Halakhah su Levitico 13:36
וְרָאָ֙הוּ֙ הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְהִנֵּ֛ה פָּשָׂ֥ה הַנֶּ֖תֶק בָּע֑וֹר לֹֽא־יְבַקֵּ֧ר הַכֹּהֵ֛ן לַשֵּׂעָ֥ר הַצָּהֹ֖ב טָמֵ֥א הֽוּא׃
allora il sacerdote lo guarderà; e, ecco, se lo scalpore si diffonde nella pelle, il sacerdote non deve cercare i capelli gialli: è impuro.
Sefer HaMitzvot
But this was already missed by someone besides us to the point that he counted, "she does not go out like the release of slaves" (Exodus 21:7) - and he did not know that this was a negation and not a prohibition. And the explanation of this is as I will explain. And that is that since God already determined about someone who struck his [gentile] slave or maidservant - and at the time of the strike, caused him to lack one of his main limbs - that [the slave or maidservant] goes out to freedom, it would enter our minds that if the matter is like this with a gentile slave, all the more so would it be the case with a Jewish maidservant and that she would go out to freedom if she loses one of her main limbs. And He negates this conception from us, by His saying, "she does not go out like the release of slaves" - as if to say, there is no obligation for her to be sent out to freedom with the loss of her limbs. So this is the negation of a law about her, and not a prohibition. And the masters of the tradition also explained it like this: And they said in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yochai 21:7), "'She does not go out like the release of slaves' - she does not go out with the main limbs in the way that [gentile] slaves go out." Behold that it is hence already clear to you that it is the negation of another law, which He is negating from her - not that He prohibited anything to us. And there is no difference between His saying, "she does not go out like the release of slaves," and His saying (Leviticus 13:36), "the priest does not examine the yellow hair, he is impure" - it is only a negation, not a prohibition. And that is that it is explaining to us that he does not require quarantine because of this indication (of impurity), and that there is no doubt about him - he is impure. And likewise is His saying (Leviticus 19:20), "they are not put to death, since she has not been freed," a negation and not a prohibition. For He is saying that they are not liable for the death penalty, since [her] freedom is not complete. And it would be inappropriate to explain this as if it were stated, "you shall not put them to death" - such that it would go from a matter of negation to a matter of prohibition. For His saying, "they are not put to death, since she has not been freed," is like His saying (Deuteronomy 22:26), "the girl has no sin worthy of death" - which negates the death penalty from her because of the rape. And likewise [here], He negated the liability of death from them because of [her] slavery - as if to say, they have no sin worthy of death. And likewise is His saying (Numbers 17:5), "and not be like Korach and like his congregation," a negation. And the Sages clarified that it is a negation: They explained its content and said (Midrash Tanchuma, Tzav 13:1) that He, may He be exalted, was telling us that anyone who argues about and challenges the priesthood will not have what happened to Korach and his congregation happen to him with regards to being swallowing up or burned; but rather his punishment will truly be like that which the Lord said through Moshe - meaning to say, tsaraat. For He, may He be elevated, had said to him (Exodus 4:6), "Put your hand into your bosom." And they brought a proof [for this] from what happened to King Uzziah of Judah (II Chronicles 26:19). And even though we find a different expression in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 110a) - and that is their saying, "Anyone who maintains an argument, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated, 'and not be like Korach and like his congregation" - this is by way of an asmakhta (homiletic support), and not that their intention in this is the simple meaning of the verse. However the prohibition about this is included in a different negative commandment, which I will explain in its place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
The Sabbath Epistle
Because Scripture mentioned “God called the light ‘yom’ (day)”, it needed to tell us how one should count a day of the Torah. For the word “yom” has two meanings (a period of daylight, 12 hours, and a 24-hour period). Therefore it says that these two beginnings, namely dusk and dawn, encompass the Torah’s day. For ‘erev (dusk) refers to the time when shapes merge and are not distinguishable to the eye, as in the verse “They intermingled (vayit’arvu) among the nations” (Psalms 106:35). Boker (dawn) is the time when the forms are distinguishable and are recognizable and examinable, as in the verses “the priest need not examine (yevaqqer)” (Leviticus 13:36), “As a shepherd (vaqqarat) tends his flock” (Ezekiel 34:12). The term yom (day) encompasses both these times, for a single motion includes both. Similarly we find “He created male and female…and called their name ‘Adam’” (Genesis 5:2), while it is also written “And [the Lord, God,] made for Adam and his wife garments of hide and He dressed them” (ibid. 3:21).22 We see that the name “Adam” has a double meaning, sometimes referring to the entire human species, both male and female, and sometimes only to the male (or a specific male). Again it is clear from the description of Creation that a day is from evening to evening.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy