Akiva Miller:
kennethgmiller@juno.com
«I'd like to begin with a history lesson. When I was at YU in the 1970s, both Hershey's chocolates and Kellogg's cereals were sold in the cafeteria, despite not having any formal hashgacha. I cannot testify who actually ate them, but the fact that they were sold there says a lot about how well their kashrus was accepted.
A while back, someone sent in a post which explains many things to me about that situation. I don't know who it was, because I have searched for that post and I have been unable to find. It may have been listmember R' Rich Wolpoe, because he has written many similar things in the past couple of days.
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.»
[RRW: Note: I didn't recall precisely using these terms rather I did describe those 2 situations; viz. coffee from a roadside cafe may be kosher as is, but once certified, it might indeed need to meet a much higher standard.]
Akiva:
«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.
This explanation clarified many many things to me. I believe that the entire world followed the European model prior to the 20th century. During the 20th century, the United States frum community developed this new concept of hashgachah. It began in the early 20th century with certain categories of food, and it grew to include other categories of food. Milestones were passed in the 1980s when Hershey's and Kellogg's got formal hashgacha, and I think the next hurdle will be canned and frozen vegetables. The next generation will not understand why we considered it acceptable to buy these products without a formal hechsher. (Actually, from recent posts it is clear that we are going through this currently.) The next generation after them, perhaps, will wonder why *we* did not insist on a hechsher for the glaze on our fresh apples and other fruit.
Many people feel that the practices of the previous generations were unjustifiably lenient. Did "they" feel that way at "that" time? I happen to have a time machine on my shelf. Let's take a look:
I will quote now from a pamphlet entitled "The Foods We Eat", by Rabbi Yosef Wikler, now publisher of Kashrus Magazine, previously titled The Kashrus Newsletter. This pamphlet, copyright 1981, contains several articles which he had previously published. I quote from the article titled "Kellogg Corn Flakes", originally published February 15, 1980. I'd really like to quote the entire article, but because of copyright issues, I will just give some selected excerpts.
"Kellogg Corn Flakes is a familiar cereal in many Orthodox homes, even though it has no rabbi or organization attesting to its kashrus. Actually, most every Orthodox person eats Kellogg Corn Flakes. Do you eat food from a take-out store? [begin italics] Almost Every Take Out Store Uses Kellogg Corn Flakes. [end italics] They are used as Kellogg Corn Flakes crumbs. ... In most cases the heimishe take-out stores do use this product...
"Why do we eat this product without a hechsher?
"Firstly, let me say that no one should feel obligated to trust any food without a hechsher.
"However, a number of cereals and other products enjoy the trust of the Orthodox community. This is no accident. Some reliable kashrus experts have examined these products and found them to be acceptable. In some cases, because of the great need that the Orthodox community has for certain products, these food products are regularly examined. This is in effect almost a free supervision. ...
"Should we rely on Kellogg?
"This question was raised recently by a well-known authority on kashrus. Those kashrus organizations who investigated Kellogg and found certain products to be acceptable have done accurate research. But, how can we be certain that Kellogg will continue to produce kosher corn flakes? ...
"Shall we assume that if they decide to change ingredients in one of the "acceptable" cereals in order to save some money, Kellogg will place a large advertisement in the Jewish papers in order to notify us all. Far from it. The Kellogg company right now has no one to answer to since nobody certifies their kashrus.
"There are literally dozens of other corn flake cereals and hundreds of other cereals being sold that have rabbinical supervision. Why should anyone feel it necessary to rely upon the statements of companies that no animal derivatives are used. Years ago, when there were few products, supervision people felt the need to rely on such statements. There are still many products that people feel lost without. But Kellogg Corn Flakes - will no other brand do? ..."
An update to this article appeared in the Purim 1982 issue of The Kashrus Newsletter, making several interesting points:
"Rabbi Senter of the Chaf K says he attempts to avoid using Kellogg cereals at the hotels under the Chaf K supervision." (I can't help wondering about the implications of the word "attempts".)
That issue included a reprint of the Recommended Cereals list of the Vaad Hakashrus of Baltimore, which included a Kellogg's Corn Flakes and other Kellogg's cereals. "When we inquired how information was obtained for its list, the Vaad Hakashrus of Baltimore responded as follows: The cereal list which we have prepared is based upon information which we have received from reliable sources who have inspected the plants or who are knowledgeable of the process and/or ingredients."
Finally, at the bottom of page 6: "FLASH - Kellogg's has applied for supervision by the V.H. - Vaad Harabonim of Boston. Watch The Kashrus Newsletter for further information." A short while later Kellogg's did receive VH supervision, and is still supervised by them today. I can't help but suspect that these articles contributed to that.
One could still argue: Do such products need supervision or not? Is it a chumrah to insist on a hechsher? Or is it a kulah to eat such food without a hechsher?
----------------
Here's a more modern example, with a quote which you can look up yourself easily. Can one eat/drink the Slurpees from a non-supervised 7-Eleven store? Please read the very nuanced article by Rabbi Sholem Fishbane, Kashruth Administrator of Chicago's cRc, at http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/slurpees.php
You can also read what the OU says in an article titled "Drinking Coffee on the Road", In the Dec. 2008 issue of "The Daf HaKashrus", which is not intended for the general public, but is subtitled "A monthly newsletter for the OU Rabbinic Field Representative". The article is online at http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/1378519. A PDF of the whole newsletter is at http://program.ouradio.org/content/files/Daf%2017-3b.pdf.
THE CONCLUSION I REACH from these articles is that there is not one answer. The multiple answers are very situation-based. I often compare it to the many things which have changed in America because of the Americans With Disabilities Act. This law has made many changes in the way public buildings - including shuls - are built, requiring them to be accessible to people in wheelchairs, and many other accommodations. People who have grown up with this law, which is now almost 20 years old, perceive such accessibility to be a birthright. I am not disagreeing. But 50 years ago, to insist on a wheelchair ramp for every school, shul, and bus, would have been laughable.
SO TOO IN KASHRUS. In some situations, we can easily do without a product if we are not satisfied with its kashrus. In other situations, it's not so easy. I recall an ArtScroll biography about some person (I don't remember who) and his role as one of the few genuinely frum U.S. servicemen during World War II. It mentions how careful he was with kashrus, and it mentioned of the name of the breakfast cereal which he ate then. It did *not* mention which hashgacha that cereal had, and I've always presumed (rightly or wrongly) that there were many manufactured products which even the frummest of that generation ate, based on the ingredients and other information. But we have advanced, B"H, and we would no more eat a breakfast cereal without a hechsher, than we would build a shul which the elderly find it impossible to climb into.»
R' Samuel Svarc wrote:
« Kashrus is different then a lot of 'issurim' in that it has 'timtum halev'. ... It is ... excuse the expression, foolish to gamble your neshoma [timtum] over a piece of food.
»
Akiva:
«I don't dispute a word of that. But I'll note that you used the word "gamble", and indeed, it is a gamble. We don't really know whether or not this food really contains any tarfus. It is quite possible that there is nothing wrong with this food at all. But it is, admittedly, a gamble.
In any gamble, one that weighs the possible risks against the possible rewards. The article above about coffee, for example, was very clear that if one is driving and feels tired, it is more dangerous to continue driving that way, and less dangerous to drink coffee which might have some very minor kashrus problems, real though they might be.
Personally, I do not understand why the take-out stores felt a need to use Kellogg's Corn Flakes when they had no hashgacha, when Post Corn Flakes had already been under the OK for many years. Perhaps Post Corn Flakes were unavailable as crumbs. That might make a very big difference to a take-out store, but to a hotel serving breakfast? Maybe I am underestimating the cachet of the "Kellogg's" brand name. (The "New Coke" debacle had not yet occurred when those articles were written.)»
R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
«When you buy uncertified products, there may be an entire slew of "bittuls" that may be genuinely relied upon. But when one certifies a product, lechatchilahs take over [EG ein mevatlin afilu issur derabbanan lechatchila] R Schwab used to say: "I'm a lechatchila Jew". IOW WRT kashrus he would not allow any kind of bedi'avads at the outset.»
Akiva:
That's a great soundbite, but when you get into specifics it turns very fuzzy.»
[RRW:Ein hachi nami, I was addressing a question of how the standards of hashgachah might exceed the standards of an approved list. I was not addressing all the specifics.]
Akiva:
« In a given situation, one posek will say, "This procedure satisfies 80% of the acharonim. We can clearly rely on it l'chatchila." And another posek will say, "We'll rely on that b'dieved, but l'chatchilah, we'll use this other procedure, which is only slightly more difficult, and satisfies 95% of the acharonim."
Is the former unjustifiably lenient? Is the latter ridiculously strict? I dunno.
Akiva Miller»
I found the discussion in Avodah quite informative and Akiva Miller gave it a fairly comprehensive synposis.
KT
RRW
1 comment:
In a certain way, the development of hashgachas can be compared to the development of codes in the world of Halacha -- and that may be an important fact that we should remember. There can be no question that there was value in the development of codes, and similarly there was and is value in the modern realm of hashgacha, however a caution must also be voiced. With codes, people lost sight of the real workings of Halacha and the process of halachic reasoning was lost. This is also what is happening with the proliferation of hashgachas. People have lost sight of what a hashgacha really represents -- that there is a psak by the halachic authority behind the hashgacha that this item is kosher.
The definition of kosher is not a matter of fact but a matter of law in concert with fact. Many have no idea of this. What is lost is not simply that people do not understand the real workings of Halacha but also the possibility of other aveirot ensuing due to this ignorance. If hashgacha is perceived to be simply a matter of fact, an "unacceptable" hashgacha must be perceived to be a presentation of a a falsehood. If kosher is black and white, this hashgacha must be perceived as a lie. The result is that the rabbi behind this hashgacha is then perceived to be the lier. This can and does result in motzei shem ra. If however people would understand what hashgacha really indicates, they would understand that an "unacceptable" hashgacha just means that the person's rabbi is in disagreement with the halachic reasoning of the rabbi who gave the hashgacha. Truthfully, and sadly, though, this recognition of the truth may still have negative consequences as people don't understand what it means for rabbis to disagree.
Of course, the answer to this problem is not to get rid of hashgachas but I have always felt that it would be worthwhile if hashgacha agencies published their psaks on products, noting even halalchic disagreements and the side that they take. In this way, people would have further knowledge of the halachic processes behind the hashgacha decision and recognize points of disagreement. It would also help people in bringing the true world of halacha in their own lives, as they may learn to recognize that a certain hashgacha may be good in one situation and not another -- just as we find in the Shulchan Aruch how we are suppose to behave in a case of hefsed meruba. Leniency in that case is often demanded as the entire world of halachic values are considered with the result being that in this case, the lenient kashrut psak is actually the best behaviour considering all Torah values.
Hashgacha can just make the halachic world too one dimensional. This must be a consideration as the world and benefits of hashgacha grow.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment