[Avodah] Kashrus

[Isaac Balbin]

> 
> 
> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:42:21 GMT
> From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" <kennethgmiller at juno.com>
> To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Kashrus
> 
> 
> Whoever it was, he used the phrases "American model" and "European model", where the phrase "American model" describes a situation where supervision is actively given to the factory, and "European model" describes a situation where there is no formal supervision, but only an analysis of the manufacturing after-the-fact. In the American model, he explained, the company pays a fee to the supervisor, putting the two in a very close relationship identity-wise, while in the European model no such relationship exists. The result is that many actions taken by a factory end up as "b'dieved okay" in the European model, while the exact same action would be called "ain mevatlin issur l'chatchila" in the American model.
> 

In Australia, the main kashrus body has both categories and they both make sense. They categorise some products as eg Pareve Mehadrin (P#) and others as Pareve Kosher (P) viz American vs European models. Somebody who seeks to eat only Mehadrin, or a particular caterer that needs to provide such for their clientele has the ability to do so without necessarily purchasing overseas goods. The difference between former times and now is the increase in the availability of mehadrin coupled with the notion of tumah influencing the spirit of the person eating a "shemetz" of issur because one uses various combination of "heterim". I like the word mehadrin in the context. It's not a good idea to imply by word or thought that unless its Mehadrin it's not kosher. Each to their own. We seem to be a generation of "Baalei Nefesh" yet also pale in comparison to our forbearers when it comes to middos and other matters, but I digress.


We know, for sure, that when one is faced with a situation where one is eating in someone's house and the food may be kosher but not necessarily mehadrin that it's better to not insult the bein adom lamokom. I'm not aware that this requires hatoras nedarim either. Similarly in Hilchos Shabbos. If you go to a Sefardi house where they, for example, rely on Ain Bishul after Bishul even on a Davar Lach, 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)