Oh. I thought that was what we were arguing about. I was saying that pshat is that in the future they will be able to pasken like Bais Shammai. You were saying pshat was that they will have to pasken like Bais Shammai.
I never said that.
It is definitely more than just being ‘able’ to pasken like Beis Shamai. That is not how to read pshat of ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????.
What I was arguing with you about was that Beis Shamai could hypothetically be right in every instance and the majority and halacha can still be against him.
If all you meant was they are more likely to pasken like Bais Shammai on any given question then we agree.
I’m glad you finally think at least that much. Because before, your opinion was clearly something else.
You said: “When we say Bais Shammai was not the majority, that means that the majority thought Bais Shammai was wrong!” you used that as a proof against my comment: “Actually that is not true. The Halacha was not like Beis Shamai because they were not the majority, not because they were wrong.” The indication is that you are of the opinion that Beis Shamai is wrong where the majority rules against him.
This, I refuted (besides the obvious question since when is majority opinion equivalent to truth).
A more honest and accurate expression would have been for you to say “I concede,” not “we agree.”