Podcasts about safek

What If It Is a Safek?

Yevamos 68a: Rav Shimon s Yesod about Safek Ben Teisha and Chezkas Katan

Shiur given by Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky on Hilchos Brachos. Shiur recorded in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey, NY.

Daf Yomi Chullin 23Episode 2331Babble on Talmud with Sruli RappsJoin the chat: https://chat.whatsapp.com/LMbsU3a5f4Y3b61DxFRsqfMERCH: https://www.etsy.com/shop/BabbleOnTalmudSefaria: https://www.sefaria.org.il/Chullin.23a?lang=heEmail: sruli@babbleontalmud.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/babble_on_talmudFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/p/Babble-on-Talmud-100080258961218/#dafyomi #talmud00:00 Intro  02:50 Safek birds19:17 Safek sheep29:37 Safek chometz40:09 Conclusion

Daf Yomi Chullin 9Episode 2317Babble on Talmud with Sruli RappsJoin the chat: https://chat.whatsapp.com/LMbsU3a5f4Y3b61DxFRsqfMERCH: https://www.etsy.com/shop/BabbleOnTalmudSefaria: https://www.sefaria.org.il/Chullin.9a?lang=heEmail: sruli@babbleontalmud.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/babble_on_talmudFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/p/Babble-on-Talmud-100080258961218/#dafyomi #talmud00:00 Intro 01:27 A shochet who does not know hilchos shechitah09:22 Checking the simanei shechitah afterwards20:27 Safek asur post shechitah45:49 Conclusion

Diagrams of Sugyat Nazir, Safek Tameh & Metzorah - Document for Daf 105 by Simon Wolf

Why do we rely on leniency these day when the Heter was due to שעת הדחק and we don't have a shortage of food? If the Heter is based on Safek, nowadays the Safek is verifiable and can't be relied upon If a store has information posted that it's not Yoshon - there's no Safek at all - what do people rely on? Why are people making on Stam Cholov which is maybe a Safek Derabbanan and not on this? If a person needed to eat because of פיקוח נפש and it was a question of הקל הקל תחלה should he eat Chodosh or drink Stam Cholov? People spend a lot of money and time checking vegtables for bugs which the obligation to check is Derabanan but blatantly eat Chodosh - why? Why are Chasidim so lenient - How does a story from the Baal Shem Tov uproot Halacha - even if it's true we go with halacha not stories - we can uproot all the Torah if it's controlled by stories not Halacha? Chassidim specifically love to quote Chasam Sofer "חדש אסור מן התורה" - when it comes to any slight deviance of Minhag or even culture - and חדש itself they don't care about? with Rabbi Menachem Genack – Leading poseik of the OU, Rov in Englewood – 17:35 with Rabbi Dovid Gorelik – Rabbinic Coordinator of the OU – 17:35 with Rabbi Yaakov Teichman – Head of OK Kosher – 43:43 מראי מקומות   

The period of Ben Ha'shemashot, which extends for a short while (approximately 10-13 minutes) after sunset, is regarded by Halacha as a time of "Safek" – uncertainty, as it is questionable whether this period is to be considered daytime or nighttime. This uncertainty affects many different areas of Halacha, including the date of a youngster's Bar-Misva, the day when he becomes obligated in Misvot. If a child was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, it is uncertain whether he is considered to have been born during the day, or born during the night. As the Halachic day begins in the nighttime, his birthday is uncertain. Thirteen years later, then, we are unsure which day is the day when he becomes a Bar-Misva and is obligated in Misva observance. Due to this uncertainty, he must begin strictly observing the Misvot on the first of these two days. Less obvious, however, is whether he may serve as a Hazzan in the synagogue on the first day. We would intuitively assume that since he might not be a Bar-Misva until the second day, he should not serve as Hazzan on the first day. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Oserot Yosef, asserts that the boy may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first of these two days. He notes that there is a view in the Gemara that conclusively regards Ben Ha'shemashot as daytime, and, additionally, Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171) maintained that halachic sunset occurs 72 minutes after the moment that we consider sunset. According to both these opinions, this boy becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day, thus giving us room for leniency at least during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida, and thus the Hazzan is not fulfilling any sort of obligation on behalf of the congregation. Hacham David goes even further and posits that there is a basis for leniency even during Shaharit and Minha on the first day. In conclusion, then, if a boy was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, and thus the precise date of his birthday is uncertain, he becomes obligated in Misvot on the first day, and may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first day. If he wishes to serve as Hazzan also at Shaharit and Minha on the first day, there is a basis for allowing him to do so.

The period of Ben Ha'shemashot, which extends for a short while (approximately 10-13 minutes) after sunset, is regarded by Halacha as a time of "Safek" – uncertainty, as it is questionable whether this period is to be considered daytime or nighttime. This uncertainty affects many different areas of Halacha, including the date of a youngster's Bar-Misva, the day when he becomes obligated in Misvot. If a child was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, it is uncertain whether he is considered to have been born during the day, or born during the night. As the Halachic day begins in the nighttime, his birthday is uncertain. Thirteen years later, then, we are unsure which day is the day when he becomes a Bar-Misva and is obligated in Misva observance. Due to this uncertainty, he must begin strictly observing the Misvot on the first of these two days. Less obvious, however, is whether he may serve as a Hazzan in the synagogue on the first day. We would intuitively assume that since he might not be a Bar-Misva until the second day, he should not serve as Hazzan on the first day. However, Hacham David Yosef, in Oserot Yosef, asserts that the boy may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first of these two days. He notes that there is a view in the Gemara that conclusively regards Ben Ha'shemashot as daytime, and, additionally, Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171) maintained that halachic sunset occurs 72 minutes after the moment that we consider sunset. According to both these opinions, this boy becomes a Bar-Misva on the first day, thus giving us room for leniency at least during Arbit, when there is no repetition of the Amida, and thus the Hazzan is not fulfilling any sort of obligation on behalf of the congregation. Hacham David goes even further and posits that there is a basis for leniency even during Shaharit and Minha on the first day. In conclusion, then, if a boy was born during Ben Ha'shemashot, and thus the precise date of his birthday is uncertain, he becomes obligated in Misvot on the first day, and may serve as Hazzan for Arbit on the night of the first day. If he wishes to serve as Hazzan also at Shaharit and Minha on the first day, there is a basis for allowing him to do so.

The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested that a Sepharadi who finds himself in this situation should answer by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen." This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.

The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. Given the different views on this subject, Rav Bitan suggested that a Sepharadi who finds himself in this situation should answer by reciting the verse, "Baruch Hashem Le'olam Amen Ve'amen" (Tehillim 89:53), attempting to conclude the verse just when the others respond "Amen." This way, the Sefaradi answers "Amen" but says this word as part of a verse, which is always acceptable, thus satisfying all opinions. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.

The Gemara (Berachot 48a) brings the view of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi that an Ebed – a non-Jewish servant, who is obligated in some Misvot – may be counted as the tenth men for a Minyan. The Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Ben Hillel, Germany, 13 th century) cites Rabbenu Simha as concluding on the basis of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that a woman may be counted toward a Minyan. Since non-Jewish servants are obligated in the same Misvot that women are, it follows that if a servant can be counted, then a woman may be counted, as well. The Bet Yosef observes that this also seems to have been the position of Rabbenu Tam (France, 1100-1171). However, Rabbenu Tam did not act upon this position, and this practice never became accepted. At first glance, we might have assumed that this position would affect the status of an Androginus (hermaphrodite, somebody with both male and female biological features) with respect to a Minyan. In general, the Halachic status of such a person is a Safek – one of uncertainty, and it is unknown whether to treat this individual as a male or female. Seemingly, when an Androginus is needed for a Minyan, we should apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka," which allows acting leniently when two uncertainties are at stake. There is one question whether this person should be treated as a man or a woman, and even if an Androginus is regarded as a woman, perhaps Halacha follows the view of Rabbenu Tam that a woman may be counted as a Minyan. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that Rabbenu Tam's position does not even come under consideration, and therefore we cannot apply the rule of "Sefek Sefeka" in this case. Hence, an Androginus is not counted toward a Minyan. Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is cited also as allowing counting a minor – a boy under the age of Bar-Misva – toward a Minyan. The Gemara (Berachot 47b) brings Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling that an infant cannot be counted as the third person for a Zimun, but he can be counted as the tenth person for a Minyan. Tosafot cite Rabbenu Tam as accepting this position, and ruling that a child – even an infant – can count as the tenth person for a Minyan. (This is the basis for the Bet Yosef's aforementioned theory that Rabbenu Tam likely allowed counting a woman for a Minyan, as well, as he accepted Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi's ruling.) Later Rishonim explain Rabbenu Tam's surprising ruling based on the verse from which the Sages derived the concept of a Minyan: "Ve'nikdashti Be'toch Beneh Yisrael" – "I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel" (Vayikra 22:32). Even infants are considered part of Beneh Yisrael, and thus they qualify to create the conditions in which these special portions of the Tefila may be recited. The Sefer Ha'manhig (Rabbi Abraham Ben Natan, d. 1215) brings Rabbenu Tam's ruling without making any further comments, strongly implying that he accepted this lenient position. By contrast, numerous Rishonim write that Rabbenu Tam never apply this ruling as a practical matter, and never actually permitted counting minors toward a Minyan. (This is why the Bet Yosef, as cited earlier, writes that Rabbenu Tam did not allow counting a woman toward a Minyan.) Nevertheless, there were those who maintained that when necessary, a congregation may rely on Rabbenu Tam's opinion and count a child toward a Minyan. The Orhot Haim tells that Rabbenu Shimshon decreed excommunication upon a village that, in defiance of his strict ruling, counted minors toward a Minyan, but the Orhot Haim adds that this may be done when absolutely necessary, if the town is very small and otherwise will not have a Minyan. In fact, the Orhot Haim writes, the Ra'abad wrote that this was the custom in many communities. By contrast, the Rosh (Rabbenu Asher Ben Yehiel, 1250-1327) cites Rabbenu Yishak as disputing Rabbenu Tam's position, noting that the Gemara brings Mor Zutra as disagreeing with Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi, and asserting that Halacha follows the view of Mor Zutra. The Bet Yosef lists numerous Rishonim who concurred with this stringent ruling of Rabbenu Yishak, and indeed, in the Shulhan Aruch, he writes that a minor may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if otherwise there will not be a Minyan. This is the Halacha for Sepharadim. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Cracow, d. 1572) ruled that since some Rishonim allowed counting minors toward a Minyan, this can be done when necessary. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) accepted this ruling as normative Ashkenazic practice, and thus writes that if a congregation has no other option for praying with a Minyan, they may count a boy who has yet to reach the age of Bar-Misva. Other Ashkenazic Poskim, however, disagreed. The Mishna Berura brings several Poskim who concurred with the Shulhan Aruch's stringent ruling, and disputed the Rama's leniency. Likewise, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Jerusalem, 1910-1995) ruled that a child may not be counted toward a Minyan under any circumstances, even if this means that the nine adults will stop coming to synagogue because they will assume there will not be a Minyan. The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 1269-1343) brings those who claimed that if a child holds a Humash in his hands, then he may be counted toward a Minyan. The Bet Yosef cites Rabbenu Tam as ridiculing this view, noting that holding a Humash makes no difference and has no impact upon a child's status. In any event, Halacha does not follow this opinion. If a Sepharadi finds himself together with eight other Sepharadim who want to include a minor as the tenth person for the Minyan, he should leave in order to prevent them from doing so. Since this is not allowed according to accepted Sephardic custom, it is proper to walk away so that the others do not make this mistake which will result in the recitation of Berachot in vain. If a Sepharadi is with eight other Ashkenazim who, in accordance with the Rama's ruling, wish to count a minor as the tenth person in a Minyan, it is questionable whether he should answer "Amen" to the Berachot. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one may not answer "Amen" to a Beracha which, according to his custom, is recited in vain, even if the person recites it legitimately, following his community's custom. A common example is a Sepharadi praying in an Ashkenazi Minyan on Rosh Hodesh, when Ashkenazim recite a Beracha over the recitation of Hallel but Sepharadim do not. According to Hacham Ovadia, the Sepharadi may not answer "Amen" to this Beracha. Another example is the Ashkenazic custom to recite a Beracha before placing the Tefillin Shel Rosh ("Al Misvat Tefillin"). Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Sepharadi who hears an Ashkenazi recite this blessing should not answer "Amen." According to this opinion, a Sepharadi praying with Ashkenazim who count a child toward the Minyan may not answer "Amen" to the Berachot of the Hazara (repetition of the Amida). By contrast, Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) maintained that if an Ashkenazi recites a Beracha legitimately, following Ashkenazic practice, then a Sepharadi may answer "Amen," even though this Beracha is not recited according to Sephardic custom. The Hacham Sevi (Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi, 1656-1718) addresses the question as to the status of a human being created with the Sefer Ha'yesira – a mystical book written by Abraham Abinu. This book contains secrets including the way one can create living creatures using certain Names of G-d. (Some explain on this basis how Abraham served his guests meat and butter – suggesting that the animal was created with the Sefer Ha'yesira, such that it wasn't actually an animal, and thus its meat was not Halachically-defined "Basar.") The Hacham Sevi writes that such a creature does not possess a human soul, and thus is not defined by Halacha as a Jewish person who can count toward a Minyan.

Late Night Mishmar With Rabbi Reisman: When Don't We Say "Safek D'Rabanan L'Kula"

Tempering of Wheat: Huchshar lekabel tumah (הוכשר לקבל טומאה); Tempering; Tofeach (טופח); Wetness; Safek; Pesach. See seforim by Rabbi Cohen at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.kashrushalacha.com

Shiur given by Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky on Dvar Halacha Birchas Hapairos. Shiur recorded in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey, NY.

Shiur given by Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky on Dvar Halacha Brachos. Shiur recorded in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey, NY.

Halacha allows one to recite the Birkot Ha'shahar (morning blessings) either standing or sitting. Strictly speaking, there is no preference, and one should therefore recite the Berachot in whichever position lends itself to greater Kavana (concentration). Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868), in his Kaf Ha'haim, writes that one should preferably recite the Berachot while seated, as one is generally better able to concentrate and focus while sitting. Certainly, one should not recite the Birkot Ha'shahar while walking about, or while being involved in some other activity. The Ashkenazim have the practice of reciting Birkot Ha'shahar in the synagogue. In fact, the morning prayer service in Ashkenazic synagogues begins with the Hazan reciting the morning Berachot. The advantage of this custom is that it offers the congregation the opportunity to answer "Amen" to all these Berachot. The Sadikim teach that one should endeavor to answer "Amen" ninety times over the course of the day. Just as Halacha requires reciting one hundred Berachot each day, there is a tradition that we should strive for ninety "Amen" responses every day. Some have explained that the four letters that form the word "Sadik" – Sadi, Dalet, Yod, and Kuf – have the numerical values of 90, 4, 10 and 100. These allude to the ninety daily "Amen" responses, the four recitations of Kedusha (twice in the repetitions of the Amida – in Shaharit and Minha – once before Shema, and once in U'ba Le'sion), the ten Kaddish recitations that one should hear each day, and the one hundred Berachot. One who ensures to accomplish all this each day is considered a "Sadik." The Ashkenazic practice that the Hazan recites Birkot Ha'shahar in the synagogue helps ensure that a person reaches ninety "Amen" responses over the course of the day. This does not, however, appear to be the custom among Sephardim. The Shulhan Aruch writes that one who washes Netilat Yadayim in the morning at home should not recite the Beracha of "Al Netilat Yadayim" in the synagogue, because this results in a considerable lapse of time between the Misva and the Beracha . We may infer from the Shulhan Aruch's remark that reciting Birkot Ha'shahar at home, before arriving at the synagogue, is perfectly acceptable, as the only concern arises with regard to the particular Beracha of "Al Netilat Yadayim" which must be recited at the time one washes his hands. Indeed, the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria, 1534-1572) made a point of reciting Birkot Ha'shahar in his home. This was also the opinion of the Kaf Ha'haim Sofer (Rav Yaakov Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939), and this was the practice of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Nevertheless, if one prefers reciting Birkot Ha'shahar in the synagogue, figuring that at home it would be more difficult to recite the Berachot with proper concentration, then he may certainly do so. However, as mentioned, he must recite the Beracha of "Al Netilat Yadayim" right after he washes his hands soon after waking up, and he must recite "Asher Yasar" immediately after using the restroom. Additionally, as it is preferable to recite "Elokai Neshama" immediately after the recitation of "Asher Yasar," this blessing, too, should be recited at home. It turns out, then, that even if one prefers reciting Birkot Ha'shahar in the synagogue, he will nevertheless recite the Berachot of "Al Netilat Yadayim," "Asher Yasar" and "Elokai Neshama" at home. As such, there might be a practical advantage to reciting all the Birkot Ha'shahar at home, because dividing them – reciting some at home and some in the synagogue – could cause confusion. Since several Berachot must be recited at home, it is preferably to recite the blessings all together, as otherwise one might be uncertain when he arrives at the synagogue about which Berachot he already recited and which he did not. The Shulhan Aruch rules that if a person attends an Ashkenazic synagogue, where the Hazan recites the morning Berachot aloud, and he hears and answers "Amen" to the Berachot, he may nevertheless then recite the Berachot himself, if he had not recited them previously. He is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation by listening to the Hazan's recitation. The reason is that a person does not fulfill his obligation by hearing another person's Beracha unless they both have in mind that the recitation should fulfill the listener's requirement. Meaning, both the person reciting the Beracha and the person listening to the Beracha must have this in mind, and if not, then the listener does not satisfy his obligation. (Some explain on this basis the custom to exclaim "Shamayim" before someone recites a Beracha on behalf of others, as this word is an acrostic representing the phrase "Shome'a Mashmia Yahdav Mechavnim" – the listener and the one reciting must together have intention for the Beracha to fulfill the listener's obligation.) Clearly, when the Hazan recites the morning blessings in the synagogue, he has no intention at all for those listening to fulfill their obligation, and the congregation similarly does not have this intention. Therefore, the listeners can – and should – recite Birkot Ha'shahar afterward if they hadn't already. This is similar to the common practice for the Rabbi to count the Omer aloud, with the Beracha, before the congregation counts, in order that everyone hears which day to count. Here, too, neither the Rabbi nor the congregation intends for his Beracha to fulfill their obligation, and so the congregation recites the Beracha themselves afterward. (By contrast, when Hallel is recited in the synagogue, the Hazan and the congregation should have in mind that his Beracha over the Hallel should fulfill their obligation, and the congregation should then proceed right to Hallel without reciting the Beracha.) If a person does not remember whether he recited one of the morning blessings, we apply the famous rule of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel" – that a Beracha is not recited in cases of uncertainty – and he does not recite the Beracha. Preferably, he should find somebody who has yet to recite the morning Berachot and listen to that person's recitation of the Beracha or Berachot about which he is uncertain, and answer "Amen," with the intention to fulfill his obligation if this is necessary. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) writes that a person in this situation who cannot hear the Beracha recited by someone else should recite the Beracha while omitting the words "Ata Hashem Elokenu Melech Ha'olam," and think these words in his mind, without saying them. Fascinatingly, the Ben Ish Hai discusses this Halacha by envisioning the scenario of a person who had woken up in the middle of the night for Tikkun Hasot (the prayer recited by some at halachic midnight), and, because of his fatigue, is unsure whether or not he recited all the Birkot Ha'shahar afterward. It seems that the Ben Ish Hai could not countenance a situation where somebody slept normally and, due to his mindlessness, doesn't remember whether he recited all the morning blessings. It was clear to the Ben Ish Hai that people are focused when reciting Berachot in the beginning of the day, and thus the only possible case he could imagine of a Safek (doubt) was a person who arose for Tikkun Hasot… Different opinions exist as to the final point in the day by which one must recite Birkot Ha'shahar. The Derech Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Lorberbaum of Lissa, 1760-1832) rules stringently on this matter, and maintains that one may recite the morning blessings only until the end of the fourth hour of the day – the final time by which one should recite the Amida prayer. A different opinion is taken by Rav Shlomo Kluger (1785-1869), who maintained that these Berachot may be recited until Hasot (halachic midday). However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Yehaveh Da'at, cites a large number of Poskim who ruled that Birkot Ha'shahar may be recited the entire day, until sundown. According to this view, even if somebody is unwell and got out of bed in the afternoon, he can and should still recite Birkot Ha'shahar. These Poskim include the Zera Emet (Rav Yishmael of Modena, Italy, 1723-1811), the Ma'amar Mordechi (Rav Mordechai Karmi, 1749-1825), the Ben Ish Hai (in Rav Pe'alim), and the Erech Ha'shulhan (Rav Yishak Tayeb, Tunis, 1786-1830). In light of these different opinions, the Kaf Ha'haim writes that we should follow the rule of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel," and thus if a person, for whatever reason, did not recite Birkot Ha'shahar until after the fourth hour of the day, he should not recite the blessings. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, disagrees, noting that the vast majority of Poskim allows reciting the Berachot the entire day. Those who rule otherwise are a very small minority, such that their dissenting view is not sufficient to create a situation of Safek. Hacham Ovadia also draws our attention to the practice followed by the Vilna Gaon (Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna, 1720-1797) to recite one of the morning blessings – "She'asa Li Kol Sorki" – on the night after Yom Kippur. This Beracha is recited to express gratitude over the ability to wear shoes, and so the Gaon felt that it should not be recited on Yom Kippur, when we do not wear normal shoes. On Mosa'eh Yom Kippur, however, when he put on his shoes, the Gaon recited the Beracha. According to the Gaon, then, Birkot Ha'shahar could be recited even past sundown, in the evening. Although we do not follow this opinion, it is another indication of the large consensus allowing the recitation of Birkot Ha'shahar throughout the day. Therefore, Hacham Ovadia writes, one who did not recite Birkot Ha'shahar in the morning can do so throughout the day, until sunset. Birkot Ha'shahar may be recited as early as Hasot (halachic midnight), but only if the person had gone to sleep before midnight and then woke up without intending to go back to sleep (such as those who wake up for Tikun Hasot). If a person goes to sleep after Hasot, he may not recite Birkot Ha'shahar before going to sleep. Likewise, a person who woke up after Hasot but plans to go back to sleep should not recite Birkot Ha'shahar at that point. Somebody who remains awake throughout the night should not recite Birkot Ha'shahar until daybreak (Alot Ha'shahar).

Moed Katan 4b: Safek Issur Shemita, Safek Derrabanan by a Teiku

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** If a person forgot to count the Omer at night, and also forgot during the following day, but remembered shortly after sundown, may he still count the Omer? Let us take the example of a person who forgot to count the 26th night of the Omer, and forgot also the following day, until a few minutes after sunset. It is obvious that he cannot count with a Beracha, since one does not recite the Beracha if he forgot to count at night and counts the following day. The question, however, is whether he can count the 26th day without a Beracha and then count the 27th day that night, after dark, with a Beracha, just as one would if he counted during the day before sundown. The 13.5-minute period immediately after sunset, which is called "Ben Ha'shemashot," is a time of "Safek" (uncertainty), which means that it is uncertain whether it is regarded as daytime or nighttime. The question thus becomes whether counting the Omer during this period fulfills the previous day's counting, or whether we must consider the possibility that the subsequent day has already begun, such that it is too late to count the previous day's counting. This issue is subject to a debate among the Halachic authorities. The Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), in his Birkeh Yosef, writes that in such a case one cannot continue counting with a Beracha. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, however, in his Hazon Ovadia – Hilchot Yom Tov (p. 238), disagrees, and claims that counting the Omer during "Ben Ha'shemashot" suffices to allow one to continue counting with a Beracha. He adds, however, that a person in this case must ensure throughout the remaining nights of the Omer to count after "Ben Ha'shemashot." Since he has established that he considers this period daytime, he can no longer do the nighttime counting during "Ben Ha'shemashot," as he would then be acting in a self-contradictory manner. Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer (Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939), in his Kaf Ha'haim (#83), writes that a person in this case should ensure henceforth to hear the Beracha recited from somebody else, rather than actually recite the Beracha, in order to satisfy all views. One who wishes to follow this stringency may certainly do so, but according to the strict Halacha, an individual in this case may continue counting with a Beracha, provided that he ensures to count after "Ben Ha'shemashot," as discussed. Summary: If one forgot to count the Omer at night and also during the next day, but he counted during the 13.5-minute period after sundown, he may continue counting on subsequent nights with a Beracha. He must, however, ensure from that point on to count after this 13.5-minute period, since he has established that he treats this period as daytime. One who wishes to be stringent and satisfy all views should try to hear the Beracha from somebody else for the rest of the Omer period, rather than recite the Beracha himself.

