Permanent law

Further clarifying the matter of “fixed”,
In the inscriptions of the 15th:

They follow the majority of the city and it is that there is a majority of the city, and there is no one who follows the majority of the city, and not My understanding is that a prohibition that is permanent cannot be repealed (because of its importance), so what does it help me that the permission, which is the majority, is not permanent (mobile), since the prohibition (which is the minority that needs to be repealed) is still fixed in place?

I didn't understand why the minority that needs to be abolished is permanent here. But I guess it doesn't matter because I don't think permanent law is related to importance.

You wrote:
“I didn't understand why the minority that needs to be canceled is permanent here”.

But it is explained there: “It is not necessary, I will not go to him, I will go to him permanently”, the woman goes to the fire, and he is permanent. That is why we fear that he is forbidden (meaning from those who disqualify a woman from the priesthood).

What emerges from the words in any case is that a permanent prohibition is canceled by the majority of permitted things that are not permanent. And this is a novelty for me, no matter how we explain the matter of permanent. No?

And what do you think is the explanation of “permanent”?

I don't understand. When the woman goes to the city, both the majority and the minority are fixed. And when she goes to the faction (and there is only a faction - such as instead of carriages), then both the minority and the majority are mobile.

“We follow the majority of the city and it is a majority of the faction in the Hada”: the meaning is that she went to the fire, and we do not know whether he is from the city (and then he is permanent) or from the faction.
In the case where there are two majorities at the same time, we say, the majority of the city will not be able to save us, but the majority of the faction will. Then we permit her.
That is, there is a permanent prohibition, and opposite it are 2 majorities, one that contains many permanent excesses and one that contains many mobile excesses, and we use them (both majorities together – from the rabbis) to permit the woman.
And the question is, how can a majority of mobile excesses cancel a permanent prohibition?

The prohibition is not permanent, but at most a permanent doubt (perhaps she went to someone in the faction's carriages).
To remind you, your question dealt with the case of a faction majority only, but neither there nor here is a permanent minority.
And I also remind you that this entire discussion is based on your assumption that law determines its basis in the importance of the permanent thing, and in my opinion this is not true, and therefore even if you were right that there is a permanent minority here, the discussion is irrelevant.

You wrote: “The prohibition is not permanent, but at most a permanent doubt”. This is not accurate. There are differences in versions and interpretations in the Gemara, but simply according to Rashi, there is a basic case in which it is known that ”then it is not for him”, and because of this case they also ruled in other ways (that it is not for him, or it is not known who went to whom). In this basic way there is a permanent minority, because there is one of the people of the city who is prohibited from priesthood, and he is permanently in his house.

– The sages made it worse in every way, and required “ruby-tokens”, because ruby-tokens were also useful in the basic case (in which there is a “certainly certain” as above, and not a “certain doubt”), and because of this case they made it worse so that there would always be “ruby-tokens”.

I did not understand the rest of your words.

I am willing to give up the explanation I put forward for the fixed law. But I still ask for an explanation of the law and the division:
Why in the basic way (if not, it is certainly certain), ruby-tokens are useful, how are all the rubies in the world useful in canceling the fixed.

Now I found in the reply to the Shema (d’ 2”c) the following, and it seems that he is asking my question:
“But I do not know, since the essence of the decree is a fixed one, and we were to say that the decree is not a fixed one, and it is not a fixed one, but a fixed one, so what is the reason for the majority of those passing through the city, since it is a fixed one within the city, and if it is not a fixed one, then it is a fixed one, and the majority of those passing through the city are kosher, since there is a fixed minority of those who are not kosher in the city, and it is a fixed one, even against the majority of those passing through the city”.
The Sh”sh is long, and I did not have time to go through and understand everything, but it seems that he remains with this conclusion, that if indeed we know that it went to him, my arguments will not be of any use.

I really don't understand. Indeed, the basic case is a situation in which there is a mobile faction and a stationary city, and the woman went to the fire. But still, the real fire to which the woman went could be from the city or from the faction, and therefore it is only a constant doubt. If the fire was from the faction, then even if the woman went to him, it is not constant. Do you think that if the woman went to the fire from the faction, the fire is considered constant because the woman went to him? Why assume that? The whole issue says the opposite.

I didn't assume that if she went to the fireman from the faction, it was a permanent thing. I assumed something else:

I assumed that if she went to his house (- “azla ihi”, and not “azal ihu”), then of course the fireman is from the city, because the faction roams the streets and markets, in houses where only locals live. So there is a “definitely permanent” here.

And I understood that because of this serious basic case, they made it worse that there would always be rifle bullets, because rifle bullets would be useful even in such an extreme case.

Do you understand differently?

Obviously the other way around. She went to the fireman, but it is not known whether the fireman was from the city (and she went to his house) or from the faction (and then she went to his trailer).

If it is clear that the owner is a city resident, then the fact that there is a faction there doesn't matter. They only consider the group of city residents.

See column 237 that appeared following the thread here.