Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 251

Fri, 11 Dec 2009

• 1. LBD lists (Chana Luntz)
• 2. : Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: (no subject) (Isaac Balbin)
• 4. Believing companies - kashrus (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Kosher meat in a non K Butcher Shop (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 7. Scope mouthwash (was something else) (Noah Witty)
• 8. Re: Billions and Millions (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Why is Chanuka not mentioned in the Mishna? (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: LBD lists (Samuel Svarc)
• 12. Re: Why is Chanuka not mentioned in the Mishna? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: LBD lists (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Why is Chanuka not mentioned in the Mishna? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Why is Chanuka not mentioned in the Mishna? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: Why is Chanuka not mentioned in the Mishna? (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Kosher meat in a non K Butcher Shop (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 18. Re: Kosher meat in a non K Butcher Shop (Zev Sero)
• 19. Re: Believing companies - kashrus (Zev Sero)

RMB writes:

> All smoked salmon, with or w/ skin.

Where does it say that?

That is a very common view amongst rabbonim around here in the UK (I have
heard various rabbonim posken that way), but as far as I am aware, the LBD
does not appear to be one of them.

Nor, from what I know, can it be said that the LBD is not concerned about
bishul achum.  They state regarding rice:

"All plain uncooked rice is acceptable fully cooked rice is not permitted".

After the Sephardi Bet Din permitted the M&S microwave rice for pesach - and
in the course of various discussions with them, I discovered that one of the
reasons they permitted it was because the completion of the cooking was via
the microwave, and hence there was not a bishul akum problem, I then phoned
up the LBD to ask their view on the Tesco equivalent during the rest of the
year.  They confirmed that the reason that they did not permit fully cooked
rice was because of bishul akum, and hence the Tesco microwave rice, which
states very clearly on its packet "do not eat raw, must be microwaved for
four minutes" was acceptable.

I suspect therefore that the LBD's permission for canned products is more
likely based on not considering them "cooked" than not being concerned with
bishul akum.

> 
> Martin Brody

Regards

Chana

I wrote:
> 
> > What is not discussed is a time factor.  My knowledge of shchita is
> > extremely rudimentary, but I believe that it is possible to perform a
> kosher
> > shchita which involves moving the knife back and forth a number of
> times, ie
> > that the time period can be extended and still result in a kosher
> shchita.

And RZS and others replied.

> Yes.  "Afilu kol hayom" (Chulin 32a)

Yes that is exactly my point.  In theory, the knife could be going back and
forth in the beis haschita all day, and hence subject the temperature of
that place all day, which would suggest that the period of time of exposure
to the heat source was not relevant.

> --
> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you

Regards

Chana

On 11/12/2009, at 10:04 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:

Rn C"L

Thanks for your comments about Davar Lach and Sfardishe Hanhogos as well as the comments about R' Ovadya's method of psak.
On the matter of Davar Lach, I recall R' Ovadya paskening that you could have cold soup on a plata and use a shabbos clock
to warm it up if you put the soup on it while the plata was not working.

> To say that something that is a safek d'rabbanan is
> metame es halev (as has been suggested here) I suspect would be considered
> as of necessity undermining the whole principle of safek d'rabbanan l'kula
> (given that safek d'rabbanan l'kula is also a rabbinic principle) and hence
> I don't imagine he would have much truck with it.

A nice summary of the issue of Timtum Halev is here

http://www.badatz.biz/ShowArticle.aspx?ArticleId=176

At 05:32 PM 12/10/2009, R. Dov Kaiser wrote:

>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.hebrewbooks.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


I most certainly cannot speak for the Chof-k. However, Rabbi Lebovits 
wrote that it was Rabbi Y. Belsky's opinion that one should not use 
"regular" mouthwash.

At one point Rabbi Lebovits wrote to me

"I go with the pesakim of Rabbi Belsky Shlita."

He also wrote

"its hard for me to believe that all the mouthwashes use vegetable 
grade glycerine. Maybe they think animal ingredients has nothing to 
do with glycerin. These people who answer the phones do not know what 
goes into their products."

and

"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."

YL







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091210/1f5c4e1d/attachment-0001.htm>

RIB writes:

If you go to a Sefardi house where they,
> for example, rely on Ain Bishul after Bishul even on a Davar Lach,

This BTW, is something a misstatement of the situation.  The majority
Sephardi position is yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach.  In fact, the
Ashkenazi position (of doing chazara when soup is still warm) is based on
the position of ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach as the ikar hadin
(leaving concerns of machshei kmevashel etc remaining), meaning that
actually the Sephardi position is more machmir regarding bishul achar bishul
on a dvar lach.  There are some Sephardim (Yeminites, I believe, and some
Moroccans) who hold ain bishul achar bishul even on a dvar lach, but also
apply the more lenient Sephardi positions regarding chazara, which may be
what you are referring to.  The other factor is that even more mainstream
Sephardim (if I can put it that way) have a  more lenient position (or
different position) as to what is a dvar yavesh, holding that if the
majority is yavesh, then the fact that it comes with gravy does not make it
a dvar lach, whereas the Ashkenazi position is not so. 

 and
> you are presented with something warmed and lach, that you are
> permitted to eat it, as I recall.
> 
> The other consideration is the method of Psak. R' Chaim and his student
> R' Chaim Volozhiner did not encourage the use of Tziruf in heteirim.
> The Briskers, adopting perhaps the more rationalist mode of Psak, said
> that the Posek has to be convinced that something is muttar (or assur),
> They can't take two doubts/heterim and combine them. Someone once said
> that this is why Brisker Poskim were less prevalent. On the other hand,
> this was in my opinion also one of the hall marks of R' Moshe (and R'
> Shlomo Zalman) who were able to Pasken often from first principles and
> deal with any questions on their Psak, more in the mode of the Brisker
> shita perhaps.
> 
> I wonder whether some of the triangle K issues relate to this issue
> because in times gone by they used tzirufim (and there is nothing wrong
> with that in my opinion)

Glad to hear it, given that, since we are on the subject of Sephardim, if
you read Rav Ovadiah Yosef's discussions about how to arrive at psak (he has
got some chapters on it, I think at the end of Yachave Daat), he holds that
the essential way to pasken is to utilise tziruf - or as he would put it, to
look at the sfekos that arise in both in halacha and metzius  by considering
different views and possibilities in order to permit.  He is actually
somewhat critical in fact (not by name of course, but by genre) of people
who go back to first principles and in doing so ignore the history of psak
in the area.  That is what underlies his philosophy about being
encyclopaedic (and why he believes you need to be encyclopaedic).  To do
otherwise is to negate Jewish halachic history and discount (and perhaps
even disrespect) the views of important gadolim over the ages.  

He holds that perhaps one of the most important principles in psak is safek
d'orisa l'chumra, safek d'rabbanan l'kula.  And while safek d'orisa
l'chumra, what results is an issur d'rabbanan, meaning that a safek sfeka is
mutar l'chatchila.  To say that something that is a safek d'rabbanan is
metame es halev (as has been suggested here) I suspect would be considered
as of necessity undermining the whole principle of safek d'rabbanan l'kula
(given that safek d'rabbanan l'kula is also a rabbinic principle) and hence
I don't imagine he would have much truck with it.

Regards

Chana

See Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:18

RYLevine wrote the following:

"I also told him that I had contacted Scope, and they told me that the glycerin they use is of animal origin." 

Did you mean "NON-animal origin"?  Because otherwise the discussion that followed makes little sense.

Noach Witty

 

From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" _kennethgmiller@juno.com_ 
(mailto:kennethgmil...@juno.com) 

>>  I am trying to render Nishmas into modern colloquial English. I'd like 
to strike  a balance between the literal meaning and idiomatic meaning, and 
I'm coming to  the chevra for help. 

One particular phrase that I'm having trouble with,  refers to how we 
cannot adequately describe even one of the many favors He has  done for us. In 
the Nusach Ashkenaz version, "many" is described as "alef elef  alfay alafim 
v'reebay r'vavos".



....For example, one might  say, "We are unable to thank Him for even one 
of the thousands and millions and  billions of favors He has done for us." 
.... <<

 
 

Akiva Miller
 
>>>>>
That's the best choice of all the choices you mentioned in your post.   I'd 
go with that.
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091210/a9057ff3/attachment-0001.htm>

Except for 1 oiffhand reference at the end of the 6th Perek of Baba Kama
there is no mention of Chanuka in the Mishna. It seems really strange that
none of the halachos of Chanuka are mentioned in Mishnayos. Any sources as
to why it was left out?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091211/239a48fc/attachment-0001.htm>

> Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk
> 
> <In fact, the
> Ashkenazi position (of doing chazara when soup is still warm) is based
> on
> the position of ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach as the ikar
> hadin>
> 
> Dear Rn Chana
> Have you got a source for this?

The Magen Avraham says so on the spot in Orech Chaim Siman 318 si'if katan
39 "afilu ntzanen mutar" - d'svira le sheain bishul achar bishul afilu
berotev v'nitztanen".  I thought it was pretty universally understood that
the Rema was referring to the Rashba and the Ran there, who hold ain bishul
achar bishul on a dvar lach, but then of course goes on to  hold "vnahagu
l'hakel bze im lo nitztanan l'gamri"

> GS
> GCh
> RRW

Shabbat Shalom 

Chana

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Samuel Svarc wrote:
> : But look at that. There are numerous issues involved, at times
> : multiple issues for the same product...
>
> "Numerous issues involved", but are resolved as mutar lekhat-chilah
> (eg bitul by a nachri). "Involved" therefore doesn't necessarily mean
> much.

THis was already discussed. I pointed out that some people would not
like to risk adjuticating correctly machlokesin between gedolie
achronim, especially when this entails "compound heterim". Similar to
the logic of 'sfeik sfeika' but in reverse; if one needs to be correct
in this AND that AND that, or else the food isn't kosher to eat, many
people will take a pass.

> It appears to often mean that the "mutar lekhat-chilah" result was not
> self-evident without discussion. But that discussion doesn't make it
> assur.
>
> But before someone stops eating in my home for this (rather than perhaps
> a more valid reason):
> : While some, like RMB, might be willing to be 'm'tztaref' lenient
> : position upon lenient position...
>
> First, I don't see it as a lenient position.
>
> But more to the point, lemaaseh, I'm not willing. Here, speaking on a
> theoretical plane, I'm asking why what seems to me to be redundant is
> not.

I was responding to a post by R' Martin Brody not R' MIcha Berger. I
thought this was clear and I'm sorry for any confusion.


<SNIP>
>
> : 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"...
>
> What dei'os yachid? You're confusing a question with a universally
> accepted pesaq lehatir that we now avoid even asking with that pesaq
> being a da'as yachid.

In America none of the major kashrus organisations hold by this pesak.
Furthermore, they reference it to one posek, R' Moshe Feinstien zt"l
'amud hapsak sh'america b'shaytoh'. This remains a daas yochid.

KT,
MSS

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:49:25AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Except for 1 oiffhand reference at the end of the 6th Perek of Baba Kama
: there is no mention of Chanuka in the Mishna. It seems really strange that
: none of the halachos of Chanuka are mentioned in Mishnayos. Any sources as
: to why it was left out?

This is a frequenly asked question.

The Chazam Sofer (Gittin 20) invoked the Rambam (Menachos 4:1) who says
that the mishnah doesn't discuss mezuzah, tefillin, tzitzis or the
siddur because even laymen know them. Megillah begins with practices
that aren't in common for all -- who reads when. Chanukah candles are
similar.

Personally, I don't find this teirutz convincing. THere is a pereq Bameh
Madliqin, after all -- just as there are details about Shabbos candles
that need discussing, so too Chanukah. And if it were all so pashut,
why would that pereq's gemara bother detouring to disucss it?

Then there's the idea, I forgot who suggested it, that R' Yehudah
haNasi who represented Beis David, had no interest in dwelling on the
Chashmonaim. After all, their usurping the role of melekh, unifying
the kehunah with civil rule, that tempted them into eliminating the
rabbinate. Culminating in Alexander Yannai's massacring all but one of
the Perushim in the Sanhedrin! (Shimon ben Shetach was his brother-in-law,
and was spared.) With the rise of Tzeduqi power, the Perushim appointed
themselves their own leader, the nasi. So wouldn't it be ironic for
the nasi and beis David to laud the deed that lead to Chashmonai power?

I dont' find this one convincing either. Sounds like too weak of a
motive to risk people not knowing the din.

R' Reuvein Margolios (Yesod haMishnah veArichasah p 22) says that R'
Yehudah haNasi didn't touch the rebellion against the Saleucids for
fear of the Romans. Mentioning a celebration of gaining independence
would likely doom the entire mishnah. Toafos (Shabbos 45a "meqamei")
say that the Romans enacted laws against lighting Chanukah candles. RRM
says this fear is also why techiyas hameisim is mentioned in the mishnah
(pereq Cheileq) but not mashiach.

Pachad Yitchaq says it's because Chanukah is all about the oral nature
of TSBP. The fact that most of Torah is "written" on the Jewish people
is what kept the tragedy of the Septuagint from totally eradicating the
difference between Yehudi and nachri.

(Side note: you may want to also see also my blog entry at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/12/thought-about-maoz-tzur.shtml> about
"ufortzu chomos migdalai" and Middos 2:2 (or 3) where we're told that
what the Yevanim broke open was the soreg, a 10 tefach high mechitzah
of slats! Again, the focus on the Hellenist desire to absorb us into
the empire's undifferentiated melting pot.)

Personally, I like a simpler explanation. The mishnah didn't need to
codify Hilkhos Chanukah because there was an appendix to Megillas Taanis
that already did so. It was the only mitzvah whose laws were *already*
formalized into textual dinim. Not as pretty as the Pachad Yitzchaq's,
balebatish perhaps, but then again, I /am/ a balebos!

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:31:38PM -0500, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: This was already discussed. I pointed out that some people would not
: like to risk adjuticating correctly machlokesin between gedolie
: achronim, especially when this entails "compound heterim"...

Except that I have yet to have someone show me who says lehachmir,
where are these machleqsei acharonim that we're avoiding compoinding
qulos.

Take my opening question... Eating something that was mevetail by a
nachri, if he isn't doing it for a Jew or a primarily Jewish market,
is mutar lekhat-chilah lekhos hadei'os. What qulah would someone who use
"lists" rather than hechsheirim be relying on?

: the logic of 'sfeik sfeika' but in reverse; if one needs to be correct
: in this AND that AND that, or else the food isn't kosher to eat, many
: people will take a pass.

But we do say this when it comes to rov plus rov. Mi'ut bemaqom safeiq
lo amrinan.

As I wrote beforee:
: > It appears to often mean that the "mutar lekhat-chilah" result was not
: > self-evident without discussion. But that discussion doesn't make it
: > assur.
...
: > What dei'os yachid? You're confusing a question with a universally
: > accepted pesaq lehatir that we now avoid even asking with that pesaq
: > being a da'as yachid.
: 
: In America none of the major kashrus organisations hold by this pesak.

What I'm asking about is the origins of another pesaq. The tannaim reach
a pesaq about bitul and no one until the hechsheirim open it up again.
So what is the other pesaq to hold by?

I mean that as a question, not a challenge.

To put it another way, what is it the OU knows that Dayan Grunfeld
(to pick a noted name who was associated with the LBD in his lifetime)
didn't hold by? Why this quick assumption that the alternative is so
horrible if entire communtiies see little reason to switch over?

The bigger push in Europe toward hekhsheirim is over the ease of
finding a symbol on the box, not because the rabbanim have a problem
with keeping lists.

On the neemanus question:

Recall how many chassidishe maiselakh involve eating eggs in unknown
inns. And at one time, we pasqened that beer is by default kosher,
barring certain types of dark ales (which may contain red wine stam
yeinam) and flavored beers that require supervision. French Jews have a
centuries-old pesaq allowing traditional bagettes baked in traditional
bakeries. (RAF: not factories, correct?) The star-K told me and since
put on the web site the same about relying on Japanes and Chinese tea
makers not being willing to tamper with traditional recipes when making
their traditional forms of tea.

Where is the line?

I want people to actually discuss shitos. Not just say the
OU/khaf-K/etc.. doesn't rely on some <hand-waving> qulos -- which qulos?

Truth is, RRW may have answered my question off list. The mass production
industry has shown us lemaaseh that many of the assumptions chazal made
in a world of only mom-n-pop shops don't actually happen when the nakhri
is working for a corporation. Maybe it's that people are more likely
to buy the more expensive treif ingredient when it doesn't impact their
own paycheck.

Still, if we are making a distinction based on umdenah, can someone
point to a shu"t where it's spelled out?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

Marty Bluke wrote:
> Except for 1 oiffhand reference at the end of the 6th Perek of Baba Kama 
> there is no mention of Chanuka in the Mishna.

Also Bikurim 1:6, RH 1:3, and Megilah 3:6


> It seems really strange 
> that none of the halachos of Chanuka are mentioned in Mishnayos. Any 
> sources as to why it was left out?

The classic answer is that Rebbi didn't want to acknowledge the
Chashmonaim who usurped his family's throne.

But there are also several other halachos that are barely mentioned in
the mishna and for which the Masectos Ketanos were written much later.
Perhaps these things were so well known that there was no need for them
to be discussed in the Mishna.



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

Marty Bluke wrote:
: Except for 1 oiffhand reference at the end of the 6th Perek of Baba Kama
: there is no mention of Chanuka in the Mishna. It seems really strange that
: none of the halachos of Chanuka are mentioned in Mishnayos. Any sources as
: to why it was left out??

No sources.
Hypothesis instead:

Hanukkah with the fall of the state and the destruction of the mizbei'ach
"went out of business" and was later revived

I call this the Hanukkah I
Hanukkah II hypothesis

BEH I will flesh this out [again] soon and if you check Avodah archives
it should be there somewhere

Brief Intro:
1 What is the miracle according to al Hannissim?
2 What is the miracle according to TB Shabbos?

[Note There is more to this..]
But the answer to 1 maps out to Hanukkah I
And
The answer to 2 maps out to Hanukkah II

FWIW this Hanukkah is the 4th in history
    1 Moshe and Mishkan
    2 Shlomoh and BhM
    3 Ezra-Nehemiah and 2nd BhM
    4 The Hashmona'im

Ponder this:
Numbers 1 2 and 4 are all in the liturgical calendar and #3 is absent

Good Chanukkah
Good Shabbos
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 03:37:19PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Hanukkah with the fall of the state and the destruction of the mizbei'ach
: "went out of business" and was later revived

: I call this the Hanukkah I
: Hanukkah II hypothesis

Less radical variant... They didn't anull and reinstitute Chanukah
as much as not know what to say about it. The practice just persisted
because of a lack of BD gadol mimanu bechokhmah uveminyan.

Until the discussion in the gemara of "Mai Chanukah?" and Chanukah
was shifted in focus.

Thus, Chanukah I was about rabim me'ad me'atim, and that's when Al
haNissim was written. It never crossed their mind to make a holiday
about the oil, since we in general to not celebrate miracles that could
only have been witnessed by a few. (And thus, fakable.)

When the accomplishment of those me'atim was undone by the Romans,
Chazal asked "Mai Chanukah?" Since they didn't have the authority to
eliminate the din, they brought an incidental aspect of Chanukah to the
fore, the neis shemen, and reinvented the holiday as Chanukah II.

And now Chanukah was about the glimmer of hope represented by the shemen
in the middle of a defined BHMQ, a message that was very timely.

In Rebbe's day, Chanukah was an artifact with no focus. There wasn't much
to say about it. Admittedly, that's weak. Really this idea addresses the
other questions answered RRW's theory -- like the absence of neis shemen
in Al haNissim. I just proposed it because something about Chanukah and
Purim made them unique in Megillas Taanis. Purim made it into Tanakh. To
say that Chanukah was retired with the rest of the megillah *despite* the
mitzvah, eg R' Yochanan ben Zakkai's Sanhedrin was perhaps gadol mimenu
and able to, one needs to explain why there would be motive to revive it.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Meir Rabi asked:
> 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?

I cannot tell you what is right and what is wrong, but it is easy enough to go to a food store and see what the hechsherim do.

It is quite common for some of the varieties of a product to have a tiny OU
hiding near the ingredients list, and other varieties have no hechsher at
all. On the other hand, I have read that it is the OU policy to allow this
only on different varieties, such as different flavors or different size
packages. They will not allow the exact same product in the exact same
packaging to be produced as both kosher and nonkosher.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Banking
Click here to find the perfect banking opportunity!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=1cX3VSbKr3708jFmPuVTZAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAXeAAAAAA=

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> See Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:18

Not relevant, because there is a siman recognisable by the customers,
i.e. the packaging, so they are not dependent on the shopkeeper's word
that the meat is kosher.


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

Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 05:32 PM 12/10/2009, R. Dov Kaiser wrote:

>> 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.

> At one point Rabbi Lebovits wrote to me [...] These people who answer
> the phones do not know what goes into their products."
>[...] The one answering the phone has limited 
> knowledge regarding the items in a product.

I think here lies the difference between this case and the one RMF
discusses.  R Grubner z"l seems to have received an official letter from
the company certifying that they use only vegetable fats in their product.
It stands to reason that such a letter would not have been sent without
the company's chemist (or whoever is in control of the formulation) having
been consulted, and it was probably *from* the chemist.  This carries a
lot more credence than an off-the-cuff answer by whomever the receptionist
transferred the call to, which he can always deny if pressed.

Another thing to bear in mind, though, is that the teshuvah is from 1955,
and a lot has changed in food manufacturing since then.  Rabbonim who
pasken as if it's still 1955 are likely sooner or later to be machshil
people in serious issurim.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 251
***************************************

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..."