Responsa su Deuteronomio 24:26

Ergo, if a Jew then comes and blackens it again, that would be a case of double indecision (‘doubt’)²⁰⁸See the exceelent review by Rabbi Moshe Koppel שליט"א “Resolving Uncertainty: A Unified Overview of Rabbinic Methods” [email protected], where he writes:“Roughly, if a particular prohibition holds only if both conditions A and B hold, and in fact, both A and B are in doubt, then we can assume the prohibition does not hold.” There is a doubt if it definitively needs to be black and a doubt about applying a second coating.. In my humble opinion, that resolves the understanding of the Magen Avraham. Nonetheless, practically, my inclination is to be stricter, specifically to that of the Rambam who was the first opinion quotes there in the Evehn HaEzer, that obviously the halacha is as per Rav Akhai”- this is the end-quote from my journal on the Magen Avraham.

Thus far I have addressed the aspect of proper behavior, [contending] that man ought to distance himself from this. Now I say that it is even forbidden, for anyone who engages in this must enter the forests and place themselves in great danger, in places of packs of wild animals. And the Merciful One said: “Take great care of yourselves” (Deut. 4:15). And who was a greater and more expert hunter than Esau, about who Scripture attests: “Esau was a skillful hunter…” (Genesis 25:27). Yet look at what he said about himself: “I am about to die…” (ibid. 32). And no Scripture departs from its plain meaning, which is that he endangers himself each day among packs of wild beasts. So explains Nachmanides. So then how can a Jewish man insert himself into a place of packs of wild and vicious beasts? Yet even here, if one who poor and does so for sustenance, the Torah permitted it, like any maritime trader crosses the sea—for with regard to anything that is for the needs of one’s sustenance and livelihood, there is no choice. The Torah has said [about the wages of a day laborer]: “His life depends on it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the sages said (Bava Metzia 112a): “Why did this person ascend a ramp, dangle from a tree, and place himself at risk of death? Is it not for his wages?” But one whose main intention is not for sustenance, rather, he does to the place of packs of wild animals due to his heart’s appetite, and endangers himself, violates “Take great care of yourselves.”

A owed money to B and refused to pay his debt. The Rabbis of Spiers, basing their decision on the statement of R. Nahman (B. K. 27b) that a man is permitted to take the law into his own hands, gave B permission to break into A's house and forcefully take possession of A's valuables in payment of the debt.
R. Meir wrote to the Rabbis of Spiers not to ascribe legal absurdities to R. Nahman; for such interpretation of the words of R. Nahman was not only in opposition to an explicit statement of the Mishna (B. M. 9, 13) but was even against the very words of the Pentateuch (Deut. 24,10). A person is permitted according to R. Nahman, to enter into another person's house and take away an object definitely known to be his own, but he is not permitted to touch an object belonging to the other person, unless accompanied by a law-court official.
SOURCES: Cr. 102; Pr. 950; L. 148; cf. Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 14; Beth Joseph to Hoshen Mishpat 388.

A owed money to B and refused to pay his debt. The Rabbis of Spiers, basing their decision on the statement of R. Nahman (B. K. 27b) that a man is permitted to take the law into his own hands, gave B permission to break into A's house and forcefully take possession of A's valuables in payment of the debt.
R. Meir wrote to the Rabbis of Spiers not to ascribe legal absurdities to R. Nahman; for such interpretation of the words of R. Nahman was not only in opposition to an explicit statement of the Mishna (B. M. 9, 13) but was even against the very words of the Pentateuch (Deut. 24,10). A person is permitted according to R. Nahman, to enter into another person's house and take away an object definitely known to be his own, but he is not permitted to touch an object belonging to the other person, unless accompanied by a law-court official.
SOURCES: Cr. 102; Pr. 950; L. 148; cf. Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 14; Beth Joseph to Hoshen Mishpat 388.

A owed money to B and refused to pay his debt. The Rabbis of Spiers, basing their decision on the statement of R. Nahman (B. K. 27b) that a man is permitted to take the law into his own hands, gave B permission to break into A's house and forcefully take possession of A's valuables in payment of the debt.
R. Meir wrote to the Rabbis of Spiers not to ascribe legal absurdities to R. Nahman; for such interpretation of the words of R. Nahman was not only in opposition to an explicit statement of the Mishna (B. M. 9, 13) but was even against the very words of the Pentateuch (Deut. 24,10). A person is permitted according to R. Nahman, to enter into another person's house and take away an object definitely known to be his own, but he is not permitted to touch an object belonging to the other person, unless accompanied by a law-court official.
SOURCES: Cr. 102; Pr. 950; L. 148; cf. Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 14; Beth Joseph to Hoshen Mishpat 388.