Halakhah su Levitico 13:78

Although vertical poles of a tzurat hapetach need not touch the horizontal pole (or wire), they must be positioned directly underneath it. The poles cannot even be off by the slightest amount (see Mishnah Berurah 362:63). Halachic authorities debate how to determine the proper positioning.²Measurements for some areas of Halachah are estimated based on what appears correct to people, while other areas require precise measurements. For example, terumah (the fiftieth of grain which is given to kohanim) must be an estimate and may not be measured to precisely equal one-fiftieth (Terumot 1:7). On the other hand, techum Shabbat (the area that one may not leave on Shabbat) must be measured precisely (Eruvin 57b, 58b). In many areas, it is unclear whether an estimate or precise measurement is required. For example, the Chazon Ish (Hil. Tumat Tzaraat 8:1) writes that measurements for the spreading of a spot of leprosy are done by estimation. He bases himself on a passage in the Ramban's commentary to the Torah (Vayikra 13:5). However, the Chazon Ish does not mention that the Rosh (Tosafot Harosh, Mo'eid Katan 7a, cited in the Tur's long commentary to Vayikra 13:5) requires the use of measuring implements to determine the leprosy spot's growth. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (as reported by Rav Yosef Adler) and Rav Moshe Feinstein (reported by Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz, from his uncle, Rav Pesach Rayman) both felt that it is sufficient to estimate the poles' positioning with one's eyes. Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg (personal communication) also permits using eyesight, although he requires building very wide vertical beams to allow for a wide margin of error in their positioning.

And the author of the Halakhot Gedolot was already aware of some of these matters and went around them by counting sections (as a whole and not each part of them). And in counting them, he [called them], the section of inheritances, the section of vows and oaths, the section of putting out a bad name. And he counted many sections like this. However he was not completely clear about this topic and did not arrive at it [fully]. And hence he counted in these sections that which had already been counted earlier, without sensing it. And since this principle escaped those besides us concerning the commandment of tsaraat, he counted it as twelve commandments and did not know that they are [actually just] one commandment; and that everything mentioned by Scripture is actually a detail or a condition. And the explanation of this is that He instructed us that tsaraat of a person makes one impure; and his impurity is such that he is obligated regarding that which impure people are obligated regarding distancing from the Sanctuary and its holy things, and to go outside of the camp of the Divine Presence. But we would not [yet] know which tsaraat renders impure and which does not render impure. So Scripture came to explain it and differentiate the regulations, such that if he was like this, he would be pure, but if he was like that he would be impure; if he was like this, he would have to stand so much time like this, but if he was like that, he would have to stand [a different amount of] time. And in explanation, they said (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16:13), "'To declare it pure or to declare it impure' (Leviticus 13:59) - just as it is a commandment to declare it pure, so it is a commandment to declare it impure." So the commandment is in fact for [a priest] to say, impure or pure. However it is inappropriate to count the differentiations of the their content - such that some are impure and some are pure - since they are its conditions and details. And this is like our saying that sacrificing animals with defects is forbidden to us. But if [we understand that] it is a negative commandment, it remains for us to know what the defects are. Could you see us calculating each and every defect as a commandment? If this were the case, its count would be close to seventy defects. But just like we do not count the defects - which of them are [an actual] defect and which of them are not [an actual] defect - but rather the prohibition is that we have been prohibited from an animal with a defect; so too is not fitting to count all of the signs of tsaraat - which of them are impure and which of them are pure - but rather only that the person with tsaraat is impure. And all of the rest is an explanation of what tsaraat is. And in this way, it it appropriate to count each and every type of impurity as one commandment [each]; and not count all the details of that type of impurity and its conditions, as will be explained. And understand this principle, as it is a pillar of the teaching in which we are [involved].

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.

Sometimes there will be a command which is one commandment, but it has many parts - such as the commandment of lulav, which has four species. Behold that we do not say that (Leviticus 23:40), "the fruit of goodly trees," is a separate commandment; "the boughs of thick trees," are a separate commandment; and "willows of the brook," are a separate commandment. For they are all parts of the [one] commandment - since He commanded to combine them. And after they are combined, the commandment is to take all of them into the hand on the designated day. And by the exact same comparison, it is inappropriate to count His saying about purifying someone with tsaraat - that it is with (Leviticus 14:4-5) two living birds, cedar wood, hyssop, fabric dyed scarlet, living water and a ceramic vessel - as six commandments. Rather purifying someone with tsaraat is one commandment in all of its description, and all of these requirements and others - meaning, shaving. For all of these are parts of the commandment that we have been commanded - being the purification of someone with tsaraat - and that is that it be done in the prescribed way. And the exact same comparison applies to that which He commanded us to do regarding recognition of someone with tsaraat - while he is impure - so that he is kept away from. And that is His saying, "his clothes shall be rent, his head shall be left bare, and he shall cover over his upper lip, etc." (Leviticus 13:45). And none of these acts are a separate commandment, but it is rather their combination that is the commandment - and that is that we are commanded to bring about recognition of someone with tsaraat, such that someone who sees him stay away from him; and that his recognition be with this and that. This is like that which we have been commanded to rejoice in front of the Lord on the first day of Sukkot - and its explanation was that the joy be in the taking of this and that (the four species of the lulav).

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.

Rabbi Yonatan Steif advances a rather curious argument in support of the position that garments made of synthetic materials are exempt from zizit. Menaḥot 39b cites specific biblical references to linen and wool as the materials of which "garments" are woven. The Gemara then proceeds to query, "Whence can garments of camel hair or rabbit hair, or goats' hair, or of raw silk or floss-silk or fine silk be added?" In answer, the Gemara cites the redundant phrase "or a garment" (Lev. 13:47). It is usually assumed that the materials enumerated by the Gemara are simply common examples of materials used in weaving garments but that that list is by no means exhaustive. Rabbi Steif, however, maintains that the enumerated materials exhaust the category of begged; other materials are not mentioned because they are not beggadim. According to this position, even other natural fibers not recorded in this list are exempt from zizit.

That the priests not enter the Temple with grown hair: That the priests not enter the Temple with grown hair, like mourners do - meaning to say that they not grow their hair long, as it is stated (Leviticus 10:6), "you shall not let your head be wild." And the Targum (Aramaic translation of Onkelos) said, "Do not increase locks." And Yechezkel the prophet elucidated and said (Ezekiel 44:20), "and they shall not send forth locks." And so too with the metsora (Leviticus 13:45), "and his head shall be wild" - and they said in Sifra [that it means], "He grows locks."

That He prohibited the priests from entering the Temple with overgrown hair, like that of mourners who do not cut their hair. And that is His saying, "you shall not let your head be wild (tifraau)" (Leviticus 10:6). And Yechezkel explained and said (Ezekiel 44:20), "and they shall not send forth locks (fera)." And likewise did He say with the metzora, (Leviticus 13:45), "and his head shall be wild." And we say in the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 25:1), "He grows locks."And the language of the Sifra (Sifra Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2:40) is likewise, "'You shall not let your head be wild' - do not grow hair." And this prohibition was already repeated with a high priest, when He said, "and he shall not let his head be wild" (Leviticus 21:10). However it was repeated so that you not think that His saying to Elazar and Itamar, "you shall not let wild," was only for the sake of the dead - but if one did it not in the way of mourning, it is permitted. And hence it comes with the high priest, to [teach] that it is on account of the [Temple] service. And one who transgresses this negative commandment - meaning he serves [in the Temple] with unkempt hair - is [punished] with death. And among those things [listed in Sanhedrin 83a as things punished] by death is unkempt hair. [This is] on account of what He said, "so that you do not die." However if one enters the Temple with unkempt hair but does not serve, behold that it is [only] a prohibition, and not [punished] with death. (See Parashat Shemini; Mishneh Torah, Admission into the Sanctuary 1.)

The commandment of the matter of the impurity of a metsora: To make a man that is metsora (has a type of skin disease) impure - meaning to say that it is a commandment upon us that anyone who is a metsora come to the priest to ask about his tsaraat, and the priest will render him impure or render him pure; and he will act according to the written Torah, as the priest will command him; and he should not take the thing as an illness that comes by chance, but rather put his [mind] to it and know that the greatness of his iniquity caused it, as it is stated (Leviticus 13:2), "When a man has on the skin of his flesh, etc. it shall be brought to Aharon the priest or to one of his sons, the priests." And this commandment includes all the statutes of tsaraat of a person: that from which one is impure, and that from which one is pure; that from which one requires quarantine and that from which one does not require quarantine; that which requires shaving with the quarantine or does not require shaving - meaning to say shaving of the scab - and many laws besides this.

And if you will ask - if so, what is that which is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 13:6), "and behold, the ailment dimmed [...] the priest shall render him pure"; your answer is that this is stated about the ailment dimming beyond the membrane of an egg. But with the membrane of an egg and above it, this is not [considered] dimming, as it is still included in the appearances of impurity. And that which is stated (Leviticus 13:6), "and the ailment did not spread in the skin, the priest shall render him pure," instructs that any time it did not spread at all and none of the other signs of impurity that we said developed - even though it did not dim, but rather stayed in its hue - since it did not spread, he is pure.

To not shave the hair of the scab: To not shave the hair of the scab (netek), as it is stated (Leviticus 13:33), "but the scab, he shall not shave" - meaning to say that hair that is on the place of the scab, he shall not shave. And the language of Sifra, Tazria, Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9:7 is "From where [do I know] that one who detaches the signs of impurity from within his scab, that he violates a negative commandment? As it is stated, 'but the scab, he shall not shave.'" And the matter is that the priest recognize the signs of impurity in the hairs.

The practice of wildness and rending of a metsora and all who render a person impure: That a metsora act like the statute written in the section of the Torah, as it is stated (Leviticus 13:45), "his clothes shall be rent, his head shall be wild." And likewise, all other impure ones must let themselves be known. And the language of Sifra, Tazria, Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12:9 is "One who is impure from a dead body, one who has intercourse with a menstruant and all who render a person impure - from where [do I know they are included? Hence] we learn to say, '"impure, impure," he shall call out' (Leviticus 13:45)." And the calling is that he should do a matter in his body that people will recognize about him that he is impure and veer away from him.

The commandment of the matter of ailments of clothing: To act with ailments of clothing like the statute written in the section of the Torah, as it is stated (Leviticus 13:47), "And the garment that has an ailment in it, etc." And this commandment includes all of the laws of the tsaraat of clothing: how they become impure and how they do not become impure; which ones of them require quarantine, or tearing or burning, or washing and purification.

The commandment of the matter of ailments of clothing: To act with ailments of clothing like the statute written in the section of the Torah, as it is stated (Leviticus 13:47), "And the garment that has an ailment in it, etc." And this commandment includes all of the laws of the tsaraat of clothing: how they become impure and how they do not become impure; which ones of them require quarantine, or tearing or burning, or washing and purification.

And afterwards, the priest shaves the metsora. And how does he shave him? He passes the razor over his visible flesh - and even [on] the underarm and the pubic area and all the rest of the body - until he becomes [smooth] like a gourd, as it is stated (Leviticus 14:9), "all of his hair." If so, why does it state, "his head, his beard, and his eyebrows?" To include everything that is like them and to exclude hair that is in the nose, since it is not seen. And afterwards he washes his clothes and immerses, and is purified with this from passing on impurity from his resting and sitting [upon something]; and he can come inside the [city] wall. And he counts seven days; and during those seven days, he is prohibited in sexual relations, as it is stated, "outside of his tent" - teaching he is forbidden in sexual relations. But a metsora'at is permitted in sexual relations. All of these seven days, he is still a source of impurity and renders a person and vessels impure with touch, but he does render impure with carrying - as behold it states (Leviticus 14:9), "And it shall be on the seventh day, etc. and he shall wash his clothes" - teaching that he was rendering clothes impure. And [just] like he was rendering clothes impure, so [too] was he rendering a man impure with touch - since all that renders a person impure, renders clothes impure; and all that does not render a person impure, does not render clothes impure (Mishnah Kelim 1:1). And on the seventh day, the priest shaves him a second [time] like the first shaving. And [the metsora] washes his clothes and immerses and is purified from rendering others impure. And behold he is like all who have immersed during the day, and can eat from the tithe; when his sun sets, he can eat from the priestly tithe; [and] when he brings his atonement, he can eat from consecrated foods. The slaughter of the bird, the shaving and the sprinkling are during the day, but all the other procedures are whether during the day or during the night. These [three things] are with men, but all the rest are even with women. These are with priests, but all the rest are even through an Israelite. And it is a commandment for the same priest who rendered him impure [to render him pure, as it is stated (Leviticus 13:59)], "to render him pure or to render him impure." And the rest of its details are in Tractate Negaim.