Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 238

Mon, 28 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: Sand and stars (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: order of mishnayot (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: order of mishnayot (Micha Berger)
• 4. sand and stars (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: reality (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: order of mishnayot (Joshua Meisner)
• 7. making a minyan at a public gathering (Meir Rabi)
• 8. Re: reality (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Chillul HaShem and Davening on Airplanes (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: reality (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Bat Issues (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 12. Ceremonies in Judaism (Micha Berger)
• 13. Jewish New Testament (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 14. Re: Chabad and Putting on Tefillin on Chol Moed (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Jewish New Testament (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: psychologistst and sfarim chitzonim) (Micha Berger)
• 17. Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Prof. Levine)

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:04:16PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I made a mistake and thereby vastly UNDERcounted the number of stars in the 
: universe.  I should have written that there are TWO HUNDRED BILLION stars  
: or more in our galaxy.  I have even seen estimates of four hundred billion  
: and six hundred billion.  

HQBH told Avraham to go outside and try to count the kokhavim. So,
rather than discussing the astronomical question of the number of stars,
we need to add the pragmatic limitations of human sight. And a galaxy
is just one kokhav, if it looks like one dot. As are some of the planets
of the solar system (kokhavei lekhes).

Someone with 20/20 vision on a dark night (Rosh Chodesh before modern
lighting) would see all stars above the 6th magnitude. There are 7,200
or so such stars, of which half are below the horizon rather than in
your sky. Okay, if the Milky Way is out, far more than half.

Still, we're talking far far fewer than the number of yotz'ei Mitzrayim,
never mind the number of grains.

So, I would stick with your thesis -- the point is "uncountably many",
not a number.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> Nevertheless the order of some perakim is different between our
> gemarot and that in the mishnayot.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that there is an entire perek
which seems to have been moved from one part of the masechta to another
part? That if the sequence in the Mishna is "apple orange grape fig", then
in the Gemara it is "apple grape orange fig", or some other sequence? There
we're not merely talking about the dividing lines between one and the next,
but also of their relative positions?

If so, could you give an example? This is big news to me.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ecd55912365f3efedast06vuc

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:19:16PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Nevertheless the order of some perakim is different between our
:> gemarot and that in the mishnayot.

: Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that there is an entire
: perek which seems to have been moved from one part of the masechta to
: another part? ...

Pereq Cheileq ("Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq le'OhB...") is pereq 10
or 11 of Sanhedrin, depending.

As for why, see the second half of
<http://www.dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/insites/sn-dt-084.htm>
for a survey of rishonim's explanations for their preferred order.

Is there another example?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

<<B. Another possibility is that the universe was created with the light
from
 the stars already enroute, AS IF it had been emitted millions of years
ago.  That's another way of saying that the universe was created LOOKING
 like
an old universe.  Just a possibility.>>

This suggestion has been mentioned many times. From a logical viewpoint
there is absolutely no problem.
However, one can equally say that the universe was created 100 years ago
and just looks older or that the world is governed by some superior beings
on another planet that guide our thoughts etc. We really dont know that
there is a world outside of ourselves. Perhaps areivim and avodah are just
figments of our imagination

The bottom line is that since the universe looks in every conceivable way
like billions of years old then it is fairly irrelevant that it was
"really" created a little less than 6000 years ago but there is absolutely
no way to verify it. BTW science has the same problem for those that claim
that there are an infinite number of independent universes then independent
implies no way of verifying the claim and so it is pure speculation with no
practical implications.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111123/59b405f3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:19:02AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> RSN (citing someone):
>> in general, whenever Chazal make a scientific statement, they are not  
>> talking about the observable universe but rather the "real" universe.

> RMB:
>> Chazal don't speak of reality as it is, but reality as we are able to  
>> experience it directly.

> See the beginning of the sixth Be'er in Be'er HaGolah (in Rabbi  
> Hartman's edition try p. 145). The Maharal's formulation is that Hazal  
> spoke, not about the laws of nature, but about the divine laws which  
> induce the laws of nature.

Is the metaphysical basis of the laws of nature "the 'real' universe"
or more like the list of phenomena that shape souls?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 08:19:16PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>
> : Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that there is an entire
> : perek which seems to have been moved from one part of the masechta to
> : another part? ...
>
> Pereq Cheileq ("Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq le'OhB...") is pereq 10
> or 11 of Sanhedrin, depending.
>
> As for why, see the second half of
> <http://www.dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/insites/sn-dt-084.htm>
> for a survey of rishonim's explanations for their preferred order.
>
> Is there another example?
>

Not exactly the same, but the Rosh flips around the order of the 6th and
7th perakim of Gittin.  Tosefos on 62b (DH HaOmer) defends our order.

Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111123/3c336837/attachment-0001.htm>

A very good point made by R D Cohen;
making a minyan at a public gathering where lots of NJ onlookers might see
the "strange" practice that might not necessarily increase their respect
for the Torah, but it wouldn't actually get in anybody's way or disturb
anybody.


I suggest that it depends upon the message that is communicated. Making a
Minyan that causes inconvenience is a Ch HaShem simply because it
metaphorically spits on others - it says that we dont care what
inconvenience we cause, our concerns are more important than yours. I
assert that this is the defining guide for ChHaShem.
Making a Minyan where that message is not communicated is not a ChH. And in
between those two points is a large grey area that will certainly be hotly
debated pending the personalised reading of various onlookers.


-- 

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111124/09d17bc9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/23/2011 5:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Is the metaphysical basis of the laws of nature "the 'real' universe" 
> or more like the list of phenomena that shape souls? Tir'u baTov! -Micha 
I don't know what either of those options mean, nor do I know why you 
think they constitute a complete list of possibilities.  Furthermore, I 
don't know what a metaphysical basis is.

David Riceman

RJR writes:

> However I have been on ContinentaL (United) flights which have the
> galley in the rear where the flight attendants have allowed for a
> minyan out of the other passengers way as long as it doesn't interfere
> with meal times. There have been cases though that in that situation
> the captain has turned on the seat belt sign due to turbulence and I
> encouraged the other minyanairres to go back to their seats due to the
> chillul hashem issue. (majority ignored me :-))

Yes, but here again we have a situation where underlying the chillul HaShem
there is a basic averah - in this case ignoring pikuach nefesh, which
includes even safek pikuach nefesh or even reasonably remote safek pikuach
nefesh.  The captain doesn't turn on the seatbelt sign for the fun of it,
but  because there are serious risks if a person gets thrown around due to
turbulence.  There is no question, once people frame it that way, that
everybody would agree that if the choice is between making up a minyan and
safek pikuach nefesh, one does not make, and indeed breaks, the minyan.  The
problem is that people do not take safek pikuach nefesh - not to mention
care for other's property, kovod habriyos and various other of these bein
adam l'chavero mitzvos seriously enough, thereby inappropriately and wrongly
prioritising the bein adam l'makom mitzvos.  But making the wrong call when
faced with eg davening versus pikuach nefesh (or some of the other cases
where it may be less stark and harder to do) is still wrong- and doing so
publically and wilfully thus still constitutes a chillul HaShem. 


> KT
> Joel Rich

Regards

Chana

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 05:51:05PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> On 11/23/2011 5:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Is the metaphysical basis of the laws of nature "the 'real' universe"
>> or more like the list of phenomena that shape souls? Tir'u baTov!

> I don't know what either of those options mean, nor do I know why you
> think they constitute a complete list of possibilities.  Furthermore, I
> don't know what a metaphysical basis is.

I was paraphrasing your post, and asking who you were agreeing or
disagreeing with.

To give peirush to my previous posting:

    > RSN (citing someone):
    >> in general, whenever Chazal make a scientific statement, they are not
    >> talking about the observable universe but rather the "real" universe.

    > RMB:
    >> Chazal don't speak of reality as it is, but reality as we are able to
    >> experience it directly.

    On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:19:02AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
    > See the beginning of the sixth Be'er in Be'er HaGolah (in Rabbi
    > Hartman's edition try p. 145). The Maharal's formulation is that Hazal
    > spoke, not about the laws of nature, but about the divine laws which
    > induce the laws of nature.

    Is the metaphysical basis of the laws of nature "the 'real' universe"
    or more like the list of phenomena that shape souls?

"Metaphysical basis" was an attempt to describe the Maral's "Divine laws
which induce the laws of the universe.

"The 'real universe' was a reference to the position RSN cited.

"Phenomena that shape souls", was an attempt to describe my proposal
that halakhah is only concerned with things that could be sensed by an
unaided person.

And thus I was asking whether you thought the Maharal supported RSN's
position or my own. The notion that it's a third position hadn't occured
to me. Personally, I don't think it is a distinct position, but rather
one that could include either.

Which the Maharal meant, IMHO, depends on is how events in higher olamos
are connected to ones in ours. The NhC says that only the human soul has
kochos from all the olamos (1:6), and therefore is the connection between
physics and those prior Divine laws. (Text available at he.wikisource.org,
<http://bit.ly/vfHFpS>.)

So, it would seem from the Nefesh haChaim that the only way to move
higher olamos is to move the self, and in fact therefore all metaphysical
causality depends on world to nefesh and ruach to higher levels of soul.

I don't think Chassidim would agree. And this shows itself in Litvish
vs Chassidish attitudes toward invoking segulos, for example.

If the above is the right chiluq, my question becomes which did the
Maharal hold -- did he believe that the only way to impact higher olamos
is to first impact the soul, or did he believe that other connections
exist?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> Subject: [Avodah] bat issues

> http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/bat-responsa.html
> 
> some modern  torah  approaches  to  realities  of  today's science,  in
> this  case  bat  reproduction

[SLB writes] Following some questions and comments off line, I want to
clarify the issue.

IMHO, Chazal are not using the terms "nursing" and "egg-laying" as
end-result descriptive but rather as titles [i.e. the names] of 2 distinct
reproductive processes, which we can generally speaking differentiate
between b/c they have distinct end results:
Process A results in nursing;
Process B results in egg-laying.

Then there are the bats. Bats are the exception. Their reproductive process
is like the "egg laying" animals, but their issue is a baby bat that is
nursed by its mother, so if you want to use the visual end-result to
determine which process of reproduction is used by the bat, Chazal are
telling us that in this case, despite the end-result of a nursing young, the
reproductive process is like the case of the egg-laying animals.

What are the differences?
Mammals have a single stage process: male meets female; sperm attempts to
penetrate the egg and if successful there is a pregnancy that ends in the
birth of a nursing young one (or more).  This is called by Chazal the
"nursing" reproductive process.

Most egg-laying birds, OTOH, have a 2 stage reproductive process:
Stage 1: male meets female, sperm is transferred and STORED by the female
SEPARATELY from her egg(s).
Stage 2: At an appropriate time (minutes/hours/days/months later) inside the
female body the sperm meets the egg (the male is long gone at this point...)
and the egg is impregnated. Usually, the egg is laid, and this is the
indicator that this reproductive process has occurred.

Bats are different: They start with the reproductive process of "egg laying"
birds, storing the sperm for a period of time (even 6 months!) and only when
there is sufficient food and the weather is appropriate does the sperm meet
the egg and a pregnancy and nursing young is born.

I would like to note that there is a fourth reproductive process, used by a
minority of bats and by some other species where the first part of the
process is like the mammals, sperm meets egg immediately, but at this point
the female sends the fertilized egg into a hibernation-like stasis. The
fertilized egg remains in this way until conditions are favorable, and then
it matures and a nursing young is born. As in this case the process is
similar to the regular mammalian process and the result is a nursing young,
Chazal did not differentiate it in this section of the G'mara.

Shoshana L. Boublil

RYBS famously asserted on numerous occasions that there is no "ceremony"
in Judaism, no empty sentimentality. Eg he mentions this as an example of
the "foolishness and narrishkeit" one can find in kiruv publiscations -
the sparkling candlelabra, the snow-white Shabbos tablecloth. "Is this
true Judaism? You cannot imbue real and basic Judaism by utilizing cheap
sentimentalism and stressing empty ceremonies. Whoever attempts such an
approach underestimates the intelligence of the American Jew.... The only
proper course is that of Ezekiel's program for the priests: "And they
shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the common,
and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean." (44:23)
[Quoted from RARR's book "The Rav", vol II, pg 54; which in turn is a
translation of RYBS's Yiddish lecture of 5/18/1955 "The Role of the
Rabbi", given to the YU Rabbinic Alumni.)

RYBS's need for everything to be halachic is also the basis of his
assumption that even minhagim must follow a halachic model. Eg the
observances of Omer and the 3 Weeks must follow the forms of a halachic
aveilus period.

In the past, I contrasted this to his uncle's position. The Brisker Rav
holds that Ashkenazim make berakhos on minhagim that have the matbeia of
a mitzvah, and not on those that do not. IOW, the BR speaks of minhagim
RYBS would concider ceremonial, saying that those minhagim to not get
berakhos even by an Ashk.

But a short while back, I encountered what appears to me to be a direct
contradiction to RYBS's position in the Y-mi. Yuma 2:1 (10b) we are told
that they held 4 separate lotteries to divide the avodah, "kedei laasos
pumpei bedavar", and again at 2:4 (13b), we are told that extra kohanim
were used to carry the ayil up the kevesh for the same reason.

Opening up http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=pomp we learn that
the English "pomp" is from the Greek meaning "solemn procession,
display".

So, "kedei laasos pumpei bedeavar" means that these things were
NOT halachic, and in fact practices done in the BHMQ only for their
ceremonial value.

Thus reinforcing my bias toward believing that not only are there
behavioral norms in interpersonal ethics and in ahavas and yir'as Hashem
that require at times choosing to go lifnim mishuras hadin, but rite
itself has its own calling not to do the minimum.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/us/a-jewish-edition-of-the-new-t
estament-b
eliefs.html?_r=1

 

For Areivim: Interesting article!

 

For Avodah: Is a Jew permitted to read this?

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111126/0209950d/attachment-0001.htm>

On 20 November 2011 05:21, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

> I have posted Lamed Alef, Sif Beis from the Baal Ha Tanya's Shulchan
> Aruch at
> http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/chabad/tefillin_c_m.pdf
>
> It deals with the din of tefillin on Chol Moed.  Given what he wrote here,
> I do not understand why Lubavitchers do not put on tefillin on Chol Moed.
>   Indeed, I wonder if the Baal Ha Tanya himself wore tefillin on Chol Moed.

Do you really wonder?  How is it not absolutely obvious to you that he
did not?  The first and most obvious proof is the fact that L chassidim
don't.  If the AR wore tefillin on CHM then so would his chassidim,
regardless of what other chassidim do.  The second and equally obvious
proof is from the fact that his rebbe, the Mezritcher Maggid, and his
rebbe's rebbe, the Baal Shem Tov, did not.  It's inconceivable that he
would wear tefillin when they did not.

Nor is your question from the ShA a question.  This is not some chidush.
Everyone knows what is written in the ShA; everyone also knows that the
ShA (especially the first edition, which is all we have for most of it)
follows nigleh wherever it contradicts nistar, and also relies heavily
on the Magen Avraham.  He wrote the siddur for his chassidim, and the
psakim there often contradict those in the ShA; wherever they do, his
chassidim follow the siddur, not only because it's mishnah acharonah,
but because it was written as literal halacha lemaaseh, whereas the
ShA was written as a summary of the opinions of the poskim until his day.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:28:03PM -0500, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/us/a-jewish-
: edition-of-the-new-testament-beliefs.html?_r=1

: For Avodah: Is a Jew permitted to read this?

How could it be? It's an attempt to understand Judaism through the
eyes of AZ. (Even shituf, if we are to be meiqil, is AZ to a ben
beris.) The resulting adulteration of one's perception of Yahadus would
be insidious. And since it's not aimed at being a shmad tool, I don't
even see heter for da mah lehashiv purposes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 02:21:32PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: psychologists and (neuro-scientists); explain many of our behaviour patterns
: (differences in behaviour (red-headded v. bond, right v. left handed, v. 
: ambidexterouts, etc, ) but they also (find excuses???
: for a-bberrant behaviour (in our opinion) (frum) like child molestation, 
...

Everyone has different challenges. Some worse than others. Falling prey
to one's inherent weaknesses might be a reason why HQBH would judge
them more leniently. We might also wish to have rachmanus on someone
who failed under a test the Creator didn't impose on us. But all this
carries no weight in beis din shel matah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I am moving the discussion of different kashrus 
standards from Areivim to Avodah, because I think 
the information below belongs on Avodah.  YL

Please see http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Halachic_Policy/

Note the following under 
<http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Halachic_Policy/Kashrut_
Status_of_Oils_in_Australia.html>The 
Kashrut Status of Oils in Australia

Following are some of the key Halachic issues, as 
well as the practical situation as it relates to 
oils both manufactured and brought into 
*Australia*.  See the above URL for the entire article.

The following is from 
<http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Halachic_Po
licy/Kashrut_Standards_Today_-_An_Halachic_Discussion.html>Kashrut 
Standards Today - An Halachic Discussion  Note 
the sentence under The United States and 
Israel  "Hence almost all kosher work is done via 
certification and nullification can not be relied 
upon." Also note the sentences under The Rest of 
the World "According to the Noda B?Yehuda such 
products, considering the particular 
circumstances, are as kosher for the final 
consumer as formally certified products. The Ksav 
Sofer would concur only when there was no similar 
product at the same price available. "

The United States and Israel

As the kosher consuming market in those countries 
is very large the normal mode of identification 
of kosher products is through certification. It 
can universally be assumed that when a company 
desires a kosher status it is to significantly 
attract the kosher market and ultimately increase 
production. Hence almost all kosher work is done 
via certification and nullification can not be relied upon.

The Rest of the World

In the rest of the world two parallel systems 
apply. On the one hand there are companies who 
seek certification - and they do so to increase 
their market potential and often to export to the 
larger markets of the US and Israel. In the 
certification of these products nullification can 
not be relied upon. However there are also 
companies that consider the kosher market as 
totally insignificant - and they give permission 
to have their products checked. They expect no 
significant increase in turnover whatsoever. In 
such cases nullification may be employed, or at 
least a less thorough sub ingredient check, as 
well as some other leniencies mentioned in the poskim.

These products are often published in lists with 
the notification that indeed these are not 
certified products but endorsed products. Such 
lists appear in Australia , South Africa and the 
United Kingdom as well as other countries.10 
According to the Noda B?Yehuda such products, 
considering the particular circumstances, are as 
kosher for the final consumer as formally 
certified products. The Ksav Sofer would concur 
only when there was no similar product at the same price available.

The following is from 
<http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Halachic_Poli
cy/The_Kashrut_Authority_and_Kashrut_in_Australia.html>The 
Kashrut Authority and Kashrut in Australia

3. We have a third level (that does not exist in 
the USA). These are what we have called 
?approved? products manufactured by persons not 
of the Jewish faith. I have written a detailed 
article explaining the halachic rationale and 
resultant differences as well as our current 
policies in that regard and you may find it on 
our website www.ka.org.au in the halachic 
policies section. It is in relation to this 
?level? that we indeed follow the London Beth 
Din, The Manchester Beth Din, The Johannesburg 
Beth Din, and all who currently list ?approved? products.

Many might be tempted to say that the approved 
products are ?less kosher? than certified 
products ? such a statement is in my opinion 
wrong. The reality is that they fall under a different halachic paradigm.

An analogy to illustrate: It is without question 
forbidden to add a drop of milk to chicken soup. 
If one did so on purpose one would not be 
permitted to eat the soup. However, if it fell in 
by accident, and was batel b?shishim (nullified 
using the one in sixty rule), the Halacha is 
unquestionably that one is permitted to eat the 
soup. Two apparently identical occurrences, yet 
there are two opposite outcomes. The reason for 
this is that we are dealing with two completely 
different paradigms - the meizid (purposeful 
intent) paradigm and the shogeg (unintentional/accidental) paradigm.

Similarly there are two distinct paradigms in 
relation to supervision of kosher foods. The 
certification paradigm, when a company comes to 
you and pays you for your services as well as 
markets also specifically to Jews; and the 
approval paradigm, where you initiate the visit 
to the company, you are not paid by the company 
and the company are not particularly interested in the Kosher market.

In practice the following general guidelines are 
used by us in the paradigm for approved products. 
(For further details see the above mentioned article):

a. If there is a definitely non-kosher ingredient 
then the product will not be listed regardless of 
the ability to nullify. We do not rely on bitul in such circumstances.

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) .

c. Certain leniencies may be employed in relation 
to the kosherisation of equipment and supervision 
of such kosherisation as well as frequency of visitation.

The OU, OK and most US agencies ONLY deal with 
the first paradigm. This is largely because of 
the size of the kosher market and the Jewish 
population of the USA. There are sufficient 
certified products so it is not necessary to have 
approvals. Furthermore, as companies are 
specifically marketing also to kosher consumers, 
it may not be possible halachically to employ the 
approval paradigm. However in other countries, 
such as the UK and Australia, where there are 
insufficient products and the relative size of 
our kosher consuming market is small we are 
entitled halachically to employ the approval paradigm.

Note this last paragraph especially.

----------


 From this articles it should be clear why there 
are differences between kashrus in the US and 
Israel and the rest of the world and why one 
should not extrapolate from the standards of one 
organization in a given country to the situation in other countries.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111128/95f57c2a/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 238
***************************************

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..."