yekke2 –
Isn’t one of the fundemental differences between ??? and ???? that ??? is a ????? and ???? is a ??? (many ??????? speak about it; I know at least the ???? ???? uses this to explain why ???? ????? ???? ????)?
It is true that rov is a birur and chazakah is not. But at the end of the day, rov and chazakah both work the same way. I’ll explain.
If you are holding three pieces of meat, two kosher and one non-kosher, and I pick one, it is probable that I picked the kosher one. That is very logical. This is what we mean by rov being a birur.
If yesterday my animal didn’t have a hole in its lung, it may have one today. Assuming things stay the way they are is not really a logical premise as much as it is a practical way to live. Meaning, it makes sense for us to establish a rule called “the assumption of status quo” because otherwise we’d be going crazy wondering which way to turn, but when it boils down to logic, the status quo is not actually any more likely than anything else. This is what we mean by chazakah not being a birur.
Even though rov tells us what is probable, there is still the chance that the less probable outcome occurred. In the above case the chance is 33%, which is quite significant. Who says that we have the right to disregard the other possibilities? Or as one might say in Aramaic, ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? The fact that it’s a birur doesn’t answer the question; birur just explains what rov is, it doesn’t say why we follow the rov.
The question is equally strong if not stronger when it comes to chazakah; ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????
The answer, without getting into details, is that the Torah tells us to follow the rov and to follow the chazakah. The Torah says that when there’s a majority to one side, don’t worry about the minority. It’s not your concern. Similarly, when there’s a chazakah, don’t worry about other possibilities. You can assume things didn’t change, because the Torah put its stamp of approval on chazakah.
In other words, at the end of the day the reason we follow both rov and chazakah is because of the din, not because of the birur. If it were the birur factor alone it wouldn’t suffice, because who says we don’t have to consider the minority?
When rov is pitted against chazakah we can still judge which is more likely and come up with a winner: rov, but the bottom line is the mechanism we use when we follow both rov and chazakah is not a likelihood or a probability; it’s a din.
If there is a ??? of ???? ??? ??? by ???????, then why do you need 1/60, 1/100 and all the different ????? of ?????, as long as there is a majority you can say “I am taking from the ???”?
Good question. You know who asks this? The rishonim! The Ra’avad, the Rashba! Seriously, you seem like a ba’al kishron (that’s an honest compliment), but you’re learning backwards. It’s not your fault, the whole system is messed up. You don’t learn sfeikos by learning R’ Shimon, you learn it by learning the Gemara with the rishonim. After all that’s how R’ Shimon himself did it too…
Anyway. The Ra’avad answers that ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????, ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????, ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???’, ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??, ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??, ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??. He is quoted by the Rashba in Chulin 99b ?”? ???.
The idea is that something which is nikar is obviously not batel b’rov. The fact that you can still taste it makes it considered nikar (to some mid’rabbanan and to some mid’oraisa). The same concept applies when the thing mixed in has a certain level of chashivus. This is where the halachos of 1/60 et al come from.
I don’t know whether bichlal it is shyich bittul here because there is no “issur” and “heter”, this is like ???? ????? which is a ?????? between the ????? ????? ??? ?”? and the ?? (I’m not sure exactly where, I think it is in ??”?).
The Ran you are looking for is in Nedarim 52a. If you’ll notice the oilam has discussed it here:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/fish-and-meat/page/2#post-334691
Here you are making a good point. This should l’chorah qualify as heter b’heter in the Ran’s book. I hear. Efsher.
If you are saying that there is no ??? of ???? by ????? ????
I am not saying that; I am saying that bitul always comes into effect only because it has already passed the kavua test; i.e. there is nothing nikar about the minority that distinguishes it from the majority. That is the kavua test, and since the matzos pass that test, there will be bitul, and you won’t have to worry about kavua.