[Avodah] Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority ofAustralia

[Chana Luntz]

RMB writes:

> I am startled that the latter page RYL quoted presumes we should ignore
> the Kesav Sofer and take the Nodah biYhudah for granted.
> 
> I'm trying to understand the NbY's position. Assuming I have a choice
> between two pieces of meat -- one is the famous piece from the 9
> chanuyos, the other I have been holding on to ever since its perfect
shechitah
> and kashering. Does the NbY really hold it doesn't make a difference which
> I choose?
> 
> Wouldn't venishmartem me'od lenafshoseikhem mean that one mustn't risk
> the 1 in 9 chance of timtum haleiv? Or did I find someone who actually
> definitively holds thart it's violating the issur which causes timtum,
> not something inherent in the cheftzah?

As we do not have the cite to either the Kesav Sofer and the Nodah BiYehuda,
it is hard to be sure exactly what is being referred to, but I think you are
jumping to unwarranted conclusions.  The dinim under discussion here are
clearly not those of the piece from the nine chanuyos, but that of bittel in
some form.

So the question you really appear to be posing is - if you have a situation
where a drop of milk gets accidently mixed into a meat stew and becomes
batel, not only d'orisa but d'rabbanan, in today's society when none of us
would starve if we threw the stew out and made a new stew (ie it is hard to
argue hefsed meruba), do we ignore the din of bittel and worry about timtum
halev and throw the stew out?  What about if you had made two pots of stew,
just to be safe and because you always overcater, and one of them had this
unfortunate drop of milk accident, should you throw the second one out on
the grounds that you clearly have enough and it is better that people not be
exposed to timtum halev?  Or do you hold that the cheftzah of a mutar
tarovos is as mutar as one about which there was no tarovos, because the
Torah who defined what is a cheftza of issur, defined that a tarovos that
includes mixed in it some amount of what was once issur but which is batel
is not a cheftza of issur, period. The alternative being that it is a sort
of cheftza of issur, in that it is sort of mutar but if stacked against
something about which no shialas needed to be asked it is relatively assur.

So it might be (without seeing the NbY and the Kesav Sofer inside) that the
NbY's position is that bittel works, period, and what you now have is a
cheftza of heter.  While the Ksav Sofer is not so sure, he seems to be
suggesting that it only really works in a kind of shas hadchak siuation- or
perhaps a baal nefesh should be machmir (bit like not eating meat from an
animal about which shialas have  been asked).

Of course I am guessing here - the machlokus might not be in the general
case, ie where a drop of milk falls into a meat stew, but in the din of ain
mevatlin issur l'chatchila as applied when a non Jew does it.  Which might
depend on whether one held that ain mevaltin issur l'chatchila is a d'orisa
or d'rabbanan - although that is probably be right, since isn't it the Noda
B'Yehuda who holds that ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila, at least when a Jew
does it, is assur d'orisa for things that are d'orisa, but then if the Ksav
Sofer holds likewise, which he may well do, then the machlokus might be
about, assuming that to be the case, if it is done by a non Jew kind of for
the benefit of the Jew, since he is one of the ultimate consumers (even if
it is unlikely that the non Jew had him in mind), does it fall within the
definition of ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila, or at least to the extent of
not relying on it when given a choice.

But this is all very different to the nine shops case, where we do have,
somewhere in there, a cheftza that is, according to everybody assur, we just
don't know which, and I do not see how can extrapolate from the case under
discussion vis a vis hashgacha to the case of the nine shops.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana