One of the most important topics posed by the sages is whether or not different-shaded lesions combine. The general rule is that only a lesion that is at least the size of a split bean renders a person impure. But what if there are two adjacent lesions, one half the size of a split pea of one category of lesion and another half the size of a split pea of the other category of lesion; do these two areas combine to create the minimum area of a tzara’at? You really need to have good eyes to be able to tell the difference.
Even without getting into all the complexities of the legal arguments made by the commentaries, we can say a few general things. Altogether there are 6 possible combinations between the categories and sub-types of lesions that can be made: 1) the two top categories, bright and raised, 2) bright with its subtype “lime of the Temple,” 3) raised with its subtype “the membrane of an egg,” 4) bright with the sub-type of the other category, “the membrane of an egg,” 5) raised with the sub-type of the other category, “lime of the Temple,” and 6) the two sub-types, “lime of the Temple” with “membrane of an egg,” together.
Most of the commentaries say that only three of these combinations are treated as valid and they are options 1, 2, and 3. The combination of the two top categories is mentioned explicitly in the verse, “If a person develops a [raised] wool-white spot, [sub-type, that is] a white-shaded spot, or a [bright] snow-white spot on the skin of his flesh”—the raised and the bright appear together in the verse. Likewise, 2 and 3 mean that one of the top categories combines with its sub-type and this combination also appears in the verse.
However, combinations 4, 5, and 6 are not seen as truly combining and therefore cannot be counted together towards a whole size of a split bean. This is a simple and straightforward logic, that cannot be contested.
Maimonides however rules differently. He argues that all shades of white combine. Every white lesion goes toward the size of a half a split bean. All 6 combinations are valid.
But Maimonides ruling raises a very simple and straightforward question: if all the shades of white combine, what benefit is there to telling the difference between them?! What practical purpose might there be in diagnosing the tzara’at while differentiating between the different colors. This is the background for what Maimonides writes in his Laws of the Impurity of Tzara’at, chapter 1, halachah 3:
These four shades of tzara'at lesions can all be joined with each other and are considered as a single lesion, whether this produces a more lenient ruling or a more stringent ruling, whether at the beginning of the observation of the lesion or at the conclusion of the seven days, whether after the person afflicted with tzara'at was released from impurity or definitely categorized as afflicted.
What is implied? Whether a lesion is entirely white like snow or like the lime of the Temple building or like clean wool or like the membrane of an egg or a lesion was varied in appearance, part of its whiteness was the shade of “bright” and part was like the shade of the “raised,” and part like the shade of a sub-type, they are all considered as one appearance.
If so, why did the Sages count them and say, “The shades of tzara'at blemishes are ‘two which are four’?” So that one will understand the different appearances. For any priest who does not recognize the different appearances and their names when he is taught and informed, should not assess a lesion until he understands them and recognizes them and can say: “This is the “bright” and this is its sub-type. This is the “raised” and this is its subtype.”
Maimonides argues that it is incumbent on the priest to be able to differentiate between the different types. But again, why? What do we stand to gain from his knowledge? Is there any practical differential?
The spiritual problem at the root of tzara’at is that there is a revelation of the Mother Principle without the Father Principle.
What is the difference between the two? The Mother Principle refers to our connection with reality. Chasidic parlance associates the Mother Principle with reality—“the beginnings of reality” (ראשית המציאות). The Father Principle on the other hand refers to the essence and is described as the “beginnings of revelation” (ראשית הגילוי).
At the very end of the Tanya, the Alter Rebbe writes that there are certain laws—halachot—that will never be realized in reality. How then can they even be referred to as “halachot?” His answer is that in the supernal wisdom of the World of Emanation, these laws do have a place. In other words, in the supernal wisdom associated with the Divine World of Emanation, there is a necessary differential between even those things that will never be differentiated between in reality (i.e., the practical reality of the three lower Worlds). In fact, if the legal authority does not know how to differentiate between these various aspects, he cannot act as a judge in the lower reality. This is a very practical application: you cannot rectify reality if you do not know things that have no bearing on reality. This seems counterintuitive, but it is the truth.
Practically speaking, in the case of differentiating between shades of white, Maimonides’ ruling clearly demonstrates the difference between the Mother and Father Principles. To have a connection with the Mother Principle alone means to simply know that all the shades of white combine—without the need to actually be able to identify the difference between them. What then is the revelation of the Father Principle? The Arizal explicitly states that the priest observing and gazing at the footnote is providing the lesion with the missing light or revelation of the Father Principle. The priest’s gaze has the power to cure tzara’at in this way. And this gaze is dependent on the priest being able to differentiate between the shades of white, even though according to Maimonides, there is no way to actually apply this knowledge in reality. To be able to rectify reality, one needs to be an expert diagnostician, even if your analysis has no bearing on reality. To cure a lesion, one must be able to, at least in theory, make a diagnosis.
(From a class given on the 27th of 2 Adar, 5768)
