Q&A: Between Recognizing and Being Distinguishable in a Mixture
Between Recognizing and Being Distinguishable in a Mixture
Question
If a distinguishable forbidden item falls into a mixture of permitted items, it is not nullified by majority; rather, it must be removed.
A. That makes sense if the understanding of nullification is statistical, but if we understand that we treat the mixture as a collective according to its majority, then why should it matter that the forbidden item is distinguishable?
B. If the piece is not distinguishable, but he recognizes it (because he noticed when it fell in, or the like), would we then say that there is nullification in such a case?
Answer
I don’t see a difference. When the piece is distinguishable, we are not dealing with a mixture that is a collective entity, and therefore the ruling on each piece is made separately. Only in the rule of “its majority is like the whole” (as in: if most are impure on the first Passover) do we follow the majority even when the minority is known. In nullification, that does not exist.
Discussion on Answer
A. On the side that nullification by majority is statistical, it is difficult why he may eat all the pieces in the mixture.
B. On the side that nullification by majority is due to treating the mixture as a collective, as long as the piece is not distinguishable in itself, the fact that he recognizes it is irrelevant (not because his opinion is disregarded, but because as long as the piece is not distinguishable, there is no reason to discuss it separately from the rest of the mixture).
C. Are there halakhic decisors who discussed such a case? (Seemingly this is a common enough scenario that they would have addressed it.)
A. In a dry-into-dry mixture, one can discuss the mixture as a whole, but also a piece that you take from it (as is known, according to Rashba, in dry-into-dry this is not nullification but following the majority). Rashba sees the law of nullification in a dry mixture as statistical, and indeed according to his view it is forbidden to eat all the pieces.
B. That is what I wrote in the previous comment.
C. I don’t remember at the moment.
Why, according to Rashba, is it enough to leave one piece, הרי when two pieces remain, there is a 50:50 doubt?
By the way, besides the site, is there another way to ask questions? It’s just that NetFree doesn’t allow access to the site. (To get in, I’m forced to graze in foreign fields, which aren’t always available…)
First, those who follow Rashba’s approach disagree, and indeed some hold that two pieces should be left. But even according to those who say to leave one piece, that is because with two pieces there is still a statistical majority, since in most cases the forbidden piece was already eaten earlier. Leaving the single remaining piece is more for the sake of recognition—so that it will not be blatantly obvious that one ate a forbidden item—and not really because of a statistical consideration.
I don’t know how to solve the problem. Ask the site editor (Oren), maybe.
B. This can be discussed both ways. On the statistical approach, seemingly it is enough that he knows. But if the consideration is as I explained above, then there is indeed room to say that this is still one mixture (because we follow the view of most people, and his personal view is disregarded relative to everyone else). Though of course distinctions can be made.