Rules
Hello Rabbi:
 If there is a rule that says that the rabbis doubt the kohl, then why is there another rule that doubts the blessings to be lenient, since the blessings other than the Torah blessings and the food blessings are from the rabbis?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Some say that this is an additional rule because in every rabbinic Sfika, if you want to be strict, then for health, which is not true in the S'bal Sha'a to be strict because of the prohibition of not marrying.
What does the rabbi think about this excuse?
If so, this discussion is of no importance.
After all, everyone agrees that this is part of the rule of doubting the Rabbis (since in the blessing of food it is not applied). And everyone agrees that it is forbidden to be strict because of “tishah”. So for May Nef”m whether this is a separate rule or not?
It's true there is no NM but they said this separate rule so as not to confuse people, so that people would say to themselves "Wait a minute here is a separate rule there is something special don't forget that you are not allowed to be strict"...
Haha looks pretty weak you are right
I didn't just mean to say that it's too weak (although it really is weak. They should have worded it: doubt the blessings of the grave – not the blessing). Even if that could be true, what's the point of dwelling on it. What will you learn from the conclusion that this is a new rule?
Sorry, I didn't understand. If it's true that they said this rule so that people would take to heart that they shouldn't recite a shim and a blessing here, then fine. I (a rabbi who studies all day and knows that one shouldn't recite a blessing if there is doubt because of the tishah) don't learn anything new from the fact that there is an additional rule, but that there is an additional rule for the above reason so that people would take to heart? In short, I didn't understand the conclusion of your last answer.
I'll come back to that. I said two things:
1. It doesn't make sense, because if this is the explanation then the formulation of the rule is not successful.
2. Even if this explanation is correct, and indeed that is why Chazal formulated a separate rule, why is this discussion important to us? It has no importance. Here I did not challenge the explanation but the importance of the discussion you are conducting about it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer