I doubt we’ll find out.

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › I doubt we’ll find out.

asked 3 years ago

Hello Rabbi
2 pieces of fat and a piece of milk and he doesn’t know which one is which and he ate one of them and later it turns out that he ate the milk. For methods that initially allow him to do this, will he need to bring a sin offering?
Thanks in advance.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 3 years ago

I haven’t checked now, but as far as I understand, if a person relied on a halakhically permissible step (such as following the majority), there is no obligation to sin. In a state of doubt, dependent guilt is renewed, and then if it turns out that he has committed a sin, there is an obligation to sin. But that’s because initially there is no permission to do so. Although according to the Maimonides, this is only a rabbinical prohibition, and they have already made it difficult for him to explain how there is dependent guilt, it is clear that according to his view, it was appropriate to be careful (similar to the words of the Rashba in Shavuot 18 regarding one who comes to his wife near her period, which even if the rabbis are menstruating, they rule as an error that brings sin). With us, it is absolutely permissible to begin with. Furthermore, according to the Rashba, even a cancellation in dry is a rule of following the majority, and with a cancellation in 23, it is clear that there is no obligation to sin. According to his view, the milk is as if it were canceled with fat during the time of doubt. In other words, there is no error here for which the sin is brought. There is a real permission here.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

By the way, regarding the title. There is no doubt here, but rather a majority.

אש replied 3 years ago

Your answer is also in the way that a person asked a rabbi and it turned out that the rabbi was wrong in the halakhic law that the questioner is exempt from Qurban because he relied on a halakhic permit? And what is the ruling on the rabbi himself who relied on the permit that he mistakenly permitted? (It should be noted that the Torah required bringing a bull of the unknown even though the sinners relied on the permit of the rabbi.)

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

Regarding the bull of the unknown, this is a sacrifice that the court brings and not the individual who sinned. In the case where the majority of the public sinned following the instruction in the law, the bull is brought and in this it also absolves the individual sinners. If only the minority sinned in the law, the law is exempt, then the question arises whether the individual is obligated. Opinions differ on this in the instructions in the second chapter of the book of the Sabbath, the third chapter of the book of the Sabbath, the third chapter of the book of the Sabbath, the third chapter of the book of the Sabbath. All of this in the law. I assume that a rabbi's instruction, according to all opinions, does not absolve.
I was talking about an individual who acted according to the instructions of the law. No mistake was made.

אביב replied 3 years ago

Question (not sure if it's related to the questioner's, but it seems to me that the principle is similar) If a woman is ruled against based on witnesses or any other acceptable evidence that her husband is dead and she is permitted to marry, and the woman gets married and gives birth to sons, and after some time the court discovers that her husband is alive, are this woman's sons bastards according to Halacha?

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

clear.