Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 248

Thu, 15 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: tzitz eliezeer..... (hankman)
• 2. Re: tzitz eliezeer..... (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: tzitz eliezeer..... (Micha Berger)
• 4. Cellphones and Driving: A Halachik Perspective by R. Yosef Kanefsky (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Bar Mitzvah Doraisa? (martin brody)
• 6. Re: Hamakom yinachem eschem (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: Cellphones and Driving: A Halachik Perspective by R. Yosef Kanefsky (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Vegetable Peeler: Clarification (Naftali Rothstein)
• 9. Forms of Bitul (was: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia) (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Micha Berger)

RMB wrote:

The mitzvah of chinukh could itself be the rabbinic obligation the TE
is speaking of.

CM notes:

There would seem to be a slight problem in the logic. The only reason we
have to follow the chiyuvim deRabbanan is because there is a mitsvoh
d?Aureisa that commands us to follow the Rabbinic mitsvot and takanot. But
the ketanim are not mechuyav in any mitzvot d?Aureisa (including lo tasur
yamin u?semol) so how can they be required to follow Rabbiinic commands? At
best the mitsvoh of chinuch is on the father (although I have vaguely heard
of some meforshim who apply to the chiyuv in some fashion to the ketanim as
well). I haven?t followed this thread from the beginning so please excuse
me if I have brought up something you already discussed.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111214/0e1f42de/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:06:20PM -0500, hankman wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> The mitzvah of chinukh could itself be the rabbinic obligation the TE
:> is speaking of.

: There would seem to be a slight problem in the logic. The only
: reason we have to follow the chiyuvim deRabbanan is because there is a
: mitsvoh d'Aureisa that commands us to follow the Rabbinic mitsvot and
: takanot. But the ketanim are not mechuyav in any mitzvot d'Aureisa...

See Megillah 2:4. The tana qama says anyone can read megillah for the
tzibur, except for cheireish, shoteh veqatan. R' Yehudah says that a
qatan may read, because his derabbanan of chinukh is at the same level
as their derabbanan to read megillah.

Tosafos say that the tana qama disagrees because his chiyuv is a
derabanan on a derabanan, chinukh atop megillah, and therefore is lesser
than theirs.

The Ramban says that the tana qama holds that a qatan can't read for
the tzibbur because the chiyuv derabbanan of chinukh is on the father
to teach, not the child to learn.

It would seem your logic is that of the tana qama according to the Ramban,
and that Rebbe as well as the tana qama according to Tosafos, disagree.

Well, R' Elchanan Wasserman asks your question in Qoveitz Divrei Sofrim,
but using it as proof of his shitah that our rabbis have the ability
to intuit Hashem's Will, and since doing what He wants is mandatory
even without a tzivui, dinim derabbanan aren't actually tied to any
particular deOraisa.

Lo sasur is thus about pesaq, not new taqanos and gezeiros.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:41pm EST, I wrote:
: Well, R' Elchanan Wasserman asks your question in Qoveitz Divrei Sofrim,
: but using it as proof of his shitah that our rabbis have the ability
: to intuit Hashem's Will, and since doing what He wants is mandatory
: even without a tzivui, dinim derabbanan aren't actually tied to any
: particular deOraisa.
: 
: Lo sasur is thus about pesaq, not new taqanos and gezeiros.

I should have recalled that R' Shimon Shkop has a similar answer,
but different in a hashkafically significant way. Shaarei Yosher vol I,
Shaar haSefeiqos pereq 7 ("VeNir'eh") writes that sevara alone is enough
to create a chiyuv. The seikhel commits to following Qol Hashem, and
the seikhel also commits to be careful about what chazal and our other
rabbanim warn us about.

<http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37866&;st=&pgnum=24>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From  http://bit.ly/vr07qm   (Note:  This article was written in 2009.)

What do we know about the likelihood of a driver 
causing a car accident when he or she is speaking 
on a cellphone (not to mention texting)?  As 
reported in the NY Times on July 19, the 
likelihood that a driver holding and talking on a 
cellphone will crash, is equal to that of a 
driver whose blood alcohol level is .08 percent ? 
the legal definition of driving while 
intoxicated. As the Times article put it, 
?drivers using phone are four times as likely to 
cause a crash as other drivers?. The article goes 
on to quote a Harvard study estimating that 
cellphone distraction causes thousand of deaths, 
and hundreds of thousands of injuries per year. 
The potential for committing a ?great sin? is 
astonishingly high.  And the research is not 
showing that using a hands-free phone 
significantly reduces this potential either.

  As halachikly observant Jews, we go to great 
lengths to lower our risk of sinning. We do not 
climb trees on Shabbat lest we inadvertently 
violate Shabbat by breaking a branch. Many of us 
do not eat corn or beans on Pesach; lest we come 
to eat inadvertently eat chametz. On the first 
day of Rosh Hashana this year, we will actually 
set aside the Biblical mitzva of blowing shofar, 
lest we inadvertently carry the shofar through 
the public domain, thus violating the Shabbat. It 
is self-evident that our system demands that we 
not drive while distracted by our cellphone, lest 
we, God forbid, God forbid, inadvertently injure 
or kill someone. It?s that straightforward.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111214/d5482358/attachment-0001.htm>

"But I was wondering... Turning 12 or 13 depends on a chazaqah to
approximate the age at which I child would grow 2 saaros. Meaning,
the whole concept of bar mitzvah is itself deRabbanan. Bar mitzvah is
for when the rabbanan require adulthood -- zimun, tefillah betzibur,
leining... When we need to determine adulthood deOraisa (eg geirus),
we do not rely on age alone.

Wouldn't this be an easier reason for saying that bar mitzvah isn't
a personal chag? One is merely celebrating reaching a chazaqah, not
the primary shiur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

See Gen 34:25.. Each man took his sword. Levi was 13.See  Rashi on Pirke
Avot 5:21 and Nazir 29b(V'Rebbi Yosi B'Rebbi Yehudah)


Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111214/0c1ed57f/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

> I really do not understand what it means to say "the Neshama
> of the deceased is also present."  Why does the Neshama need
> comforting and what does it mean to comfort a Neshama?

The neshama has just been cut off from his ability to do mitzvos, and from
his ability to communicate to loved ones, and from many other activities.
Regardless of how wonderful his new life might be, it seems obvious to me
that he would experience some degree of pain and sadness at being deprived
of these things, and would need some period of transition to get used to
his new life. This is the comfort that we'd be asking Hashem to provide to
him.

Even if he is like a newborn, who has no memory of his previous life, he
could still need comforting even then -- or *especially* then -- because of
the punishments which he will now have to endure.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ee9408b4ea6aaad1cdst04vuc

On 14/12/2011 6:02 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> As reported in the NY Times on July 19, the likelihood that a driver
> holding and talking on a cellphone will crash, is equal to that of a
> driver whose blood alcohol level is .08 percent ? the legal definition
> of driving while intoxicated.

But who says that that is a particularly dangerous level of
intoxication?  Just because many/most states have recently chosen to
set the legal limit there?  What was the basis for that determination?
We all know that these decisions are driven far more by politics than
by an objective evaluation of the evidence.  And if 0.08 was not really
the correct level to set the limit, then saying that some lawful
activity is "just as dangerous" as it means nothing.  If 0.08 is an
acceptable risk then something that is equally dangerous is also an
acceptable risk; and if it's also not against the law then why should
there be a halachic problem?

> The article goes on to quote a Harvard study estimating that cellphone
>  distraction causes thousand of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of
>  injuries per year.

Maybe, and maybe not.  The evidence is inconclusive.  Drivers are
distracted by many many things besides phones.  And despite the
enormous increase in the number of phones on the road, and therefore
presumably also in the number of those who use them while driving,
there is no evidence of a corresponding increase in accidents.  On
the contrary, the accident rate has dropped, and there is merely an
argument over how much more the accident rate might have dropped
without them, which is inherently speculative.

So common sense says to behave safely and not to take stupid risks;
but to turn this into a halachic proscription on specific acts is a
great responsibility, and not something that can be done on the basis
of a few studies.  How about just reminding people of the halacha we
already know: "don't be an idiot"?



PS: See this article http://26i.mj.sl.pt (from Popular Mechanics),
and this 2-year-old one http://26i.ml.sl.pt (from US News).  Also
this one http://26i.mt.sl.pt (from PJ Media) about alcohol, and
possible over-enforcement in that area.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

Thanks for the responses. Although, I've seen an opinion that says that
based on the MB ruling that you can take some ochel with the pesoles, and
then it's not borer, you are right that it would not be borer. However,
the reason I believe, that this is reasoning is not accepted so much
with regards to a peeler is that not in every case and not with every
peeler does a part of the ochel actually come off with it. And since
we're dealing with a "d'oraysa" level of melacha here, we want to be
careful, because if in any given case it's just the peel that comes off
with the peeler, it's an issur d''oraysa. I spoke with Rabbi Ephraim
Friedman, dayan at the Chicago Rabinical Council and asked him if he
knew the source to Rav Moshe zt'l 's psak about the peeler not being a
special borer utensil.. He said that he knows that Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst,
dayan at Agudah Israel of Illinois, teaches his students in the name of
R' Moshe zt'l that it is not a special utensil for borer. The reason
is that he saw it just as a knife. It might cut the peel very well and
be a very good knife, but it is still considered more like a "knife'
that happens to be shaped in a way that can cut the peel better than
"regular" knives and is not considered a utensil that is created in order
to sort things. When I asked him if he thinks that this is the main
approach in America today, he said that he did not think so. He said
that both Hilchos Shabbos seforim in Hebrew and in English are usually
a lot more stringent on this matter and do consider it a special borer
utensil and not just a "good knife". So, lema'aseh it seems like some
are somech on this psak of R' Moshe zt'l which has been passed down ba'a'
peh (I guess), while most do consider it a special tool and therefore
only use it if there is no borer issue (i.e acc. to Pri Megadim and SSK
when the peel is normally eaten so it's all considered to be one unit).

Thanks again and Kol Tuv,
Naftali Rothstein

-- 
Rabbi Naftali M. Rothstein
OU JLIC Rabbi
University of Illinois

[Since RnCL intentionally split the conversation in two, I took the liberty of
modifying her subject line so that the two threads stay more distinct. -micha]

I wrote:
>: See this is where I disagree.  I think you need to distinguish the case of
>: the three pieces of meat and the genuine mixture case, by which I mean eg
>: the classic case of a drop of milk falling into a meat stew.  In the latter
>: case, it seems to me it is nothing to do with probabilities, it has to do
>: with the drop of milk being completely overwhelmed by the meat stew and
>: thereby disappearing from existence, with its identity and particularly its
>: taste disappearing.  There is no more issur, period, it has been overwhelmed
>: by heter, and what is left is solely a permissible meat stew. Centrifuge is
>: therefore irrelevant.  The forbidden milk no more exists in Torah terms than
>: these microscopic bugs that we keep swallowing from the air and water and
>: food, they don't count.

And RMB replied:
> So, if you bring the milk back up to the top, visible be'ein, it can
> still be eaten with the rest of the chulent?

No, because if it is visible then the visible bit needs to be removed and if
it is taste able then if a non Jew would be able to taste it and any part
that has the taste of milk is assur because of ta'am k'ikar.  We use sixty
as our approximation either if a non Jew is not available (Shulchan Aruch
Yoreh Deah siman 98 si'if 1) or because we no longer have the custom to rely
on non Jews and therefore we use the mandated approximation (or we are
dealing with a case of min b'mino were the tastes are not distinguishable).
We do not get into the question of rov, whether before us or not, because
the taste detection test is so much more stringent.

> The possibility of unmixing the taaroves doesn't impact bitul, so why
> should the possibility of combining the odds of each mi'ut into a rov
> canceling its bitul?

I confess I have read this several times and I still don't understand what
this sentence means.  I don't think Chazal or our sources assumed the
possibility of a scenario where the taste of the milk could have gone into
the meat stew, and spread out sufficiently to become undetectable to a non
Jew, and then, using some sort of science, such as centrifuge, you could
bring the taste  back to a portion of the mixture.  Techiyas hamaysim of
taste, if you like.  Maybe it is a bit like the gelatine debate, ie whether
reconstituting it from bones, which are considered dust, means that it is
completely mutar, having gone through a mutar stage, or assur, given we know
that it originally came from a treif animal.  I certainly don't think though
that it is either straightforward, or that it has to do with the form of
probabilistic estimation we have to engage in when dealing with the other
types of cases.

>: But in the case of the three pieces of meat, there really genuinely is a
>: piece of treif meat in there that has not disappeared from existence, and
>: which everybody knows about...

> BTW, when it comes to safeiq, there is cheilev out there somewhere. And
> if you eat only one piece, you don't even know if you ate cheilev.

Yes.

> WRT taaroves, if it's well mixed, you know you definitely ate cheilev
> with your first bite. So if you want to say the two forms of bitul
> differ in kind, I could in theory argue that it's the bitul berov of a
> safeiq that is more "real". But I don't think they are. The rov of a
> safeiq is actually called
> a taaroves and bitul. For that matter, "isa -- lashon safeiq" (Rashi
> Kesuvos 14a) -- in general, a safeiq thought of as a kind of mixture.

I still don't see what this has to do with the subject under discussion.  We
started off by discussing the putative use of bitul in approved products.
Now I agree, as I acknowledged in my second post, I incorrectly  used the
term taarovos and bitul (albeit by implication) to refer to only one of a
host of different cases where these terms are used, namely the case where eg
a drop of milk falls into a meat stew.  The second time, however, I
corrected myself, and pointed out that while the case of the three pieces of
meat is indeed also a case of taarovos and bitul, and uses these terms, what
I meant when I distinguished between your case and the case being used in
approved products, to the extent used,  is a case just like the drop of milk
in the meat strew, the min b'aino mino, where the fundamental test is a
taste test, or an estimated taste test.   This is different from the other
taarovos where a form of rov becomes important.

You stated that in the case of approved products, have I found a situation
where people are not worried about timtum halev and the nine shops and a
piece of meat found, and my response was, this doesn't deal with that
question, because the bitul being used, at most, in approved products, is
almost certainly of the min b'aino mino Yoreh Deah siman 98 type (I am not
sure how much more precise I can get about it), and I don't think anybody
worries about timtum halev when the issur has been tasted out of existence.
It is not a question of rov at that point, or of safek.

> And both rely on rov as darshened from the same pasuq. (R' Chaim notes
> this, and that the original source "acharei rabim lehatos" is beis din,
> which is a taaroves of opinions.)

Yes once you are discussing the three pieces (or Yoreh Deah siman 109 case),
this is precisely the debate between the Rosh and the others regarding
whether the three pieces of meat, one of then known to be treif, can be
eaten by one person in one go or not.  The Rosh does hold that this is the
same kind of rov as Sanhedrin, and thus the conclusion is the same, the
taarovos gets turned, by fiat of the Torah, to mutar, hence no timtum halev
or anything of that nature.

Those who hold differently have to have a complicated relationship to  the
pasuk, because they end up with different conclusions in the case of
Sanhedrin and in the case of the three pieces.  In the case of the
Sanhedrin, you have a taarovos of opinions, and yet you can *kill* somebody
based upon that taarovos.  You completely and utterly ignore the minority in
order to act.  The Rosh says (at least in the case of achila, not tumah),
same thing for eating the meat, you completely and utterly ignore the
reality of the minority piece of meat.  Does the Sanhedrin end up with the
timtum status of murderers because they followed the majority and put
somebody to death?  What about the minority Judge, can he go round saying,
Oh well, I didn't vote to convict, so I am patur?  The answer is no, and
similarly the Rosh understands it this way here.

The others, the Rashba etc that you quote do not hold like the Rosh, either
they do not fundamentally rely on the pasuk acharei rabim lehatos (but that
seems difficult, because what other pasuk is there for rov - the one about
the different kinds of dam being mixed?), or else they have to understand
the pasuk to mandate one thing in the case in which it is brought, namely
Sanhedrin, and something different in other cases.    

> The Rashba, Toras haBayis 4:1, explains bitul
> berov in a taaroves in terms of kol deparish, meiruba parish, which is
> why he requires not eating the entire taaroves. Isn't it much like not
> eating all three pieces in the case of safeiq? But in any case, he
> invokes the safeiq kelal to explain the taaroves one.

> Bekhoros 23a gives a complex answer if bitul renders the minority of a
> taaroves keman deleisei dami. When touching a tamei item, since you are
> only touching at one point, we say keman deleisei. But when it comes to
> masah, since you are carrying the whole item, if part is tamei you are
> carrying the tamei within.

> Tosafos say that when earing, each bit is a mi'ut, and therefore even
> if you eat the majority of the taaroves, it's like touching the taaroves
> multiple times.

> The Rosh (Gid haNasheh, 37) says that if Tosafos's answer was right
> (not that he attributes the answer) one would have make sure that each bite
> might only be kosher food. He therefore distinguishes between kashrus
> and tum'ah instead. I didn't spend the time to follow what he wrote before
> replying, since that's off topic.

I disagree that that the Rosh is off topic, I think he is distinctly on
topic.  The Rosh is the one who feels that, the case of the three pieces in
front of us is the same as the Sanhedrin case, and the pasuk mandates a
certain response. This means that we have a different response here to the
one we would normally have when dealing with a safek.  The Rashba and others
apply different halacha, which ends up being about probability, whether
Chazal would have used that terminology or not (I am not sure why you think
they would not) and forbid.

Note however even according to the Rashba, you are permitted l'chatchila to
add enough pieces of mutar meat to take the group to sixty against the
issur, and *then* you can cook them  and eat them altogether.  So once you
get to sixty, he is not concerned either about timtum halev.

Note incidentally that it is not strictly speaking true that the Rashba (or
the halacha) applies the normal safek klal.  The normal safek klal is that
of safek d'orisa l'chumra.  That would lead us to not eating any of the
three pieces, as each piece is a safek d'orisa.  Similarly a piece of meat
found in the streets where there are eight kosher butchers and one non
kosher, it is still a safek.  Kol deparish, meruba parish is a derogation, a
leniency, from the normal safek d'orisa l'chumra stance.  However assuming
kol d'parish meruba parish is, as the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 110
si'if 3) states a din torah and if you hold, as the majority rishonic
position seems to be, that the whole rule of safek d'orisa l'chumra is in
itself a rabbinic rule, then presumably you would say that they did not
apply safek d'orisa l'chumra where the Torah already gave a rule of dealing
with it (and perhaps why they moved to be more machmir in the case of the
nine shops, and in fact rabbinically banned such a piece of meat anyway (see
the end of si'if 3 there ), and I guess if you do hold safek d'orisa
l'chumra is d'orisa, maybe just as ruba wins over karov, even though that is
a d'orisa, it wins over safek d'orisa l'chumra too).

Given how long this post is, I am going to separate off the discussion of
approved products into another post.

Regards
Chana

RMB wrote:
> The product isn't inspected, the ingredient isn't listed. So how do we
> know it's there? I thought the whole point of this line of reasoning is that
> we don't have to inspect, we don't have to know, since we also have bitul.

Nobody approves a product without asking the manufacturer for a full list of
the ingredients.  But *sometimes* that ingredients list can include products
which may be non kosher or derived in non kosher ways.  The classic case is
that of the Mars Bars (UK chocolate, approved by the LBD).  Mars upset a lot
of vegetarians when it  said it would "change the whey used in some of its
products from a vegetarian source to one with traces of the animal enzyme,
rennet."  See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6673549.stm  On the other hand, the
response from the LBD was http://www.kosherveyosher.com/mars-bars.html was
"Rabbi Conway said the authority had been "aware for many years that whey
can be a by-product of cheese-making and that, even today, animal rennet can
be used in cheese manufacture. Since whey derived from this source contains
only trace amounts of rennet, it is permitted according to Halachah [Jewish
law]."

Here you go, known non kosher item - rennet, item actually used in the Mars
Bars - whey.  Whey may very well be produced by using non kosher rennet, but
since there are only trace amounts of the rennet that end up in whey that
then end up in the Mars Bars, kosher.  Halacha being applied, bitul.

However there are indeed lots of other aspects of approved products.  Let's
take an example of an "approved" product, but this time by the OU, as
pointed out by RYL in
http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/1378519 "Drinking Coffee on
the Road".

The OU here issues guidance allowing Mashgichim to drink coffee on the road.
This is not certified coffee, the OU is not going into these various
drive-by stores, nor would they give them a hecsher, even just for the
coffee, but they allow their Mashgichim to drink coffee from these stores,
including from McDonalds, where they are also making treif burgers.

What are the key aspects of the approval:

-       "The primary ingredients in plain black coffee (water, sugar and
unflavored coffee) are all group 1, acceptable from any source."   Note of
course that they cannot guarantee that any drive-by store will in fact be
using only these ingredients.  Who knows what some devious disgruntled
McDonalds burger flipper might decided to stick into the coffee for a laugh.
But they are not concerned about this, relatively remote possibility.  Note
also that coffee and sugar are both manufactured and refined, they cannot
they guarantee what is done in every sugar refinery in the world.  On the
other hand, if coffee does not taste like coffee or sugar like sugar, then
no consumer will touch it.  Hence the presumption about coffee and sugar's
purity (with bitul as the back up, if that assumption was in fact not true).
I don't however believe that the OU here is relying on a halachic rov coffee
or sugar, but on the coffee or sugar manufacturer's need to maintain a
certain pure taste.
        
-       No issue of bishul akum (based on the Pri Chadash) on the basis that
coffee is a water based drink.
                
-       "Rav Belsky said, in general there is no concern that the utensils
that cooked the coffee were used with non-kosher. The coffee pot is usually
rinsed out and reused, and is not sent through the dishwasher."  Note that
this is an assumption.  They are not checking every rest-stop all over the
country to see which do and which do not wash their coffee pots in a
dishwasher, and how many percentagewise these are.  Is it a case of ruba
d'lesa qaman?  I would not describe it that way, it is not a description of
the intrinsic nature of the thing itself - it is a presumption about use.  A
coffee pot starts out being clean and mutar, and hence there remains a
chazaka that its status is not going to change when that is the norm based
on normal commercial behaviour.
        
-       "Rabbi Schachter added that there would be reasons to be lenient
even if the coffee pot was sent through the dishwasher."  Reasons are not
given here, but most likely are, inter alia. that the dishwasher soap
renders any treyfus l'fgum, stam keilim ano ben yomam etc  Note also the
double safek - most likely it was never put through the dishwasher, and if
it was put through the dishwasher, there are reasons to be lenient.
                
-       Note what is not being checked here.  That the coffee pot is not
located too close to the burgers, in case bits inadvertently fall from one
to the other, or steam intermingles.  Or that the Burger flippers wash their
hands between touching treif greasy burgers and filling up the coffee pot
(eg opening the lid, which might cause some of the grease to slide inside)
or other problems, these being problems that we are just not choshesh for in
approved products, since we rely on the probability that such scenarios are
unlikely to occur, and hence an object that starts out mutar remains mutar,
and if they do occur there are usually "reasons to be lenient" which can
include bitul (but it is not bitul being fundamentally relied on).  In a
hechshered product, can you imagine allowing the same worker who works with
one product to also work with the other in close proximity, knowing that the
second is vadai treif?
        
        
It seems to me it is this kind of analysis that characterises approved
products rather than certified products, where all these assumptions are
diminished if not completely eliminated  (even with the highest level of
supervision, the machgiach temidi, a disgruntled employee might still be
able to slip something into the food, but it is a lot harder to do).  A
certified product without a mashgiach temidi is going to be in some way in
between, the usual way of washing the coffee pot in the establishment will
not just be assumed, it will be (a) checked and (b) the owner will be
contractually bound to wash it in a certain way (and the machgiach may drop
in periodically to check it is only being done that way).  Also the
mashgiach will check things like proximity and may order the workers to work
in a certain way and may well ban non kosher products from that particular
place.  The question is really, is all this all overly machmir (and in what
circumstances).  Clearly paying for mashgichim costs money, and even if the
company feels it recoups its money by increased sales, as in the US, and
therefore the certification is worth it, still, if people accepted an
approval rather than a certification, then making the product would cost the
manufacturer less, and presumably they would then be able to sell it for
less, so it would help consumers.

Regards
Chana

What are the key aspects of the approval:

-       "The primary ingredients in plain black coffee (water, sugar and
unflavored coffee) are all group 1, acceptable from any source."   Note of
course that they cannot guarantee that any drive-by store will in fact be
using only these ingredients.  Who knows what some devious disgruntled
McDonalds burger flipper might decided to stick into the coffee for a laugh.
==========================
Which can happen even if there is supervision.	The whole Starbucks tempest
in a coffee pot issue relates to the same type of analysis.  The offshoot
question - is there timtum haleiv if the flipper does it and you drink it?
May be what imho separates the kabbalists from the rationalists
 

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 15/12/2011 9:18 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> -  Note what is not being checked here.  That the coffee pot is not
> located too close to the burgers, in case bits inadvertently fall from one
> to the other, or steam intermingles.  Or that the Burger flippers wash their
> hands between touching treif greasy burgers and filling up the coffee pot
> (eg opening the lid, which might cause some of the grease to slide inside)
> or other problems, these being problems that we are just not choshesh for in
> approved products, since we rely on the probability that such scenarios are
> unlikely to occur, and hence an object that starts out mutar remains mutar,
> and if they do occur there are usually "reasons to be lenient" which can
> include bitul (but it is not bitul being fundamentally relied on).  In a
> hechshered product, can you imagine allowing the same worker who works with
> one product to also work with the other in close proximity, knowing that the
> second is vadai treif?
>    
>    
> It seems to me it is this kind of analysis that characterises approved
> products rather than certified products, where all these assumptions are
> diminished if not completely eliminated

I have mentioned before that I once asked the OU (in the person of
"the webbe rebbe") about raw cashews.  The answer I got was that there
are potential problems, but that these are so uncommon that I needn't
worry about them, and may buy raw cashews from any source without a
hechsher.  However if I do see an OU hechsher on them then I can know
that they have checked it out and the problems (at least the ones they're
aware of) do not exist.

In the terms of this discussion, all raw cashews are "approved" by the OU,
i.e. they have told me that I can consume them in good conscience, but
they are not certified, and thus it is possible (though unlikely) that
klapei shmaya galya that they are treif, or at least contain a bli`as
issur that is batel.  This is the sort of thing that would appear on the
LBD or KA lists.  Whereas "certified" is the next level where the OU
positively asserts that this particular packet of nuts is kosher; and
to say that they must verify that it really is so, and they can't rely
on bittul.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 02:18:08PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RMB wrote:
: > The product isn't inspected, the ingredient isn't listed. So how do we
: > know it's there? I thought the whole point of this line of reasoning is that
: > we don't have to inspect, we don't have to know, since we also have bitul.
: 
: Nobody approves a product without asking the manufacturer for a full list of
: the ingredients...

I'm not sure what to say, since I already posted to the list a quote from
a Kosher Authority - Australia web page which says that they do. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n247.shtml#13>, or the original page
<http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Halachic_Poli
cy/The_Kashrut_Authority_and_Kashrut_in_Australia.html>
the part that reads
> a. If there is a definitely non-kosher ingredient then the product will
> not be listed regardless of the ability to nullify....

> b. If there is uncertainty as to the nature of an ingredient or if
> it's sub-components have not been able to be thoroughly investigated --
> provided that there is a reasonable likelihood that it is of kosher origin
> and in the worst case scenario the ingredient would anyway be batel --
> the final product will be approved ( but never certified)."

Aren't they asserting that they only rely on bitul when the thing being
mevutal is not definitely a problem anyway?


Since RZS mentioned "approved" products even in the US and Israel,
unflavored (possibly only if not dark) beer is a famous example. Whisky.

The Star-K web site also has the traditional types of tea, including Earl
Gray (which includes oil of bergomot and therfore I thiought it more of a
chiddush) as not needing a hekhsher. Ended up not mattering to me, since
by the time I got this answer from them, they started certifying a good
and cheap importer anyway.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 248
***************************************

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..."