[Avodah] OU bitul policy

[Chana Luntz]

> On 15/12/2011 4:16 PM, martin brody wrote:
> > If it is already in there, it's Bdievad (however that's spelled!)

And RZS replied

> No, it isn't.  That's the difference between the "approved" and
> "certified" models.  If the goy is seeking our certification before
> he manufactures the product, then he is making it for our benefit,
> and giving him the OK to mix it is the same as mixing it ourselves.
> Whereas if he is making it for his own purposes, and is merely doing
> us a favour by disclosing to us after the event what he put in it,
> then it's bediavad.

That indeed appears to be the argument of the Halachic Authority of
Australia, and presumably the OU. However, the logic of it is not exactly
compelling.

Let us suppose that Mars Bars were made in the US.  Despite the economic
clout of Jews in the US, which might cause the manufacturer to seek to
obtain a hechsher, it is not as though rov of the people eating Mars Bars,
or even anywhere near that number are Jews (and certainly not frum Jews
seeking a hechsher).  So while the manufacturer might well, if pushed to do
so by the hechsher granting authority, seek out whey that was a by product
of cheese produced with vegetarian rennet (unlike in the UK, where the
Jewish market is sufficiently small that Mars is highly unlikely to change
its policy just because of the Jews), without such a push, and of its own
accord, it would seem logical that it would seek out whey that was most
easily and cheaply available, regardless of the kind of rennet used, in
order to maximise profit.  I do struggle to see how that can be construed as
"mixing it for our benefit" and even more to equate it as "the same as
mixing it ourselves".  The non Jewish manufacturer would seem rather to be
doing it for its own benefit, although it might be willing to forgo that
benefit if offered what it believes is the greater benefit of a hechsher.

In Israel, where presumably the majority of consumers are Jews or frum Jews,
the argument is somewhat stronger, because the majority of people who would
benefit from any lower prices of the item generated by finding the cheapest
and most available source of whey are going to be Jewish.  But even there,
that is assuming that the benefit, what there is of it, that is generated by
not being fussy as to the whey utilised, is passed directly on to the
consumer, and not absorbed by the non Jewish manufacturer.  If on the other
hand the non Jewish manufacturer will charge as much as it believes the
market will bear, then unless margins are exceptionally fine on such items,
or the cost of switching is highly significant, it is still possible that
most if not all of such benefit will be absorbed as profit, being solely to
the benefit of the manufacturer.  And even if only some of the benefit will
be absorbed as profit, or recaptured by the manufacturer by more sales of
the cheaper product, then surely the manufacturer is still doing it for its
own benefit, and the fact that consumers may also benefit by paying less for
the product is incidental (is ze nehene v'ze nehene mean that the person
doing the act is doing it "for the benefit" of the second one who also
benefits).  (Of course in Israel, it is hard to believe that whey from non
vegetarian sources is readily available, given the pressures on the cheese
makers to produce kosher cheese.  The ready availability of whey linked to
non kosher rennet is thus most likely linked to a society where the majority
of consumers do not care about such things).

> --
> Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful

Regards

Chana