[Avodah] Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority ofAustralia

[Chana Luntz]

 I wrote:
> : But this is all very different to the nine shops case, where we do
> have,
> : somewhere in there, a cheftza that is, according to everybody assur,
> we just
> : don't know which, and I do not see how can extrapolate from the case
> under
> : discussion vis a vis hashgacha to the case of the nine shops.

And RMB replied:

> 9 chanuyos (the non-qavua instance) is bitul berov. It's not a mixture
> but the words "bitul" and even "taaroves" are still involved. We could
> make a second chiluq between bitulim -- maybe even if you say that
> bitul in a mixture avoids timtum haleiv, that bitul beruba de'iqah leqaman
> does not.

Sorry, I was being a bit imprecise in explaining the distinction - but we do
know there to be a distinction.  The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah siman
109:1 while discussing a case of bitul b'rov of three pieces that got mixed
states that while eating each piece individually is fine, one person should
not eat all three at once, and brings as a yesh omrim that one person should
not eat all three even zeh achar zeh (the position the Rema holds to
l'chatchila).  No such suggestion is made where we are dealing with bitul in
a mixture where the identity of the issur is lost. The forms of bittul being
relied on when dealing with non Jewish manufacturing and approved products
is almost certainly of the latter case.  Thus in the first case it would
seem relatively mainstream to say that on some level the piece hasn't
entirely lost its issur quality, while with the mixture it has.  Where the 9
chanuyos fit into this I don't know, but to jump from that case to the case
of a mixture where the identity of the issur has disappeared and which would
now seem to have another identity entirely seemed to me to be unwarranted.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana