- This topic has 48 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Many companies nowadays put allergy information on all their packages and they are very detailed. If milk is not listed can you assume there are absolutely no milk products in them? The OU got rid of OU-DE and instead calls it OU-D so even if a package has an OU-D on it, it does not necessarily mean it has actual milk products in it.
So I guess my question is can someone who is makpid on chalav yisroel eat something that has an OU-D on it if milk is not listed as an allergen. (For example Nabisco does not list milk on oreos but does list it on chips-ahoy. can you assume chips-ahoy has milk products in it but oreos do not?)
Not to give a psak, but I keep chalav yisroel and eat Oreos. I was also told (in addition to what you mentioned) that there are people with milk allergies who can eat them. (I know someone specific who can.)
Yes.
Not to give a psak, but if a food has no milk derivatives listed and also has allergy info and doesn’t list milk, I eat it when I’m fleishig.
I’m listening. So far he said that they don’t have a DE designation, because they think we will get confused. I find it bewildering that they are more concerned about that, than that we will eat it assuming it is keilim, if they think it is not ok. http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ou-kashrus-is-not-reliable
Then he talks about reading the ingredients. He says that there may be dairy in the “natural flavors”. That seems true; natural flavors means flavoring derived from things thought of as food. Maybe we should be choshesh when it says “natural flavors”. But many products don’t have natural flavors.
Then he talks about allergy warnings. He says they will require warning if there are 3ppm. But then vaguely says there are times they will not require that, but no examples. I’ll look up the laws.
I don’t believe him; and think if they cared, they would have a DE designation. I think they know you can just look at the allergy warning and they are relying on that. (And I still have no idea how they would not recall a product which they knew was mislabled. DE will cause confusion, but no D on a milchig product won’t cause confusion?)
“I eat it when I’m fleishig”
But not WITH fleishig, am I right?
Certainly not. I assume since it has a “D”, that is must be made in milchig keilim which are ben yomo.
Oreos are a case of the OU’s assumption that we’re all morons vis-a-vis the whole dairy issue.
I know a camp mashgiach who saw that crumbled Oreos (to be used for ice cream or other desserts) in a huge wholesale bag were labeled OU-Parve. When he called up the OU and asked if this was a misprint, since Oreos sold on the shelves are OU-D, the mashgiach said that the rabbi dreied around on the phone for 45 minutes, not giving him a straight answer, until he finally told the mashgiach, “I won’t tell you it’s dairy, but I also won’t tell you it’s parve.” (Sigh)
Halevai, if only people knew the truth about Oreos, there would be another dessert option for people who live in areas where you can’t get parve desserts so easily.
If the OU were more clear about Oreos and other DE desserts, we would have more options for our shabbos meals. I would have no problem serving oreos after our fleshig shabbos dinners.
The DE was a very clever means of giving people the truth. I suppose the OU is of the shita of Jessup from A Few Good Men (“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”)
I suppose there’s always Stella D’Oro.
rebdoniel
If something is DE it isnt supposed to be eaten at the same seudah as fleishigs.
Nope. It means it could be eaten right after the meal. We bentch and then have dessert.
Something made on DE isn’t dairy, which is why we eat it right after the meal. Dessert is eaten right after a meal.
rd: Being DE is not the same as being pareve, and your story therefore makes no sense. If they are ever labeled “pareve”, they would not be DE. And DE was never a way of telling us the “truth”, because DE is different than pareve.
Well, the story is true. The OU is duplicitous about the status of oreos, and the mashgiach in question is reliable, and I believe him. I wouldn’t eat oreos with fleshigs, but I would right after. A parve food cooked in a dairy pot can be eaten even with meat, according to the principles of Nat bar Nat.
Chullin 11b says that fish brought up in a meat pot can be eaten with dairy.
The Rambam, Rabeinu Tam, and most Rishonim say that whether the fish were served, cooked, or even fried in a meat utensil, they may still be eaten with milk.
The Mechaber (YD 95:1) rules in accordance with the majority opinion, and allows fish which came in any sort of contact with a meat pot to be eaten with milk.
The entire issue of hezkat halavi/dairy equipment follows the chumra of the Rema, who holds like the Rivan (who says that the fish can’t be eaten with dairy), and says that something made in hezkat halavi can be eaten after, but not with, meat.
The Beit Yosef (YD 95) says that intentionally, one may rely on nat bar nat. Therefore, the entire DE controversy is merely a figment of the Rema’s decision to be stringent against the bulk of the rishonim. While I would accommodate guests at my home by following this, it is clear that one need not be concerned.
The Oreos themselves are parve, but cooked in hezkat halavi. According to the Beit Yosef and Hakham Ovadia Yosef, and the Pri Megadim, we can eat something made on dairy equipment even with meat.
The point was that the OU expressed 2 different rulings- one for wholesale use, one for the consumer, with the thinking that it would be better to use a more learned, lenient opinion for the mashgichim and a more stringent one for the masses, in line with the misconception that the chumra of the Rema is normative.
With all due respect, you don’t know anything.
We (ashkenazim) pasken like that rema min hadin. The OU is absolutely not following the mechaber on that for anything.
If you pasken like the sefardim, by all means. But it is beyond ridiculous to present it as a choice or a chumrah.
The Rema’s shita is a chumra, period. He holds like one rishon, while the Beis Yosef/Mechaber holds like all the other rishonim. Ashkenazic stringency does not equal halakha.
Are you calling the Mechaber incorrect? Do you pasken like the Rema when he says that you can hold a wedding on Shabbat and that it is mutar to drink wine made by goyim in places where that is customary? Stop being foolish now.
The Rema’s shita is a chumra, period. He holds like one rishon, while the Beis Yosef/Mechaber holds like all the other rishonim. Ashkenazic stringency does not equal halakha.
Are you calling the Mechaber incorrect? Do you pasken like the Rema when he says that you can hold a wedding on Shabbat and that it is mutar to drink wine made by goyim in places where that is customary? Stop being foolish now.
Wow. You really know even less than nothing. It really is quite bewildering.
Well, he did pasken that way. The responsa are there for you to learn (Shut Rema 124 on wine; 125 on the chasuna.)
Be consistent at least.
yay. you found a rema that you think I don’t hold like.
There are myriad rema’s that we don’t hold like. We generally do hold like him, but it isn’t a rule.
You seriously know less than nothing.
Things merely labelled DE do not have ta’am chalav. Does anyone seriously have a safek whether or not that is accurate? So basically; you have a safek if it was hot, a safek if it was a ben yomo, a safek if it was a davar hapogem, and to top it all off you know there is no ta’am chalav regardless.
I assume since it has a “D”, that is must be made in milchig keilim which are ben yomo.
Dunno why you’d assume that.
PBA – please stop insulting.
RD – you have a decent amount of knowledge and good analysis skills, but please be careful when you speak. You’re not a posek.
PBA – please stop insulting.
MDG: I think it is necessary to point out to everyone that this man knows nothing, and nothing he writes can be relied upon in any manner.
RD – you have a decent amount of knowledge and good analysis skills, but please be careful when you speak. You’re not a posek.
MDG: I also don’t like to put people down, but here it is very necessary. He is maligning the entire minhag ashkenaz as being merely a chumrah or a choice. He is not merely being disrespectful to the acharonim (his usual modus operandi)– he is completely wrong.
I don’t know if he has good analytical skills or not. I do know that he knows less than nothing. Less than nothing, because even what he knows just makes things worse, because he twists and misconstrues it. Thus, less than nothing.
And, in case you are wondering, MDG, I had to say all this to counter what you just said. So maybe if you don’t want to see me need say more about RD, you should just keep out of it.
Don’t blame others for your bad habits.
I don’t think it’s a bad habit.
But, you do. So I’m letting you know that you are at fault for what I consider good, but you consider bad.
PBA is a cyber-bully. When one disagrees with him, he puts them down, rather than engaging constructively. He is no different than Korach.
When I call his bluff, and pose a point he can’t answer while being intellectually honest or consistent, he accuses me of being an am haaretz.
Let’s keep the discussion focused on textual arguments, which is what I do.
If you choose to disagree with the halakhic arguments I present, fine. But don’t delegitimize those you disagree with. Elu ve Elu. There are multiple correct approaches, which is the beauty of Judaism.
Thank you, MDG, for defending my kavod.
And, MDG, I do answer she’eilos all day long. Many people come to me for halakhic guidance.
I’m ok with the names. I’m not insulted.
The rema might just be insulted, but you’ll have to travel to krakow or somewhere to ask his grave that.
Elu ve Elu
So if I say pork is kosher, does elu v’elu kick in?
If you choose to disagree with the halakhic arguments I present, fine. But don’t delegitimize those you disagree with. Elu ve Elu. There are multiple correct approaches, which is the beauty of Judaism.
He says, after just disparaging all the ashkenazi acharonim. So fascinating.
I’m sorry I posted this question and started this sinas chinam-fest.
Oh, this is not sinas chinam. Dovid Hamelech says: ??? ?????? ? ????.
Also, just to prove that you really do know nothing: The rema himself brings 3 rishonim how hold like that. And I’d likely find more if I went through them.
And I’d like everyone to know, that this is not an isolated incident here. This IS one of the basic YCT sicknesses. They–quite like Conservative–think they can be machria between the rishonim, and that any psak since the time of the gemara is non-binding on them because “it’s just a minhag”. They are literally not practicing the same religion as us.
I’m glad we brought this example out. Thank you for cooperating so well.
rebdoniel
Someone with you hashkafos shouldn’t be poskening for anyone.
