Strong, shocked.
I understand the presumption (that we do not assume that something has changed until it has been proven that it has happened), what is the understanding of the scope of the presumption of defiance?
And why does the power of the devil outweigh the power of the devil?
Is there a place where the Rabbi explains the above matters?
The two assumptions are not clarifying assumptions but formal guidance. Why would there be a difference between actually and actually? The direction of time does not matter here.
So why does the presumption of a lien prevail? (In the case where there are two presumptions, such as an animal that was slaughtered and the question about the milk that came out before it was known that it was slaughtered) (Beshemata 3 extends the proof of the law)
All these discussions are not about clarification. They are about rules of conduct, and therefore the question of who is better is only a question of legal regulation and not of probabilistic logic. They may have decided that the prima facie case is stronger because that is how our thinking works, that time flows forward, even though it has no real priority. In any case, the rules need to be set in a way that allows for a decision, so they decided on this priority. They could also have decided the opposite.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
