Q&A: Questions from Ignoramuses
Questions from Ignoramuses
Question
A. Seemingly, the moment we rule on the basis of migu, there is no longer any migu, no? After all, once we give him the power of migu, then he has a good reason to lie and make his claim, and the migu has already disappeared. No?
B. Seemingly, the question of whether a Torah-level doubt is treated stringently is itself a tangle: if there is a dispute whether the rule itself is of biblical origin or only rabbinic, then according to that very rule we should go with the biblical side. No?
Answer
A. This is an old question, and I addressed it in my booklet on migu. Briefly, this is a loop, because if you cancel the migu, it becomes valid again. In the end, there is no point in canceling the migu, because the liar can always choose to tell the truth and make the stronger claim, so you gain nothing from canceling it. By contrast, if you leave the migu in place, you gain that truthful people who fear a loss will not need to lie. See my booklet there.
B. If you have your own position on this question, then you are not in doubt. If you are in doubt, then it is indeed a Torah-level doubt and one should rule stringently. There is no tangle here.
Discussion on Answer
I didn't understand.
Regarding B: according to the view that a Torah-level doubt is treated stringently only by rabbinic law, then in the doubt itself there is no need to be stringent מצד the biblical law, and as for the rabbinic side there is no doubt.