Let's be real. I did not grow up frum (understatement of the century). I didn't start learning in earnest till about 30 years ago, and even that has been very part time till just a year ago. Nonetheless, I still look for opportunities to use my background and secular education to have some value add. Here was my recent try.
I am learning about mixtures of milk and meat. I just got to the topic (for the last couple of weeks) of drops of milk spattering pot of meat. Very interesting topic. Lots of juicy details, some of which you can find in this TftD. One thing, though... we always look at the pot as if it has absorbed a lot of food. How much? We are stringent and assume that the pan -- even though it is stainless steel -- has absorbed so much food into its walls that we just bite the bullet and consider them to be entirely food. That means for nullification purposes, we would need the contents to be 60 times the volume of the walls. I've tried the calculation a few times -- not happening for normal sized sauce pans; it might be true sometimes for 9x13 disposable aluminum pans.
But c'mon! The walls of a pot -- especially stainless steel -- just don't absorb much food. I did my research! They have studied how much oil can be absorbed into cast iron and stainless steel. (That has been studied a lot, as that is how you season a cast iron pan.) So I understand earthenware, but steel?
I discussed the issue with R' Schwimmer, shlita. I presented my evidence. The rabbi heard me out, and said I had a point. One thing, though, we are interested in taste, not actually food. Sure, sure, I agreed, but I am sure that taste molecules (however you define that) are much bigger than oil molecules. I even doubled down on that last statement this morning while discussing with some of the kollel members. I then went to learn siman 98, siman 5, where the Rema discusses absorbed tastes in pots. There is a mention of earthenware versus metal. Ah... getting somewhere. There is a Taz on that siman. A big Taz. No, I mean, a really scary big Taz -- essentially covers one entire page.
I dived in. If I was going to argue, I wanted ammunition. Then I decided to see just how much bigger taste molecules (whatever that might mean) are than oil molecules.
Oops.
First, the concept of taste molecules is very well defined. There are receptors on your tongue that are very specific to certain molecules to register taste. Here is the summary from Gemini:
In summary: A taste molecule is significantly smaller and less complex than a typical oil molecule. Think of it like comparing a small key (taste molecule) that fits into a specific lock (taste receptor) to a large, branched tree (oil molecule).
Oh.
Then I checked molecules associated with smell... which, of course, are also associated with taste. Those are even smaller and more mobile... especially when heated.
All this makes sense, actually. We need taste and smell to be very sensitive so we can sense spoiled food and noxious gases before they become dangerous. Having specific receptors for small taste/smell molecules means that bigger molecules (like oil...sigh) can't block them. Wonders of the Creator.
I could go on, but I think I have demonstrated that my value add is that I have much more to unlearn than anyone else there and I know how to look it up.
Comments