Does דבר שיש לו מתירין apply to כל דפריש‎?

Often, there's a rule that a forbidden substance (or object) that got mixed with sufficiently much (or many) permitted substance (or objects) is בטל ("nullified" is the usual translation, though I don't like it much) and the entire mixture is permitted. However, that rule usually does not apply when the forbidden substance can be made permitted by other means (such as by the passage of time) without loss of quality: דבר שיש לו מתירין אפילו באלף אינו בטל.

There's another rule for "nullifying" a forbidden object: Often, if an object becomes segregated from among like objects, it may be assumed to have come from the majority of them, so that if the majority of them are permitted, the one chosen is permitted: כל דפריש מרובא פריש.

Does the exception of דבר שיש לו מתירין, something that can become permitted by other means, apply also to the case of כל דפריש, something segregated from among like objects, forbidding the segregated object if it can (assuming it's forbidden) become permitted by other means?

-
You're asking about a case, say, of a town with 10 fruit sellers, 9 of which sell chullin metukan and one sells tevel. If someone found fruit in the street, would he say kol deparish and it's fine, or would he have to be mafrish because of davar sheyesh lo matirin? –  Double AA Jan 4 '12 at 5:59
@DoubleAA, yes, let's say (although for all I know there might be other details in that example that make it an exception for other reasons). –  msh210 Jan 4 '12 at 15:12
I'm becoming less and less convinced that kol deparish is any different from regular bittul. They are both just applications of rov. When you mix three things up, you always assume each one came from the majority. It's the same thing. –  Double AA Jan 4 '12 at 15:41
@DoubleAA, but we say דבר שיש לו מתירין אפילו באלף אינו בטל not just ברוב. That is, it applies to other cases, too, like those where 60 are required. –  msh210 Jan 4 '12 at 16:47
Showing that DShYLM applies to cases beyond bittul berov does not prove that kol deparish is not the same thing as bittul berov. –  Double AA Jan 4 '12 at 20:10

It's debated by the posekim. In Yoreh De'ah 110:7 the Mechaber says that "if a דבר שיש לו מתירין is mixed up with others, and then one of them was eaten inadvertently... all of the other ones are permitted, since we can assume that the issur is gone" - though he then goes on to say that there are some restrictions, to lessen the chances of eating the forbidden one.

However, in 110:8 Rema writes that "some say that a דבר שיש לו מתירין cannot be permitted via double doubt" - i.e., a case such as the Mechaber describes earlier in that paragraph, where issur A falls into bin B, and then one item from B falls into bin C (where normally we would indeed apply כל דפריש, or for that matter plain old ביטול ברוב, and permit it). Shach there (:56-:57) spells out that according to this view, even a "third mixture" (i.e., one item from C falls into bin D) would still be prohibited.

He further points out that the case in 110:7 is even worse than this one (since there was never anything that was פריש), meaning that Rema would disagree with the Mechaber's position there. Conversely, though, I think we can deduce from Shach that if the Mechaber allows the case where one item disappeared, he'd certainly say the same about a "second mixture" (bin C in my example) - whether because of כל דפריש or because of ביטול.

Actually, I see where Pischei Teshuvah (102:1) deals more specifically with this issue. He says that Sidduro Shel Shabbos, Tzemach Tzedek (Nikolsburg) and Magen Avraham say that כל דפריש doesn't apply in this case, while Tzlach and Chavos Yair say that it does. (Which means, I guess, that they don't necessarily apply the equation that I gave above, between כל דפריש and mixtures of mixtures.)

-
but if it's because of bittul, then you lose any proof regarding kol deparish. Also, it seems to me that it wouldn't be because of bittul or kol deparish but rather the umdena that we assume it was the convenient one that was pulled out. This is likely just a kula because davar sheyesh lo matirin is only not batel miderabanan. No sources though... –  Double AA Jan 4 '12 at 6:16
@DoubleAA, if anything, we are usually more machmir with דשיל"מ because it will become mutar (even though, as you say, it's only derabanan). But I think you're right about bittul vs. kol deparish - see my edit. –  Alex Jan 4 '12 at 15:54
I only said my svara based on the Shulchan Aruch who says in 110:7 that Anu Tolim Lomar HaIssur Halach Lo. He says this about DShYLM but also about birya and the other non-batels mentioned there. It seems to be just a special way out of the derabanan non-bittul. –  Double AA Jan 4 '12 at 16:10
Checkmark for the right-on-point P"S. Thank you. –  msh210 Jan 4 '12 at 21:27