Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 18

The array of opinions as to the kashrut of cheese has led to many different standards. There are those who consider any cheese made by a non-Jew to be forbidden, regardless of the ingredients. This view is the one accepted by most Hareidi (Ultra-Orthodox) communities. There are those that require that there be no non-kosher ingredients (rennet from a non-kosher animal), but acceptable even if made by non-Jews. This is the standard in many European Jewish communities, as well as of some of the secondary kashrut agencies in the U.S. There are those who regard any and all cheese, no matter who made them, or with what rennet, as kosher. Rabbenu Tam, who not only permitted these cheeses but actually consumed them, came to the conclusion that this enactment wasn't based on any halachic considerations, but rather on the obscure prohibition of "Gilui"; any beverage that was left uncovered and unguarded, for fear that a snake may have put its venom into the milk. As this would be exceedingly rare in modern conditions (ancient windows had no glass; they were just openings), most poskim say that it can be ignored today. That was Rabbenu Tam's reasoning for permitting all cheese. A few years ago, I asked a rabbi who had "supervision" on a non-Jewish cheese factory about his standards. He told me that there is no actual supervision. he just is certifying that only kosher enzymes are used. I asked him what about the fact that it is made by non-Jews? He replied "it's not made by non-Jews. It's made by a computer!" Many, but not all, cheesemakers in the U.S. use "microbial enzymes". That actually means enzymes from bacteria that have been genetically engineered to produce secretions similar to rennet. This eliminates the problem of the permissibility of animal rennet. The major kosher cheese brands in the U.S. now use this kind of enzyme. However, it is illegal in Europe. The late Rabbi Shlomo Goren, a Chief Rabbi of Israel from the early '70s to the early '80s, permitted non-Jewish cheese if the manufacturing company had a single Jewish stockholder, as that is no longer "non-Jewish "cheese.  J.B. Soloveichik had a different approach. He believed, and taught his students, that since cheese is made in a vastly different way from how it was in Talmudic times, it is not halachically considered cheese at all, and the enactments for cheese simply do not apply. Only gourmet cheeses, actually made in the stomach of a calf would be a problem. A story, denied today, but which I heard from eyewitnesses, is that when anyone came to his home to discuss something, he would put in front of the guest a cheese sandwich, and make obvious that the cheese was from Kraft (a major non-Jewish cheese producer). If he saw that the guest was hesitating, he would say "If you don't eat it because you don't like it, it is b'seder (alright). But if you like it but don't eat it, then EAT IT!!!" However, when someone who was not his student would ask, he always said: "Ask the OU". The OU, largely made up of students of his, took the stance that the cheese must use either rennet produced from a properly slaughtered kosher animal (or non-animal "rennet"), and have a Jew somehow involved in the cheese-making, even if only present in the building. Many, outside Modern Orthodox circles, question the validity of that approach. A few poskim, relying on the fact that many authorities permitted soft cheese made by a non-Jew, expanded the concept of "soft cheese" to include all non-aged cheese. One prominent rabbi even permits buying cheese pizza in a non-kosher store. (I will deal with the issue of utensils in another two posts). All that I have written is assuming that we are not dealing with a cheese with actual non-kosher ingredients, such as wine or meat (present in some gourmet cheeses). My hope is that everyone can see that none of these standards is "off the wall", and result from different halachic approaches. Nevertheless, in the U.S., where the OU standards are assumed to be the only valid ones, your neighbors may look askance at your use of any other cheeses. An exception is Boston, where J.B. Soloveichik served for many years as rabbi. Large portions of the local Orthodox community still follow his lenient ruling. My own stance is that any cheese produces in a factory in North America or Western Europe (or any place with strict labeling laws) is acceptable, but, where possible, I prefer non-animal rennet. 

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 17

Cheese, too, is a most contentious topic. As with milk, the confusion is due to a lack of information. In this case, however, it seems that the Sages did not want us to know. We read in the Mishnah that right after the decree had been made by the Sanhedrin against "Gevinat Akum" (Idolater's Cheese), a rabbi not on the Sanhedrin asked one who was for the reasoning behind this decree. The Sanhedrin member quickly changed the topic. The commentators explain that there is a rule that says that any decree of the Sanhedrin, once accepted by the people, becomes law forever (unless nullified by a later Sanhedrin). If the enactment is not accepted within twelve months, it becomes a "dead letter". Indeed, several of the enactments from this period were rejected by the people. This is true, for example, for non-Jewish beer and oil. A prohibition on non-Jewish baked goods was only partially accepted (more on that in a future post). The rabbis saw this decree as important, yet they knew that the reasoning was so flimsy, it was likely to be rejected. But what was the reason? Many medieval authorities saw it as an additional preventive measure against intermarriage. But if this is the case, the same ruling that allows non-Jewish milk, should allow this as well, as we do not get the cheese from the farmer. Some argue that this is not the reason, but rather the reason is that rennet, an animal enzyme, is used in cheese production. Although the rennet only comprises about a thousandth of a percent of the cheese, and should therefore be considered nullified, it is nevertheless, a "davar hamaamid" (an essential ingredient without which the product could not exist. This principle is vague in the Talmud, and only a small minority of medieval commentators accepted it. Nevertheless, it became accepted halacha.) Such an ingredient is never nullified. (Since soft cheese, like ricotta, can be made without enzymes, their presence would not be significant, as they are far less than one in sixty, and are non-essential, but only helpful.) This is that soft cheese is permissible even if made by a gentile, is the view of a major seventeenth-century authority (SHaCH), and is accepted by most Kashrut agencies. Some extend this to non-aged cheese.) However, the way of making cheese in pre-modern times was not to add rennet to milk, but to place milk into a calf's stomach. Most classical authorities consider rennet to be a non-food (kihua b'alma; just a secretion) and the real problem is the calf's stomach rather than the rennet. Today, the rennet is extracted, and, according to most, is not a forbidden item, as it is essentially inedible by itself (some differ). Until the last few decades, an alternate way of making cheese was to dry the calf's stomach, and put the powdered stomach into the milk. Since Mad Cow Disease, this is no longer done. Only super expensive gourmet cheeses are still made in a calf's stomach. The issue of this being a milk-meat problem is not a concern, as the meat part of the stomach is very tiny, and dried stomach is no longer food. Until recently, cheese was usually made in Israel using chicken gizzards, instead of calf stomach. The Medieval sources mention some regions where cheese was made by adding flowers (plant enzymes). Many rabbis approved. Those who posit that the problem is intermarriage, did not. The generally accepted rule in this case is that in a place where this was accepted, it's OK. Otherwise, it should not be done. Even the Shulchan Aruch is ambiguous. It says that the reason for the prohibition is the enzyme. But a few paragraphs later, it says that if the non-Jew did not make the cheese for himself, but was simply filling an order for a Jew, it's OK. Rather shockingly, no lesser authority than Rabbenu Tam (1100-1171), often considered the greatest authority in the post-Talmudic era. (Rabbis love arguing if this honor should go to him or to RAMBAM), provides a lengthy explanation of why the entire topic makes no sense today (in his day). His students report that Rabbenu Tam personally ate non-Jewish cheese, unsupervised! In my next post, I shall go into how present-day authorities deal with this issue, and how rabbis in different countries handle this matter differently.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 16

The issue of milk is a contentious one that divides us into factions. Many put it into the same category as wine; expanding an existing law (in this case, the milk of non-Kosher animals) into a safeguard against intermarriage. Others consider this totally baseless. There are many views in between. The issue is Halav Akum (idolater's milk) as opposed to "Halav Yisrael" (Jewish milk. called by many "Kosher Milk"). The Talmud is unclear on this topic. It simply says that "milk not seen by a Jew is forbidden". Some interpret this as meaning that we must ascertain that the milk from a non-Jewish merchant is, in fact, from a ruminant, unadulterated with horse milk or the like. It has nothing to do with intermarriage. as milk is not a festive product served at special events, the way wine is. Many interpret RAMBAM as taking that view. Rabbi Yosef Kappah writes in his commentary on RAMBAM that there is no such actual halachah as Halav Yisrael, except in a time and place where adulterated milk is common. (In some parts of Central Asia, for example, horse milk is ubiquitous). J.B. Soloveichik, the doyen of Modern Orthodoxy, once gave a subtle hint as to his view when once, when giving a lecture, he noticed that the container of milk that sat before him said "Halav Yisrael". He threw it across the room, shouting "Bring me REAL milk!" (You will probably not hear that story today, as his disciples have "reinvented" him as a Hareidi Lithuanian Rosh Yeshivah). Most other early and late authorities read the Talmud's statement as meaning that milk needs supervision from the time of the milking until either consumed, or sealed in a container. This, historically, has been the standard in most Jewish communities. When Jews came to America, Halav Yisrael was generally unavailable, unless one went to a dairy farm, and watched the milking oneself. Many devout Jews, upon coming to America, never tasted milk or milk products again. Others consumed what was available, although they felt they were sinning. Eventually, a small store on Manhattan's Lower East Side made a deal with a farm, and carried Halav Yisrael. (1920s, '30s and '40s). To the best of my knowledge, that was the only such store in the U.S. After the Second World War, when many prominent rabbis and Hasidic Rebbes came, small networks of Halav Yisrael were established. But what was a Jew outside the major areas of Jewish population to do? Most rabbis simply responded "no milk, or move to New York". An up-and-coming rabbi in New York, with a national, and to some extent international, reputation at that time was  Moshe Feinstein. You have probably gathered from earlier references that I am not a big fan, as many of his rulings are, in my opinion, needlessly divisive. However, he made a revolution in this area, with far-reaching implications in many other areas. He reasoned "IF Halav Akum is forbidden because one might come to marry the farmer's daughter (please no jokes!), but you are not interacting with the farmer, but are buying it at a grocery or supermarket, that in turn gets it from a dairy company, that actually has no cows but gets the milk from numerous small farms, your chances of marrying the farmer's daughter by buying this milk are essentially nil. (Actually, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein had come up with this idea a half-century earlier, but concluded that it could not be relied upon).Government regulations ensure that no milk from other animals is mixed in, besides the company's fear of gaining a bad reputation. (Remember the Simpsons episode where Bart discovers that the school is giving the students rat milk?) Therefore, any commercial milk is fine, and can even be called Halav Yisrael, as it is as though we see it. If possible, real Halav Yisrael is to be preferred. But this is also fine". A nasty rumor was spread that Rabbi Feinstein was at a public event, and when he learned that the milk he was drinking was not actual Halav Yisrael, he went to the lavatory and made himself throw up. His family has always vigorously denied this story. Moshe Feinstein's view was thoroughly denounced in many circles. Even the Lubavitcher Rebbe, usually very conciliatory, said that there was no basis for the lenient ruling, and that one who uses it is tainting his children's souls. But the lenient view was widely accepted by virtually all Kashrut agencies. Halav Yisrael is, today, regarded by most as a stringency rather than a halachah. Moshe Feinstein's theory that the indirect nature of the transaction obviates the prohibition, has been adopted by many rabbis in other areas of Kashrut, and even in some Shabbat restrictions. Sadly, however, it has created a situation in which some Orthodox Jews will not regard the homes of other Orthodox Jews as Kosher. This is even more problematic in Israel, where virtually all dairy products use Jewish milk, but supplemented with milk powder from Europe during the Winter, when cows are accustomed to producing less milk (why cows have that custom is something I do not know). Those strict about Halav Yisrael, would need to insist on a hechsher that is likewise strict. Next time, I will discuss cheese. Although the OU has set standards, many consider those standards ridiculously lenient; others ridiculously strict. Next time.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 15

Another area of Kashrut is not Biblical, but rather rabbinic. During the Roman occupation, the rabbis were concerned about the Jews becoming Romanized. In addition, many Jews were fleeing Eretz Yisrael for what seemed to be safety. What better way to assimilate than to intermarry? The rabbis, therefore, set up a series of enactments, designed to make fraternizing with non-Jews difficult, so as to prevent intermarriage. Most of these had some Biblical basis, but were greatly extended by our Sages. In many of these cases, the exact parameters of these rules are vague, resulting in different interpretations. The most famous of these rules is the prohibition of non-Jewish wine. Of this, there are two types. One is called "Yein Nesech" (libation wine), which pagans would pour onto their altars, or otherwise dedicate the wine to idolatry. Like everything connected with idolatry, Yein Nesech is Biblically forbidden to drink, or even to have any benefit from. The rabbinic extension of this law is any wine that a non-Jew has made, or even handled, is forbidden (Some people even avoid wine that was seen by a non-Jew, But this is an extreme stringency). That would mean that even if a Jew had made the wine, and a non-Jew poured it into a cup, that wine is, by rabbinic law, non-kosher. The proper term for this wine is "Stam Yeinam" (ordinary non-Jewish wine), although many people erroneously call it Yein Nesech. Stam Yeinam is at once a fence around the Biblical prohibition of libation wine, and a powerful impediment to"partying" and probably marrying, a non-Jew. This was strictly kept throughout the ages. Wine shipped from place to place had to have a double seal. If a barrel of wine that wasn't sealed was left alone with a non-Jew, it would be considered Stam Yeinam. In the sixteenth century, several Jewish communities became lax in this regard. One prominent rabbi justified this laxity, by pointing out that our Christian neighbors are not actually idolaters, and that wine libation is today essentially unknown. Since the Biblical basis of this law no longer applies, the rabbinic extension is automatically nullified. Amazingly, he writes "do not publicize this". What he apparently meant was that those who do drink it have what to rely upon, but let's not make this a standard. This view was not accepted in Orthodox circles. However, the Conservative movement does accept it. An "out" exists in this law. Wine that was cooked was no longer considered "special", both for libations or for socializing, as it becomes inferior in taste. As wine today is almost always pasteurized, this would be considered "cooked" (mevushal) and not subject to the usual restrictions. (There are different views as to how hot it would have to be to be considered "cooked". Some wine bottles have a notice "Mevushal (cooked) according to Rabbi ..., but not according to Rabbi ...). Bottles of kosher wine will almost always indicate if it is cooked (mevushal), or non- mevuashal. Many prefer non-mevushal, as several classical rabbis (RAMBAM and RIF among them), consider cooked wine as invalid for kiddush and other ritual purposes. ) This cooking would have had to occur before a non-Jew came into contact with the wine. Most Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews in Israel do not rely on this, as one prominent twentieth-century rabbi, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, ruled that as pasteurization is done by quick heating, followed by quick cooling, in an air-free environment, only an expert could tell that it had been pasteurized. The classical restrictions should apply. Ashkenazim outside of Israel, and Sepharadic Jews in Israel as well, did not accept this ruling. Sepharadim are particularly lenient as to the required temperature of "cooking". An interesting debate arose, and is ongoing, concerning the implications of non-kosher wine becoming mixed with kosher.wine, or other beverages or foods. Some apply the ruling that we must consider Stam Yeinam the same as Yein Nesech. Idolatrous sacrifices can never become permissible, so even if the non-kosher were one part in a thousand parts kosher wine, the entire mixture would be forbidden. Most apply the one-in-sixty rule. A significant minority is more lenient. Since the unique rules regarding wine are because of its "specialness", once the non-kosher is less than 17%, it has lost its status. Even Moshe Feinstein accepted this leniency. This question comes into play with "blended whiskeys", which are sometimes mixed with wine, and whiskeys (especially Scotch), which are aged and shipped in oak casks, which previously held Sherry. The amount of non-kosher would be far less than 17%. Some use it. Some do not. To what extent grape juice is considered wine, is also controversial.  In any case, all commercial grape juice is heated before the grapes are ever crushed. This would render the juice non-problematic. Nevertheless, few are lenient on this. Next time, I will deal with the milk controversy.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 14

To me, one of the greatest heroes of modern Jewish history is the much hated, but much feared, Rabbi Yitzckak Abadi. Imagine, if you will, an erudite figure who studied at the feet of great rabbis of the last generation, and is looking over the shoulders of modern day people who are misquoting them, saying "where did you get THAT from?" Such a person is Rabbi Abadi. He is one of the only people whom Rabbi Ovadia Yosef stood up before, whenever he entered the room. Rather than introduce the Rav to you (I have mentioned him in the past) I will give you his sons' introduction, posted on the website of his rulings:

About Us
This website was established as a community service for the observant Jewish community throughout the world. Its purpose is to properly educate and provide the necessary information to assist others in conforming to Jewish Laws without unnecessary discomfort and confusion. The site is run by the children of Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi, and with his direct supervision.

Rabbi Abadi is a renowned Posek whose students are rabbis across the globe. His studies began in Tel-Aviv, Israel and continued in Yeshivat Chevron in Jerusalem. At 19 years old, he was sent by the "Chazon Ish" to study in Lakewood, NJ, under the famed Rabbi Aaron Kotler. A few years after the passing of Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Abadi became the Posek and the exclusive Halachic authority in Lakewood. In 1993, Rabbi Abadi moved to Jerusalem, Israel, where he opened a Kollel to continue his teachings abroad.

The goals of this website are clearly directed at those who may benefit from this service. Anyone who disagrees with the opinions and laws described within is invited to respond with respectful comments.

And disagree they did. There have been many cyber attacks on the website. When I was writing for "A Taste of Torah", whenever I quoted Rav Abadi, one "gentleman" (and I use the term very loosely) would always write "DON'T LISTEN TO HIM!" R. Abadi has taken many controversial stands, on many topics. He is always source based, as well as pointing out that new "stringencies" that were born in the '60s and later, that were never part of Judaism,. should be seen as deviational and heretical. He says "any custom not found in Talmudic sources, should be assumed to be of non-Jewish origin, and probably pagan". In the Kashrut realm, he has been particularly outspoken. He points out many of the failings that I have already written about. He also "outs" the major agencies for their campaign of slander against smaller agencies (especially the Triangle K). Beyond that, he insists that most things have no need for supervision (other than meat and wine). In most countries, labeling laws are very strict, even more than Kashrut requires. Yes, you will need to take half an hour to learn what the ingredients really mean. (Anybody who thinks that Mashgichim have great powers, and essentially do a body search on the workers, is living in dreamland). He carefully analyses and dismisses possible halachic objections. For Passover, he publishes a list of over 1,200 items that may be purchased (in the U.S.) without supervision. The website, run by his sons, who are also themselves very learned men, from 2002 was a general question and answer forum (when you see a question from yaakov s, that's me). (Sadly, his website has now split into two, with one of his sons defending Rabbi Abadi's rulings, while other family members offer a toned-down approach, glossing over some of Rabbi Abadi's more controversial stands). When prominent rabbis come up with new stringencies, Rabbi Abadi is always there to say "Do you have a source?" They are seized by terror. They know that this is a man who really knows. This is a man who can't be bought. This is a man who may cut into profits, in order to uphold the Torah. We need more like him! I was thrilled and honored when thirteen years ago, my daughter Simcha married the rabbi's great-nephew, and we are now family.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154060682644985&set=g.359108704298233&type=1&theater

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 13

Up until about 1970, kosher restaurants in the United States, and most other countries, were either 'self-supervised", or had a local rabbi pop in for a spot check, usually once a week. For canned and other packaged goods, the consumer relied on ingredients, especially as to the oil content. If it read "shortening", it meant lard. If it said "vegetable shortening", it was assumed to be kosher. The booklet to which I referred in my last post, slowly had the effect of educating that much more could go wrong with the ingredients besides oil, but also indoctrinated the public into believing that essentially nothing was kosher that didn't have a qualified rabbi carefully examining everything. Butcher shops, at that time, generally had a rabbi or Mashgiach (supervisor) make a weekly visit. From around 1970, that mostly vanished. Supervision was now understood to mean, especially in the case of meat, constant supervision. Those rabbis who were running "Kashrut Agencies" that didn't follow the new guidelines were mostly discredited. Actually, what kind of supervision is halachically required is a moot point. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (OU), run by rabbis of the Rabbinical Council of America, the RCA (the same folks who, since the 1980s have accepted and promulgated the new and stricter conversion standards), jumped on the new and stricter standards of kashrut. Their Kashrut agencies, once tiny, now became a huge business, with influence on virtually every aspect of food production. What was positive about this, was that they set uniform standards. What was negative about this, was that they set uniform standards. On the positive side of the ledger, charlatans were largely put out of business. Also, since most people did not really understand the ingredient panel of products, there was now no need to worry. The OU on the packaging was all that was needed. The layman, who could not be expected to know that "suet" meant beef fat, would be able to rest assured. On the other hand, standards were set by their own board. Questionable areas, where rabbis disagree, were given a single answer. Local rabbis had their discretionary power taken away from them. Some areas, like cheese production (to be discussed in a later post), have rabbinic opinion stretching from one extreme to the other. For most Orthodox communities, the OU's answer became "THE" answer. More right wing groups, however, were dissatisfied with the OUs standards, which they saw as too lax. The Satmar Rabbi was reported to have made a bilingual pun; "Der U? Nem you!" (The U? You take it!). Although other national Kashrut agencies have sprung up, non is as influential or as  powerful as the OU. However, as it is also a business, non halachic considerations also take a part. Competitors need to be fought (again, like in the story of the restaurant in my last post). The Triangle K, overseers of Hebrew National (among other companies), has been the target of a smear campaign for decades. People I know in the kashrut industry praise its high standards. Yet, ask any kosher consumer, and they will tell you it is not "really kosher". Business is business. A major problem not just with the OU, but virtually all agencies (other than Satmar and a few others) is that there is an inherent conflict of interests, when it comes to the Mashgichim. The way hechsherim (Kashrut certifications) work, is that a representative of the agency first visits the plant, and decides what, if anything, needs to be done to make it kosher. Once an understanding has been reached, a Mashgiach is assigned to the plant. The Mashgiach may or may not be a rabbi, but has been trained in what to look for. Although the agency takes a substantial fee "(typically $40,000/year), the Mashgiach gets, in most cases, close to minimum wage. Furthermore, the Mashgiach is paid by the plant, not the agency. If he finds something improper, and informs the agency, the plant manager can, and usually will, fire him. The agency will endeavor to place him in another plant, but that is not always possible. Every time a Mashgiach points out a problem, he must put his meager livelihood on the line. Satmar, on the other hand, pays its Mashgichim directly, thus avoiding this problem.(I was told by one of the top OU executives, that, if the Mashgichim were not paid by the plants, it would be "too difficult" in ensure the agency's reimbursement). The fact is, however, that factories are not difficult to deal with. They usually use one set of machines for weeks at a time, clean and sterilize them between runs, and have long term contracts with suppliers. Fraud or mistakes are few and far between. Not so in the case of restaurants and take out places. Unless the owner is himself an observant Jew, a game of cat and mouse often exists between the establishment and the mashgiach.If the Mashgiach "wins", he is out of a job. In the area where I live, the local kashrut agency recently installed surveillance cameras in all stores. This is only a partial fix. If the owner wants to cheat, he will find a way.Other conflicts of interest also exist. In the early '80s, the largest producer of poultry products in the U.S., Perdue,was in talks with the OU about becoming Kosher. This would have drastically lowered the exorbitant price of Kosher poultry. The major producer of Kosher poultry found out about this, and told the OU "We made you! For thirty years, we supported you, and essentially put you on the map. Now you're going to put us out of business, and set up a competitor?" The OU dropped the new project, citing a sense of loyalty to their long standing client. But many consumers were outraged. "Is your loyalty to that manufacturer, or to the Kosher consumer?" The protests were to no avail. One man, adored by many, but hated by many more, especially in the establishment, has been a feared opponent of the Kashrut industry for more than fifty years. In my opinion, he is the greatest halachic figure alive today. That will be my next post.