There is something I have been puzzled about in Rav Shach. A convert and idolater that inherit from their father, the convert can say to his brother the idolater "Take the idols, I the other stuff." But not if they are partners in business. That we know from the Gemara. The odd thing that Rav Shach comes to answer is why the Rambam in laws of forbidden foods says the reason the convert can not say this in the case of partnership is because the convert wants the existence of the idols to continue. Rav Shach brings from a Gemara in Bekorot that there is an opinion that even by two different sorts of things we still say there is retroactive choice. That much seems clear and a good answer for the Rambam. The puzzling thing is the reason Rav Shach says this argument exists in the Gemara. He says the opinion that holds there is retroactive choice in two sorts holds there is not money in two sorts when we are talking about inheritance. The questions here jump out and that is why I have not written anything about this.
I still hope someday this will become clear. In the meantime let me just say some of the questions. (1) Money value or not should not determine if there is retro-active choice or not. (2) The case Rav Shach comes to answer is that of partners, not inheritors. So there is money in the objects and there should not be retro active choice. [Other questions I have forgotten for now.]
