Rav Bloom introduced me to the concept of Smoch Miuta l'Chazakah Isra Leih Ruva. The Gemara says this is a machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan, whereby Rebbi Meir is choshesh for the miut therefore he holds by the din of Smoch Miuta l'Chazakah Isra Leih Ruva.
Does that mean that practically speaking Rebbi Meir does not hold by the din of Ruva v'Chazakah Ruva Adif? And because the Rabbana are not choshesh for the miut, does that mean practially they do not hold by Smoch Miuta l'Chazakah Isra Leih Ruva?
I guess my question is, is the din of Ruva v'Chazakah Ruva Adif and Smoch Miuta l'Chazakah Isra Leih Ruva mutually exclusive
Soheil Zaman, United States
OPINION (A): REBBI MEIR IS CONCERNED ONLY MID'RABANAN WITH THE MINORITY
1) I think that we may start off, bs'd, by looking at the Shitah of Rebbi Meir, who is Choshesh for the minority. The first question is whether this is merely a Chumra of Rebbi Meir, that he says one has to be stringent mid'Rabanan and take account of the Mi'ut, or does Rebbi Meir hold that even mid'Oraisa one cannot rely on the majority?
2) This discussion starts in Chulin, end of 11b, where the Gemara asks that if Rebbi Meir is concerned with the minority, does that mean that he never ate meat? Why is Rebbi Meir not concerned that occasionally one might slaughter the animal on a part of the esophagus or trachea, where it so happened that there was already a hole which made the animal into a Tereifah before Shechitah took place? The Gemara (11b, last line) says that if one would want to say that indeed Rebbi Meir never ate meat, nevertheless what are you going to say about Korban Pesach or Kodashim? There is a Mitzvah in the Torah to eat the meat of Korban Pesach and of Shelamim, and one cannot say that, according to Rebbi Meir, one can never fulfill that Mitzvah. The Gemara answers that Rebbi Meir says that one must pay attention to the minority only where this is possible, but where it is impossible otherwise, Rebbi Meir agrees that one follows the majority.
3) Tosfos (Chulin 12a, DH Pesach) writes that Rebbi Meir's concern with the minority is only a Chumra mid'Rabanan. The Gemara entertains the possibility that, generally speaking, Rebbi Meir says one should be stringent mid'Rabanan and not eat meat, but it is impossible to be Machmir with Korban Pesach and Kodashim because that would mean abolishing a Mitzvah d'Oraisa, and since this is impossible one must rely on the Rov in this case.
OPINION (B): REBBI MEIR IS CONCERNED MID'ORAISA WITH THE MINORITY
4) However, there is a different opinion among the Rishonim, which maintains that Rebbi Meir's concern for the minority is a d'Oraisa concern. This is stated by the Mordechai in Chulin (#737, printed in the back of the Gemara after the Rif). He cites Rabeinu Baruch who proves from the very same Gemara (beginning of Chulin 12a) that Rebbi Meir is Choshesh mid'Oraisa for the Mi'ut. The proof is from the fact that at the end of 11b, the Gemara says, "And if you say that Rebbi Meir says one should not eat meat, then what is he going to say about Pesach and Kodashim?" If Rebbi Meir would have held that it is only mid'Rabanan that one should not eat meat, then the question from Pesach and Kodashim would not start, because one could readily answer that the whole problem of eating non-sanctified meat is only a Chumra mid'Rabanan, and clearly this Chumra would not apply if it means that one will lose the Mitzvah d'Oraisa of Pesach and Kodashim as a result. The fact that the Gemara did not answer in this way, but had to resort to a different answer, proves that Rebbi Meir's concern for the Mi'ut is a d'Oraisa concern.
5) The Mordechai writes that Rebbi Meir disagrees with the concept of Rov because he is Choshesh for the Mi'ut, but we never find anywhere in Shas that Rebbi Meir does not agree with the concept of Chazakah. It seems from this that, according to Rebbi Meir, Chazakah is stronger than Rov.
6) I found that Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (the leading Halachic authority of the 19th century) explains in Teshuvos Be'er Yitzchak (Yoreh De'ah #16, Anaf 4, page 307), that according to Rebbi Meir a Rov only creates a Safek, so Rebbi Meir makes a Gezeirah to be concerned about the minority. Chazakah is stronger; a Chazakah makes a "Birur" -- it clarifies what the situation is, because we say that we continue in the way that we always have proceeded. In fact, Rav Yitzchak Elchanan seems to be saying this even according to opinion (A) that Rebbi Meir is only Choshesh mid'Rabanan for the minority, but according to opinion (B), that he is concerned mid'Oraisa, it seems that we certainly say that acording to Rebbi Meir a Chazakah is stronger than a Rov.
7) According to this, at any rate according to (B), it seems that not only does Rebbi Meir not hold of "Ruba v'Chazakah Ruba Adif," but he holds that Chazakah is preferable to the Rov.
DO THE RABANAN HOLD OF "SEMOCH MI'UTA L'CHAZAKAH"?
8) The truth is that I do not think that we have fully understood yet the opinion of Rebbi Meir, but on the other hand it may give us a broader understanding of the Sugya if we now turn for the moment to study the opinion of the Rabanan.
To understand this better, we must look at the Mishnah in Yevamos 119a which discusses a scenario where a woman's husband (who had no children) and his other wife went overseas. Afterwards, the woman was informed that her husband had died overseas. She may not re-marry, and she also may not do Yibum until she knows whether her co-wife is pregnant. The Gemara asks why, according to the Rabanan who disagree with Rebbi Meir and follow the majority, may the wife at home not re-marry? Why do we not follow the Rov that most women become pregnant and give birth, so we may assume that the co-wife has already had a child overseas and the first wife is exempt from Yibum?
9) The Gemara answers (end of 119a) in the name of Rava that when the husband went overseas there was a Chazakah that his wife must do Yibum if he would die (since he had no children at the time), but against that there is a Rov that most women become pregnant and give birth. The Rov tells us that the wife at home does not need to do Yibum. The Gemara (beginning of 119b) states that a Chazakah is not as strong as a Rov, but there is also a Mi'uta, since a minority of women become pregnant and then have a miscarriage. We combine this Mi'ut with the Chazakah that she must do Yibum, and this makes it "half and half"; it is now 50-50 that she needs Yibum, so because of the doubt we say that she may neither marry nor do Yibum.
10) The Chidushei ha'Ramban (Yevamos 119a) cites Rav Hai Gaon who explains how the Mishnah in Yevamos can fit with the Rabanan. He writes that the Rabanan said that we follow the Rov only when there is no Chazakah against the Rov, but when there is a Chazakah against the Rov we say Semoch Mi'ut l'Chazakah and it becomes "Palga u'Palga," "half and half," 50-50, so she cannot be permitted. Rav Hai Gaon asks on his own view from our Gemara in Kidushin 80a, which says that according to the Rabanan the Mi'ut of children who do not play in the garbage are insignificant and it is unnecessary to take account of them, so we can say that a Rov is better than a Chazakah according to the Rabanan! How, then, can we say in Yevamos that the Mi'ut is significant?
11) The Ramban answers that the Gemara in Kidushin does not mean to say that the Mi'ut is totally worthless according to the Rabanan. Rather, what it means is that the Mi'ut is not so important to justify being combined with the Chazakah, to make the dough definitely Tahor, but rather the Rov is still strong enough to decide that the dough is Tamei. However, the Mi'ut is still significant enough for us to say that we cannot do a positive act and burn the dough, since there is still a possibility that it might be Tahor, and for this reason Rebbi Yochanan says here that one may not burn the Terumah, because the Mi'ut is strong enough to weaken the Rov and we are not sure that the dough is Tamei.
12) So we have now found, according to the Ramban in Yevamos, that the Mi'ut is important according to the Rabanan also, and the Rabanan agree that sometimes we apply "Semoch Mi'uta l'Chazakah." This is why we say that the Mi'ut of women who do not become pregnant and give birth prevent the first wife from remarrying, since the Mi'ut says that she might need to do Yibum.
ACCORDING TO THE OPINION THAT REBBI MEIR IS CHOSHESH ONLY MID'RABANAN FOR THE MINORITY, DOES HE AGREE WITH "RUBA V'CHAZAKAH RUBA ADIF"?
13) I think that I still have to answer the question of whether or not Rebbi Meir agrees with "Ruba v'Chazakah Ruba Adif." According to the opinion (B) that I mentioned above, I argued that since Rebbi Meir holds that, mid'Oraisa, Chazakah is stronger than Rov, he certainly will not agree with "Ruba v'Chazakah Ruba Adif." However, what will Rebbi Meir say according to opinion (A) cited above, which is the opinion of Tosfos in Chulin 12a (DH Pesach), that Rebbi Meir is Choshesh only mid'Rabanan for the minority, but he agrees that mid'Oraisa we follow the Rov? Does that mean that Rebbi Meir will also agree with "Ruba v'Chazakah Ruba Adif"?
14) There is an answer to this question in Tosfos in Chulin 86b (end of DH Semoch). Tosfos writes that since he wrote above (12a) that Rebbi Meir is only Machmir mid'Rabanan to be concerned for the Mi'ut, it follows that in Kidushin 80a, if it would not have been for the Chazakah that the dough is Tahor, Rebbi Meir would not have taken account of the minority of children who do not play around in the garbage in order to say that the dough remains Tahor. Tosfos writes that Rebbi Meir takes account of the minority only when it combines with a Chazakah. In such circumtances, Rebbi Meir is Chosesh for the Mi'uta mid'Oraisa and says that the dough is Tahor.
15) It appears from Tosfos that mid'Oraisa a Mi'ut together with a Chazakah is stronger than a Rov. Therefore, it seems that according to this, also, Rebbi Meir disagrees with "Ruba v'Chazakah Ruba Adif."
SUMMARY
It is worthwhile summarizing what we have seen so far. I argued that, according to the Mordechai (Chulin #737) and Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, Rebbi Meir learns that Chazakah is stronger than Rov. According to Tosfos (Chulin 86b), Rebbi Meir learns that a Chazakah together with a Mi'ut is stronger than a Rov. The Ramban (Yevamos) writes that according to the Rabanan as well, we do sometimes say "Semoch Mi'uta l'Chazakah," because there is a Mi'ut of children who do not play in the garbage, and a Chazakah that the dough is Tahor, this is enough that we should say at least that we do not burn the Terumah dough, even according to Rabanan.
Soheil, I am sure that we could go into this very deep Sugya a lot more, but I must close here. I just want to thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to go into depth into the thinking behind Rebbi Meir's Shitah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
The source in the Torah for Rov according to the Rabanan:
1) I came across a very interesting idea when researching this topic, in the Shitah Mekubetzes to Bava Metzia 6b (DH v'OY'L), in the name of the Rosh, which is cited by Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector in the piece I mentioned above. I will explain the idea according to my understanding.
The Rosh writes that when there is a Rov in favor of something, this still represents a Safek, but the Torah permitted this Safek.
(For example, if the majority of meat in a city is kosher and one finds a piece of meat in the street, we do not say that the meat is kosher for certain, since there is a minority of meat which is not kosher, but the Torah nevertheless permits this piece of meat.)
The Rosh writes that the verse in the Torah which tells us the Halachah of Rov is "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" -- "one should lean after the majority" (Shemos 23:2). The Rosh writes that a Safek does exist, but the Torah permits this Safek and tells us to follow the majority. The Rosh also writes that what was forbidden is now turned into something permitted because it is Batel b'Rov -- the minority is outnumbered by the majority, and the Torah relates to the minority as if it is not present.
(Compare this with the Rosh in Chulin 7:37, who writes that if there are three pieces of meat, two of which are kosher and one is not but we do not know which one is which, a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of "Acharei Rabim l'Hatos" tells us that the Tereifah piece is Batel in the two kosher pieces so the Tereifah piece is "transformed" into a kosher piece and one is now permitted to eat all three pieces at once.)
2) It seems that the above explanation of the Rosh applies only according to the Rabanan. Rebbi Meir does not agree with this Gezeras ha'Kasuv. This probably is because the verse (Shemos 23:2) is referring to a question that was brought in front of a Beis Din, and the Torah tells us to follow the majority opinion of the Dayanim on the Beis Din. The verse is not referring at all to a scenario of a mixture of permitted and forbidden items. Therefore, Rebbi Meir learns that if there is a mixture of permitted and forbidden, this remains a doubt and there is no Gezeras ha'Kasuv to tell us to follow the Rov.
3) I suggest that the above can help us understand the Mordechai in Chulin (#737) that I cited earlier. Rebbi Meir is concerned with the Mi'uta mid'Oraisa because there is no Gezeras ha'Kasuv to tell us otherwise. (To illustrate this, we may consider a city where 60% of the meat is kosher. To eat meat there without knowing what its source is would certainly be putting oneself into a major danger of eating Tereifah.) This is what Rav Yitzchak Elchanan means when he writes that Rov is a Safek according to Rebbi Meir. In contrast, Rebbi Meir learns that a Chazakah is stronger. A Chazakah teaches us to act as we have always been acting. If we always knew that a Mikvah was kosher and contained 40 Se'ah, we may assume that this was the case until the last moment before we knew that it became less than 40 Se'ah. This is a "Birur," a clarification, and is based on previous knowledge and is better than a Rov which, according to Rebbi Meir, remains a doubt.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rav Bloom,
I'm grateful for your response. I need to do chazara on it because there were so many intricate, elaborate points!
I have 4 quick points:
1) If Rebbie Meir's shita is that he is choshesh for the miuta as a Rabbanan, then this would be a chumra. But I see in Kiddushin 80a he was choshesh for the miut as kula. He used the miut to posken the doe is tahor. Is that not a stira? It makes me think that Rebbi Meir holds that smooch miuta al hachazaka is a doraisa? Is this reasoning flawed?
2) I see that the Rabbanan did not hold in Kiddushin of the miuta because it would have yielded a kula. But in Yevamos they held of the miut where it did yield a chumra. It seems that the Rabbanan hold of smoch miuta al chazakah when it yields a chumra. Furthermore, I see they were choshesh for the miut in Kiddushin in order not to burn the truma; which is a chumra. This could mean that it is the Rabbanan that hold smoch miuta is a Rabbanan. Is this gufa the machlokes between Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir whereby the Rabbanan hold tha smochi miuta is a Rabbanan (so they require it to always yield a chumra, and in the event that it does not, they abandon the miut); and Rebbi Meir holds that the smoch miuta is a doraisa so it can yield a chumra or kula.
3) This is totally a sidepoint, but how can we apply a rov to women having babies???????!!!! Procreation in the animal kingdom is a biological act that can be anticipated. But amongst human beings, procreation is a supreme act of free will!!!!! Rov cannot mechadesh a maisa as you explained to me extensively in previous writeups!!!!!!
4) Your wrote: "He writes that the Rabanan said that we follow the Rov only when there is no Chazakah against the Rov, but when there is a Chazakah against the Rov we say Semoch Mi'ut l'Chazakah and it becomes "Palga u'Palga," . . ." If the Rabbanan hold of rov when there is no chazaka, that means they too hold do not hold of ruba d'chazaka ruba adif. So if both Rabbanan and Rebbi Meir do not hold of ruba d'chazaka, ruba adif - then who does?? Can we say that, per my comment in note 2, that m'doraisa the Rabbanan do hold that ruba d'chazaka ruba adif, but m'd'Rabbanan, as they are choshesh for the miut when it yeilds a chumra, they do not.
1) Tosfos (Bechoros 20a, DH v'Iba'is) writes that when the Chazakah aids the Mi'ut, Rebbi Meir is concerned mid'Oraisa with the Mi'ut, even according to the opinion of Tosfos that, generally speaking, Rebbi Meir is only Choshesh for the Mi'ut as a d'Rabanan. That is why he says that the dough is Tahor, because the dough always possessed a Chazakah of being Tahor.
2) I saw that the Korban Nesanel at the beginning of the chapter 16 of Yevamos (#1) writes that the Rabanan disagree only with Rebbi Meir l'Kula, but they agree that l'Chumra we are Choshesh for Mi'ut and Chazakah. However, the Korban Nesanel proceeds to cite places in Tosfos that do not seem to agree with this, so this matter needs to be looked into further, bs'd.
3) Tosfos (Yevamos 119a, DH Rebbi) writes that it is "automatic that a husband has relations with his wife." This is the natural way of married life, and is not considered as an action.
4) The Ramban (Yevamos 119a) writes in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that when the Rabanan say in Kidushin 80a that "Ruba v'Chazakah Ruba Adif," this means that the Mi'ut is not so important that it can be combined with the Chazakah to determine that the dough is Tahor. However, the Mi'ut is strong enough to decide that the dough is not totally Tamei and, therefore, one may not burn the dough.
Chodesh Tov,
Dovid Bloom