[Avodah] Forms of Bitul

[Chana Luntz]

> : Micha Berger:
> :> So, if you bring the milk back up to the top, visible be'ein, it can
> :> still be eaten with the rest of the chulent?

I replied:
 
> : No, because if it is visible then the visible bit needs to be removed
> and if
> : it is taste able then if a non Jew would be able to taste it and any
> part
> : that has the taste of milk is assur because of ta'am k'ikar...
 And R' Micha Berger:

> So, you're backing off of the notion that the milk was "completely
> overwhelmed by the meat stew and thereby disappearing from
> existence"?

No, it is a earlier step.

The halacha regarding milk disappearing into meat stew and the test being
one of taste as brought in the Shulchan Aruch in siman 98 is sourced from
the gemora in Chullin on 97a.  This is a continuation of the discussion
regarding taste and gid hanashe, neveila and non kosher fish which is
brought in the Mishna on 96b.  The halacha brought in the Mishna is that to
the extent one recognises the prohibited item ie "b'zman shemakiran", one
has to remove it.  One then is left with the question of taste that the
prohibited item has added to the mixture, which the gemora then explains as
being determined by a non Jewish chef. This is then applied by Rava to a
meat pot in which one cooked milk and then the gemora goes on to discuss the
one in sixty rule in lieu of a non Jewish taster and where it applies.

That is, you can't go beyond the actual Mishna.  If you actually can
recognise the bit of issur that has just fallen into the heter, of course
you have to take it out.  And sometimes at the point at which it first
falls, it may indeed by b'ain - you may be able to see white milk on top of
a meat stew, at which point you need to fish it out.  But shortly
thereafter, it is likely to dissolve or disappear.  At that point, all the
commentators start talking about taste, and the taste test, which is set at
one in sixty.  Ie At that point, the milk is "completely overwhelmed by the
meat strew and thereby disappears from existence", which is why we are now
into the taste test scenario.

 >Becuase if so, then the stuff the centrifuge brought to the
> top isn't actually "milk", from a halachic perspective.

That is what I would suspect.  Ie if initially you are able to recognise it,
then this is prior to the bitul happening.  Once bitul has happened, I
believe the language used by the various rishonim is that it is "keino".  I
don't know that they contemplate somebody being able to centrifuge the
mixture to thereby re-separate what has previously been mixed and
undetectable by our taste test.  Some of this seems to me to be discussed in
the context of udders, and one udder falling into a mixture of sixty, and
then into a further mixture of sixty, but I think has to do more with the
unusual characteristics of udders.

On the other hand, and to mix two separate threads, it may be that at heart
this is the macholkus between the machmir and meikil stream when it comes to
bugs.  The point about these bugs is that it is, at least theoretically,
possibly to see them and separate them, even if it takes much effort (and
the use of chemicals).  Perhaps for this reason the machmirim do not regard
this as a genuine ta'arovos on a d'orisa level, and regard the lavin as
still applying, ie there is no bitul b'rov.  While the meikilim presumably
take the view that while if one spots a bug, one would clearly remove it, if
one cannot separate them without significant tircha and sharp eyesight, then
they are sufficiently mixed for bitul d'orisa to apply.  This is only
speculation on my part, however, as I am yet to find anybody who seems to
discuss these as two streams of thought, rather than plump for one or the
other.

> I would think that is that since rov is described by the SA as being
> mevatel beta'aroves, Rashi considers the word for dough (a case of
> mixture) to be a term for safeiq, bitul betaaroves and besafeiq come
> from the same pasuq, etc... there is no reason to think one is more
> "real" than the other. Just as a mi'ut in a mixture loses its identity,
> a mi'ut probability loses its identity.

The problem is that you are throwing bitul d'orisa and d'rabbanan and
different kinds of ta'arovos and probability and different kinds of safek
all into one stew.  Yes, sometimes, according to some people, a mi'ut of
probability loses its identity, and sometimes it doesn't.  Rabbi Meir is
famous for being choshesh l'miuta - he didn't feel it lost its identity, the
other Rabbis disagreed.  Conversely, when we were discussing the possibility
of the barrel breaking and the teruma being lost, Rabbi Meir was not worried
about this possibility, and the other Rabbis were.  Saying safek d'orisa
l'chumra means that we are worried about a possibility, even if it may not
be in reality a majority possibility, although perhaps you will say it is
deemed so by the application of kavua.  I understand you are trying to get
to a "grand theory of everything" but I don't know that we can get there.

> And the notion that probabilities can recombine according to most
> shitos
> in at least some situations doesn't prove a thing one way or the other,
> if you're willing to say you can undo bitul betaaroves as well. This is
> tangential to my main point, but what we're discussing here.

Still don't understand what you are getting at here.

> Similarly, even WRT taaroves, if we're talking about carrying a
> taaroves that has a mi'ut tamei, it's like eating all 3 pieces of fat at
once --
> there is no bitul. It's only touching the mixture or eating one bite at
> a time where we have bitul in a taaroves.

This is not the view of the Rosh.  The Rosh distinguishes between the case
of tumah and the case of eating.  He has to do this to deal with the gemora
in Bechoros, but he does this to work with the pasuk.  Other rishonim
understand the din of tumah and the din of eating to be the same, but that
means they are forced to have a different understanding of the pasuk.  But,
even the Rashba, whose shita about eating one bite at a time this is -
agrees that you can (a) l'chatchila add 60 pieces (actually presumably 58,
you already have two) the mixture ie bring it up to 1/60 *l'chatchila* and
(b) *then* you can eat the resultant mixture in one bite (or cook it
together, which amounts to the same thing).  Ie bitul in sixty (or taste)
which is what we have in the drop of milk in a meat stew case, is different
from bitul b'rov, the bitul is sufficient that you can even eat the whole
thing.  

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana