| Dear Yeshiva Family:
Following a majority in Halacha In this week's parsha, (Shemos 23:2) we learn the principle of Acharei Rabbim Lehatos—that we follow the majority. This concept applies in various halachic contexts, such as in a court ruling where the decision follows the majority of judges, or in cases of uncertainty, where we assume the status of the majority, making halachic decisions based on probability.
A classic example of this is found in the laws of kashrus: If there are ten stores, nine of which sell kosher meat and one that sells non-kosher meat, and a piece of meat is found outside these stores without any clear indication of its source, we assume that it came from the majority—that is, one of the nine kosher stores—and may treat it as kosher.
However, an important nuance emerges when we examine the limits of following the majority. The Tosfos HaRosh (B.M. 6b) discusses a case related to the mitzvah of maaser behemah—tithing one's animals. The Torah requires that every year a shepherd count his animals and every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's staff be designated as maaser and given to a Kohen. But what happens if an animal that has already been counted jumps back into the pen? Now, there is uncertainty regarding all the remaining animals—each one might have already been counted, making it impossible to definitively determine which animal is truly the tenth. The halacha is that one does not give maaser from any animal in that group.
At first glance, one might argue that we should apply the rule of following the majority (rov)—since the majority of animals in the pen were not yet counted, we could still count the animals and should assume each new animal removed belongs to that majority and count it with confidence. However, the Rosh explains that this logic does not hold here. While we do follow the majority for practical rulings, it does not confer absolute certainty. The fact remains that there is still a real, albeit smaller, possibility that any given animal was already counted. In this case, since the Torah requires a definite tenth animal, relying on rov is insufficient.
This distinction is crucial: following the majority is a halachic tool that allows us to act, but it does not erase the existence of the minority. The probability may lean heavily in one direction, but the alternative possibility still exists. In other words, rov provides a basis for decision-making, but it does not transform uncertainty into certainty.
Drinking commercially produced milk nowadays There is a fundamental halachic principle that milk is only kosher if it comes from a kosher animal. While the animal does not need to be slaughtered for its milk to be permissible, it must be a halachically healthy animal—not one that is classified as a treifah.
A treifah is an animal with a physical defect that renders it halachically non-kosher, even if it is still alive. The Gemara lists eighteen conditions that can classify an animal as a treifah, ranging from severe internal injuries to missing organs. However, we generally do not check every animal for these defects because the assumption is that they are not common.
In recent years, the long-standing assumption of milk's kashrus has been challenged. Many cows today undergo corrective surgeries that may render them treifos according to halacha[1]. Even setting that issue aside, modern industrial farming introduces a new complication: unlike in the past, when milk was obtained from individual cows or small herds, today's milk is collected from hundreds or even thousands of cows, pooled together before being processed and bottled.
This raises a serious halachic concern: What if some of these cows are treifos? Since the milk of a treifah animal is non-kosher, even a small percentage of treif cows could pose a problem. The principle of bittul b'shishim (nullification in sixty) states that a forbidden substance is nullified if mixed into at least sixty times its volume of permitted substance. However, statistical studies indicate that the proportion of treifos among dairy cows today exceeds 1 in 60—meaning the percentage of treif milk in the mixture may be too high to be nullified.
Because of this concern, some gedolim have taken a stringent stance, refraining from drinking milk altogether. Their logic is straightforward: if more than 1 in 60 cows is treif, then statistically, every batch of milk must contain non-kosher milk, making it seemingly forbidden.
If we were dealing with a single cow, we could apply rov and assume it is kosher. However, when dealing with large-scale milk production, we are forced to acknowledge the statistical reality that some percentage of cows must be treif. As we learned from the Rosh, even when we follow rov, we do not completely ignore the existence of the minority. In this case, where treif milk is a statistical certainty and all the milk is mixed together, it would seem that commercial milk should be prohibited. The numbers suggest that there is not a sufficient 1:60 ratio to nullify the treif milk, making it appear halachically problematic.
Nevertheless, most halachic authorities rule that milk remains permissible, and the issue has been addressed extensively in contemporary halachic journals. The key to understanding this ruling lies in the halachic framework of rov—which we will now explore.
The Answer: Understanding Two Types of Rov The resolution to the milk question lies in a fundamental distinction within the concept of rov—the difference between ruba de'isa kaman and ruba de'leisa kaman. Ruba de'isa kaman and ruba de'leisa kaman are two categories of rov (majority) in halachic decision-making.
1. Ruba de'isa kaman (a tangible majority) – This refers to a situation where the majority is physically present before us and can be counted. An example would be our original case where you have a group of ten pieces of meat, nine from kosher animals and one from a non-kosher animal, and you find a piece of meat among them but do not know which one it is. Since the majority is tangible and directly observable, we follow the rov and assume the meat is kosher. 2. Ruba de'leisa kaman (a statistical majority) – This applies when the majority is based on probability or statistical patterns rather than a tangible group present before us. For example, if medical studies show that most animals do not have a particular internal defect that would render them treif, we assume that any given animal is likely kosher—even though we are not physically counting a majority of kosher animals in front of us.
These two types of rov not only differ in their structure but also function fundamentally differently. Because they operate in distinct ways, they also lead to different halachic conclusions. Understanding this difference will help clarify why milk remains permissible despite statistical concerns.
A difference from R' Shimon Shkop In Shaarei Yosher (Shaar 3, Perek 1), R' Shimon Shkop explains a key distinction in how these majorities function.
- A ruba de'leisa kaman—a majority derived from the natural order of the world—has an inherent logical basis for determining reality. Since nature follows consistent patterns, rov in such a case serves as a strong indicator of the truth. The reason that rov overrides the minority is that there is a rational basis to assume that in most cases, reality aligns with the majority, and therefore, the specific case before us is likely to follow that pattern as well.
- In contrast, a ruba de'isa kaman—a tangible majority in a specific situation—does not reflect an inherent pattern of the world. For example, in a city where the majority of butcher shops sell kosher meat, that majority exists not because of a natural order but due to human decision-making. People may choose to open kosher shops or non-kosher shops, and customers may choose freely whether to buy from the majority or the minority. Since the distribution is not dictated by nature but rather by circumstance, the fact that there is a majority does not necessarily mean that any given case follows it.
Therefore, by ruba de'isa kaman, when an unidentified piece of meat is found in the marketplace, there is no inherent proof that the piece before us came from the majority, as people may have taken meat from either the majority or the minority. In many cases, the safek will turn out to be from the minority, meaning that rov here does not clarify the truth but rather serves only as a guideline for halachic practice.
Thus, the Torah's instruction to follow rov applies to halachic rulings but does not necessarily define objective reality in cases where ruba de'isa kaman is in play. This is in contrast to ruba de'leisa kaman, where rov is rooted in the natural patterns of the world and serves as a strong indicator of actual reality[2].
A second possible difference Another fundamental difference between these two types of rov lies in whether the minority is tangibly present before us or merely a theoretical statistical possibility.
1. Ruba De'isa Kaman: The Minority is Still Present A ruba de'isa kaman refers to a majority that exists within a specific, identifiable group before us. Because the rov is a direct count of known entities, the minority is not just a theoretical possibility—it is part of the group in front of us. For example, if we have ten pieces of meat, nine from kosher animals and one from a non-kosher animal, and one piece is randomly taken but we don't know which, we apply the rov and assume it is kosher. However, since the non-kosher piece definitely exists within this set, we cannot say with absolute certainty that the meat we are dealing with is kosher. The minority option is still a live possibility, and therefore, while rov guides our practical decision-making, it does not erase the fact that the minority exists. 2. Ruba De'leisa Kaman: The Minority is Not Tangibly Present By contrast, a ruba de'leisa kaman is a majority that stems from probability and natural patterns, not from a fixed, identifiable group. In these cases, the rov is based on how the world generally operates, not on a specific known set of objects. The minority may theoretically exist, but since we are not dealing with a fixed, countable group, it does not affect the halachic ruling.
Based on these two differences we can explain that although we previously saw from the Rosh that even when following a rov, we do not entirely dismiss the minority—that is only true by a ruba de'isa kaman. In contrast, by a ruba de'leisa kaman we can ignore the minority entirely!
According to the Shaarei Yosher, the reason we do not consider the minority in a ruba de'leisa kaman but do in a ruba de'isa kaman is due to the nature of the rov. A ruba de'leisa kaman is based on the natural order of the world, where the majority is not just a statistical probability but an inherent reality. Since nature dictates that the majority follows a certain pattern, we treat the rov as a definitive halachic truth, and the minority is irrelevant. In contrast, a ruba de'isa kaman is based on a tangible, present group, where the minority is visibly part of the equation. Since the minority exists before us, it remains a possibility that cannot be entirely dismissed, even if we follow the majority in practice.
According to our second explanation the difference is also clear - When we are dealing with a tangible majority, the presence of a minority remains a factor in the equation; it exists before us, and therefore, we cannot ignore the fact that there is still a real possibility that something came from the minority.
This distinction explains why in cases of ruba de'isa kaman, there remains some degree of doubt, while in ruba de'leisa kaman, the ruling is definitive and absolute.
Perhaps this distinction can be illustrated through the case of a safek mamzer—a child of questionable lineage. The halacha states that while a definite mamzer can only marry another mamzer or a mamzeres, a safek mamzer (one whose status is uncertain) is still permitted to marry a mamzeres. However, someone who is certainly not a mamzer cannot marry a mamzeres.
Now, what if we have a case where someone is a safek mamzer, but there is a rov that indicates he is not a mamzer? The outcome will depend on the type of rov being applied.
- If the ruling is based on a ruba de'isa kaman—a tangible, situational majority—then while we follow the rov in practice, the doubt still lingers. For example, if there were ten babies, one of whom was a mamzer and the other nine were not, but we lost track of which is which, we would follow the majority and assume the child is not a mamzer. However, since the minority possibility still exists before us, the uncertainty is not entirely erased. As a result, he would still be permitted to marry a mamzeres, because his status remains one of safek.
- However, if the ruling is based on a ruba de'leisa kaman—a rov rooted in statistical reality—then we do not consider the minority at all. For example, if a married woman was unfaithful and conceived a child, but we are uncertain whether the father was her husband or another man, we follow the principle of rov bi'ilos achar ha'ba'al—the assumption that most intimate relations a woman has are with her husband. Since this rov is based on the natural patterns of the world, it is a ruba de'leisa kaman, and we treat the child as fully legitimate. Here, the rov does not just guide our halachic practice—it entirely defines the reality. Since we do not consider the minority at all, the child would not be allowed to marry a mamzeres, as we view him as unquestionably non-mamzer.
Final Resolution: Why Milk Remains Permissible With this distinction in mind, we can now understand why we are permitted to drink milk despite the statistical probability that some dairy cows may be treifos.
As we have seen, there are two types of rov: - A ruba de'isa kaman—a tangible, situational majority, where the presence of the minority remains a factor because it is physically before us. In such cases, as the Rosh explained, while we follow the majority in practice, we do not ignore the existence of the minority.
- A ruba de'leisa kaman—a majority based on the natural order of the world, which serves as a reliable determinant of reality. Since nature follows predictable patterns, this rov does not merely guide action but actually defines the halachic status of the case at hand.
Milk falls under the category of ruba de'leisa kaman. The assumption that most animals are kosher is not based on an observable majority in any given moment, but rather on the natural reality that the overwhelming majority of cows do not develop treifos. This is a statistical rov, rooted in the laws of nature rather than in a specific situational grouping.
Since the Torah instructs us to follow rov, and ruba de'leisa kaman functions as a decisive determinant rather than a mere practical guideline, we are not halachically concerned with the minority of cases where cows are treifos. The halacha allows us to assume that milk from any given cow follows the natural pattern of the world—that it comes from a kosher animal—without needing to account for the possibility that a small percentage may not.
This is why, despite statistical concerns over the percentage of treifos among dairy cows, the vast majority of poskim have ruled that milk remains permissible. The Torah established that in cases of ruba de'leisa kaman, we rely on the majority with certainty, without needing to consider the minority as a factor at all.
Thus, while some gedolim have chosen to be stringent based on these concerns, halachically, milk remains fully kosher, as it is governed by a rov that is rooted in the natural order, rather than a case-by-case assessment of probability. Have an incredible Shabbos Kodesh!
Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva, HTC - Beis HaMidrash LaTorah mrevah2@touro.edu
____________________________________________________________
[1] See https://oukosher.org/blog/consumer-kosher/milk-from-a-possibly-treif-cow/ for a discussion on this question, as well as the halachic implications of modern corrective surgeries that may render cows treifos. [2] This approach is also evident in R' Akiva Eiger's commentary on Kesuvos 13a. However, this is merely the tip of the iceberg in the broader halachic discussion. This topic is highly nuanced, as ruba de'isa kaman is, in many ways, the stronger form of rov. However, a deeper exploration of this complexity goes beyond the scope of this article. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment