14

Halacha depends on the facts of a situation. Generally, when one cannot know the exact facts, he is expected to assume that they are as usual (rov), or as they were when last checked (chazaka). When one knows the facts, can he deliberately cause himself not to know them? We seem to find contradictory rulings in various branches of halacha.

For example, one cannot take a non-kosher spoon identical to other, kosher spoons, and hide it among them (Shulchan Aruch, Yore Dea 99:6), causing himself not to know the facts.

Moreover, there are times when one must strive to ascertain the facts, which seems to be even stronger than a prohibition on causing himself to not know the facts. For example, even though "shehakol" works on any food b'diavad, one can't eat something, saying "shehakol", if he doesn't know what sort of food it is (e.g., Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 50:2): he must ascertain the facts if he can. Similarly, as DoubleAA notes in a comment, one is required (SA, Orach Chayim 8:9) to inspect tzitzis before donning their garment, so as to be sure they are kosher, again a requirement to ascertain facts.

However, I think one can hide a dairy spoon among pareve spoons, causing himself not to know the facts.

Also, someone not in her shiv'a n'kiyim should wear colored clothes so as to hide any potential spotting (SA YD 190:10), causing herself not to know the facts.

Also, I seem to recall (but cannot find) that bes din, in interviewing witnesses to the new moon, would be deliberately cursory if they knew (by calculation) the correct date, so as not to find out the witnesses were lying, again causing themselves not to know the facts.

So my question is: Are there specific parameters for when we say one can deliberately not know the facts? What is it about the first case I give, and others like it, that distinguishes it from the latter ones, and others like them?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
  • 3
    I suspect that in all of your latter cases, the deal is that a reality hasn't been created yet. There's no state of prohibition yet associated with the dairy spoon. The spotting only creates a prohibition if it's seen (I think). The new month is established by the confirmed testimony, not by the witnessing. – Isaac Moses Jul 31 '12 at 21:51
  • @IsaacMoses, sounds plausible. I wonder whether it will hold up in other cases, or is sourced. – msh210 Jul 31 '12 at 21:55
  • Just to add to Isaac's point, spotting is only temeah miderabanan. – Double AA Jul 31 '12 at 22:06
  • 1
    I think the name for this kind of case is "Efshar LeVarer". See another example here http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%97_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%97_%D7%98 – Double AA Jul 31 '12 at 22:13
  • 1
    @DoubleAA, hm, yes, there are many cases we demand inspection, such as tolaim. I guess my question is more pointed when about cases that allow someone (or don't) to deliberately obscure knowledge. I'm editing out the shehakol case. – msh210 Jul 31 '12 at 22:16
  • Isn't there some source that suggests that it's better not to investigate someone in order to discover if the person is a mamzer? That's a problem midioraita and it is a reality that already exists (issues which Isaac Moses and Double AA raise). I'm pretty sure such a source is out there somehwere, but I can't remember where and I can't remember precisely how it is applied. – Shemmy Jul 31 '12 at 22:16
  • Another example is Chodosh for those who rely on the Rama's safek. There are those nowadays who don't rely on it who investigate these things and find out when a given factory gets really new grain, and publish this information. If so, for everyone else it is now a case of Efshar LeVarer. – Double AA Jul 31 '12 at 22:18
  • I'm not sure whether my recent edit to the question (cf. my last comment, above) is an improvement or a worsening. – msh210 Jul 31 '12 at 22:20
  • I'm pretty sure: a) halachic bitul does not take place where there is no shayla like mixing a milk spoon with parve spoons. Since the only reason a question would arise is if I wanted to use the spoon for meat, I don't see why this is different than hiding it in meat spoons. Perhaps you are thinking of mevateling the taste of milk in 60x parve which is a reality bitul and one would be permitted to be mevatel because there is no immediate question involved- after the bitul, there is no taste. b) the niddah case is talking about kesamim, not yemei libun. – YDK Aug 01 '12 at 00:12
  • When it comes to orlah in chutz la-aretz, one can take what he knows to be orlah and give it to someone else who doesn't know to eat. This is a special halakhah le-moshe mi-sinai about orlah in chutz la-aretz. – wfb May 29 '13 at 03:43
  • On a small note, would it be appropriate to tag this 'shiurim'? Or not, because these questions precede the measure itself? – Zachariah Aug 27 '13 at 05:14
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/52620 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59970 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/17910 http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/53781. Thematically similar: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/34051 – msh210 Oct 11 '15 at 01:19
  • Also related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/80735 – msh210 Mar 08 '17 at 07:11
  • http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=919&st=&pgnum=52 – Double AA Jul 12 '17 at 19:12

1 Answers1

2

I don't know about the spoon, but the thing about shiv'a n'kiyim is because spotting is entirely M'derabanan. (M'deraisa hargasha or time are what count.)

And the same Rabanim who said to watch out for spotting also said to wear colors.

So shiv'a n'kiyim is not a good example of this.

But I'll give you a better example: Mamzer. In Israel someone was ruled not a mamzer because there were no witnesses to it. The mother was not believed, even though of all people she is most likely to know.

Story from the Gemara Nidah 59:b, transcribed from "Family Purity by Rabbi Fishel Jacobs"

Once a woman came before Rabbi Akiva saying she saw a stain. "Perhaps you have a cut?" he asked. "Yes," she replied, "but it healed." "Perhaps it reopened?" asked Rabbi Akiva. "Yes, perhaps it did." Rabbi Akiva pronounced her pure.

Seeing the surprised look on his students' faces he explained: "The sages decreed that finding blood stains can render a woman niddah but this legislation itself was a stringency. Therefore specific decision with the laws of staining aren't to be decided in a vein of strictness, but rather in a spirit of leniency. This is so because on a scriptural level only actual menstruation renders a woman niddah, as it says, "When a woman experiences a menstrual discharge, it being blood which emerges from her body..."

Also see Mechaber 190:18, and Niddah 58:b; and Toras Hashlomom 190:14 which talks about the suggestion to wear colored clothing.

Community
  • 1
Ariel
  • 5,159
  • 14
  • 29
  • 1
    Do you have a source for you second paragraph? – Double AA Aug 01 '12 at 02:17
  • 2
    I think that Mamzer case is actually a poor example. They are not purposefully obfuscating the situation; they just have no way of knowing. It's not like they are taking the kosher witnesses and hiding them. – Double AA Aug 01 '12 at 02:18
  • 1
    @DoubleAA I will try to find a source. – Ariel Aug 01 '12 at 03:30
  • 1
    @DoubleAA Yes, actually they are doing that. They simply refuse to let any witnesses give testimony (or refuse to find the witnesses). Wikipedia has an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamzer#Orthodox_Judaism – Ariel Aug 01 '12 at 03:30
  • 1
    @DoubleAA Added sources. – Ariel Aug 01 '12 at 04:22
  • I don't see any of the things you describe in that wikipedia article. Why would you think the mother should be believed? She is clearly an interested party and disqualified from testifying! What witnesses are they refusing to find? – Double AA Aug 01 '12 at 04:45
  • Good sources on the first point :) – Double AA Aug 01 '12 at 04:45
  • @DoubleAA When I say "Same Rabanim" I don't mean the same physical person, I mean the same authority. – Ariel Aug 01 '12 at 04:57
  • Yes I surmised as much, but you still needed to source that the colored clothes trick is as old as the gezera on ketamim. – Double AA Aug 01 '12 at 04:59
  • @DoubleAA This part: "The rabbi who performed the marriage was contacted, but Rabbi Yosef wrote that his testimony could not be accepted without the ketubah, and in any event required corroboration by a second witness. Attempts to contact the husband were abandoned after an adversarial conversation with his new, non-Jewish wife." Rabbi Yosef clearly is not actually interested in finding a witness - it could not have been that hard to find a second witness if they had wanted to. – Ariel Aug 01 '12 at 05:00
  • @DoubleAA I only have a secondary source for that (from the family purity book). I don't have Toras Hashlomom 190:14 otherwise I would look there. – Ariel Aug 01 '12 at 05:01
  • Like he said, you would still need the ketuba. (I don't know enough of the ins and outs as to why that would be, but I'll bet R Ovadia had 70000 shutim to back him up.) And I said, the sources were good ones! – Double AA Aug 01 '12 at 05:04
  • Mamzerus is a uniquely lenient Halacha in that one can (according to some Amorayim/Rshonim) hide his Mamzerus status lechatchila. – ertert3terte Jan 28 '13 at 23:11