[Avodah] Forms of Bitul

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 02:34:45PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: And Socrates is a horse.

: There are enough differences between d'iqah lequaman and deleisa leqaman (as
: between men and horses) to make the fact that a statement might apply to
: both cases not enough to make them the same.  

I'm trying to study mammals. Noting how much human and horse skeletons resemble
eachother, and arguing for common ancestry. I'm not claiming identity.

:> The way I see it, all agree that in a case of rov, it would be assur
:> de'oraisa, and in a case of mi'ut, it would not.

: As mentioned above, this is not true of min shebeano mino.  It is true of
: min shebemino (well not all, Rashi, for example, disagrees, but this is the
: position of the majority).

Yeah, but that then involves taam, which means the second ingredient can be
tasted. Which complicates discussing confusion of identity.

:> The question becomes whether the kellal is "assur if rov" or "mutar if
:> mi'ut", with a nafqa mina when the safeiq is kemechtza al mechtza.

: But the classic form of safek that you use to illustrate the case is that of
: bein hashmashos.  This has nothing to do with rov.  Thus there is yet
: another jump from discussions of rov to discussions of classic safek.

But rov too has to fall from the same underlying principle behind birur, if
there is one.

In any case, I'm viewing safeiq as a spectrum including rov, mechtza al
mechtza and mi'ut. In this sense, of course the concept of safeiq exists
deOraisa, because rov does.

The question is then

I tried to say this already once:
:> From this way of looking at the world, saying safeiq deOraisa lechumera
:> doesn't eliminate the notion of safeiq from the deOraisa lexicon. Because
:> that would deny the whole spectrum, and thus also eliminate rov.

But I don't understand this reply:
: Yes, that is my point.  Your thesis (leaving aside all the other problematic
: aspects of it) insists on a position that safek d'orisa l'chumra is a
: d'orisa principle, whereas the majority, at least according to ROY, who
: poskens accordingly, is like the Rambam that safek d'orisa l'chumra is a
: rabbinic principle....

No, it insists that safeiq in general exists deOraisa. Even if deOraisa
mechtza al mechtza is like mi'ut and we're meiqil.

: and rov are entirely different principles, with rov applying in various
: limited circumstances, such as min b'mino, as a d'orisa principle.  

Or in rov be'ilos achar habaal. Which is a case of safeiq rather than taaroves.

...
: But while you keep asserting that this is the way that Chazal treat
: unknowns, I just don't think it is true.

: That is why I pointed you in the direction of the discussion regarding
: timtum and koi.  Have a look, for example, at Bechoros 41b.

: Ta Shma the Torah states "zachar" (to be used as an olah) to exclude a
: female, but when it says "zachar" below, what is it coming to exclude? - a
: timtum and an androgonous.  Now who is the author of this braisa.  If you
: want to say the tanna kama - [that cannot be because] sfeka hu. ... and
: similarly further on when it analyses the position of Rabbi Yishmael.

: That is, if you understand a timtum and androgonos to be a safek, then, as
: Rashi puts it "leka safek kamei shamaya ele vadai beriya bifnei atzmo" - ie
: there is no concept of safek to HaShem or the Torah, and thus if the *Torah*
: is coming to exclude a timtum or androgonos, then these individuals *must
: be* an independent form of creation, a separate gender, and not just a safek
: male or female.

...
: But if you look at the literature on safek d'orisa l'chumra and safek
: d'rabbanan l'kula - there are many many examples in which the safek is one
: of what is the metzius.  If the governing rule was kol deparish, then
: regardless of whether the halachic question that arose due to the safek in
: metzius was due to a din that is d'orisa or d'rabbanan, the halacha should
: be the same, but of course it is not....

If the governing rule were kol deparish, we would have a rov for merubah
parish, and safeiq deOraisa lekhumera isn't an issue. SDL is only where
the safeiq is mechtza al mechtza. (Or its qavua.) I don't mean the rule
of kol deparish, which doesn't apply, but the kind of birur required to
determing the din of a parish.

: Aruch HaShulchan and in the Yalkut Yosef in the simanim I referred to at the
: beginning of this posting.  If something, such as a drop of milk, fell into
: a meat stew, and it was not known whether or not there was sixty against
: that drop of milk, and then, before there was a chance to measure, the whole
: tavshil upended, and measurement became impossible, then the tavshil is
: assur, even though it is known than there was definitely rov meat to the
: milk, because of safek d'orisa l'chumra.  Here is a case of a safek of what
: is the metzius - we do not know whether or not there was sixty of meat
: against the milk drop (although we do know that there was rov)....

I suggest seeing shu"t R' Aqiva Eiger mahadura qama #136-137, tinyana #100
and the distinction between safeiq in din and safeiq in metzi'us rather
than relying on my take. The question isn't whether one has an unknown
metzi'us, but whether the metzi'us was once known, and therefore a
din was niqva. A safeiq where a din was once established -- eg eidus
or qavua -- is different than a safeiq where the metzi'us was /never/
known and thus never established.

He discusses safeiq deOraisa lechumerah as a "sibling" (my term) to
terei kemei'ah and other things that probably would not appeal to you
given your response on my own theories.

And qavuah using the rules of bitul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
micha at aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507