Drones and Yichud Seeing. Halacha. From a New Perspective

(3) The priest shall examine the affection on the skin of his body: if hair in the affected patch has turned white and the affection appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous affection; when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him unclean.

(12) If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot, wherever the priest can see—

(3) A priest who is blind in one of his eyes, or whose brightness of vision dulled, may not examine the Negaim, as it says (Leviticus 13:12) "According to all that appears to the eyes of the priest." [When examining] a dark house, one does not open windows in it to [better] examine its Nega.

Rava said: Opposite feces covered only by a lantern-like covering, which is transparent, it is permitted to recite Shema. But opposite nakedness covered only by a lantern-like covering, it is prohibited to recite Shema. Opposite feces in a lantern, it is permitted to recite Shema because with regard to feces, the ability to recite Shema is contingent upon covering, as it is said: “And cover your excrement” (Deuteronomy 23:14), and although it is visible, it is covered. On the other hand, opposite nakedness covered only by a lantern-like covering, it is prohibited to recite Shema; the Torah said: “And no indecent thing shall be seen in you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), and here it is seen.

...

(16) Just as the Shema may not be read in a place where there is ordure or urine till he has moved away [to a distance of at least four cubits], so it is forbidden to read the Shema in the presence of any person, even a gentile or child, whose privy parts are exposed, even though a glass partition separates him from them, unless he turns away his face. Since he is able to see, he may not read the Shema, unless he turns away his face. Any part of a woman's body falls under the same rule. Hence, while reading the Shema, one must not gaze at a woman's body, even if she is his wife. And if a hand-breadth of a part of her body [which is usually covered] is exposed, he must not read the Shema while facing it.

...

(5) If the witnesses said "we saw it in water" or "in clouds" or "in frost", or they saw part of it in the sky and part of it in clouds or in water or frost, this isn't a sighting and we don't sanctify based on this sighting. One says "I saw it with my eyes at a height of about two floors" and the second says "at about a height of three floors", they join up [to form valid testimony]. One says "about three floors" and the second says "about five floors", they don't join up. And we do join up one of them with a second that testifies like him or with a single floor between them.

. is (a bracha) required if the comet is not visible to the naked eye but is seen through a telescope. . . . . There is some question as to whether, from the halakhic perspective, a visual phenomenon perceived through a telescope is deemed to be a veridical perception of the object itself or whether such perception is deemed to be a form of optical distortion rather than a true visual perception of the object per se. . . . . [Comparable . . is the question of whether the sanctification of the New Moon may be recited in the event that the moon is perceivable only through a telescope. Devar Shemu'el, no. 242 (cited by Be'er Heitev, Oraḥ Hayyim 426:1), declares that one who sees the moon through a telescope or glass instrument should not recite the blessing "for it is not a proper visual perception" (re'iyah gemurah). However, this view is challenged by Shevut Ya'akov, I, no. 126, and by Sha'arei Teshuvah, Oraḥ Hayyim 426:1. The latter authority declares that the sanctification of the New Moon may be recited by a person who requires the aid of eyeglasses even if he is totally unable to see the moon without glasses. Rabbi Israel, citing these sources, draws an analogy between the sanctification of the New Moon seen through a telescope and the recitation of the appropriate blessing upon the occasion of the sighting of a comet by means of a telescope and asserts that the halakhic determination should be the same in both instances. However, any conclusions with regard to the blessing upon the sighting of a comet by means of a telescope predicated upon sources pertaining to sanctification of the New Moon are specious since the rationale underlying the halakhah with regard to the sanctification of the New Moon is not applicable to the sighting of a comet. The very source cited, Sha'arei Teshuvah, indicates that the sanctification of the New Moon may be recited despite the fact that the New Moon is not visible to the naked eye because even a blind person is obligated to pronounce the sanctification and hence it is not necessary actually to "see" the moon. This is certainly not the case with regard to the recitation of a blessing upon the sighting of a comet.

[re:} obligation to rise in the presence of a Torah scholar. Halakhot Ketanot, . . rules that one must rise even if the scholar is seen through an intervening pane of glass. . However, Rabbi Israel's conclusion that there is no halakhic distinction between perception by means of the naked eye and perception by means of an optical instrument is unwarranted. The sources dealing with rising in the presence of a scholar and the recitation of the shema in the presence of nakedness speak of intervening windows or sheets of glass which in no way magnify or distort vision. Under such conditions Halakhah deems the perception to be a true one. However, on the basis of these sources, the question of whether or not the perception of an object artificially magnified by means of a glass prism is the equivalent of "seeing" remains an open question. Evidence that it is not deemed a proper visual perception may be found in the previously cited statement of Sha'arei Teshuvah. As noted, this authority rules that the viewing of a telescopically magnified moon occasions the recitation of the sanctification of the New Moon precisely because that moon need not be actually seen, as evidenced by the obligation of a blind person vis-à-vis the sanctification of the New Moon. The clear implication of Sha'arei Teshuvah's discussion is that telescopic magnification does not result in re'iyah gemurah insofar as Halakhah is concerned and accordingly no blessing would be occasioned unless the comet is seen without magnification. However, Sha'arei Teshuvah does not cite Shevut Ya'akov's discussion in its entirety. Deuteronomy 25:9 prescribes that ḥalizah must be performed "before the eyes of the judges." Shevut Ya'akov addresses himself to the question of whether or not the members of a Bet Din convened for purposes of ḥalizah must be capable of seeing the performance of this rite without benefit of eyeglasses. Shevut Ya'akov concludes that inability to see without eyeglasses does not serve to disqualify a person from serving as a member of a Bet Din for this purpose. Not mentioned by these authorities is a possible distinction between eyeglasses, which simply correct a distortion caused by a malfunction of the eye thereby restoring normal vision to the wearer, and magnification by means of a telescope or other instrument which results in a vision not perceivable under normal conditions.