapter 11, Halachah 1.