[Avodah] Milchig Bread

[Jacob Farkas]

>> R Micha Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The OU and star-K used to give hechsheirim to bread that says dairy
>>>> on the label, relying on RYBS following his father, who in turn held
>>>> like the Chokhmas Adam and AhS that an external label is sufficient.
>>
>> R Zev Sero
>>>
>>> Where does the AhS say this?  I'm looking at it now and I don't see
>>> any such heter.
>>
Jacob Farkas:
>> AhS YD 97:8 states that if it is made public knowledge that the item
>> is dairy, then the item is permissible without the otherwise required
>> shape modification. I can totally see how an external label on a
>> packaged item would satisfy this criteria.
>
R' Zev Sero
> Absolutely not.  Read it more carefully.  That is almost the exact
> opposite of what he says.
>

I read it a few times and I still see how external labeling satisfies
the criteria.

In 97:4 he states that Rashi is of the opinion that in small amounts
(that which is to be consumed by a household for that day) it is
permissible to make Milchig bread. In 97:5 he quotes Rambam and Rashba
who translate the Gemara differently from Rashi, and suggest that the
criteria is shape, not time. Therefore, according to Rambam, it needs
to recognizably different. He then suggests that the Minhag to make
butter cookies in a slightly different shape derives from this
requirement. He then notes that people are starting to deviate from
this Minhag, and leave Milchig baked goods in
unrecognizable-as-Milchig form, and he objects vociferously (save for
scenarios where the milchig is self-evident, if item is filled with
cheese or is loaded with butter).

In 97:6 he discusses the prevalent practice of eating Sukhariki (a
Russian, unsweetened version of biscotti), and in particular Milchig
Sukhariki. The AhS claims that these Sukhariki are not distinguishable
from their non-milchig counterparts, and "L'Chorah" should be non
permissible to eat. Upon his investigation, the bakers responded that
thanks to the amounts of butter it does make the Sukhariki visibly
distinguishable. The AhS adds that perhaps because people are buying
them for immediate consumption, you can be lenient like the opinion of
Rashi mentioned earlier in 97:4 that one can make milchig bread for
immediate use.

In 97:7 he introduces Teshuvas Maharit who discusses the opposite
case, where the baked goods contained animal fat. His response was
that initially it should have never been brought to market, but now
that it was brought to market and all the locals know that  it
contains animal fat, there is no difference between this knowledge and
actually modifying the appearance of the product. The Maharit is
concerned by passersby who may not have this knowledge available. The
Maharit also adds items that are by design not intended to be eaten
with dairy, can be made with animal fat

The AhS in 97:8 then states that we established from Maharit (#1) that
when their is Public Knowledge that the item is Milchig or Fleishig,
there is no concern about the products. Therefore, if the bakeries
proclaim that the item is milchig, the items do not need alternative
modification in appearance to distinguish them from their pareve
counterparts. He then goes on to say that regarding the milchig
Sukhariki in 97:6, the public knowledge that they are Milchig is
sufficient. He then states (#2) that we also learn from the Maharit
that items that are not commonly eaten with dairy can be made with
animal fat, and vice versa, items that are not eaten with meat can be
made with dairy, and he remains undecided whether the Halacha supports
that argument.

I don't think that the AhS remained undecided regarding the first din
from the Maharit, regarding declaration.

I don't see a point in his mentioning the Maharit altogether if he
intended to dismiss item #1, as the whole point of mentioning the
Maharit was to support the prevalent custom of the bakers and their
Milchig Sukhariki. He already established 2 other rationales for this
practice. The only reason to mention to include the Maharit's opinion
is if it justifies the current practice.

The first Din, that declaration = a shinui, seems very logical. After
all, if you were from out of town, you'd have a better chance with a
little tag next to said item stating that its dairy than you would if
the item had a slightly different shape from its counterpart.

The second din of the Maharit, that an item which is not commonly
eaten with Milchig can be made with animal fat, absent of modification
(or declaration) could be open to discussion. The Gezerira was
designed to keep people from inadvertently eating milchig together
with fleishig. Would the Gezeirah include items that are inherently
eaten at different times, or does that alone constitute a shinui?

In practice (I am referring to Brroklyn, NY), you can purchase milchig
pound cake most anywhere (looks-but-thankfully-does-not-taste just
like the pareve one) and all it has visibly is its deceleration on the
packaging. You can find bakeries selling milchig goods that will have
a sticker on them stating that the item is milchig, again without any
other obvious shinui on the item.

I know people who remember that in the 'old country' it was routine
"tzi bakken milchigs." This was usually a yeast dough recipe that
contained milk and buttermilk. It served as the base for Kokosh cake,
rugelach, and other similar pastries. People knew it was milchig and
that was sufficient.

--Jacob Farkas