Facing The Consequences
‘Uncleanness Is Retroactive!’
(Nazir 16a)
Our Daf pursues the discussion as to whether one has fulfilled certain obligations, such as offering the paschal sacrifice, in spite of contamination occurring later on that same day. The question whether the obligation, whether rabbinical (mi’deRabbanan) or biblical (de’Oraita), has been fulfilled requires further deliberation.
Pesik Reisheih – A Beheaded Chicken
The Gemara (Shabbos 41a-46b) stresses that R. Shimon’s lenient position does not apply to cases of pesik reisheih. The term pesik reisheih – lit. ‘if its head is cut off’ – is a colorful expression borrowed from the ritual slaughter of chickens. One cannot justifiably cut off a chicken’s head and then claim that there was no intent to kill it. “If its head is cut off, will it not die?” is the Gemara’s rhetorical question. The expression is used to describe the inevitable consequence of an action. One cannot use the excuse of davar she’eino mis’kaven – that it was the unintentional result of an action that might not be forbidden per se [on the Sabbath], such actions are forbidden even by R. Shimon. In the case of dragging a bench across a dirt floor, R. Shimon agrees that this is forbidden if the bench is so heavy that it will certainly create a furrow.
Similarly, R. Shimon agrees that it is forbidden to close a door or window of a room when doing so will trap an animal [that happens to be] inside. Although one may not have intended to do so, this is a pesik reisheih violation of the labor of trapping (tzad).
A Retroactive Pesik Reisheih
The intriguing question of a “retroactive pesik reisheih” has long been a point of controversy among the poskim. It is a question that requires a sound understanding of the principle of pesik reisheih: In the case of trapping an animal by closing the door to a room, would it be considered a pesik reisheih to close the door when there might not even be an animal inside? On one hand, trapping an animal is not a certain consequence of closing the door, since there might not even be an animal there. On the other hand, should an animal be inside, closing the door will certainly trap it.
Most cases of davar she’eino miskaven – the unintended result of an action – involve an uncertainty regarding the future. Will dragging the bench create a furrow? Will pouring wine on the altar extinguish the fire? Since the outcome is doubtful, such actions are permitted. In the case of a retroactive pesik reisheih there is also an uncertainty, but it is a question of ignorance regarding the present, not the future. Is there an animal in the room now?
The following example might help to illustrate this question further. If a person gently brushes against the door of a birdcage, it might or might not swing shut. In this case, the action cannot be labeled an action of “trapping” since the door might not close. However, if a person intentionally closes a door, even if he does not know whether there is an animal inside, his action is definitely an act of trapping since an animal that happens to be in that room would be trapped.
Thus, the controversy regarding davar she’eino miskaven focuses on cases in which it is unclear what consequences the action will bring about. Retroactive pesik reisheih can be considered when, due to our ignorance, the situation that creates the background to the action is uncertain. In such a case, the poskim debate whether davar she’eino miskaven is applicable, and whether retroactive pesik reisheih is included in this lenient ruling.
Checking For Flies
The Taz (Orach Chayyim 316:3) rules that if one suspects that a box might contain flies, one may nevertheless close its lid without first checking for flies. This is a case where one does not intend to trap any flies, and it is also uncertain whether there are flies in the box at all. Yet, the action of closing the box would certainly trap any flies that may be found inside. This is a case in which the action is certain but the situation is uncertain. The Taz compares this case to a davar she’eino miskaven, which is permitted.
Lighting A Fire Under A Pot
Rema (Yoreh De’ah 87:6) has a different approach. The principle of davar she’eino miskaven applies to other matters as well. Let us take, for example, the case of cooking meat with milk. Not only is it forbidden to eat meat and milk together – but also the cooking is biblically forbidden even if one does not intend to eat that food. Therefore, Rema rules that one may not light a fire under a pot belonging to a gentile without first ascertaining what is inside: the pot might contain meat and milk, and by cooking them together one would transgress the said prohibition. Similar to the case of the box with flies, the element of uncertainty here does not involve the action, since lighting a fire will definitely cook the food in the pot. The element of uncertainty is the situation. Does the pot contain meat and milk?
Rema rules that this is not a case of davar she’eino miskaven. It is a case of retroactive pesik reisheih – and it is forbidden.