Supermarket Shopping After Pesach [Part 2]: Safek chametz she'avar alav haPesach; Mechiras chametz; Inventory turnover rate; Days on Hand; Groceries and spirits; When one may purchase chametz. See seforim by Rabbi Cohen at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.kashrushalacha.com⁠

Kovetz Shiurim 53

Halacha forbids deriving benefit from a Melacha (forbidden activity) performed on Shabbat. Thus, if a person cooked food on Shabbat in violation of Halacha, it may not be eaten. This prohibition was enacted by the Sages. As far as Torah law is concerned, food that was cooked on Shabbat is permissible for consumption; it was the Sages who enacted this provision prohibiting eating food that was prepared in violation of Shabbat. The Rabbinic origin of this prohibition yields important ramifications. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that if food was prepared on Shabbat in violation of Halacha, but there are authorities who permitted food preparation in that fashion, then the food is permissible for consumption. Even though Halacha does not follow that opinion, and forbids performing the act in question, nevertheless, if the act was done, the food may be eaten. Since the prohibition against eating food cooked on Shabbat constitutes a Rabbinic, rather than Biblical, prohibition, it does not apply in situations of Safek (Halachic uncertainty). As such, if there is some question among the Halachic authorities as to whether the food was in fact prepared in violation of Shabbat, the food may be eaten. One example of this rule is the case of food that had been half-cooked before Shabbat, a situation known in Halacha as "Ke'ma'achal Ben Derusai." According to some authorities, if a food had been half-cooked before Shabbat, one who cooks that food on Shabbat has not violated Shabbat. Since the food was already edible, at least for some people, completing the cooking process does not violate the Shabbat prohibition against cooking. However, the Shulhan Aruch does not follow this view, and rules that fully cooking this kind of food constitutes a violation of Shabbat. Therefore, if a food had not been fully cooked before Shabbat, one may not put it on the stove or on the Blech on Shabbat to complete the cooking process. Nevertheless, if a person did place half-cooked food on the Blech to finish cooking, the food is nevertheless permissible. Since there are authorities who permitted cooking food in this fashion, the food may be eaten despite the fact that it was cooked in violation of the accepted Halacha. Thus, for example, if a person is a guest at somebody's home on Shabbat, and the host mentions that the food being served had only been half-cooked before Shabbat, and it was placed on the Blech in the morning to finish cooking, he may eat the food. Even though the host acted incorrectly by placing the food on the Blech, it is nevertheless permissible. Another example is soup that was reheated on Shabbat. The Shulhan Aruch rules that one may not reheat liquid food on Shabbat, even though it had been fully cooked before Shabbat. Therefore, one may not take Kibbehamda (soup with meatballs), for example, out of the refrigerator on Shabbat morning and put it on the Blech so it can be served during lunch. Nevertheless, if somebody did place a pot of soup on the Blech on Shabbat morning, it may be eaten. The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204) held that reheating liquid food is permissible on Shabbat, because, in his view, cooking any food that has been cooked before Shabbat does not violate the prohibition of "cooking" on Shabbat. Halacha does not follow this opinion, and forbids reheating liquid food on Shabbat. Nevertheless, if one did reheat liquid food, the food may be eaten, in light of the different opinions on the subject. Hacham Ovadia (listen to audio recording for precise citation) also applies this rule to a case of raw food that one cooked during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot (twilight) on Friday afternoon. The term Ben Ha'shemashot refers to the 13.5-minute period immediately after sundown, and it is uncertain whether this period should be considered daytime or nighttime. It is therefore clearly forbidden to cook during this period, as one thereby may be violating a Torah prohibition. However, food that was cooked during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot may nevertheless be eaten. This food has the status of Safek; there is a possibility that it was cooked on Shabbat, but there is also a possibility that it was cooked before Shabbat. Therefore, this food may be eaten, since it is uncertain whether or not it had been cooked on Shabbat. It must be emphasized, however, that it is certainly forbidden to cook during Ben Ha'shemashot; this discussion refers only to a case of someone mistakenly cooked during this period, in violation of Halacha. Summary: Generally speaking, food that was cooked on Shabbat in violation of Halacha may not be eaten. There are, however, several exceptions: 1) If food was half-cooked before Shabbat, one may not put it on the fire or Blech to finish cooking on Shabbat, but if he did, the food is permissible. 2) One may not reheat soup or other liquid foods on Shabbat, but if one did reheat liquid food that had been cooked before Shabbat, it may be eaten. 3) One may not cook during Ben Ha'shemashot (the 13.5-minute period after sundown) on Friday afternoon, but food cooked during this period may be eaten.

Arlah in Vineyards: Grape growth; Arlah basics; Primary questions; Safek arlah in chutz la'aretz; Atzis she'aino nakuv; Neta revai. See seforim by Rabbi Cohen at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.kashrushalacha.com

Hilchot Tefilah part 28: Speaking between Amidah & Tachnun!!! What happens if you speak during Tachnun?! Why do we tuck in Tzitzit?! R Ovadia's leniency on Tachnun!! Chida - Safek Tachnun Lehakel!!!

Shiur given by Rabbi Bezalel Rudinsky on Dvar Halacha Yom Tov. Shiur recorded in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey, NY.

Shiur given by Rabbi Yisroel Gottlieb on Halacha Shabbos. Shiur given in Yeshivas Ohr Reuven, Monsey NY.

Safek berachot in birkot hanehenim

Halacha requires that the Hanukah candles burn for a half-hour after they are lit, and one must therefore ensure that the candles are long enough, or that there is enough oil, to sustain the flame for a half-hour. Of course, the commonly sold Hanukah candles are tall enough to burn for this amount of time, and the specially-prepared oil lamps which many people use likewise contain enough oil to burn a half-hour. But if somebody prepares his own oil lamps, he must ensure to provide enough oil to sustain the flame for at least a half-hour. If somebody has a limited amount of oil, and when he lights the candles he is unsure whether or not they will burn for a half-hour, should he light the candles, and, if so, does he recite the Berachot? Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that one should certainly light the candles in such a case, and he may even recite the Berachot over the lighting. Although we normally follow the rule of "Safek Berachot Le'hakel" – that a Beracha is not recited in situations of uncertainty – the Berachot are nevertheless recited in this instance, because two separate uncertainties exist. Besides the obvious uncertainty as to whether the candles will burn for a half-hour, there is also a different question, namely, whether this even matters. Two Rishonim – the Samag and the Hagahot Maimonoyot – were of the opinion that the Hanukah candles do not have to burn for a half-hour, and one fulfills the Misva even if the candles burn for just a moment. Although Halacha does not follow this view, it may nevertheless be taken into account and be considered a "Safek" (uncertainty). As such, we have here a situation of "Sefek Sefeka," where there are two possible reasons why one fulfills the obligation with this lighting: 1) the oil may suffice to sustain the flame for a half-hour; 2) even if the oil will not sustain the flame for a half-hour, it is nevertheless sufficient according to one view. Therefore, the Berachot may be recited. Rabbi Bitan (Hilchot Hanukah, p. 101) writes that he asked Hacham Ovadia to reconcile this ruling with his ruling in other contexts that a Beracha is not recited in situations of "Sefek Sefeka." Elsewhere, Hacham Ovadia establishes that even if there are two factors that allow for the possibility of reciting a Beracha, the Beracha is nevertheless not recited, since its validity remains uncertain. Why, then, does Hacham Ovadia allow reciting the Berachot over the Hanukah candle lighting in this situation on the basis of "Sefek Sefeka"? Hacham Ovadia explained that this situation differs because we deal with a Beracha over a Misva. When a "Sefek Sefeka" establishes that one is obligated to perform the Misva, because there are two possible reasons why it is required, then the Beracha is recited. Since the Sages required reciting a Beracha over certain Misvot, one must recite the Beracha when he performs it in situations of "Sefek Sefeka," because the Misva is considered obligatory. When Hacham Ovadia ruled that a Beracha may not be recited in situations of "Sefek Sefeka," he spoke not of Berachot recited over Misvot, but rather of other kinds of Berachot, such as Berachot over food and the like. Summary: When lighting Hanukah candles, one must ensure that the candles are tall enough, or that there is enough oil, to sustain the flame for a half-hour. If one has only a limited supply of oil and he is unsure whether it can sustain the flame for a half-hour, he nevertheless lights the candles and even recites the Berachot.

Safek issur by monetary damage. Daf Yomi Bava Kama 3. ספק איסור בממון המזיק. דף היומי בבא קמא ג --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/yisroel/support