Most of the time
Sorry for the question being sent a second time only because it’s been two days+ since it was sent and the rabbi usually responds very quickly, I’m afraid it wasn’t sent due to a technical problem.
The author of the inscriptions on the subject of the DPF excuses himself on the question of SS, which in this case is unequivocal and not SS, since it is the wife of a priest who is also forbidden by rape, and all that needs to be satisfied is whether she committed adultery under him or not, but it is not explained anywhere that we attribute significance to the majority that exists here regarding the fact that she was not under him for much longer than she was under him (and even if it is not necessarily the case, the MM does not explain that there is a difference in this drawing) and apparently why is it not said that she committed adultery not under him from the majority’s judgment?
With a blessing for happy holidays
Sorry, I really missed it for some reason.
Your question is not about this case, but about the entire issue there. After all, doubt is a substitute for doubt, not a substitute for doubt. According to your view, it is not doubt but a minority versus a majority.
Whenever there are two such options, we see them as equal.
At first I thought about statistical logic. After all, there is no random process here. If we assume that the pretext is an event that occurs at a random time, then it makes sense to go after most of the time. But here it is people’s choice whether to do it and when, and therefore it makes no sense to take time into account. Kind of like what R. Shkop wrote about most of the time in money.
But then I also thought about the case of a mikveh that was kosher and is now found to be missing. What is the ruling on someone who immersed in it in between? Apparently, according to your method, we should take the time when the person was immersed and see whether it is closer to the time when it was kosher or to the current time. If it is closer to the time when it was kosher, then in order to assume that the immersion did not occur, we must assume that the mikveh was missing in the short time that has passed, but it is more likely that it happened in the long time that has passed since then until now. Note that here it is a random event (not a human decision), and yet time is not taken into account.
And perhaps where we do not have a clear measure of time and this is a matter of opinion, there we do not follow the majority. And perhaps we could say that time is as if fixed in its place (in time) and therefore we discuss it as half upon half.
The term "fixed" does not apply here, because the law of fixedness is like a half-price, it is said about the thing that is provided itself, that is, in this case there is an act of bringing and I have a certain space of time, if I place the act of bringing in it, then it will be permissible for her husband, and there is a smaller space of time, if we place the act of bringing in it, it will be forbidden to him, and oh, like a piece of meat provided that there are 9 shops around it that sell teripoh and one shop that is kosher, and is it not certain that it is said that the meat is prohibited according to the majority law, even though the shop is fixed, and it is not said half-price, and apparently here the time is like the shops
Times for joy
Not true. In the timeline there is a mixture of moments of time, and each moment of time is in a fixed manner. Our doubt is what was the moment of bringing, whether it was before the Kiddushin or after them. And this is strictly fixed, since no moment departs from its place of mixture (from the timeline).
And the urban that this is the question of Rash in place and it remains in the verse:
Da and Av. And in the verse Nami, it is forbidden to be forbidden. It is difficult to understand that in the Holin (Ez 2) there is a small number of half-blooded females. And in the same way in the Yevamot (Kit) there is a small number of half-female damsels. And above (67) in Rashi, all are males. And perhaps they were half female because of the nature and origin of the world, and therefore they were a certain half, since it suffices to distinguish between them all. But why should we not consider the wife of a priest according to the majority of the time that passed before she was engaged. As in the inscriptions found on the Temple Mount, even during the time of the pilgrimage (Shekels 7:2), they were found to be in the majority of the time. And likewise, it is difficult to distinguish between the woman Gabi and the women who wore one robe and the one who wore it for a longer time than her companions. And so it is with the Tovah. And even though the evidence from the Shekels should be rejected. The reason is that if all the hundreds of thousands of years are added together, there will be more than the hundreds of thousands of years of the tenth of a degree and the whole year. The explanation itself is straightforward, Denizel Bater, most of the time, most and most of the time, and Pesach (7):
The problem is that there are examples here that follow the majority even in the timeline, and this is not what I said. But at another glance, Delek seems to agree: In Shekels, he himself settles and in Nidah, it is really not a question of one moment of time that is mixed with the other moments, but a discussion about a woman out of the three.
Sorry, but I don't quite understand the difference between this and stores.
What is the difference between this and stores? Even in stores, there is a fixed law if the piece has not been sold but is in the store.
The difference between a Tza and stores? Even in stores, there is a fixed law if the piece has not been sold but is in the store.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
