<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 4/9/2013 4:56 PM, hankman wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:BLU0-SMTP57E159BF8ECBA8716820A6C2C60@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div
style="font-family: 'Calibri'; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 12pt;">
<div><font face="Times New Roman">R‘nLL wrote:</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">The laws of chazaka are not
dependent on likelihood. Once a chazaka is <br>
established, it stands until something specific comes to break it.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">CM notes:</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">...like a rov?</font></div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">The klal of ruba vechazaka, ruba
adif seems to run counter to the above statement. Rov is essentially
another way of saying likelihood. So it seems, chazaka is very
dependant on likelihood. Why do we not look to actuarial tables (ruba
d’leisa lekaman) when the shaila comes to b”d, establish a rov based on
them and his age and say the rov governs – not the chazaka? (In a sense
this is a weaker form of RMB’s issue with BQ and the “immpossible” 200
year old man.)</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I was mistaken in that I didn't mean no connection at all. I
meant no connection after the fact. Once the chazaka is established,
arguments about probability (like the "impossible" 200 year old man)
are irrelevant.<br>
<br>
But you seem to be agreeing with me, that reality is what we're
interested in.<br>
<br>
Lisa<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>