[Avodah] Ein Mevatlin issur lechatchilah

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

RRW wrote:

> See SA O"Ch Hilchos YT 517:2
> ...muttar... Aval im ragil b'chah assur.. D'EIN ZEH HASHUV
> B'DIAVAD KEIVAN D'RAGIL B'CHAH"
> IOW what could be kosher b'diavad on an ocassional basis
> would fail if done on a regular basis.
> Illustration of how I'd apply it
> If eino-Yehudi bakes dairy bread ONCE and labels the package
> only, I can make a case that it slips through the g'zeira
> against baking dairy bread w/o forming an intrinsic siman.
> BUT
> If I give hashgacha and the eino-Yehudi is ragil - then it's
> tantamount to using a dairy bread l'chathcila w/o an
> intrinsic siman and l'chatchila relying upon the package.
> [And that would depend upon where you stand on that issue]

No big chidush. What you're saying is that a hashgacha can't rely on b'dieveds as a normal operating procedure. That's pretty much the same thing as when we were labeling them as the "American model" which is actual supervision, and the "European model" which (to grossly oversimplify) relies on *possible* b'dieveds.

To my recollection, the European model never says "That's okay because the poskim allow it b'dieved". What they say is "We're not supervising it, so we can't guarantee that it's not happening, and if there was good evidence that it *was* happening then we would stop relying on it, but since it seems to be not happening, and even if it WAS happening it would be okay b'dieved, THAT's why we rely on it."

Can someone corroborate or correct my previous paragraph?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Love Spell
Click here to light up your life with a love spell!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=bVYEZdRkCeRe8ty-c5J2IAAAJz3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARwAAAAA=