R Chaim al hashas says that a person cannot be a pireish
Interesting vort, but it seems to go against a mashma’us of a Gemara in Nazir (12a). Tosafos, at least, is mefurash not like that in Kesubos (30b s.v. V’al Hakusis – ?? ????? ???? ??? ?”? ????). Ayin sham.
With regard to the question of whether we can go basar rov mekubalim to assume what this one is, if it is a ruba d’leisei kaman (i.e. in general, mekubalim are frauds) – l’chorah it’s pashut that it’s not shayich to have dinim of kavu’a and parish, because there’s nothing to be poresh from (because the rov is a theoretical one). If you will taynah that it is a ruba d’isa kaman (i.e. if we count the mekubalim who are frauds that the ones who aren’t, the one’s who are are the majority) there is still no problem of kavu’a, if we go with Tosafos in Nazir (ibid. s.v. Asur) who say that anytime there is no difference in appearance between the issur and the heter we do not say kavu’a. Tosafos in Chullin (95a s.v. Sfeiko) seems to learn that this is p’shat in classic bitul chad b’trei, which for some reason isn’t automatically precluded by the din kavu’a.
So basically this mekubal is batel in the rest, is what I am saying. The only thing is that mid’rabbanan it could be he isn’t batel because he is a chatichah hareuyah lehischabed (because celebrities like using them). Yesh lachkor.