Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,210
edits
Klalei Halacha: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Chazaka - Tzarich Levarer
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
==Chazaka - Tzarich Levarer== | ==Chazaka - Tzarich Levarer== | ||
# Something which is permitted based on the principle of chazaka should be checked to verify that it is nonetheless still the case. Some say that this is only necessary when there is a previous status of a forbidden chazaka.<ref>The Rashba Chullin 10b establishes that when if something is permitted based on a previous status which established a chazaka if it can be verified it should be. For example, if a shochet's knife was previously knife it should nonetheless be checked before being used. | # Something which is permitted based on the principle of chazaka should be checked to verify that it is nonetheless still the case. Some say that this is only necessary when there is a previous status of a forbidden chazaka.<ref>The Rashba Chullin 10b establishes that when if something is permitted based on a previous status which established a chazaka if it can be verified it should be. For example, if a shochet's knife was previously knife it should nonetheless be checked before being used. | ||
* The Shulchan Aruch O.C. 8:9 states that one should check his tzitzit before reciting a bracha upon it each morning even though there is a chazaka that it was kosher the previous day. Magen Avraham 8:11 compares this to YD 1 where it is necessary to check into the status of the shochet even though there's a majority that are experts. Dagul Mirvava (on Magen Avraham 8:11) notes that the Magen Avraham seems to be in contradiction his ruling in Magen Avraham 437:4 that it is only necessary to further investigate if there was a chazaka of something prohibited. Nodeh Beyehuda OC 2:1 also notes this contradiction. In Hilchot [[Niddah]], Dagul Mirvava on Shach YD 187:19 proves that this is also the position of the Shach. Generally, the Magen Avraham and Shach's position is also that of the Bet Yosef OC 437:2 as the Magen Avraham notes. However, Chatom Sofer answers the Nodeh Beyehuda's question by saying that a chazaka does need verification always, whereas a rov doesn't unless it is going against a chazaka of something previously prohibited. Even though a majority is greater than a previous chazaka it is only slightly better and still needs to be verified. When there is no previous chazaka of something prohibited the majority doesn't need any verification. However, a chazaka is intrinsically weaker and as long as there's some concern something could have changed it always needs to be verified. Even Haazel Chametz Umatza 2:17 agrees. The Bach 437:2 argues with the Bet Yosef and differentiates between whether the permitted status is established with an action or a natural phenomenon. If it is based on an action then it needs to be verified since it is subject to error, however, if it is a naturally occurring process it doesn't need to be verified. See Meor Yisrael Pesachim 4a s.v. lmay who compares the argument of the Bach to Bechorot 20a. See Yabia Omer EH 7:1:2. | *The Shulchan Aruch O.C. 8:9 states that one should check his tzitzit before reciting a bracha upon it each morning even though there is a chazaka that it was kosher the previous day. Magen Avraham 8:11 compares this to YD 1 where it is necessary to check into the status of the shochet even though there's a majority that are experts. Dagul Mirvava (on Magen Avraham 8:11) notes that the Magen Avraham seems to be in contradiction his ruling in Magen Avraham 437:4 that it is only necessary to further investigate if there was a chazaka of something prohibited. Nodeh Beyehuda OC 2:1 also notes this contradiction. In Hilchot [[Niddah]], Dagul Mirvava on Shach YD 187:19 proves that this is also the position of the Shach. Generally, the Magen Avraham and Shach's position is also that of the Bet Yosef OC 437:2 as the Magen Avraham notes. However, Chatom Sofer answers the Nodeh Beyehuda's question by saying that a chazaka does need verification always, whereas a rov doesn't unless it is going against a chazaka of something previously prohibited. Even though a majority is greater than a previous chazaka it is only slightly better and still needs to be verified. When there is no previous chazaka of something prohibited the majority doesn't need any verification. However, a chazaka is intrinsically weaker and as long as there's some concern something could have changed it always needs to be verified. Even Haazel (Chametz Umatza 2:17) agrees. The Bach 437:2 argues with the Bet Yosef and differentiates between whether the permitted status is established with an action or a natural phenomenon. If it is based on an action then it needs to be verified since it is subject to error, however, if it is a naturally occurring process it doesn't need to be verified. See Meor Yisrael Pesachim 4a s.v. lmay who compares the argument of the Bach to Bechorot 20a. See Yabia Omer EH 7:1:2. | ||
* An alternate approach is taken by the Gra (on OC 8:9). He addresses the issue by stating it depends on whether there is a ''miyut hamatzuy''. In the case of Pesachim 4a there is a ''miyut hamatzuy'' of people who don't do [[bedikat chametz]] and as such it needs verification. The same is true of checking whether the shochet was an expert or whether the [[tzitzit]] strings broke. However, the other terefot besides the lungs don't need to be verified since there isn't a ''miyut hamatzuy'' of terefot. Chatom Sofer (on Magen Avraham 437:4) agrees. This is almost explicitly also the approach of the Ran Chullin 3b s.v. vheycha. See further the Ritva Pesachim 4a. | *An alternate approach is taken by the Gra (on OC 8:9). He addresses the issue by stating it depends on whether there is a ''miyut hamatzuy''. In the case of Pesachim 4a there is a ''miyut hamatzuy'' of people who don't do [[bedikat chametz]] and as such it needs verification. The same is true of checking whether the shochet was an expert or whether the [[tzitzit]] strings broke. However, the other terefot besides the lungs don't need to be verified since there isn't a ''miyut hamatzuy'' of terefot. Chatom Sofer (on Magen Avraham 437:4) agrees. This is almost explicitly also the approach of the Ran Chullin 3b s.v. vheycha. See further the Ritva Pesachim 4a. | ||
* See also Avnei Nezer YD 1 for a novel explanation as to why the Gemara Pesachim 4a uniquely requires verification. Finally, note that the Rambam Chametz Umatzah 2:17 entirely omits the Gemara Pesachim 4a's requirement for verification. Pri Megadim E"A 437:4 supposes that the Rambam held like the Bach 437:2's reading of the gemara that it is never necessary to verify something established with a majority. </ref> | *See also Avnei Nezer YD 1 for a novel explanation as to why the Gemara Pesachim 4a uniquely requires verification. Finally, note that the Rambam Chametz Umatzah 2:17 entirely omits the Gemara Pesachim 4a's requirement for verification. Pri Megadim E"A 437:4 supposes that the Rambam held like the Bach 437:2's reading of the gemara that it is never necessary to verify something established with a majority. | ||
*Ran (Respona 66) writes that it is a good thing to check the mikveh that it has 40 seah before using it even though the chazaka is that it is kosher and it isn't known to change over time. Ran compares this with checking the house if it had bedikat chametz. This clearly indicates that it is necessary to check something established by a chazaka. Shulchan Aruch YD 201:65 codifies this. This seems to be against Bet Yosef and Magen Avraham 437 but can be explained by Chatom Sofer that something with a chezkat heter needs a birur. Gra 201:115 follows his position to explain that it is only necessary to check if there's a miyut hamatzuy of there being an issue.</ref> | |||
==Safek Safeka - Tzarich Levarer== | ==Safek Safeka - Tzarich Levarer== | ||
