<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Micha Berger <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:32:04PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:<br>
: It is noted by the Acharonim that when the Gemara discusses questions to do<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">: with transfer of non-Kosher flavour, there is no suggestion that a<br>
</div>: connoisseur be employed... Why not?<br>
: And perhaps we can ask ... how can we have a debate in the<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">: Gemara about matters of verifiable fact?<br>
<br>
: It is therefore proposed that it is not absolutely known if the flavour has<br>
</div>: or has not been transferred...<br>
<br>
I was bothered by the first question, and by the absurdity in claiming<br>
that Ashkenazim think the entire volume of the pot is of that which<br>
would give flavor to the substance in it. It is akin to your question<br>
about a kezayis being consercutibely dunked in 1 million pots. There<br>
can't possibly be a physical trace -- taste-giving or not -- that is<br>
sufficient to prohibit.<br>
<br>
But I fail to see how casting the question as a safeiq explains our not<br>
hiring a taster.<br>
<br>
My answer (discussed here ad nauseum, but the list demographics shifted<br>
since, so I hope it's worth reopening) was more radical and went in an<br>
entirely different direction. If it can't be about physical tastables,<br>
then let's not look at physics.<br>
<br>
The word "ta'am" has a meaning other than "taste". "Ta'amei hamitzvos"<br>
"Mai ta'ama?" etc... If you assume "nosein ta'am" refers to how people<br>
are expected to think of the object, all three questions evaporate. The<br>
question is no longer easily measurable, being an about not only<br>
psychology, but presumptions about preferred psychologies.<br>
<br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha<br>
</blockquote></div><br>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. <br>
<br>ANYTHING that is boteil beshishm is a function of bnosein Ta'am but ther ar issuirng taht are nto bateil beshishim. <br>Or as one of my issur v;heter studnets explains:Botteil beshishim is a PROXY for noesin Ta'am.<br>
<br>Obviously there are cases where ta;am is NOT a factor [min bemino according to the shach but not necesarily Rema et. al. who bassare Shema] See Shacc's commnet on Rema [SA 98:3? iirc] ] re: bassarr shema azlainan where the Sahch enumerates the cases of NOT noesin ta'am.<br>
<br>I also think this logic would knock out the Rabbeinu Tam Ta'am k'ikkar into a different universe or dimension.<br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>