New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Proposal for an explanation of established law

שו”תCategory: Talmudic studyProposal for an explanation of established law
asked 6 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
Following your last class in Ra’anana on the majority in Halacha and in general, I thought of an explanation for the fixed law (which may have been included in your words in the class):
When a person or even an animal like a mouse chooses an item of a certain type from a mixture of items, the chance that he chose an item of a certain type depends not on the relative quantity of items of that particular type but on the voter’s preference considerations. For example, if a person throws a stone at a group of people with a majority of Jews and a minority of Gentiles, the chance that he meant a Gentile and not a Jew is 50% because it is a question of intention, and his intention is unknown to us, and therefore in the absence of information we assume that he meant either a Gentile or a Jew with equal probability. In the same way, if a mouse takes a loaf from 9 matzah clusters and 1 chametz, there is a 50/50 chance of which type of loaf it will choose because it depends on its preferences, and not on the public majority or minority of matzah. Even in 9 stores, if a person entered a store and took meat from there and then forgot which store he entered, the question is where he intended to enter when he went to buy the meat, and this is a question that has two possible answers (to enter a kosher or a rabbi store) with equal probabilities, and this has nothing to do with the number of kosher or rabbi stores. But if the piece separated on its own, without any selective process being involved (for example, it fell off a transportation cart), in such a case one must go after most of the stores, because the chance that the piece will separate on its own is equal for every store. In other words, the explanation for the fixed law is what symmetry assumption is made, between the different qualities (kosher/rabbi, chametz/matza, gentile/Jewish) or between the different quantities (9 kosher/1 rabbi, 9 matza/1 chametz, 9 Jews, 1 gentile). In any case, one must exercise judgment as to what symmetry is appropriate for the case in question. For example, you gave an example of 9 blue balls and 1 red ball, what is the chance that a person will draw a red ball from the mixture, and you said that the chance is actually 50% and not 10% because it depends on the person’s preferences.
What do you think?
Best regards,


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 6 years ago
This is certainly a possible explanation, and like all explanations, it is not suitable for all cases. In the case of murder (throwing a Lego brick), the question is really about intention (or knowledge. There is disagreement about this), and then you can say as you say. But there are cases in which there is no discussion of intention but rather the probability of the act. For example, a person enters a store without knowing what it is (because he forgot that there are also junk stores), and now he is wondering which store he entered. The poskim will say that even in such a situation there is a fixed law, even though here the entry was not made with any intention. And if you say that this is not a probabilistic calculation (there is no sample space), that is the very explanation I proposed for the fixed law. But as I noted in the relevant column, it also does not fit all issues.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

שולח replied 6 years ago

See also here (it seems that Elikim brought up Oren's suggestion or at least something very close to it, although in less sharp wording)
https://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=3155006

אורן replied 6 years ago

Regarding the store case, it can be explained that the case is about a person who forgot what his intention was the moment he entered the store. But at the moment of entering he was aware that there were kosher and halal stores, and he chose to enter one of these options (meaning there is a 50% probability that he chose to enter a kosher store). After the fact, he forgot what type of store he intended to enter.

אורן replied 6 years ago

Evidence for this is from Jerusalem, where it says:
Yerushalmi Talmud (Vilna) Tractate Shekelim Chapter 7
Nine shops selling slaughtered meat and one selling depraved meat were exchanged, and he was afraid and found walking after the majority

The word "exchanged" means that at the moment of entering the shop he was aware that there were two types of shops (tarifa and kosher) and only afterwards did he forget whether he entered the kosher or taref type of shop. If this were a situation where he forgot that there were taref shops, the word "exchanged" would not belong here.

מיכי Staff replied 6 years ago

It is absolutely not necessary. The meaning is interchanged and one does not distinguish between them. This is the case in the celebration of 2:1 and several other places.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button