דף ט. Mishnah says אין חוששין שמא גיררה חולדה מבית לבית וממקום למקום. That means that when you're בודק חמץ, obviously you're not בודק חמץ the whole house at once. You're בודק חמץ one area, then you go to another area. When you finish בודק חמץ in one area, in the meantime the other area still has chametz. So maybe a mouse or some animal grabbed some chametz there, and when you've finished being בודק here, it brought chametz back here. So mimela you're not finished. So the Gemara says we're not afraid of that. Okay, the Gemara gives reasons, that's not important. אמאי? אין לדבר סוף. But then the Gemara explains: טעמא דלא חזינן דשקל. The reason we said we don't suspect that and that problem, because we didn't see any animal come and grab chametz and bring it. הא חזינן דשקל, but had the case been we finished being בודק, and then we see an animal take chametz and run into the place where I was בודק, then חשינן, then we would be afraid. Ah, then it comes out that we have to recheck the whole area because new chametz came in. Then בעיא בדיקה, we have to check it. The question of the Gemara is אמאי, why should we do it? נימא אכלתיה. Why don't we say that probably, maybe at least, the animal ate it up? Okay, the animal brought it in, but ate it up, so there's no more chametz left. And the Gemara proves that that's what we say. מי לא תנן, doesn't it say מדורות העכו\"ם טמאין? That if you

have a house where a goy lives in Eretz Yisrael, the house is tamei. A kohen is not allowed to walk into that house. וכמה ישהה במדור ויהא צריך בדיקה? How long does the goy have to live there in order to say that you can't walk into the house unless you search it first, and then it would be tahor, otherwise it's tamei? ארבעים יום, 40 days. That means like this: we're afraid that the goy had, there was a baby born there, and the baby died, and they buried it some place there because they weren't careful. So if the goy lived there 40 days, so we're afraid that 40 days it takes for a fetus to develop to become something that's metamei if you're מפיל, you miscarry. So after 40 days that is tamei unless you search it out, and you make sure there's nothing there. Then it says weiter, כל מקום שחולדה וחזיר יכולין להלך, but any area where a חולדה, חולדה is a weasel, or a חזיר walk around, אין צריך בדיקה, you don't have to check. Why? The reason is because we assume that even if he put in a נפל there, probably the animal ate it up. So we assume there is no נפל there, נפל means a dead fetus, and therefore it's mutar. So what do we see from here? No, no.

Rashi says that you're afraid you'll touch it. According to the others, even a goy is מטמא באהל if it's under one roof. So we're afraid you'll be in the same, I thought a dead goy is not, okay, it's alright. We don't want to get into that. Okay, I'll explain. If you touch a dead goy, you're metame like a, like a Jew. So, number one, we're afraid that maybe the kohen who'll walk in there will come in contact with the dead body, with the נפל. According to the Rabbanan, it's even מטמא באהל, that even if you're under one roof with a goyishe body, you become טמא. R'' Shimon holds that אין עכו\"ם מטמא באהל, that a goy is only metame if you touch it, but if you're under one roof, באהל, not. So according to R'' Shimon, according to Chachamim I mean, we're mamash afraid here that it might be buried there and you'll be under one roof. But even according to R'' Shimon, we're still afraid, Rashi says that you might touch it. So a kohen can't touch a dead goy? No. But, so what does the Gemara say here? Because we, many people pasken like R'' Shimon that באהל, a goy is not metame. באהל. And I've heard that a, with, that a kohen touched a dead goy, it's not a dead Jew because there's no, no, that's false. There was no קדושה though, I mean there's no, בנגיעה, בנגיעה ובמשא, a goy is metame. There's no question about that. There's no שאלה. You don't have to argue on that. You didn't buy this? You didn't buy this. Okay, but what does the Gemara say here? So we see here that in a case where there are animals, the assumption is that the animal ate it up. So how come by chametz we don't say the same thing? So

first there's one teirutz, the Gemara מחלק between meat and bread, and then the Gemara says a different teirutz. אמר רבא, Rava said, you can't compare the two cases. בשלמא התם, in the case of the מדור, we call it מדור העכו\"ם, let's refer to it, מדור העכו\"ם is the house of a goy. Over there, אימור הוה אימור לא הוה. Over there, number one, we're not even sure it was there to begin with. We don't know if there was a dead body buried. There, we suspect, so there is a safek. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. And אם תמצי לומר דהוה, and even if there was, אימר פחתוהו, say maybe they dug it up. אבל הכא, but here in the case of the chametz, what was the case? דודאי חזינן דשקלה, the case is where we saw it take. So chametz is here for sure. There is only one safek: maybe he ate it, maybe not. ומי יימר דאכלה, say who says he ate it? הוי ספק וודאי, it's a safek against a vadai, and אין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי. A safek cannot take away from a vadai. There is vadai chametz, we saw the animal bring it. There is a safek maybe the animal ate it. We don't know, so it's only one safek. But over there, it's a safek if it was there to begin with, and even if it was there, maybe they dug it up. And the Gemara goes into other cases here in the Gemara, but it's too long to explain each case, so we'll leave it as it is. Now, in this

specific case, how about crumbs? Talking about chametz moving from one place to another because of an animal, but it could move by an air conditioner inside the house? Inside the house? Yeah. Air conditioner or what? This is like, yeah, air conditioner or just movement, movement of people causes... Well, that's not common to happen, that's not... I see it with the dust bunnies moving around. Dust bunny. Chametz, talking about a loaf of bread. Could be attached to... Tiny crumb, crumbs, loaf of bread. Yeah, a loaf of bread doesn't walk. No. What if there is a certain quantity... Yeah. Slices, two slices, that's what he said. Two pieces. Huh? Two slices of bread also don't walk. Yeah. Now here in this Gemara, in this case where the Gemara makes this into safek sfeika, the Gemara says, by the case of the chametz, but in the case of the מדור עכו״ם, it's safek sfeika. Double safek, right? Safek if it was the animal, if it was a met over there, was the body ever there? Even if it was there, maybe they dug it up. Now

there are two ways bichlal to learn that case. Tosafos here says, and it says in all the other mefarshim, that this chashash, this safek if maybe it ate it is called a ספק הרגיל. ספק הרגיל means it's a very common thing to happen. We're not sure, we didn't see it happen, but it's ragil. I would probably use the English words: a regular safek is a possibility, 50-50 chance, a possibility. ספק הרגיל means it's a probability. Probably it happened. We can't say it's vadai, we're not sure it happened, but it's probable it happened. That's what Tosafot says. So there is a she'eilah, peshat in this Gemara, and let's stick to this case of the מדור עכו״ם. The reason the Gemara says that it's tahor if there is an animal if animals are around, is it מטעם ספיק ספיקא, or is it מטעם ספק הרגיל? What's the nafka mina? We know there's a din, there's a difference between one safek and a safek sfeika, a double safek. A lot of times we have such cases. We know that whenever there's a דין דאורייתא and there's a safek, safek if this and this is asur or not, what's the din? Safeka de'oraita lechumra. If there's a safek by a din of the Torah, you go lechumra. A safek by derabbanan, you go lekula. Safeka de'oraita you go lechumra. On the other hand, if it's a safek sfeika, you go lekula. If it's a double safek, then you could go lekula. So it's possible that here is the same thing, that when we say that the reason we are allowed to walk into this מדור עכו״ם if there are animals around, because there's a double safek, so it has a din of a safek sfeika. Or you could say no, it's a different case than a safek sfeika, it's a different reason. It's because the safek, the second safek, which is the safek maybe he ate it, is a probable safek. And that probable safek has the power to cancel out another safek. It can't cancel out a vadai. Even if it's a ספק הרגיל, vadai is certainly stronger than a ספק הרגיל, as great as the ספק הרגיל is, but it's still only safek. But if lechatchila is only a safek, a ספק הרגיל is able to cancel out another safek. The other safek is a regular safek? Even another ספק הרגיל, yeah. No, the other one is... this is the second. But to cancel out a vadai, but a safek, a safek it could. But according to this, it's not מטעם ספיק ספיקא, it's not because there's a din of ספיק ספיקא. Now who cares? What's the difference if you call it a din of ספיק ספיקא or others? Hachiluk would be there are many כללים when we say ספיק ספיקא. When we say a ספיק ספיקא is mutar, there are a lot of rules in Yoreh De'ah, first חלק, which you learn for semichah in סימן ק״י. There's a few pages of Shach, where he has כללים when we we say ספק ספיקא, when not. So therefore, if this case here would be the category of a ספק ספיקא, it would have to fall under all the category, all the conditions of a ספק ספיקא in order to be mutar. If we'll say it's not, if we'll say the reason why it's mutar here is because the second safek is a ספק הרגיל, it's a it's a strong safek that it could cancel out another safek, but not as because it has a din of a ספק ספיקא. According to that, it doesn't have to fall have all the conditions of ספק ספיקא. Now how is it here? Now on one hand, let's just look at Rashi. Rashi says here, the expression he uses, that since there's a ספק if it was ever there, so and even if it was there, you could say maybe it ate it, so he says, וספק אכילה יכול להוציא מידי ספק השלכה. The ספק that it ate it has the power to contradict to cancel out the ספק maybe the body was thrown there. So, Rashi seems to say it's a ספק הרגיל. On the other hand, the same Rashi in Avodah Zarah, Rashi uses the term דהוה ספק ספיקא. The Ramban in Avodah Zarah uses the term it's a ספק ספיקא. So we see it's a גדר of ספק ספיקא. The Huh? Does he mean talking about the same case? Talking about the same case. It looks like number Oh, that the two ספיקות, the ספק ספיקא means two ספיקות. Number one, was it there or not? And even if it was there, maybe it was eaten. So that's the ענין of ספק ספיקא. The It seems like this is a מחלוקת between Rambam and the Raavad, because the Rambam when he brings this din says certain cases is mutar because it's דרבנן anyway. So the Raavad says it's not true, the reason that it's mutar is because it's a ספק ספיקא. So the Raavad refers to ספק ספיקא, the Rambam it comes out it's not ספק ספיקא. But anyway, the bottom line is there are two ways to learn here whether it falls under the category of ספק ספיקא or not. And many of the other cases by chametz, which is similar to this, when we're afraid maybe it ate it, and we're saying here that so אכילה is a ספק הרגיל, we find these two ways in Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch is משמע in one place that it's because of a ספק הרגיל. It seems as if this is a מחלוקת between the Magen Avraham and Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Because there is a din in Shulchan Aruch like this:

Shulchan Aruch says that if you saw a mouse take a piece of chametz and run into a house that's בדוק No, it's a It took a piece and we don't know whether it was chametz or not chametz, and it ran into the house. So, the din is you have to be בודק, it's a ספק, you have to be בודק, maybe it brought in chametz. Comes the Rema and adds, if the piece was very small, where it's possible that he ate it up, then you don't have to be בודק. Because we have a ספק, even if he brought chametz, maybe he probably ate it up. Comes the Magen Avraham and asks a kashya. The Magen Avraham says, one of the כללים of ספק ספיקא is that when do we פסקן ספק ספיקא is mutar? If both ספיקות come at the same time. But if one ספק comes first and another ספק comes later, we don't say ספק ספיקא. Here he says that's exactly what happened. We saw the mouse grab a piece and it ran. While it's running with this piece, it's a ספק what does he have in his mouth. Then when he ran away and it went into the house, now comes a new ספק, a second, maybe he ate it, so it's not at the same time. So, how come here the Rema says that we פסקן that it's mutar, you don't have to be בודק because of ספק ספיקא? And he gives two teirutzim. One teirutz is he says, very interesting teirutz, that this happened all before Pesach, right? Where we're בודק חמץ. Chametz is not אסור yet. So the ספק has no value now. When does the ספק come up? When it's אסור. Then already the second ספק is there, so both ספיקות come at the same time. And therefore he says, if the same story would have happened in the middle of Pesach, we wouldn't say We would not say ספק ספיקא. If let's say we saw in the middle of Pesach a mouse run into the house with a piece of with a ספק חמץ, then, even though there are two ספיקות, number one is it chametz or not, number two maybe he ate it, we would say asur, and you have to go check the house. Why? Because it's not together. Then he gives another terutz, he says, very interesting also, he says when you see the mouse running with the chametz, there is no safek whether you have to be bodek. What are you going to be bodek? The mouse has the chametz in his mouth. When it runs in and you don't see it, that's when the safek comes in, do you have to be bodek? Then already we have a safek of achilah. Anyway, I'm not interested in these two terutzim, all I'm interested is in the kashya. So, his kashya was, how does the Rema say that we פסקן this safek, this is mutar because of a safek sfeika when it doesn't fall under the category, it doesn't have the conditions of safek sfeika? Comes

Rabbi Akiva Eiger in הגהות and he says, I don't understand this kashya. This is not a safek sfeika. Here the point is because achilah is a safek hargil. And therefore the reason it's mutar, because a safek hargil could take away from the safek of maybe it's chametz. And therefore, it doesn't have to have the conditions of safek sfeika. So, what do we see from here? That this seems to be a מחלוקת, פשט in such a case, that the Magen Avraham holds it's מטעם ספק ספיקא, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger holds it's not because of safek sfeika, it's because of safek hargil. Now, if we're going to say, according to this shita, that this is a regular safek sfeika, we have a problem here. There is one another condition in דיני ספק ספיקא, and that is a safek sfeika has to be a ספק ספיקא המתהפך. מתהפך means it has to be able to go both directions. Give you an example. No, here, right, there is no safek maybe it wasn't there. Give you an example. Okay. If it falls, if it has the conditions, what's wrong? The question if it doesn't. Then if it's a safek sfeika, then it wouldn't be. So the question is, so we have two opinions by this מודה רבי עקיבא, is it a safek sfeika or is it a safek hargil. Has to be a safek sfeika has to be מתהפך. מתהפך means it has to go both ways. Give you an example. Let's say you walked in the street and there was a שרץ there. If you touch a dead שרץ, you become טמא. So let's say you walk in the street, and it's a ספק. Later, later you look back, maybe I touched it, maybe I didn't. Second thing is, I don't know if this is a שרץ. Maybe it's not a שרץ, there are only eight kinds which are called שרצים which make you טמא. Maybe it's צפרדע, maybe it's a frog, which doesn't make you טמא. It's a safek sfeika. Number one, did I touch it or not? Afilu if I touched it, maybe it's a frog. You could go the other way, too. You can start it the other way: Maybe it's a frog, maybe it's a שרץ. Afilu if it's a שרץ, maybe I didn't touch it. That's called a ספק ספיקא המתהפך. The ש\"ך gives in the כללים, he says, example of safek sfeika it's not מתהפך. So the כלל example is like this: If you have a כשהוא שחט, and when you finish the שחיטה, and you looked at the knife, you saw there is a פגימה there. There was a blemish, that makes it טרפה. Now if the פגימה was there in the beginning of the שחיטה, it's חלב. If it happened after the שחיטה, it's כשר. So he says, someone writes, why shouldn't it be a safek sfeika? Number one, maybe it got the פגימה at the end of the שחיטה when it hit the bone, and not when they cut the סימנים, they cut the two סימנים, the two pipes. Afilu if you'll say it happened when it cut the סימנים, maybe it happened at the מיעוט בתרא. The דין is that when you שחט the majority of the סימנים it's already כשר. So anything that happens after that at 50% doesn't matter, because it's already כשר שחיטה. So you say like this: Huh? No, it's a double ספק. Did it happen by the bone? Did it happen by the סימנים? Afilu if it happened by the סימנים, maybe it happened by the end? Okay, but he says that could also be, but I'm just saying using it as an example. He says this safek, it's even if you learn it's a safek sfeika, it won't work backwards. What are you going to say? Did it happen by the second half, or by the first half? Afilu if it happened by the first half, maybe it happened by the bone? It doesn't work backwards! You can't You can't go back. So a safek sfeika like that doesn't work as a safek sfeika. Now let's understand, this case, the safek sfeika of our גמרא, מודה רבי עקיבא, does it work backwards? What is the safek here? Was there a נפל there, or was there not a נפל there? Afilu if there was a נפל there, maybe it ate it up? Maybe it didn't, but maybe it did. Start the other way: Maybe it ate up the נפל, maybe it didn't eat it up. Afilu if it didn't eat it up, maybe it wasn't there. So the question is, how does the Gemara call this a safek sfeika? If you learn this is not a din of a safek sfeika, it's a din of ספק הרגיל, so it doesn't have all the conditions of safek sfeika, so it doesn't matter. If you hold it's safek sfeika this is a safek sfeika, so it has to have all the conditions. So what are we going to do if this like finds ספק ספיקא המתהפך? How do they learn peshat here? So just bekitzur, to explain the whole inyan, so there is a long אריכות and I'll try to just make it short. Let's analyze the whole inyan of safek sfeika. What is the reason, why is a safek sfeika מותר? So there is a Rashba. The Rashba says safek sfeika is like rov. Rov is the majority. We know when we have a שאלה in a certain case, and say most situations this and this would be, so we say well, probably this is what happened here too. That's the din. We follow the majority of possibilities. So he says a safek sfeika is like rov. So then the first you say, what does a safek sfeika like rov mean? It's a majority of סברות. What's a safek sfeika? There's a סברא 50-50% chance סברא of how it was. Then within one of these two even in the sevara that it was no good, that itself there is a sevara. So you have 50-50, and in that 50 itself you have another 50-50, so 75-25. So it's the majority of sevarot versus the the miut, and we always follow the majority. If we say is a that this is the pshat a safek sfeika here. So another point will come out here: There is a דין, רובא וחזקה, רובא עדיף. If we have a contradiction between a chazaka that tells you one way and rov that tells you another way, which one do you follow? Let's say something that has a chazaka of being kasher, and now there is a safek. So, the din is we follow the chazaka. On the other hand, there is a safek sfeika here, I mean a rov here, the other direction. Which one is stronger? So we say, rova adif, rov is stronger. And the mefarshim explain, why is rov stronger? They say like this: because chazaka doesn't verify what happened. Chazaka means like this: it was like this before, and as long as it didn't change, we have no way of saying that it changed. Not that we say because it

used to be like that, it's a siman it's like that now, too. What's the re'aya? We just can't change it. Rov means, yeah, we assume since most cases happen, so we assume this happened. So, rov verifies what the metziut is. Chazaka does not verify. Therefore, when you have a contradiction between rov and chazaka, rov is stronger, because rov is a verification. That's what the mefarshim say. If we're going to say safek sfeika is rov, so safek sfeika verifies. So, we have a safek sfeika on one side, it verifies what what happened. As if we know, halachically at least, we know that this and this is what took place. So let's assume here, since there's a safek sfeika here, so halachically, we verified that there was no nefel here that made it tamei. As if we know for sure, because that's a safek sfeika, okay? If safek sfeika means that, that means that it's like rov, and what we say what it means is that it verifies what happens, then we have a problem. What's the problem? The problem is the Gemara in Bava Kama. The

Gemara in Bava Kama is at least an interesting Gemara. Tosafos, I believe, explains the case. There it's a case like this: שליא שיצתה מקצתה A chazakah is an established fact before. Let's say you measured a mikveh, and the mikveh had the shiur, and a few days later, you got a safek. No, not a safek, you see there is no shiur. Now, all the things you tovel'd'd in between, you don't know whether you tovel'd'd it before it became less or more. So we say, as long as you don't know, it's kasher. Not because we verified that when you tovel'd'd this keli, it definitely had a shiur, we don't know, but as long as we can't say different, we can't pasken that we can't change the din. But the rov, we say this is what happened, so we pasel. Here there's a din like this: the Gemara says that if there was Isn't a מרובה also in a way like this, then The what? The What do you call the other kind? Not safek sfeika, but sfeika derabbanan? Sfeika derabbanan. Yeah. Yeah, because that's also Not because of rov. It's in a way a majority. It's also rov-like, I mean, all those things? It is. The Gemara The Gemara That whole thing, yeah. Now, here there is a din like this. The Gemara said like this: שליא שיצתה מקצתה ביום ראשון, ומקצתה ביום שני. If a woman miscarried and all that came out was a placenta, and a little bit came out the first day and the rest came out the next day. Now, we know a klal:

אין שליא בלא ולד. If a placenta came, the halachah is there must have been a child there. There's no such thing as a placenta without a child. And therefore, there must have been a child there, and she is considered a yoledet. She's considered a woman who gave birth, and she is teme'ah. We just don't know what kind of child it was, because obviously it got dissolved someplace. It's a boy or a girl, we don't know, but she's teme'ah. And the din is a woman who gives birth is teme'ah. So, that's for sure if the placenta came out. What happens if part of the placenta came out day number one, and part of the placenta came out day number two? So the Gemara says that that the day it came out the first day, she's teme'ah yoledet. Why? Because maybe, because we know for sure that even when a מקצת שליא comes, when a little bit of placenta comes, definitely part of the child was with it. But we're still not sure, because in order to be teme'ah, the majority of the child has to come out. Now that, we're not sure. Maybe the majority came out the second day. How? Until the day that the majority comes out, she would be She's teme'ah. She has to be teme'ah. No. There's a safek. So she's teme'ah, because it's a safek, she's temeiah. And the reason she's temeiah on the first day, because that is for sure that a little bit of placenta came on the first day. There's a safek: did the rov of the placenta come on the first day, or did the mi'ut? So since there is one safek, what's the din by safek? Tamei. Comes Tosafos and says, from the Gemara we see that the only reason she's temeiah the first day is because we're sure that some of the placenta came out. What would be according to the opinion that there is a possibility for a little bit of the placenta to come out without anything. Then we would have a safek sfeika the first day. Number one, did any of the blood come out? Even if part of the blood did come out, maybe it wasn't the rov. So then she wouldn't be temeiah. That's what it comes out from the Gemara. Comes Tosafos and asks a kushya. Huh? Now, that that's that we'll see, you'll get answered based on what I'm going to say, so I'm not going to get into that. Comes Tosafos. Huh? That's backwards, but I'm not that, I'm not bringing this for that reason. Comes Tosafos fregt a kushya. The kushya is, by tumah we have a special din. ספק טומאה ברשות היחיד, טמא. ספק טומאה ברשות הרבים, טהור. If the safek by tumah

happens in a in a private domain, even if you have 10 sfeikot it's tamei. By ברשות הרבים, even one safek is tahor. So Tosafos says, \"I don't understand what the Gemara says, it makes a chiluk between one safek and two sfeikot. It depends. If it happened ברשות הרבים, then even if you have one safek she she should be tehorah. If it happened ברשות היחיד, even if you have 20 sfeikot, she should be temeiah. So what's so what's the case here?\" So Tosafos answers one word, that the Gemara is not talking about tumah, the Gemara is talking about issur. A woman who gives birth is not only tumah like she touches tumah, she's assurah to her husband. There, yeah, there she she's niddah and she's assurah to her husband. So since she's assurah to her husband, there it doesn't fall in the category of רשות היחיד, רשות הרבים. There it goes safek and one safek is tamei, two safekot is tahor, whatever the Gemara means. In other words, Tosafos is saying that this is only talking about issur. By tumah, it won't fall under the same category. So what will come out here? Come out a interesting thing here. Like what? Well, for a like a Cohen. Yeah. So we're machmir, we say the first day, if there was one safek, had there been two safekot, so the first day she would be muteret to her husband. The only reason the first day she's assurah to her husband because it's one safek. Had that been two safekot, she would have been muteret to her husband. But by tumah, it doesn't depend on one or two. So there'll come out that we will have pasken here two opposite dinim. The same situation, let's give an example. Let's say this situation happened, and there's one safek, and it happened in רשות הרבים. And she'll come and ask the Rav, \"Am I teme'ah or tehorah?\" They'll say, \"tehorah\", because it happened ברשות הרבים. Then she'll ask, \"Am I allowed to be with my husband?\" They'll say, \"No.\" The same farkert, if

there was a double safek, and it happened to be in רשות היחיד, and she'll ask, \"Am I teme'ah?\" \"Sure you're teme'ah, it's רשות היחיד.\" \"Am I muteret to my husband?\" \"Yes.\" And it's a contradiction. So you're paskening two The same case you're saying two opposite dinim. Here you're paskening that she's teme'ah, in other words you assume that the child came out, and here you're saying she's muteret to her husband, that child didn't. That's the same farkert. The emes is, we don't get this baffled. We find cases where we pasken the opposite. The best example, שני שבילין. Where the Gemara says if there are two roads, one road had tumah, that you couldn't pass by without getting tamei, and one not. One guy walked in one road, one guy walked in another road. And this guy, and this is a רשות הרבים. So one guy comes, first guy comes to beit din and says, \"I walked in one, I don't know which one I walked. In the tameidige one or not?\" Beit din will look into it and say, \"Well, it's a safek. And the roads are רשות הרבים, ספק ברשות הרבים טהור. Fine, you're tahor.\" Comes the other guy and says, \"I walked in the other road.\" \"Nu\", they'll look at him and say, \"Sure, ספק ברשות הרבים טהור.\" Even if they come together, they'll tell them both tahor. How can you tell them both tahor? If you tell this guy tahor, automatically that guy has to be tamei. If you tell that guy tahor, this guy is tamei. What do you? Ela mai, we don't care. We pasken two opposites. How can you look at it from that point of view? That's not how he meant it. That, you know what the point is, we don't believe you have. Here you can't have a whole belief, here it's a metziut. The answer is because we're dealing with two separate people. We're paskening him like this, and him like this. Here we're dealing with one person. And the same maaseh. There we're talking about two הליכות, two two people, both walked, and we're judging each one separately. Here we can't judge separately, we're judging one case. What would be if the same guy walked one way and came back the same way? He's tamei for sure. The same guy walked both ways? Yeah, he's tamei for sure. Yeah. He walked there and came back and they say you're tahor, then the other way still, okay. Yeah, yeah. He's tamei. Now, beit din would have to know that he walked both ways. No, he knows he walked both ways, and he knows for sure, and that's for sure that's not that's not a safek anymore. That's not a safek, he walked for sure by one tumah. It's like the din is by Shabbos, if somebody does a מלאכה בין השמשות Friday night, bein hashmashos is a ספק יום ספק לילה, so he doesn't get punished, because it's a safek. What happens if he does מלאכה בין השמשות Friday, and בין השמשות שבת? He's for sure one way or the other. Yeah, so he gets, that is no longer a safek. התראת ספק that we don't know what to warn him, but that's not נוגע there. Anyway, so the she'eilah is here, there we say we don't care, two opposites, but here we should care, because we're talking about the same person and and the same מציאות. And let me explain the shaila even further. One of the two cases I mentioned before is not a problem. If there was one safek, and it happened in a רשות הרבים, so what did you say, what's the two opposites? She'll be asur to her husband, and she'll be tahor. So I'll say that's not a contradiction. We don't say what happened. We don't say that when we say she's asur to her husband, we say we know for sure that there was a ולד. What we say is there was a safek. The Torah tells us how to behave by a safek. By issur, the Torah says you have to behave one way, by tumah, you have to behave the other way. Look at the other example, where there was a ספק ספיקא in רשות היחיד, where for issur we'll say she's mutar because of a ספק ספיקא, for tumah we'll say she's tamei. Now, we said before that a ספק ספיקא means that it's verifying the מציאות. The case before was one safek. ספק ספיקא means you verify the מציאות. So if we פסקן she's mutar to her husband, we verified the מציאות that there was no ולד. How can we, at the same time, say she's tamei? So, therefore, we have to say that what Tosafos says here learns the pshat in ספק ספיקא that it's not מטעם רוב, which means it's not vadai, it's not verifying. So what is the reason of ספק ספיקא? The reason of ספק ספיקא would be this: when there is a safek if something is asur, and we say we have to פסקן לחומרא, the Torah says you have to פסקן לחומרא, it's only if the safek is a strong safek. If the safek itself is weakened, then the Torah says that safek we don't we don't have to be machmir. That's the reason, not because it's a rov. And that's exactly what happens. A safek means 50/50, 50% chance, there's two sides to it. One side says if this and this happened, it's okay. On the other hand, if the other thing happened, it's not okay, and we don't know. But at least one thing is clear, that if the other side happened, it's no good. But if the case is where even if the other side happened, we're still not sure it's no good, so that safek is a weak safek. A safek like that the Torah didn't asar. That's the reason for safek sfeika. So now it comes out, and in that case we could say here also, we never contradict. Even by a safek sfeika, it's not a contradiction. If it's a safek sfeika in רשות היחיד, we say she's מותרת לבעלה, not because we know that there was there was no ולד. Why do we say she's מותרת לבעלה? Because by a safek sfeika, the Torah said pasken like this. By by איסור. By tumah, the Torah said pasken different. But the bottom line is that we have two ways of learning safek sfeika: or we learn it's because of rov, or because of of of it's a weak safek. Now, both approaches to safek sfeika, we have to understand why does a safek sfeika have to be מתהפך? And I'll try to explain this according to both ways. The basic nekudah why a safek sfeika has to be מתהפך, the לשון that's used in the acharonim is because when you start making a safek sfeika, and you start from one side, if it doesn't work the other way, then we'll stop you and ask you: Who tells you to start from that side that you'll have a safek sfeika? Start from this side and you have one safek! So you have a problem. That's the second way, according to this side, because there's an inside it's it's safek sfeika means that you what if you start there, it's a safek, you start like that Who says the Torah tells you to start there? According to the sevara of rov, then you're right, then it has to be that both sfeikot have to be together. When is it called רוב סברות? If while you think this safek, you could think that safek. And that can only be done from one side. From the other side, if you think this safek, the other safek is not connected, nothing to do. So basically, what It makes it in two separate sfeikot. If you have two separate sfeikot, it doesn't It's not a rov! What happens if you have a safek 50/50 and another safek 50/50? So what do you have? 100 to 100, which is again 50/50. If one safek is within the other, then it's 75/25, it's a rov. So if it's not If it's מתהפך, that means that they're both intertwined, that one safek each safek has the other safek in it. But if it doesn't go backwards, then each safek doesn't have the other safek in it, at least from one side. So you don't have a rov, which means, in other words, that according to the sevara of rov, why do we need it to be מתהפך? Because if it's not מתהפך, you don't have the quality of a safek sfeika to begin with! It's not a If the whole idea of safek sfeika to have רוב סברות, in order to become a safek sfeika, you have to have to be both ways. According to the second way, that's not the reason. It's a safek sfeika without it. It just I could ask you a kashya and now I have to have a terutz. I have to ask you a kashya, go the other way, you can't go the other way, I have a kashya! But not that otherwise it doesn't have the quality of a safek sfeika. What will be the difference? And that's the punchline. The difference will be, what happens in a case where you have to start one way, is it called a safek sfeika? I'll give you an example of a case where you have to start one way, and that's the case that's given.

