nosein ta’am lifgam – RabbiKaganoff.com

Squirrels in Kashrus

Most of us are very surprised to discover that a passage of Gemara (Avodah Zarah 68b-69a) discusses the taste of squirrels (see Rashi ad loc.). The quality of their taste is relevant to halacha notwithstanding that squirrels are non-kosher rodents, a category that includes mice, beavers and rats. In the Aramaic dialect of the Gemara, squirrels are called achbara dedabra, literally, achbarim of the field, as opposed to achbara demasa, achbarim of the city, which refers to mice, which are also usually called just achbar (singular; the additional aleph at the end of the word achbara is simply the Aramaic version of the Hebrew word). As the Gemara notes, whereas mice are not favored as cuisine, non-Jewish royal families considered squirrels a delicacy. Even in the United States, two presidents, William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, are known to have favored squirrel stew as White House fare. (Don’t blame this commonality for their short times as president; Harrison died of pneumonia and Garfield was assassinated. Neither died of stomach poisoning!)

When the Torah lists the eight creeping creatures (sheratzim) whose remains generate tumah that contaminates food, people and vessels, one of the eight listed is the achbar (Vayikra 11:29). This factor will actually become significant to our discussion, since the eight sheratzim generate tumah when a very small piece, the size of an adasha, a lentil, is extant.

Rodents are mammals, and the Torah’s definition of kosher animals includes only those that chew their cud and have split hooves, both features that evade all rodents. Thus, all rodents are non-kosher. So, our reader will ask: What halachic difference does it make whether squirrels, mice or beavers are delicacies for the non-Jewish palate or not? Whether they are cooked by Jews or non-Jews they are prohibited min haTorah, so the concept that they might be oleh al shulchan melachim (could be served at a king’s table), and may therefore be included in the prohibition of bishul akum,should be irrelevant; they are very non-kosher!

Understanding properly the passage of Gemara discussing squirrel meat requires a lengthy introduction. When a non-kosher substance mixes into kosher food, and the non-kosher food is removed or can no longer be identified, the food is usually permitted when the kosher food is sixty times the quantity of the non-kosher. Although it is forbidden to eat non-kosher, when the ratio of the non-kosher is so small that it cannot be tasted, the offending substance is nullified, bateil. Chazal arrived at the figure of sixty to one by noting that most prohibited foods will not be tasted when their percentage is this small. However, if the non-kosher food can still be tasted, such as, it possesses a strong flavor, the mixture will still be prohibited, notwithstanding that there is sixty times more kosher than non-kosher.

The same is true when the non-kosher substance is still identifiable in a different way, such as by its consistency. In this instance, the finished product is permitted only if the identifiable non-kosher substance is removed, such as by filtering it out. Similarly, some authorities prohibit consuming a substance that contains a tiny component of non-kosher food coloring. Although it cannot be tasted, it is still noticeable by the color of the product (Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav 100:1; Minchas Kohen, Sefer Hata’aroves 3:3, quoted by Darkei Teshuvah 102:30; cf. Pri Chadash, Yoreh Deah 102:5; Minchas Yaakov, 74:5; Gra Yoreh Deah 102:6 and Chasam Sofer, quoted by Darkei Teshuvah, who disagree).

Nosein ta’am lifgam

At times, the residual flavor that a food provides is nosein ta’am lifgam, which means that the taste is unappetizing. The tanna’im dispute whether the unappetizingflavor of a non-kosher item into a kosher food renders the food non-kosher. Rabbi Meir contends that nosein ta’am lifgam is prohibited — all residual flavor is prohibited, whether or not it is tasty. Rabbi Shimon disagrees, contending that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted — the Torah prohibited the appetizing flavor of non-kosher substances, but not an unappetizing non-kosher flavor (Avodah Zarah 67b).

There are many reasons why a food might be nosein ta’am lifgam. One is because the non-kosher food or its residue is mildly spoiled. Another possibility is that people do not enjoy the flavor of that component in this particular food.

We should note that something is considered nosein ta’am lifgam even if it is only mildly distasteful. If most people prefer to eat this mixture without the taste added by the minor ingredient, that flavor qualifies as nosein ta’am lifgam.

The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 65b) rules that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted. This is also the conclusion of the Gemara in numerous places (Avodah Zarah 36a, 38b, 39b, 65b, 67b) and that of the halachic authorities (Rambam, Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros 17:2; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 103:5; 122:6). Therefore, although eating a food that includes a pleasant taste or residue of non-kosher is prohibited, when the non-kosher is not identifiable in the finished product and does not provide an appetizing flavor, the food is permitted.

Also note that it is never permitted to create a situation of bitul. Bitul is always a concept that exists after the fact – after the prohibited item became mixed in. It is forbidden to intentionally add a non-kosher ingredient to a food, even when it will be bateil in the final product. This rule is called ein mevatlin issur lechatchilah, literally, one cannot create, up front, a situation of bitul.

Rav’s achbar

This lengthy introduction has provided sufficient background to discuss the topic that I promised we would in my opening sentences to this article. The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 68b) tells us the following story: The students of Rav Sheishes’ yeshiva had heard of an incident in which an achbar had fallen into a vat of beer and that the great amora, Rav, had prohibited consumption of the entire vat, even after the achbar was removed. Although absorption of taste usually requires that the two products be heated together, which presumably did not happen to this vat of beer, there are other ways that taste can be transferred from one food to another. One example of this is kavush ki’mevushal, which literally translates as “marinating is like cooking.” A food item that sits in a liquid for 24 consecutive hours causes the flavor of the food and liquid to blend together; if one of them is non-kosher its flavor will prohibit the rest. Unless we are dealing with a salty or pungent food, the rule of kavush ki’mevushal applies only when the two sit together for at least 24 hours. If an ambient non-kosher ingredient lands in a kosher liquid and is removed before 24 hours have passed, the liquid remains kosher after the identifiable parts of the non-kosher matter are removed (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 104:1).

Let us return to our passage of Gemara: An achbar fell into a vat of beer; Rav prohibited the consumption of the entire vat. Why did Rav prohibit the beer? If the taste of marinated mice does not improve beer, this is nosein ta’am lifgam and the beer is permitted!

The students of Rav Sheishes, who had heard about Rav’s ruling, could think of only one option – that Rav accepts the opinion of Rabbi Meir prohibiting nosein ta’am lifgam. This would render the beer forbidden if the achbar was large enough to provide taste into the beer – in other words, there was less than sixty times beer in the vat, relative to the achbar.

The Gemara is not satisfied that Rav followed the stringent ruling of Rabbi Meir, presumably because of the multiplicity of places in which the Mishnah and the Gemara rule that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted. To resolve Rav’s ruling, the Gemara presents three other approaches to explain why Rav prohibited the beer.

Repulsive foods

Rav Sheishes, the rosh yeshiva to whom the question was referred, contended that there is an exception to the general rule that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted. In his opinion, a prohibited item that initially has a good taste and now renders a bad taste into another food is permitted because of nosein ta’am lifgam. But this applies only to a prohibited item that originally had a good taste. However, when the Torah forbids something that people find repulsive, the prohibition remains, even if it is nosein ta’am lifgam in a mixture. The logic for this position is that, in these instances, the Torah prohibited an item even though people loathe eating it. Therefore, the Torah was prohibiting even the ill taste of these items.

According to this approach, nosein ta’am lifgam is limited to foods that taste good but do not add benefit to the food in which they are mixed; nosein ta’am lifgam never applies to items that people do not usually consume as food. Since most people do not appreciate the fine taste of mice meat, this is always nosein ta’am lifgam, yet the Torah forbade it notwithstanding. Therefore, in Rav Sheishes’ opinion, a nosein ta’am lifgam of mice remains prohibited, and beer, or any other food or beverage, is forbidden when it contains a flavor from a repulsive, prohibited substance.

Squirrel

A second approach to explain Rav’s ruling is presented by Rav Shimi of Nahardea, who explains that the achbar that fell into the vat of beer was not an achbara demasa, a city achbar, also known as a mouse. It was an achbara dedabra, a squirrel, which non-Jewish royalty considered to be a delicacy. Squirrels are never considered nosein ta’am lifgam. The beer for which this squirrel gave its last moments of total devotion acquired a fine taste because of the squirrel meat. This is a case in which the non-kosher provides a positive flavor to the mixture, and the beer is prohibited for consumption min haTorah. If these are the facts with which Rav was dealing, it is obvious why he forbade the beer.

Beer is different

The final approach the Gemara provides is that of Rava, who is uncertain what Rav held, but suggests that although nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted, marinated mouse improves beer. Tosafos suggests that the mouse improves the fermentation of the beer – but not because of any “mousy” taste profile. The improved fermentation is a positive taste provided by a non-kosher substance, thereby explaining why Rav forbade the beer.

Note that although these are four very different approaches to explaining why Rav ruled stringently, the reasons provided are not mutually exclusive. The halachic authorities conclude that we accept the reason of Rav Shimi of Nahardea that squirrel meat is considered tasty and provides a good flavor into other food (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:1). They also consider it a possibility that Rava’s approach is correct — mice might enhance the fermentation of beer.

The halachic authorities infer that the conclusion of the Gemara rejects Rav Sheishes’ approach and, therefore, the principle of nosein ta’am lifgam applies even to something that people find repulsive (Toras Habayis, Bayis 4, end of Sha’ar 1, page 20a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:3; Gra, Yoreh Deah 104:2).

To review: the halachic conclusion drawn from this passage of Gemara is that there are two ways that we can explain Rav’s ruling:

(1) The achbar that fell into the beer vat was a squirrel, which provides a good taste into the beer (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:1). This vat could be marketed as a specialty beer product, but only to a non-Jewish market since it is non-kosher.

(2) Rav’s case was indeed a mouse, not a squirrel, but marinated mouse provides a special positive quality to the fermentation of beer that is not nosein ta’am lifgam.

Both approaches accept that a mouse that fell into oil or wine would not prohibit the product, even if it was more than one part per sixty. This is because it is nosein ta’am lifgam (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:2).

Mice in vinegar

Having provided four possible solutions for Rav’s ruling, the Gemara then inquires as to whether an achbar that falls into vinegar provides a good taste or not. According to Tosafos (Avodah Zarah 69a s. v. Eibaya),the Gemara was asking the following: We are aware that pungent foods have the ability to improve tastes that are otherwise nosein ta’am lifgam. (See Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 35b, that chiltis, an exceedingly pungent food, that issliced with a non-kosher knife becomes prohibited, notwithstanding that we usually assume that residual flavors in equipment is already spoiled and nosein ta’am lifgam; see Tosafos, Avodah Zarah 67b; 69a.) This author notes that when examining the formulae used for natural or artificial flavoring, it is common to find components that are inherently very distasteful but, as an ingredient, contribute to a delicious flavor.

The Gemara questions whether vinegar, a very pungent substance, has the ability to turn the nosein ta’am lifgam of mouse meat into a positive flavor.

Shredded mice

The Gemara proceeds to discuss another shaylah. What is the halacha if a mouse was shredded and the shredded pieces fell into a liquid. As we will see, although the Gemara mentions the case when mice shreds fell into vinegar, the halacha will be the same whether they fell into vinegar or any other liquid; it also make no difference whether they were submerged in the liquid for 24 hours or not.

Understanding this discussion also requires an introduction: The Beis Hamikdash contained chambers wherein met the Sanhedrin, the halachic supreme court that was composed of the 71 greatest Torah scholars of the generation. When the Sanhedrin existed, there was a high level of enforcement of the mitzvos of the Torah. In this era, someone eating a Torah-prohibited substance was punishable by malkus. This would happen only when the sinner received a warning that the local beis din might discipline him for his iniquity. At least two eyewitnesses needed to testify that the perpetrator received the warning, acknowledged that he understood it and nevertheless immediately consumed the forbidden food. Only under these circumstances would the beis din punish him. Moreover, the sinner was guilty only if he ate a minimum size of the prohibited food, usually a kezayis, an olive-sized piece.

The rishonim (to Me’ilah 16b) dispute whether the minimum size to receive malkus for violating the prohibition of eating prohibited sheratzim is a kezayis or a smaller size, referred to as a ka’adasha, the size of a lentil bean. Rashi and the Rashba understand that one is chayov malkus for consuming even the smaller size, whereas Tosafos explains that the punishment is meted out only for someone consuming the size equivalent to a kezayis.

In today’s world, we unfortunately do not have the Sanhedrin meeting in the Beis Hamikdash and, consequently, these sins are not prosecuted. Nevertheless, there are halachos that result because the chiyuv malkus for eating a sheretz is even when consuming only a ka’adasha.

The passage of Gemara (Avodah Zarah 69a) prohibits consuming vinegar that contains shredded mouse meat. There are two different reasons why this mixture is prohibited.

1. The shredded pieces of mouse are discernible in the liquid. The only way to permit this liquid is by first filtering out all pieces. This is true regardless of what type of liquid it is, regardless as to whether the non-kosher food tastes good or not, and regardless as to how long the non-kosher food remained in the liquid. The prohibition here is because the non-kosher is discernible in the mixture and therefore not bateil.

2. There is another concern here. Since pieces as small as a ka’adasha of a non-kosher sheretz, of which mice are one of the eight types, can make one culpable for malkus, there is no bitul when pieces this small may still be in the mixture. This would be true even when the kosher food in which it became mixed has its own lumpy parts, such as a stew, cholent or porridge. Chazal prohibited consuming this food because of the possible presence of a piece large enough to be a punishable offense (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:1). This contrasts with the earlier case of the passage of Gemara in which an achbar fell into beer, but was removed, and therefore the question was only about the taste left in the beer by the achbar.

We should always hope and pray that the food we eat fulfills all the halachos that the Torah commands us.

Passing the Taste Test

Question #1: Gentile Goulash

Can a non-Jew determine if the cholent or the goulash is kosher?

Question #2: Expert Witness

Does halacha recognize the concept of an “expert witness?”

Question #3: It Tastes Bad!

Does whether something tastes good or bad affect halacha?

Foreword:

This article will discuss what happens if a small amount of something non-kosher falls into kosher food. Because of the limitations inherent in writing articles, at times I will need to omit significant details. As a result, please do not use this as a source for any halachic ruling. Refer a personal question to a rav.

When non-kosher and kosher foods become mixed together, it is forbidden to eat the mixture. However, when the amount of the non-kosher item is so small that it cannot be tasted, the mixture is usually permitted, since the offending substance is considered nullified, bateil.

Note that I wrote “usually,” because there are exceptions to this rule, most of which will wait patiently for future articles. One instance in which the offending ingredient is not bateil is when someone deliberately attempted to nullify a forbidden product or mixture. In this instance, the resultant mixture is prohibited because of the principle of ein mevatlin issur lechatchila (Beitzah 4b), one may not deliberately nullify a prohibited substance.

Ta’am ke’ikur

Why is the ability to taste a prohibited substance the criterion to determine whether the mixture is permitted? This is because of a halachic principle called ta’am ke’ikur, the taste is like the actual substance.

Nosein ta’am lifgam

Even when the non-kosher ingredient can be tasted, at times the mixture is still permitted. This is when the non-kosher substance does not add positive taste into the food, but adds an unpleasant taste, even if it is only mildly unpleasant. The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 67b) quotes a dispute between tanna’im whether nosein ta’am lifgam, literally, that which provides a bad taste, is prohibited or permitted. According to the opinion that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted, should a non-kosher substance provide an unpleasant taste when added to food, the food remains kosher. The halacha follows the opinion that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted.

We can then reach this conclusion regarding a mixture of non-kosher and kosher food:

(1) When the non-kosher food is the minority of the mixture, and

(2) the non-kosher food can no longer be identified, and

(3) the non-kosher food does not improve the taste,

then the mixture may be eaten. And, as mentioned above, this is true only when the bitul, the nullifying, was not performed intentionally.

24 hours

The halachic assumption is that residual taste that is present in a vessel or utensil from a previous cooking usually spoils after 24 hours have elapsed. This means that the flavor imparted from such equipment is no longer beneficial and therefore food cooked in it is permitted. In addition, because of a more complicated halachic principle and reasoning, even when we do not know for certain whether equipment was used in the previous 24 hours, we are permitted to assume that the product cooked in non-kosher equipment is kosher (see Tosafos, Avodah Zarah 35b s.v. Miklal). On this basis, although it is prohibited to use a non-kosher pot, food cooked in it with kosher ingredients usually remains kosher.

How do we know?

When a small amount of issur (prohibited food) got mixed with heter (permitted food), we need to know whether the issur is bateil and the food is therefore permitted, or whether it is not bateil and the food is prohibited. In general, there are two methods to ascertain that the food is bateil.

The taste test

A non-Jew tastes the mixture to ascertain whether he can detect taste of the non-kosher food (or the tiny percentage of milk in meat, or vice versa). He may also tell us that, although he can detect the non-kosher substance, what it adds to the mixture is distasteful. In this instance, the food is permitted, as explained above.

Must the non-Jew swallow the food that he is tasting? There is a dispute among later halachic authorities whether a taste test requires that the taster actually swallow the food, or whether it is sufficient that he chew the food thoroughly. The Pri Megadim (Mishbetzos Zahav, Yoreh Deah 98:2) rules that when tasting to check for an issur, the person must chew the food and swallow some of it, whereas the Yad Yehudah (98:2) is satisfied that chewing well is enough and even that is necessary only if it is a solid food. If it is a liquid, even tasting the food in his mouth and spitting it out afterward suffices.

Most poskim contend that the non-Jew should not know that his answer is deciding whether a product is kosher or not. Why? Some explain that the non-Jew may want to help the Jew and tell him that he cannot taste any prohibited substance, even when he is uncertain (Badei Hashulchan 98:8).

Another possibility is that someone who does not understand that it is a violation of what Hashem wants may bias what he says because of other motivations. Thus, we cannot rely on information provided unless (a) the person is halachically concerned about the prohibition involved, or (b) there is a compelling reason why the person would tell the truth, such as an expert chef who would not want to jeopardize his professional reputation.

Ratio

If we know how much of a non-kosher substance fell in, we can try to determine (by measuring) whether the percentage is large enough to be discerned. That is, if what fell in is less than one sixtieth of the permitted substance, the mixture is permitted.

Some rishonim require that, when possible, we must use both methods. In other words, the prohibited substance must be one part in sixty or less, and even then, if a non-Jew is available, we should have him taste the mixture to determine that the prohibited food cannot be tasted (Rashi, Chullin 98a s.v. Beshishim). Others rule that it is better to have a non-Jew taste the food and tell us that he cannot taste the non-kosher substance. If no non-Jew is available, we may permit the food if we know that the kosher food is at least sixty times the volume of the non-kosher (Rambam).

The Shulchan Aruch concludes, like the Rambam, that we use one part in sixty as a determinant only when there is no non-Jew present to taste the meat. In such a case, we calculate if the heter is sixty times the issur, in which case it is mutar.

There are instances in which we cannot use the taste test and will only be able to use the ratio method. For example, what do we do if a small amount of non-kosher meat fell into a cholent or goulash in which there is more kosher meat than the non-kosher that fell in? What are we going to ask the non-Jew to taste? Of course, he is going to taste meat, because there is plenty of kosher meat in the mixture, and there is no way to know by taste whether the non-kosher meat can be tasted. In such situations, we will be forced to use the ratio method to determine whether the food is kosher (see Yorah Deah 98:2).

Chaticha na’asah neveilah

Here is another instance in which we will not be able to rely on taste to rule that something is permitted. A small amount of meat fell into a pot containing dairy. Afterward, another ingredient, that is neither meat nor dairy, was added to the pot. The problem in this instance is that, when the meat fell into the dairy, if the pot did not contain enough to make the meat bateil, all the milk and meat in that pot became prohibited as basar bechalav. Adding more to the pot will not help, nor will tasting the food afterward to discern that the meat cannot be tasted, since the dairy already became prohibited min haTorah. To permit the food (and the pot) we will need to determine how much was in the pot when the meat fell in originally; tasting it now will not help make that determination.

This concept is called chaticha na’asah neveilah, which means that once something absorbed a prohibited substance, we must treat the entirety as prohibited. This concept has ramifications for many other halachos, but space considerations will require us to leave the topic for a future article.

Why sixty to one?

Why is a prohibited substance usually bateil when there is sixty times its volume of heter in the mixture? The reason is because Chazal calculated that most prohibited foods will not be tasted when they are in the food at this small percentage. However, this calculation is not absolute. There are several prohibitions in which Chazal required a larger percentage, because they wanted us to be more stringent regarding these, more serious issurim. There is also the instance of a food that is avida leta’ama, meaning that it is a spice or other flavoring agent. Since these foods can be tasted even when in very tiny amounts, they remain prohibited even when there ar only very small amounts in the food.

Returning to the taste test

Exactly whose opinion do we need that the non-kosher cannot be tasted? Can we use any non-Jew to perform the taste test, or does it require an expert chef? Some contend that an expert chef is needed because we do not assume that the average person is so discerning (see Rashba). Others require an expert chef for a different reason: since he has his well-earned professional reputation at stake, he can be trusted to tell us the truth and not what he thinks we want to hear.

The Rambam and those who follow his approach do not require that the “taste tester” be an expert. They contend that we may rely on any non-Jew who tastes the food and tells us that he cannot discern the non-kosher ingredient in themixture. Among those who accept any non-Jewish taster, some contend that we can rely on him only when he does not know why we are asking him, whereas others are not concerned about this.

In general, halacha accepts that only someone affected by a situation pays attention to its details. For this reason, someone who witnessed something and did not realize the significance of what he was seeing cannot be relied upon for his opinion as to what happened. Thus, in general, it would seem that we should not rely on a non-Jew telling us whether he discerned the non-kosher product or not, if he is unaware of the reason we are asking.

There are some possible exceptions to this rule. One is when the individual has a professional reputation to protect. Someone in this situation is very concerned not to ruin his well-earned reputation, and will always be careful to render a correct answer to the best of his ability. Therefore, we accept his opinion to be true.

Others explain that we may ask a non-Jew whether he tastes the non-kosher when he knows that we are immediately going to see if he is right. Although it may not be his uppermost concern to provide us with accurate information, knowing that we will check immediately on his reliability will cause him to be more concerned to provide accurate information (Shach, Yorah Deah 98:2; Pri Chadash; based on Shu”t Harivash #433).

This approach is recommended by the Gemara and this is the approach followed by Sefardim as ruled in the Shulchan Aruch (Yorah Deah 98:1), who accepts any non-Jew’s opinion if he does not know that we are relying on him.

However, the custom developed among Ashkenazim not to rely on a non-Jew tasting the food. Why would Ashkenazim ignore the approach recommended by the Gemara? Did we decide to become frummer than the authors of the Gemara?

G-d forbid! There is much discussion among the later authorities why Ashkenazim follow this approach. One reason suggested is that, if we study the various explanations provided by the rishonim, we will realize that they are mutually exclusive. In other words, some hold that we can accept the non-Jew’s opinion only when he knows why we want the information, whereas others assume the exact opposite – that he is trusted only when he has no idea why we want the information. Since it is impossible to accommodate all the opinions, the custom is to be stringent and not use this approach. (This answer is provided by Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his glosses to Yorah Deah 98:1, but the Gra and Rav Shelomoh of Vilna, in their respective glosses, disagree.)

Avida leta’ama

Above, we noted that a non-kosher spice or seasoning is not usually bateil because it can still be tasted in the finished product. Thus, the ratio of sixty parts heter to one part issur will not permit this product. However, can you have a non-Jew try it to see if he can taste the issur? Certainly according to Sefardic practice, this is permitted. But can an Ashkenazi use a non-Jew to taste whether the avida leta’ama ingredient can still be tasted?

The Shach (Yorah Deah 98:29), an Ashkenazi who follows the Rema, rules that, when the question is whether you can taste an avida leta’ama, you may rely on a non-Jew. This ruling is accepted by Rav Shelomoh Eiger (in his notes on Rema, Yorah Deah 98:1); but there are those who disagree.

A Jewish taster

The Rema writes that “nowadays we do not rely on the tasting of a non-Jew” (Yorah Deah 98:1). This implies that if a Jew tastes a mixture and tells you that the “prohibited substance” cannot be discerned, you may rely on him (Shach). Most, but not all, authorities accept that we can rely on a Jewish taster (cf. Levush, who disagrees and concludes that Ashkenazim never rely on tasting).

Obviously, in the cases that we have been discussing, no halachically abiding Jew could taste the food, and a Jew who is not halachically abiding cannot be relied upon. Thus, when does this ruling apply?

There are numerous cases in which it might be relevant to have a Jewish person taste the mixture:

(1) If some terumah of one type of fruit or vegetable falls into a different species of non-terumah that is cooking, we may have a kohen taste it, since he is permitted to eat terumah. If he tells us that he cannot taste the species that is terumah, then a non-kohen may eat it. The same halacha is relevant to a case where the dough separated as challah became mixed into a product. (These cases are assuming that we are in a time and place when kohanim eat terumah and challah.)

(2) An individual made an oath or a vow prohibiting himself from eating a certain food. Subsequently, that food gets mixed into other food. Another Jew, who is not included in the oath or vow, may taste the mixture and ascertain that the prohibited food is not discernible.

(3) An onion was cut with a meat knife, and someone tasted the onion and contends that it has no fleishig taste. May someone now eat this onion with dairy? This application can be applied to any similar case where we want to verify if pareve food has a meat or dairy taste.

(4) A non-kosher substance fell into a kosher food and we do not know whether the kosher substance was sixty times the non-kosher. A non-Jew, who does not know why we are asking his opinion, tastes the food and tells us that the non-kosher substance cannot be discerned. At this point, a fully halachically observant Sefardi who heard the non-Jew’s ruling is permitted to rely on his pesak and taste the food. Upon tasting the food, the Sefardi notifies an Ashkenazi that indeed there is no taste of non-kosher in the food. According to the ruling of the Rema and the Shach, the Ashkenazi may now eat the food, relying on the tasting of a Jew.

All four of these cases are seemingly dependent on the dispute quoted above between the Levush and the Shach whether we rely on the tasting done by a Jew.

Conclusion

A well-known, non-Jewish criticism of Judaism is: “Does G-d care more about what goes into our mouths than He does about what comes out?” The criticism is, of course, both mistaken and conceited. Our development as avdei Hashem involves both what goes in and what comes out, and the height of vanity is to decide which is “more” important in His eyes. Being careful about what we eat and about what we say are vital steps in our growth as human beings.