[Avodah] When Things Are Only MAYBE Assur

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 05:58:57PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: b'nosein Ta'am as expalined by Talmud/Rambam/Tur/Mechabeir [see YD Tur 98
: for quotes of Rava et. al.]  is subject to te'imas kefiela for issur, and
: t'eimas koshein for Trumah. Therefore  I don't get this point.

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 05:58:57PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
:> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:32:04PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
:>: It is noted by the Acharonim that when the Gemara discusses questions to do
:>: with transfer of non-Kosher flavour, there is no suggestion that a
:>: connoisseur be employed... Why not?
:>: And perhaps we can ask ...                   how can we have a debate in
:> the Gemara about matters of verifiable fact?

:>: It is therefore proposed that it is not absolutely known if the flavour
:>: has or has not been transferred...

:> I was bothered by the first question, and by the absurdity in claiming
:> that Ashkenazim think the entire volume of the pot is of that which
:> would give flavor to the substance in it....
:> But I fail to see how casting the question as a safeiq explains our not
:> hiring a taster.
:> My answer ...                 If it can't be about physical tastables,
:> then let's not look at physics.

:> The word "ta'am" has a meaning other than "taste". "Ta'amei hamitzvos"
:> "Mai ta'ama?" etc... If you assume "nosein ta'am" refers to how people
:> are expected to think of the object, all three questions evaporate. The
:> question is no longer easily measurable, being an about not only
:> psychology, but presumptions about preferred psychologies.

: b'nosein Ta'am as expalined by Talmud/Rambam/Tur/Mechabeir [see YD Tur 98
: for quotes of Rava et. al.]  is subject to te'imas kefiela for issur, and
: t'eimas koshein for Trumah. Therefore  I don't get this point.

Obviously something that tastes like meat has a ta'am of meat. My question
was how can ta'am go beyond taste, such as the case I brought of how
much it takes to be mevateil a balu'ah. IOW, the taster isn't directly
testing the taste, he is indirectly testing how people would think of
this pot. If it's an issue of the chulent-as-perceived, then of course
perception includes knowing how it actually tastes.

: ANYTHING that is boteil beshishm is a function of bnosein Ta'am but ther ar
: issuirng taht are nto bateil beshishim.
: Or as one of my issur v;heter studnets explains:Botteil beshishim is a PROXY
: for noesin Ta'am.

Actually, don't you need both -- 1:60 that in addition doesn't have any
noticable ta'am?

: I also think this logic would knock out the Rabbeinu Tam Ta'am k'ikkar into
: a different universe or dimension.

Are you talking about nehepach heter le'issar? I think I give it a
rational basis? Why should eating a qezayis which happens not to contain
a qezayis of the issur matter? Because we're eating a qezayis of chulent,
not a qezayis of beans. And this is the same as the distinction I made
to justify Ashk chumrah WRT nosein ta'am. The physics: a pot containing
trace amounts of meat. The perception: a meaty pot. One has to be mevateil
the perception, not the physics. The distinction isn't one of physics,
but one of how we perceive the object.

Lehefech, I think it's /easier/ to understand NHL with ta'am meaning
"as perceived / understood". You don't need to deal with the fact that
the chulent doesn't have to taste like the tarfus in order to turn into
issur, but only have a taste where its contribution is detectable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?