Chullin 99 - Why One-In-Sixty and not the Majority?
The Torah said, " You should follow the majority ." Accordingly, any substance should be nullified in a majority, that is, if a forbidden piece became confused with two or more permitted pieces, and you cannot tell which piece is which, then the forbidden piece becomes nullified, and all three pieces are permitted. Why did we say then that a forbidden foreleg becomes nullified in the proportion of one-in-sixty , and according to some, even one-in-hundred?
The rule of the majority is only applicable to dry pieces that became intermingled. The cooking process, however, leads to mixing of all of the particles, and its law has a special stringency. Then let's derive all other cases from it and negate the law of majority!? - No, we cannot do this, because the law of a cooked foreleg is a novelty, and we don't derive general rules from novel cases.
Still, the apparent discrepancy between the laws of dry and cooked foods leads some to believe that the whole law of one-in-sixty is only a Rabbinical stringency. What about the Torah phrase that seems to indicate otherwise? - It is only a hint that the Sages found for their law.
Art: Cornelis Jacobsz Delff - Still-Life of Kitchen Utensils