Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: ביטול for Mixtures of Both Similar and Dissimilar Ingredients

We are all familiar with בטל בששים/nullified in 60 when it comes to nullifying forbidden substances (or milk in meat or meat in milk) in mixtures.  I didn't realize just how familiar that concept really is until I saw that Google translated בטל בששים as simply "insignificant".  There is an important detail, however regarding whether the mixture is מין במינו (comprised of similar ingredients) or מין באינו מינו (comprised of dissimilar ingredients).  When it comes to מין באינו מינו, the nullification is needed at a Torah level, whereas when the mixture is מין במינו, the nullification is a Rabbinic stringency.  That, of course, is important for any cases of doubt whether there is actually 60 times the volume in the permitted substance to nullify the forbidden one.  We'll call the forbidden substance (hoped to be small volume) the "solute", and the majority component of permitted substance the "solvent".  This both saves typing and also takes on an air of scientific precision.

What is an example of מין במינו?  Campbell's chicken soup with my wife's chicken soup.  (Actually my wife's chicken soup is so amazing that I consider any other soup as a forbidden solute, but that is neither here nor there.)  מין באינו מינו?  Lard with Crisco.  (Hah!  I am one of the few readers of this TftD who have tasted lard permissibly.  For those of you who have never tasted lard, I assure you that it tastes much different -- and better -- than Crisco.  For those of you who have also tasted lard; shame on you!)

How do you get to a case of not knowing whether you have enough solvent to solute?  Being lazy about due diligence, by the way, is not an example of doubt.  You are expected to know or go back and determine how much milk fell into your meat (or vice versa).  Suppose however, one oz of Campbell's chicken soup fell into 30 oz of kosher chicken, and so you quickly scoop up where the Campbell's fell and dump it out.  Similar scenario for the Crisco and lard.  (What is the Campbell's chicken soup and lard doing in your kitchen?  Darned if I know.)  So now you definitely have more permitted solvent than forbidden solute.  However, you don't -- and can't (without chemical analysis) -- know if there is 60 times the volume of solvent to solute.  In that case the soup will be permitted -- we are lenient regarding doubt in a Rabbinic requirement; the shortening will be forbidden -- we are stringent regarding doubt in Torah matter.

How do you remember which is which?  After listening to the same few shiurim a dozen or so times, I finally got it.  Why does מין באינו מינו require a volume of 60 solvent to solute?  Because of the principle that טעם כעיקר דאורייתא/if you can taste it, the Torah regards that as eating the substance itself.  We need that volume of 60:1 in order to nullify the taste.  So as long as you are not sure you have 60:1 in a mixture of מין באינו מינו -- where you have a foreign taste admixture -- then you are in a case of doubt regarding a Torah requirement.  Why do we need a ratio of 60:1 for מין במינו?  Obviously it can't depend on taste; that's what מין במינו means, the taste is the same (according to the Shach, anyway).  In that case, the Torah requires a simple majority; then Chazal came and enacted a stringency to require a ratio of 60:1.  Since the 60:1 requirement for מין במינו mixtures is Rabbinic, the cases of doubt will be permitted.

Isn't that cool?  And that coolness is definitely a fulfillment of a Torah obligation to learn and understand.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aru...
Post a Comment
Read more