[Avodah] Bittul of non-K and Chametz during Pesach

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:18:17PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: HaRav Sh Z, explains that although Chamets during Pesach is not Battel
: 1:1000, nevertheless it is Battel when it is not at all discernible. This
: means that at 1:1000 it is still discernible. Consequently 1:60 is certainly
: discernible. Now this is strange since 1:60 is the rule of thumb at which we
: assume taste is no longer discernible.

I prefer RAF's formulation to my own, because it means that RSZA's
requirement that /someone/ must be able to taste it is just part of the
general rule that things which can't be perceived by unaided human senses
are outside the metzi'us halakhah deals with. One of my pet topics.

Still, I think my original objection holds, and stands as a second
teirutz.

Kayadua, 1:60 is a thumbnail way of saying there is ta'am without
actually tasting the pot. This is inherent in Chulin 98b, which derives
the one in 60 from the zero'ah (which is qodshim) being bateil in the
rest of the qorban nazir. Rav directly discusses it in terms of
ta'am zeroa'. This is zil qeri bei rav to any musmach, RSZA knows
it too. So obviously he can't be disconnecting them -- your statement
is beyond shocking, it's entirely implausible.

Perhaps you are a Sepharadi and there are no nachriim around, or an Ashk
who presumably has no idea how much of a gormand the nakhri has to be
in order to be an "expert taster" who can pick up the ta'am directly. So
we have a rule of thumb.

: It seems that HaRav Sh Z is saying that at 1:1000 (which is not an exact
: ratio - unlike 1:60) only the most finely attuned palates can discern. That
: is enough to render Chamets during Pesach, not Battel.

1:1000 is at most a hava amina (if not just stam an idiom), it's rejected
-- afilu 1:1000 eino bateil". It is not only not an exact ratio, the
gemara's whole point is that it's not a significant ratio, there is no
halachic concept related to 1:1000. It's "mashehu".

You noted ourself the distinction between RSZA's requirement, which would
be that it must be tastable by anyone in order for the mashehu not to be
batel, and the usual thing 1:60 is taken to measure tastable by most
people or by most experts (machloqes Shakh and Taz).

LAD, the parallel to RSZA saying that
    only a mashehu of chameitz that is tastable to someone is not bateil
would be
    a taaroves of <1:60 but is tastable (e.g. a davar charif) is also not
    batail.

This was my my initial objection to your chiddush, when I said that
you had the sense of RSZA reversed.

But again, I think RSZA's notion is better understood in RAF's terms
rather than saying he's talking about taam in the taaroves sense. There
would thus be no parallel to be suggested.

: What happens if we have food produced in machinery which has non-K BeliOs,
: which by calculation are =>1:60 yet are not discernible by even the most
: finely honed palate?

We would say you just happened not to find the right palate. That's what
the asmachta from the pasuq is all about!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
micha at aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln