Klalei Halacha: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
(→Kavuah) |
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical") |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
# With respect to tefillah see tosfot brachot 2a and kehilat yakov that avid kmar is unique because of elu velu. | # With respect to tefillah see tosfot brachot 2a and kehilat yakov that avid kmar is unique because of elu velu. | ||
==Safek Safeka - Safek Eched Deoritta Safek Eched Derabbanan== | ==Safek Safeka - Safek Eched Deoritta Safek Eched Derabbanan== | ||
# Rashba Brachot 31a cites a dispute regarding something which is a | # Rashba Brachot 31a cites a dispute regarding something which is a biblically forbidden but there’s a doubt if it is forbidden and additionally another reason why it might not be a biblical prohibition but would be a rabbinic one. Do we say safek safeka in such a case? | ||
# The Gemara Pesachim 9a implies that a case where there’s a doubt if it was checked for chametz and additionally there’s a doubt if bitul chametz occurred it must be checked again. That seems to prove that it isn’t a safek safeka and is forbidden. The Rashba answers that chametz might be more serious than other prohibitions. The Tosfot HaRash Pesachim 9a answers that the case was where there was no bitul. They’re both assuming that we would apply safek safeka in such a case. | # The Gemara Pesachim 9a implies that a case where there’s a doubt if it was checked for chametz and additionally there’s a doubt if bitul chametz occurred it must be checked again. That seems to prove that it isn’t a safek safeka and is forbidden. The Rashba answers that chametz might be more serious than other prohibitions. The Tosfot HaRash Pesachim 9a answers that the case was where there was no bitul. They’re both assuming that we would apply safek safeka in such a case. | ||
# Do we follow that answer of the Rashba or Rash? Locally in Brachot 31a this question which the Rashba was discussing affects a case of food brought into the house unprocessed whether it is exempt from trumah altogether. The Gra YD 331:84 writes that we follow the strict opinion in that discussion and accordingly we’d be lenient to consider it a safek safeka. Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Derech Emunah Maaser 3:63 holds that the Rambam is lenient and if so we’d be strict about the safek safeka. | # Do we follow that answer of the Rashba or Rash? Locally in Brachot 31a this question which the Rashba was discussing affects a case of food brought into the house unprocessed whether it is exempt from trumah altogether. The Gra YD 331:84 writes that we follow the strict opinion in that discussion and accordingly we’d be lenient to consider it a safek safeka. Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Derech Emunah Maaser 3:63 holds that the Rambam is lenient and if so we’d be strict about the safek safeka. | ||
# Shach Klalei Safek Safeka YD 110:16 writes that is a safek safeka. A proof for this can be found in Rama YD 122:9 and Shach 122:8. | # Shach Klalei Safek Safeka YD 110:16 writes that is a safek safeka. A proof for this can be found in Rama YD 122:9 and Shach 122:8. | ||
# Application: Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 184 says it about if a woman isn't sure if she said birkat hamazon that she doesn't have to repeat it. | # Application: Rabbi Akiva Eiger OC 184 says it about if a woman isn't sure if she said birkat hamazon that she doesn't have to repeat it. | ||
# How it works: The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19550&st=&pgnum=33 Teshuva Mahava 234] explains that seemingly it is a safek that isn't mithapech since one safek is whether it is | # How it works: The [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19550&st=&pgnum=33 Teshuva Mahava 234] explains that seemingly it is a safek that isn't mithapech since one safek is whether it is biblical or rabbinic. Either way according to that safek it is forbidden. He explains that on a biblical level it is a safek safeka that is mithapech. | ||
==Chazaka - Tzarich Levarer== | ==Chazaka - Tzarich Levarer== | ||
