[Avodah] LBD lists

[Samuel Svarc]

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM, martin brody <martinlbrody at gmail.com> wrote:
> R"n Toby Katz wrote:
>> > The article you quoted gives one very strong argument in
>> > favor of hechsherim as opposed to lists:  if a company is
>> > under contract with a kashrus agency, it can't change the
>> > ingredients in its supervised products without informing
>> > the kashrus agency.
>>
>>
> "This can also be true where there is no direct supervision. AFAIK the LBD
> has commercial agreements in place with producers that appear on their list
> that they will not change ingredients or production practices without
> informing the LBD."
>
> That is correct, but only for the products they directly supervise( that
> have their hecksher) or that they have investigated and are listed as such
> in their publication.
> However, there are the thousands of products that are permitted relying on
> the ingredient list and no concern for manufacturing methods.
> I will list the categories.
> Most notable to me is
> " Kosher species of fish, canned, or in jars, in water, brine or vegetable
> are approved"
> This in itself answers nearly all of the issues brought up in this
> discussion. Bishul Akum ha factories, keilim, suffeik ben yomo, yad soledas
> bo, batel b'shishim, ingredient lists, vegetable oils etc.etc.
>
><SNIP>

But look at that. There are numerous issues involved, at times
multiple issues for the same product. E.g. A canned fish product that
contains oil could feasibly have issues of a) relying on ingredient
lists, b) keilim, c) Bishul Akum ha factories, d) sufiek ben yomo, e)
yad soledas bo, f) batel b'shishim d) vegetable oils (admittedly
repetitious but I'm hoping clearer). While not all issues increase the
problems, there are many that are stand alones. These do increase the
problems with each one added, as you only need to strike out on one to
be eating problematic food.

While some, like RMB, might be willing to be 'm'tztaref' lenient
position upon lenient position, others, like myself, upon hearing the
formidable issues, such as constant use in a commercial environment
removing ben yomo, failure of CIP to remove beins, the heter of bishul
akum ha companies not being used by the vast majority of poskim
rendering it a daas yachid, and on and on, feel the view expressed by
R' Schwab ("I'm a l'chatchila yid") seems most sensible.

I wonder as well at the sentiment expressed, that this is "observing
kashrut, stringently". It would appear that a more objective
evaluation would term it "observing kashrut, utilizing lenient
positions, at times relying on daas yochids". While one might be
allowed, halachically, to do so, to me it appears to be dangerously
close to an attitude of 'novil b'rishus haTorah'.

And is it really only 'baalie nefesh' who would want their food to not
be considered bishul akum by more then one solitary posek? Or who
wouldn't want to rely on adjudicating correctly major machlokes
achronim, but would want to l'chatchila cover both sides? And if
someone, avidly following the thread on Yad soledes bo and seeing the
many divergent ranges and the multiple factors involved, thinks its
best to not rely on the most meik'l shuir is he really being machmir,
or is he rather resisting becoming someone who accepts the most meikl
position just because it exists? IOW, not knowing which shuir of YSB
is correct, he won't automatically use the most lenient position with
the deciding factor being its very leniency, because he's worried not
so much as being a 'baal nefesh' but afraid of being a 'novol'.

KT,
MSS