web analytics
January 29, 2015 / 9 Shevat, 5775
 
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Does The Halacha Rewrite The Facts?

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

This week’s parshah, Parshas Metzora, discusses the halachos pertaining to a metzora (one who has tzara’as). The Torah details the process of purification, which a metzora must perform after his tzara’as has been healed. The pasuk (Vayikra 14:4) says that he must bring two live tahor birds, one that must be slaughtered and the other to be set free at the conclusion of the purification process. The Gemara, in Chullin 140a, derives from this pasuk that both birds must be kosher.

The Gemara, in Kiddushin 57b, searches for a source to confirm that the bird that is to be set free is permitted to be eaten after the process is concluded. Rava says it is a sevarah (logical). How can the Torah require that a bird that cannot be eaten be sent into the wilderness where another person may innocently find it and unknowingly eat it? Obviously, from the fact that this bird is to be set free, it must be permitted to be eaten.

The Steipler Gaon brought a proof from this Gemara to answer a fundamental question raised on the Rambam’s opinion – which we will soon address.

A man takes ma’aser from his animals by making a narrow opening in a corral and allowing the animals to exit one at a time. Every tenth animal that exits will become ma’aser. The Gemara, in Bava Metzia 6b, cites a braisa that says that safek animals may be entered into a corral in order to take ma’aser from them. The Gemara asks what the nature of their safek is. If it is that we are unsure whether they are bechoros, which are already kadosh, then how can we enter them into the corral for ma’aser purposes when the Torah says that in order to become ma’aser this must be the animal’s first kedushah (Vayikra 27:33)? (This animal may have had previous kedushah.)

The Shev Shemaisa (1:3) says that this Gemara questions the opinion of the Rambam, who opines that a safek mi’de’oraisa is permitted mi’de’oraisa (and only forbidden mi’de’rabbanan). For if a safek is permitted mi’de’oraisa, then why would an animal that is a safek bechor be a problem for ma’aser? According to the Rambam such an animal should be considered as if it is a regular animal and thus be permitted to be counted for ma’aser, the same way that we are permitted to use the animal for any other mundane purpose. The Shev Shemaisa concludes that this Gemara indicates that a safek is forbidden – even mi’de’oraisa.

The Steipler Gaon, in his sefer, Kehilas Yaakov Bava Metzia (8), suggests an answer for the Rambam. It is based on the Gemara in Kiddushin mentioned above. He says that although the Rambam says that a safek is permitted mi’de’oraisa, its original safek nevertheless remains unanswered. In other words, even if we allow a safek bechor animal to be used for mundane purposes it remains a safek bechor. There is always a chance that it was a bechor. The Rambam opines that an animal about which we are uncertain whether it is a bechor may be used for mundane purposes, even though the possibility remains that it may in fact be a bechor.

The Steipler says that we see this from the Gemara in Kiddushin, where Rava says that it is sevarah that the Torah would not command us to set free a forbidden bird (in which the finder would be unaware of its prohibition). The Steipler says that when someone finds such a bird he will surely be able to rely on the Torah’s law of rov, which dictates that this bird is a regular bird that is not forbidden. This rov should permit the finder to eat the bird. So the Steipler asks: What then is the problem of setting it free, even if it is actually forbidden, as the finder will be permitted to eat the bird by applying the halacha of rov? The Steipler says that we see from here that even when the Torah permits something that is a safek, it does not rewrite history and change the safek to one that is now permitted.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Does The Halacha Rewrite The Facts?”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Hezbollah rocket headed for Haifa in the Second Lebanon War in 2006.
Israel Won’t Go to War against Hezbollah because It Can’t Win [video]
Latest Judaism Stories
Tissot_The_Waters_Are_Divided

Leading by example must be visible, regarding where, when and how-like Nachshon entering the Red Sea

Torah-Hakehillah-121914

Rabbi Yaakov Nagen, a Ram at Yeshivat Otniel, notes that the verse is suggesting that retelling the story of the Exodus is so important that Hashem is performing ever-greater miracles specifically so that parents can tell their stories to future generations.

Parshat Bo

Before performing the 10th plague God makes a fundamental argument about the ultimate nature of justice.

Daf-Yomi-logo

Life Before The Printed Word
‘A Revi’is Of Blood’
(Yevamos 114a-b)

How is it possible that the clothing was more valuable to them than gold or silver?

Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.

M. Goldman
(Via E-mail)

“It means that the disqualification of relatives as witnesses is a procedural issue, not a question of honesty,” explained Rabbi Dayan.

Property ownership is an extremely important and fundamental right and principle according to the Torah.

The tenderest description of the husband/wife relationship is “re’im v’ahuvim/loving, kind friends”

And if a person can take steps to perform the mitzvah, he should do so (even if he won’t be held accountable for not performing it due to circumstances beyond his control).

Suddenly, she turns to me and says, “B’emet, I need to thank you, you made me excited to come back to Israel.”

Pesach is called “zikaron,” a Biblical term used describing an object eliciting a certain memory

Recouping $ and assets from Germans and Swiss for their Holocaust actions is rooted in the Exodus

Pharaoh perverted symbols of life (the Nile and midwives) into agents of death.

I think that we have to follow the approach of the Tannaim and Amoraim. They followed the latest scientific developments of their time.

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

And if a person can take steps to perform the mitzvah, he should do so (even if he won’t be held accountable for not performing it due to circumstances beyond his control).

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

The Brisker Rav suggests that the barad, in fact, only fell on people, animals, and vegetation.

Why is it necessary to perform an aveirah punishable by lashes in order to be deemed a legal rashah and be pasul l’eidus m’d’Oraisa?

Why was Yaakov not afraid that granting Yosef’s sons the status of shevatim would cause jealousy among his children?

Rav Akiva Eiger is assuming that the logic of the halacha that both the son and his mother are obligated to honor his father and therefore he must honor his fathers wishes first, is a mathematical equation.

It is clear that Tosafos maintains that only someone who lives in a house must light Chanukah candles.

But how could there have been any validity to Yosef’s allegations?

If one converts for the sole purpose of marrying a Jew the conversion is invalid.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/does-the-halacha-rewrite-the-facts/2014/04/03/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: