Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 250

Thu, 10 Dec 2009

• 1. Believing companies - kashrus (Dov Kaiser)
• 2. Re: Believing Companies - Kashrus (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: LW MO (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: LW MO (Micha Berger)
• 5. Kashrus (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Kosher meat in a non K Butcher Shop (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: LBD lists (Ben Waxman)
• 8. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: Newspapers and REW (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Newspapers and REW (Harry Maryles)
• 11. Re: Billions and Millions (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Artificial meet (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Artificial meet (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Believing companies - kashrus (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

It seems, then, that KOF-K does not follow R. Moshe Feinstein?s ruling in
YD1:55 that a factory may be believed when it tells us that it has used
vegetable oil.	The teshuva is available online at http://www.hebr
ewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=917&;st=&pgnum=92. 
 
R. Moshe mentions at the beginning of his teshuva that one of his
questioner's reasons to permit reliance on the manufacturer?s information
was that it was responding to a person who was ill (which might have
enhanced the reliability of their response).  However, it does not appear
from R. Moshe?s subsequent lomdus or his conclusion at the end of the
teshuva that this was relevant to his permissive ruling.  
 
That being the case, on whom does KOF-K rely to be machmir on this question? 
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kaiser
 
 
R. Y. Levine wrote: 
 
Some time ago I had a long back and forth via email with
 
>Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits
>Author of Halachically Speaking
>Rabbinical Administrator - KOF-K Kosher Supervision
>Recorder of KOF- K policy
 
It was about the kashrus of mouthwash, particularly Scope and Listerine. In
one of the issues of Halachically Speaking he had written essentially one
should use only use mouthwash that has supervision, because of the glycerin
in the "regular" mouthwashes. This he based on the psak of Rav Belsky.
 
I wrote to him that Listerine has no glycerin in it. I also told him that I
had contacted Scope, and they told me that the glycerin they use is of
animal origin. Eventually he wrote back the following. 
 
"After giving some thought to our conversation today I want to add the following:
Although the non-Jew said they use vegetable ingredients there is no one
making sure this is always done and non-vegetable glycerin is cheaper than
vegetable. therefore, if they are not a kosher company there is no reason
why they should use vegetable glycerin. Why are we believing a non-Jew to
tell us about kosher. The one answering the phone has limited knowledge
regarding the items in a product. Even if it is made on the same equipment
as animal glycerin we do not rely on bitul. My opinion still stands that I
have no way to guarantee that only vegetable glycerin is ALWAYS used."
 
This response not only relates to the use of sugar or corn syrup in coke,
but also has wide implications for the discussion about following lists in
other countries that has taking place on Avodah. If one cannot rely on what
a non-Jew (I assume this applies to a non-religious Jew also) tells you,
then how can one follow lists?>>
                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Add your Gmail and Yahoo! Mail email accounts into Hotmail - it's easy
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091210/716a5aa1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 04:37:56PM -0800, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: Does this mean that if vegetable glycerin was cheaper than non-veg that we
: would be able to rely on the non-Jew, assuming they would do whatever is
: cheapest?

A nachri's eidus is believed mesiach lefi tumo. It can only work if
they don't know what it is we want to know, or if they have an active
disinsentive against sheqer (eg USFDA fines on dairies that adulterate
the milk).

In this case, though, he would know the "right" answer to help his
business. It doesn't take much knowledge of Judaism to know we have lots
of rules about meat, even if you don't know anything about how we deal
with vegetable products. So I could see arguing it's not a situation
of lefi tumo, and thus saying there is no neemanus. OTOH, I could see
arguing that he would want to brag about using the suprior glycerine,
and not the cheap stuff, and thus he has a *dis*incentive to lie.

To bring this to RDK's question (if I didn't approve it yet, it's in
queue)... This would also be a possible difference with RMF's case.
Getting our heads out of "what hechsheirim do" and into the sugyos, there
are rules for when we do and do not rely on the sichah of a nachri. It's
neither "we do" nor "we do not believe", with no qualifier.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 08:16:09AM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://www.jewishjournal.com/morethodoxy/item/the_
: ever-narrowing_orthodox_mind_39091208/

Some comments on RYK's blog entry:
: The Ever-Narrowing Orthodox Mind.
: Posted by Rav Yosef Kanefsky

: Another way that we are unnecessarily making Orthodoxy unappealing
: to folks is by tolerating the perception that Orthodox Jews are bound
: by a set of religious dogmas...

We are, though. It's a shorter list and a broader range of beliefs than
those listed, but that doesn't mean we have no dogma. We can't correct
an error in one direction by over-erring in the other. Not only that,
we have more dogmas than those beliefs attested to by shemiras Shabbos
(ie that there is a Borei, that he gave us TSBK and TSBP, including
the halachic *process* and some given dinim, at Har Sinai).

Now, it could just be sloppy language on his part, but given the
trend in Academic O circles toward mininizing dogma (eg R Marc Shapiro's
book), it might not.

Most of the items on his list are ones I personally reject about as
vehemently as RYK does. But that doesn't mean I place them outside eilu
va'eilu. Except for the following:

: (1) Jewish souls have a superior innate quality relative to non-Jewish
: souls. And only the former enjoy the benefits of eternal life.

The 2nd sentence requires ignoring a gemara. The first sentence is
denied by the Kuzari and others.

(Where I get bothered is not when the neshamah of a Yid is played up, but
when the specialness of other benei adam is played down.)

: (3) When tragedy strikes, this is invariably the fault of somebody
: having sinned.

IOW, seifer Iyov is expunged from Tanakh. There is mamash an entire
seifer aimed at denying this thesis.

...
: (9) ["Damaging" in the sense that our intellectual honesty is shot
: by this one..] The book of Tehillim, including the Psalms describing
: events surrounding the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem, were
: nonetheless somehow authored by King David. And the books of Mishlai and
: Kohellet were authored by King Solomon - despite the fact that they are
: written in a Hebrew that belongs to the Second Temple period. And the
: issues surrounding Isaiah etc, etc.

The material in brackets is just plain wrong. One may choose to
disbelieve the traditional claims about who compiled seifer Tehillim,
and the list of 10 contributors he pulled from. After all, there is
Shir haShirim Rabba 4:5, and rishonim consequently took bother sides.
(The Malbim personally appears to support both sides; we discussed this
in v17n41-59 or so... RJBaker and RETurkel represented the minimalists,
RZLampel, the maximalists.)

But to take a gemara on BB 14b and call it intellectually dishonest?!

That is as confining as the position he's trying to de-popularize! One
chops out the maximalists, the other the minimialists, and neither allow
for a full range of derakhim with which one may be chanokh lenaar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 08:16:09AM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://www.jewishjournal.com/morethodoxy/item/the_
: ever-narrowing_orthodox_mind_39091208/

Some comments on RYK's blog entry:
: The Ever-Narrowing Orthodox Mind.
: Posted by Rav Yosef Kanefsky

: Another way that we are unnecessarily making Orthodoxy unappealing
: to folks is by tolerating the perception that Orthodox Jews are bound
: by a set of religious dogmas...

We are, though. It's a shorter list and a broader range of beliefs than
those listed, but that doesn't mean we have no dogma. We can't correct
an error in one direction by over-erring in the other. Not only that,
we have more dogmas than those beliefs attested to by shemiras Shabbos
(ie that there is a Borei, that he gave us TSBK and TSBP, including
the halachic *process* and some given dinim, at Har Sinai).

Now, it could just be sloppy language on his part, but given the
trend in Academic O circles toward mininizing dogma (eg R Marc Shapiro's
book), it might not.

Most of the items on his list are ones I personally reject about as
vehemently as RYK does. But that doesn't mean I place them outside eilu
va'eilu. Except for the following:

: (1) Jewish souls have a superior innate quality relative to non-Jewish
: souls. And only the former enjoy the benefits of eternal life.

The 2nd sentence requires ignoring a gemara. The first sentence is
denied by the Kuzari and others.

(Where I get bothered is not when the neshamah of a Yid is played up, but
when the specialness of other benei adam is played down.)

: (3) When tragedy strikes, this is invariably the fault of somebody
: having sinned.

IOW, seifer Iyov is expunged from Tanakh. There is mamash an entire
seifer aimed at denying this thesis.

...
: (9) ["Damaging" in the sense that our intellectual honesty is shot
: by this one..] The book of Tehillim, including the Psalms describing
: events surrounding the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem, were
: nonetheless somehow authored by King David. And the books of Mishlai and
: Kohellet were authored by King Solomon - despite the fact that they are
: written in a Hebrew that belongs to the Second Temple period. And the
: issues surrounding Isaiah etc, etc.

The material in brackets is just plain wrong. One may choose to
disbelieve the traditional claims about who compiled seifer Tehillim,
and the list of 10 contributors he pulled from. After all, there is
Shir haShirim Rabba 4:5, and rishonim consequently took bother sides.
(The Malbim personally appears to support both sides; we discussed this
in v17n41-59 or so... RJBaker and RETurkel represented the minimalists,
RZLampel, the maximalists.)

But to take a gemara on BB 14b and call it intellectually dishonest?!

That is as confining as the position he's trying to de-popularize! One
chops out the maximalists, the other the minimialists, and neither allow
for a full range of derakhim with which one may be chanokh lenaar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

Rema YD 1:1 hilchos sh'chita

"V'yeis om'rim she'ein lismoch al hachazakkah ela b'di'avad, aval
lechatchilah ein lismoch al hachazaka bimqom deecholin levar'ro..."

Rema 1:2 re: Sakkin
"D'chol efshar l'mivdaq, badqinan"

One may narrowly construe this as limitted to hilchos sh'chitah, or
broadly construe this as principles for all issur v'heter.

So AIUI kashrus agencies will lechatchilah avoid doubt when feasible

[FWIW Re: Treifos: I would guess that MRI's are not feasible]

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

At 03:42 PM 12/10/2009, Meir Rabi wrote:


>I would appreciate your thoughts re the sale of Kosher meat in sealed marked
>packaging to be sold in non-K butcher shops.
>Is there a concern for MAyin?

What I am going to describe is not exactly the situation you refer to.

Here in Brooklyn the Shoprite on Macdonald Ave sells kosher meat in 
two "varieties."  There is meat that is butchered and packaged at the 
store under the supervision of a R. Bick. There is also factory 
packaged meat from Alle (Meal Mart) on sale.  The kosher meat and 
poultry are in a separate case. There is, of course, non-kosher meat 
an poultry for sale in this store.

I see no reason why I should not, and in fact I do, buy the factory 
packaged Meal Mart meat and the factory packaged Empire chicken.

Anyone who looks can see what I and many other kosher shoppers are buying.

>Is the opportunity for new customers to purchase K meat or purchase it more
>easily a valid argument to introduce this 'new' alternative?
>If we already accept pre-packged K meat in the supermarket, why should a
>butcher shop be different?
>How different must a K product be from a similar or identical non-K product?
>For example, if a company has been persuaded to manufacture a Kosher run of
>a food which is otherwise not K, and the K version is identifiable only by a
>letter of digit alongside the 'use by date', how concerned must we be that K
>shoppers will inadvertently purchase the non-K look-alike?

Personally, I would not buy something that does not have a 
recognizable hashgacha on it.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091210/98cb3f48/attachment-0001.htm>

It all depends on how one defines what is a l'chatchila yid. Counting heads 
may be one method, but there are others. If someone has a minhag avot about 
certain foods, and he wants to keep it because, well that is his minhag, 
that sounds perfectly l'hatchila to me. If someone got a psak that something 
is muttar, I don't see the need for him to go check to see if this fits in 
with what other rabbis say.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssv...@gmail.com>
 like myself, upon hearing the
formidable issues, such as constant use in a commercial environment
removing ben yomo, failure of CIP to remove beins, the heter of bishul
akum ha companies not being used by the vast majority of poskim
rendering it a daas yachid, and on and on, feel the view expressed by
R' Schwab ("I'm a l'chatchila yid") seems most sensible.

I wonder as well at the sentiment expressed, that this is "observing
kashrut, stringently". It would appear that a more objective
evaluation would term it "observing kashrut, utilizing lenient
positions, at times relying on daas yochids". While one might be
allowed, halachically, to do so, to me it appears to be dangerously
close to an attitude of 'novil b'rishus haTorah'.

R' Micha Berger commented on "kol shecreiso shel tinok nichveis":

> Which is an odd test, since I'd be much less likely to
> actually try that on a baby or toddler than to actually
> see if an adult's hand would recoil. ...
> Even with Rashi's explanation of added precision, since
> it's assur to burn someone, but it is mutar to make your
> own hand recoil, how could that more accurate measurement
> ever be obtained? You would end up using an approximation
> ... and thus losing the precision anyway.

My understanding is that Chazal did not decide, on the basis of scientific
experimentation, how to define bishul. Rather, the definition of bishul is
a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, just like for all other shiurim.

The true definition of the critical temperature is "kol shecreiso shel
tinok nichveis", and to say otherwise would be a falsification of the
Torah, chalilah. Chazal had no choice but to point out that this is the
technical definition.

But that was, as we say, "L'Halacha". They understood also that in the
"L'Maaseh", the above was a rather useless definition, for exactly the
reasons that RMB points out. So they also specified that for practical
purposes, "yad soledes bo" is an adequate approximation.

It is unfortunate that the phrase "yad soledes bo" is used so frequently,
and in such contexts as would lead us to believe that it is the true
definition. But it is not. It is only a reliable approximation.

I'm not sure if this answers the question.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=SO-6fKVyVsbWL5Yc1WCMaQAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

Micha Berger wrote:

> Am I reading too much into this maaseh to conclude that leshitas REW,
> either an act is a mitzvah or there is an issue with it -- there is no
> true realm of divrei reshus?

And is there no realm of things that are muttar (and mitzvah) only for
an adam gadol?  Or only for those with a specific need?  If someone must
eat on a fast day (and for such a person eating is indeed a mitzvah)
should he do so in public?


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:


I just found the following from Revach L'Neshama in my RSS reader.
http://revach.net/article.php?id=4220 (quoted in full, it's short)

??? When asked why?(REW) would read the newspaper on his shtender out of
? ? all places, he said, if I must read the paper then it is because it
? ? is a mitzva and I can read in right here on my shtender. if there
? ? is an issue with reading the paper then I cannot even do it behind
? ? closed doors.

Am I reading too much into this maaseh to conclude that leshitas REW,
either an act is a mitzvah or there is an issue with it -- there is no
true realm of divrei reshus?
---------------------------------------
?
That would be my take from this excerpt. He did not thin k it proper to
read about the news of the day unless there was a Toeles of some sort. IOW
just for informational purposes he probably felt it was Assur.
?
I do not find this out of character for REW. He was definitely a Kannoi about certain things -?more so than his contemporaries. 
?
His attitude about YU for example. As related by Rav Rakeffet in his book
on Dr. Revel REW refused Dr. Revel's request to give a Shiur?at??YU because
of his Shitah about college. This is in contra-distinction to other Gedolim
of his era who did give a shiur at YU, including R' Aharon Kotler. 
?
I believe almost all other European Gedolim of that era were persuaded to
give a Shiur at YU while they were visiting to raise funds for their own
Yeshivos. One of them even accepted a post as the RY at YU - R' Shimon
Shkop. Only REW refused to even tread on YU's soil - as I recall.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091210/5751a15e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:58:37AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: As best as I can parse this, it contains three phrases:
: - alef
: - elef alfay alafim
: - v'reebay r'vavos

: The vav clearly separates the last two words from the rest, and I
: suspect that the kamatz in "alef" serves to separate the first word
: from the others...

This depends as to whether the first word really is "alef" and not "elef".
It could be two clauses.

But in any case, there is only one occurance of the word pe'amim. So I
would parse this...

"We would be insufficient to thank You for one in
    With "alef": 1000 * (1000*1000*1000) * (10,000*10)
    With "elef": (1000*1000*1000*1000) * (10,000*10,000)
times that You have done good..."

: Siddur Otzar Hatefilos mentions some sources (medrashim perhaps?) which
: might be the sources for these phrases...

"The sources" or other usages? IOW, where does the part that dates back
to early tannaim end?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:12:30PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger commented on "kol shecreiso shel tinok nichveis":
: > Which is an odd test, since I'd be much less likely to
: > actually try that on a baby or toddler than to actually
: > see if an adult's hand would recoil. ...

: My understanding is that Chazal did not decide, on the basis of
: scientific experimentation, how to define bishul. Rather, the definition
: of bishul is a Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, just like for all other shiurim.

I agree, which is why I didn't see value in RRW's chemist's friend's
tests. However, the HlMmS is "yad soledes bo", which means that this bit
about getting a more precise measure by determining what would scald a
toddler's stomach is still from Chazal, and so I still don't understand
how this test would ever be used.

: It is unfortunate that the phrase "yad soledes bo" is used so frequently,
: and in such contexts as would lead us to believe that it is the true
: definition. But it is not. It is only a reliable approximation.

Unless it's HlMmS too that it's the approximation we're supposed to use.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

IIRC on one of the recent OU webcasts the statement was made that the
cultured item takes on the halachic characteristics of whatever it was
cultured on.

KT
Joel Rich

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 03:48:21PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: IIRC on one of the recent OU webcasts the statement was made that the
: cultured item takes on the halachic characteristics of whatever it was
: cultured on.

And to nastily jump topics... and a child has the Jewishness of the
surrogate mother, not the genetic mother?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Dov Kaiser: 
> That being the case, on whom does KOF-K rely to be machmir on this question? 
 
Micha addressed this with a diferent approach. 
 
I will simply question the unarticulated premise here: 
 
Who says RMF's p'saq is not a big hiddush? 
Or IOW, perhaps w/o this p'saq no one would rely upon the word of the
companies!
 
RDK seems to say that it is more than permitted to be someich upon RMF,
that absent another dei'ah one MUST be someich on RMF!
 
Micha's point -- AIUI -- is well taken. Meisi'ach lefi sumo may change
the reliability quotient, and so each situation should be evaluated
within context.
 
 
Summary: 
RDK's question obscures several distinctions 
 
1 Micha's. -- I.E. in which context is a company reliable? 
2 RRW's -- I.E. in what context was R Moshe's p'saq? Mainstream
  Halachah? Da'as Yachid? In between? etc.
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 250
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."