Strong and powerful

Thank you. Since you are giving it to me, the concept of possession is not necessarily “halakhic”. The question about judging an unclear reality can have implications for various fields. So why is the discussion about the form of observation a Torah study, and not a philosophical pursuit?

Because such judgment is made in Halacha. Outside Halacha, it is not certain that we will be judged in the same way.

Why would we judge such abstract things differently from the Halacha?

If the judgment was based on statistics, you would be right. But legal treatment certainly differs between different legal systems. Halacha established such treatment for various reasons (simplicity, efficiency, legal truth – as opposed to factual truth). Other legal systems may establish a different treatment, and so do outside the legal world. It is important to distinguish between not saving someone and killing them. In both cases, you caused the death of a person and could have prevented it, and still legally and Halachaically there is a big difference. This difference may depend on different legal concepts.

Hello Rabbi,
How does the Rabbi understand the “true assumption of continuity”
Ostensibly, if there is a true assumption of continuity here, we should see it statistically that the option that the assumption (supposedly) indicates will occur more often, right?

I don't understand the question. There is no real assumption of continuity here. It is a legal assumption.

That is exactly the question. If this is a legal assumption, then it is the “leadership” as you said above, what is the other possibility of a “true assumption of continuity”?

I didn't understand the question. The possibility of true continuity is as it is implied. That it is indeed statistically true. A possibility that is not true as stated.

Shalom Rabbi and sorry for the rambling,
What the Rabbi wrote to explain to those who believe that they do not follow the assumption of Dahshta because he perceives the assumption as a true assumption of continuity is to explain the opinion of the one who believes this way, but this assumption is not correct?

When I wrote a true assumption of continuity, I did not mean something statistical. The leadership is to see it as if it were the truth and not just leadership. The same is true regarding the assumption that the mother is beneficial to the daughter. Assuming that the assumption clarifies the truth, the mother is legitimate and so is the daughter. If it is leadership, then not necessarily. And even there it is clear that the assumption does not clarify. This side is to see it as if it were clarifying reality.

Thank you very much Rabbi, now I understand.
Why perceive the leadership as if it is the truth, because it gives us a more coherent perception?
(There is no contradiction between the mother and the daughter, or between the parts of an animal, because they are based on the same assumption)

This is a rule of conduct, of course. The discussion is what the conduct is: whether to treat it as if this rule also clarified the truth for us (it makes much more sense legally not to make distinctions between rules of inquiry) or not. Indeed, it is more coherent.