Klalei Halacha: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Safek Safeka - Tzarich Levarer
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
==Safek Safeka - Tzarich Levarer== | ==Safek Safeka - Tzarich Levarer== | ||
# Some hold that anything which is permitted with a safek safeka and can be verified with further investigation must have that done. Others disagree. The Shach concludes that if clarifying the safek safeka would involve a large loss of money one doesn't have to investigate it.<ref> Rama Y.D. 110:9 writes that one does not need to investigate anything that is permitted with a safek safeka because it is completely permitted. Shach YD 110:66 disagrees based on the Rashba. Rashba Chullin 53b s.v. ki pligi writes that whenever one can investigate a safek safeka further one must do so. He compares it to something in a mixture which is recognizable not being nullified and extends it to where it is possible to verify the facts that one should do so. Shach then shows from the Smag, Sefer Hatrumah, and Mordechai that we can be lenient and not require checking into a safek safeka. Finally he makes a compromise to requrie checking when possible and wouldn't cause a large loss of money. Pri Chadash (Klalei Safek Safeka n. 2) disagrees and hold that it isn't necessary and proves it from the Rashba in two other places and answers the Shach's proofs. Chavot Daat (Klalei Safek Safeka 35) disagrees with the Shach's proofs but concludes (Safek Safeka Bkatzara 35) that he agrees with the Shach. In one of his arguments he says that it isn't necessary to investigate a safek safeka if you can't investigate both of the sefakot. For that proposition he also cites that the Nodeh Beyehuda YD 43 s.v. omer, 57 s.v. heneh agrees. Yabia Omer YD 5:3:2 concludes like the Pri Chadash and Shaar Hamelech that it isn't necessary to verify once there is a safek safeka. He also adds that asking someone something that they might be embarrassed answering isn't necessary.</ref> | # Some hold that anything which is permitted with a safek safeka and can be verified with further investigation must have that done. Others disagree. The Shach concludes that if clarifying the safek safeka would involve a large loss of money one doesn't have to investigate it.<ref> Rama Y.D. 110:9 writes that one does not need to investigate anything that is permitted with a safek safeka because it is completely permitted. Shach YD 110:66 disagrees based on the Rashba. Rashba Chullin 53b s.v. ki pligi writes that whenever one can investigate a safek safeka further one must do so. He compares it to something in a mixture which is recognizable not being nullified and extends it to where it is possible to verify the facts that one should do so. Shach then shows from the Smag, Sefer Hatrumah, and Mordechai that we can be lenient and not require checking into a safek safeka. Finally he makes a compromise to requrie checking when possible and wouldn't cause a large loss of money. Pri Chadash (Klalei Safek Safeka n. 2) disagrees and hold that it isn't necessary and proves it from the Rashba in two other places and answers the Shach's proofs. Chavot Daat (Klalei Safek Safeka 35) disagrees with the Shach's proofs but concludes (Safek Safeka Bkatzara 35) that he agrees with the Shach. In one of his arguments he says that it isn't necessary to investigate a safek safeka if you can't investigate both of the sefakot. For that proposition he also cites that the Nodeh Beyehuda YD 43 s.v. omer, 57 s.v. heneh agrees. Yabia Omer YD 5:3:2 concludes like the Pri Chadash and Shaar Hamelech that it isn't necessary to verify once there is a safek safeka. He also adds that asking someone something that they might be embarrassed answering isn't necessary.</ref> | ||
#For example, if someone cooked in a pot and the only way to permit the food would be if the pot wasn't used within 24 hours some hold that one should investigate when it was last used and others hold it isn't necessary.<ref>Yabia Omer YD 5:3:2. He cites the Beer Sheva 30 who writes that it is necessary to figure out whether a pot was used within 24 hours and one can't just rely upon the principle that most utensils weren't used within 24 hours. His proof is Pesachim 4a. Yabia Omer disagrees based on the Pri Chadash (Safek Safeka n. 2) in his disagreement with the Shach that it isn't necessary to investigate a safek safeka and ''stam kelim einan bnei yoman'' is based on a safek safeka (Tosfot Avoda Zara 38b). To this end he cites the Radvaz 4:296 and Kneset Hagedola Hagahot Hatur 122:13 who agree with him. | #For example, if someone cooked in a pot and the only way to permit the food would be if the pot wasn't used within 24 hours some hold that one should investigate when it was last used and others hold it isn't necessary.<ref>Yabia Omer YD 5:3:2. He cites the Beer Sheva 30 who writes that it is necessary to figure out whether a pot was used within 24 hours and one can't just rely upon the principle that most utensils weren't used within 24 hours. His proof is Pesachim 4a. Yabia Omer disagrees based on the Pri Chadash (Safek Safeka n. 2) in his disagreement with the Shach that it isn't necessary to investigate a safek safeka and ''stam kelim einan bnei yoman'' is based on a safek safeka (Tosfot Avoda Zara 38b). To this end he cites the Radvaz 4:296 and Kneset Hagedola Hagahot Hatur 122:13 who agree with him.</ref> | ||
==Safek Safeka with Chezkat Isur== | ==Safek Safeka with Chezkat Isur== | ||
# Some poskim disallow a safek safeka if it contradicts a chezkat isur,<ref>Shach 110:27, Taz 110:15</ref> while others permit it.<ref>Rama 110:9, Pri Chadash safek safeka 16. See Rashba teshuva 401</ref> Everyone agrees that a safek safek safeka works even if there's a chezkat isur.<ref>Shach 110:28</ref> | # Some poskim disallow a safek safeka if it contradicts a chezkat isur,<ref>Shach 110:27, Taz 110:15</ref> while others permit it.<ref>Rama 110:9, Pri Chadash safek safeka 16. See Rashba teshuva 401</ref> Everyone agrees that a safek safek safeka works even if there's a chezkat isur.<ref>Shach 110:28</ref> | ||
==Safek Safeka Lheter against a Safek Safeka Lisur== | ==Safek Safeka Lheter against a Safek Safeka Lisur== | ||
# If there are three safekot to permit something and only two to forbid it it is still considered a safek safeka and it is permitted.<ref>Rama 96:4 since it might not be cut with a non-kosher knife and the food might not be charif and the knife was eino ben yomo. The knife being eino ben yomo itself is a safek safeka. </ref> | # If there are three safekot to permit something and only two to forbid it it is still considered a safek safeka and it is permitted.<ref>Rama 96:4 since it might not be cut with a non-kosher knife and the food might not be charif and the knife was eino ben yomo. The knife being eino ben yomo itself is a safek safeka. </ref> | ||
