Q&A: The Presumption of the Present State
The Presumption of the Present State
Question
I understand the prior presumption—that we do not assume that something changed unless it has been clarified that it did so. What is the conceptual basis of the presumption of the present state?
And why does the prior presumption override the presumption of the present state?
Is there somewhere the Rabbi explains these matters?
Answer
Both presumptions are not clarifying logical inferences, but rather a formal rule of conduct. Why should there be any difference between the earlier state and the present state? The direction of time does not matter here.
Discussion on Answer
All these discussions are not about clarification. They deal with rules of conduct, and therefore the question of which one has priority is only a matter of legal structuring, not probabilistic logic. It is possible they decided that the prior presumption takes precedence because that is how our thinking works, with time flowing forward, even though it has no real inherent advantage. In any case, the rules have to be set in a way that makes decision possible, so they chose this priority. They could just as well have decided the opposite.
So why does the prior presumption override it? (In a case where both presumptions are present, such as an animal that was found to be non-kosher, and the question is about the milk that came out before it became known that it was non-kosher.) (In Shema’tata 3 he goes on at length proving this rule.)