Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,210
edits
Klalei Halacha: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Safek Derabbanan Lkula when one didn't do anything
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Safek Derabbanan Lkula when one didn't do anything== | ==Safek Derabbanan Lkula when one didn't do anything== | ||
# Mishna Lmelech<ref>Bechorot | # Mishna Lmelech<ref>Hilchot Bechorot 4:1</ref> writes that safek derabbanan lkula only applies if he did something to permit the rabbinic prohibition. However, if he did nothing (''dvar hamatiro'') and there just is a safek, it is forbidden. However, Shaar Hamelech<ref>Mikvaot (10:6:1 and 7 at the end)</ref> argues. Here are his proofs: | ||
## Gemara Brachot 21a states that if Shema is only derabbanan and there's a safek if someone said Shema he doesn't need to repeat it. That indicates that safek derabbanan lkula is applied even though it is possible that no action was taken. However, it is possible to answer for Mishna Lmelech that a rabbinic mitzvah is more lenient and this type of safek is sufficient. | ## Gemara Brachot 21a states that if Shema is only derabbanan and there's a safek if someone said Shema he doesn't need to repeat it. That indicates that safek derabbanan lkula is applied even though it is possible that no action was taken. However, it is possible to answer for Mishna Lmelech that a rabbinic mitzvah is more lenient and this type of safek is sufficient. | ||
## Taz YD 69:24 writes that if someone doesn't remember if they salted a piece of meat before cooking it, it is permitted based on safek derabbanan lkula. Knesset Hagedola (Hagahot Bet Yosef 69:31) agrees. This implies that even though it is possible that no action was taken safek derabbanan lkula applies. | ## Taz YD 69:24 writes that if someone doesn't remember if they salted a piece of meat before cooking it, it is permitted based on safek derabbanan lkula. Knesset Hagedola (Hagahot Bet Yosef 69:31) agrees. This implies that even though it is possible that no action was taken safek derabbanan lkula applies. | ||
## Gemara Pesachim 9a is clear that fruit which were untithed in the possession of a religious person who passed away and it isn't clear if the owner tithed them before he passed away are permitted. This is an application of safek derabbanan lkula even though it is possible that nothing was done to permit the prohibition. See Shaar Hamelech how he deflects this proof. | ## Gemara Pesachim 9a is clear that fruit which were untithed in the possession of a religious person who passed away and it isn't clear if the owner tithed them before he passed away are permitted. This is an application of safek derabbanan lkula even though it is possible that nothing was done to permit the prohibition. See Shaar Hamelech how he deflects this proof. | ||
## Ran and Rashba (Chullin Elu Terefot) write that food which is muchzak to be infested with bugs is forbidden even if it is cooked and perhaps the bugs dissolved. Seemingly, that indicates that safek derabbanan lkula does not apply if nothing was done to permit the prohibition. However, this can be because of the reason that safek cannot change a vaday or safek derabbanan does not apply if there's a chezkat isur. | ## Ran and Rashba (Chullin Elu Terefot) write that food which is muchzak to be infested with bugs is forbidden even if it is cooked and perhaps the bugs dissolved. Seemingly, that indicates that safek derabbanan lkula does not apply if nothing was done to permit the prohibition. However, this can be because of the reason that safek cannot change a vaday or safek derabbanan does not apply if there's a chezkat isur. | ||
## Mishna Mikvaot 2:2 establishes that according to Tana Kama safek derabbanan lkula applies to a person who is tameh midrabbanan even if there's a question he went to mikveh. Seemingly, this proves that safek derabbanan lkula applies even if it is unknown if anything was done to permit the prohibition. Mishna Lmelech answers that the case must be where the person who is tameh went to dip in the mikveh and there's a question if he dipped his body in the mikveh completely or if there was a chatzitza. This discussion is quoted by Pitchei Teshuva 201:44. | |||
## Tur OC 394:1 holds that if there's a safek if he left the eruv he may not rely on it for carrying in the chetzer. This is Mishna Lmelech's proof to his thesis. Shaar Hamelech argues that the reason for this is there's two safekot why this would be forbidden: maybe he didn't place the eruv and maybe the eruv didn't last until ben hashemashot. If there's a safek safeka against a safek derabbanan Tur might hold that this is forbidden. | |||
==Safek Safeka== | ==Safek Safeka== | ||