There's a Tosafot in Ketubot דף ט' ע\"ב, the Tosafot, the Gemara there goes into the case if a person marries a woman and says, I found she's not a בתולה. And he suspects that she was מזנה in between the time of the אירוסין, when she was engaged, till now, and then she was an אשת איש, and she's אסורה to him. Now, we don't know, we don't know when it happened. So the Gemara says that by a Kohen, if the husband is a Kohen, there's only one safek. What's the safek? Was it before the אירוסין, then she's not אסורה to him. It happened before the engagement, she was a פנויה, she was a single. Or did it happen afterwards, that's all. So it's one safek, she's אסורה. If it's a ישראל, there's a double ספק. Number one, did it happen before the אירוסין or after the אירוסין? Number one, did it happen באונס, did it happen ברצון? Was she forced, or was it willingly? Because if it was done by force, she's still מותרת. By a כהן, this doesn't work, because by a כהן, even if it was done by force, she becomes אסורה. So by a כהן, it's only one ספק, by a, by a בתולה, by a ישראל, it's a double ספק. Which, by the way, here's another example of a ספק ספיקא that works both ways. You could start whichever you want. Was it באונס, was it ברצון? Even if it was ברצון, was it before? You could go the other way: was it before אירוסין, after אירוסין? Was it באונס, ברצון? Everything. Comes Tosafot and asks a קשיא, what about a case of a כהן, why isn't there a ספק ספיקא there, too? The ספק ספיקא is, I have another ספק. How do you know שבכלל there was זנות? Maybe she was a מוכת עץ? She got hurt? So you could have a double ספק. Number one, maybe she was מזנה, maybe it was מוכת עץ. Even if she was מזנה, maybe it was before the אירוסין. Huh? Why is there a ספק if he's not a כהן? No, why is there a ספק? Why is there a ספק? Why is there a ספק? So Tosafot says that it's for a כהן, even if כהן, כהנים מיוחסים, not מיוחסים, מיוחסים. But come here and say here's a real ספק. The reason she was, you don't know whether she's מוכת עץ? Huh? Yeah, because always the Yeah, she has no בתולים. Now you don't know, could be מוכת עץ or not. So here, there Tosafos asks a question: it's not מתהפך! You can't go the other way, right? You can't say this: was it באונס, was it ברצון? No, was she מזנה באונס, was she מזנה ברצון? No. Was she מזנה before the אירוסין, was she מזנה after the אירוסין? Afilu she was מזנה after the אירוסין, maybe she was a מוכת עץ? But the answer here is no here, you know what the case is: you can't start the other way! You can't start with maybe she was באונס, maybe before אירוסין, maybe after אירוסין. I'll tell you why: maybe she was what before אירוסין? Maybe she was מזנה, who says she was מזנה? So you must first start thinking, first of all, was she מזנה? Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. If she was, and the pshat, and the case is like this: in a case where you must start the other way, there is no problem that it's not מתהפך. Why? When is there a problem of מתהפך? When you could start both ways, and for some way, the other way doesn't go. Then, then there's a problem. Why? I ask you, who told you to start this way? And you have a safek sfeika, maybe you could start the other way, and it will be only one safek. But if you cannot start the other way, so you have no kashya maybe started, I can't start the other way. I must first start to think if she's a מזנה or not. But this is an answer only if you hold that safek sfeika is not from rov, safek sfeika is because it's a weak safek. So then the only problem why we need it to be מתהפך is because otherwise I, I ask you a kashya, start the other way. But if I can't ask that kashya, it's a good safek sfeika. But if I need the safek sfeika to be מתהפך because otherwise I don't have the whole concept of a safek sfeika, so even if I can't go the other way, but בפועל I don't have a מתהפך, but they don't go together. They're not intermolded, the two סברות. So if you hold this way, then if you can't start, it won't go. Our Gemara here, when the kashya I asked on the boydem of the עכו\"ם, that how could this be a safek sfeika when you can't, when when it doesn't go backwards, here is an example of a case where you can't start. Where are you going to start? You're going to start saying, maybe it ate it, maybe it didn't. Ate what? Oh, maybe there was if if there was a נבילה here, maybe it ate it. So you got to start thinking, was there a neveilah or was there not? Even if there was, maybe it ate it. So the fact that it's not מתהפך is not a problem. And that's why it fits even to those that say safek sfeika. Again, so let's go back to the beginning. If you hold that this safek, safek is not because of safek sfeika, we have no kashya to begin with. It doesn't fall under the category of safek sfeika, so it doesn't need all the conditions, so even if it's not מתהפך, it's a ספק הרגיל which takes out from a safek from from a safek. Our kashya was If, according to the shita, hold that this is a safek sfeika, like

Rashi in Avodah Zarah says it's a safek sfeika, so we had a kashya, so it has to have all the conditions of a safek sfeika, and it doesn't. It's missing the condition of מתהפך. I'm saying, according to the second sevara in safek sfeika, it doesn't have to be מתהפך. So, those shitos will hold that sevara, that safek sfeika is not ... Safek sfeika is because it's a weak safek, and therefore you only need it to be מתהפך if you're able to start both sides and you can't go on to the second safek from one way. But in a case like this where you can't start, so there is no problem with not being מתהפך, and that's why, so this fits. So, why does Rashi over here make it sound like he's not saying safek sfeika and over there he does say safek sfeika? What? That's what Rashi is doing. Obviously, some this Gemara is mashma like this, and that Gemara Rashi has a re'aya like that. That's a inyan in itself. We'd have to go into why Rashi, a setirah in Rashi. But I wasn't interested in this. This is to show that there are, yeah, that's that's that means... Right. Exactly. Well, that's more, that's probable, that's a whole inyan. So, the

second safek is a ספק הרגיל, so it doesn't have to be a safek sfeika. Just, in other words, there are cases where we don't say ספק ספיקא מותר, and ספק הרגיל would be mutar. For example, the Alter Rebbe says in... Chametz, in certain cases, that even by a ספק ספיקא it's asur, because בדיקת חמץ to begin with was established in a case of a ספק. So, whatever ספק you have, you still have to do בדיקה. But if it's a ספק הרגיל, then you don't, because a ספק הרגיל is stronger. Do they care how much how much over 50% something is? One, one piece of meat, you know, in cans, is different than one piece of meat in nine. Well, no, that's different. Then you got a bitul. You can do a bitul. Would it be a דין of a bitul? No, but this goes by majority, right? So, saying ביטול ברוב, there's an example, right? So, רוב is חד בתרי. חד בתרי, חד ב... גימ\"ל or something. Unless it's a case where it's big, let's say, and it's if it's less chance it ate it, it couldn't eat it up, it was so big. In other words, then there is no סברא of רוב. It couldn't. If you have if you have one one egg with blood and a bigger one without blood... Well, here we're talking it got mixed together, you don't know which one is the one. No, they got mixed toge... and No, so it goes by It goes by size. Then it's pashut like pieces of meat. 60 goes by size. חד בתרי doesn't go by size. Because this is not in size, number of eggs. Yeah. So, a giant egg and a little egg So, what do you mean? But you don't know which one is the egg. No, nothing to do with that. They got mixed together, so because Because you didn't You didn't see that there was blood in the You Your wife checked the egg and she Oh, you mean you cracked it in the face and then you mixed it up? Yes, and that's not חד בתרי anymore, and that was that was bitul. It's still It's not, it's not יבש ביבש anymore. חד בתרי is only by יבש ביבש. This is already לח בלח, and then it's ביטול ב... בריאה. So, which one? Then no, then it goes by size. 60 of it. They go in chicken.

Says that if a woman gives her גט to an agent to hold onto it, she's not מגורשת, and the husband didn't marry a second wife, and then he dies, why does she need חליצה? After all, an ערוה doesn't need חליצה. It says so in the Torah explicitly. If an ערוה needs חליצה, how come we don't have חליצה for an ordinary ערוה? It doesn't make any sense.