“Oreos are not that good.”
I agree. I did not have them until recently (past year or so) when I was told by others that Oreos are really parve. For years I wanted to try them (mayim gezulim…). When I finally had them, I found out that they’re good, but not that good. Now I know they are just sandwich cookies with a lot of marketing.
“Thank you, MDG, for defending my kavod.”
YW. But I feel that I should say that I agree, to some degree, with PBA. I find your way of halachic analysis to be a modern intellectual approach (it reminds me of a college professor), but not necessarily according to tradition as I understand it.
PBA is a cyber-bully. When one disagrees with him, he puts them down, rather than engaging constructively.
I’ve had halachic disagreements with pba, and I can’t remember one time when he put me down.
Then again, I don’t think I’ve ever disparaged the Rem”a, (or the Mechaber).
The rema himself brings 3 rishonim how hold like that.
Is that the Rem’a, or a later comment? I’ve never quite figured out the parentheses. Either way, if you count the Rivan, Rashi, Mordechai and Or Zarua, it’s four.
By the way, rumor has it that Oreos are completely pareve, not even keilim, but Nabisco doesn’t want to lose a warehouse full of packaging in case they ever reformulate to dairy. This would explain the different designations on different packaging.
And although I don’t eat Oreos because of pas Yisroel, I’m told that the more expensive versions of the heimishe brands are just as good.
i’ve never seen chalav yisroel lactaid
about oreos.
I attended a yu presentation about two years ago.
they said that (as of that time)
there were no dairy ingredients or dairy problems with oreos
in any of the many plants where they are manufactured.
but.
Nabisco refuses a pareve designation because they reserve the right to begin using a dairy ingredients (or non-pareve certified ingredients ) or dairy equipment at any time.
IOW. Oreos were completely pareve then, but may not be today and may not be tomorrow.
I suspect by some arrangement they (the ou and nabisco) allowed that run for the crumbs to be marked pareve.
I quite agree with pba’s assessment of rebdoniel.
and one more thing. The whole idea of a DE designation has always been a matter of debate for what might be called philosophical policy reasons. most kashruth orgs resisted for a long time. some now use it but the OU still disagrees. there are valid arguments on both sides.
Nitpicker,
Well, be a nitpicker if you want. I certainly pity you.
Who are the 3 rishonim? Most rishonim hold like the Mechaber. That is the truth. The Rivan’s shita is at variance with R”T, Rambam, Rashba, etc. The Sefer haTeruma holds like neither- he says agrees that if the fish were served or cooked in a meat utensil that they may be eaten with milk. If they were FRIED, however, in a meat pot, they may not. The Sefer Ha-Teruma considers taste transferred directly to the fish as a primary taste. Only when the taste must pass through the medium of water, i.e., bishul, is the taste considered to be “nat bar nat,” a secondary ta’am.
And the Rema says that b’dieved, we can be lenient anyways.
RD,
I listed the Rishonim.
Yes, the Rem”a is meikil b’dieved. You are advocating being meikil l’chatchilah, even for Ashkenazim.
Also, Oreos are baked, not cooked.
RD: You are wrong. Ashkenzi P’sak is almost always like the Rama (in the SH”A, not necessarily the Tshuvos) and to Lechatchilah go against something he only Mattirs B’dieved is something we cannot do without some serious dissent from the Achronim. You would have been far better served quoting the Shach as Paskening like the Mechaber (I looked for it but couldn’t find it; but I know that Rav Schachter quotes it) rather than writing off the Shittah of the Rama. That is something that requires a lever far greater than yours (or mine, or PBA’s, or anyone’s here) to say and it behoove you to recognize that fact, especially if the burden of Paskening for others rests upon you. Of course, it would also greatly behoove you to recognize just how much of a burden that is.
Now, the reason I came back to this thread was not to disagree with you. PBA and DY did a good enough job. The reason was to defend PBA. He is far from a bully. We have had our disagreements and he has insulted me on occasion. That does not change the fact that he does not insult to get a power trip or to put someone down. He insults when he feels that it is necessary to ensure that others do not get confused by what he perceives as a slight to HKBH’s or the Torah’s honor. Now, I might disagree with him on occasion as to what constitutes a slight to HKBH’s honor. But it would more than behoove you to think about what he has said and why he has said it, and perhaps realize that he is far closer to being in the right here than you are.
Thank you Sam. That means a lot to me. And I’m sorry for insulting you.
And it’s good to see you pop in.
Hi, Sam, how are you?
Sam
You are missed. I hope that things are well by you.
Thanks guys. I’m good, B”H. Busy with life, learning, listening to R’ Schachter all day long on yutorah. The usual. I do miss this place and peek in once every few days or a week just to see what everyone’s up to. It’s definitely nice to pop in and even nicer to be appreciated for it.
rebdonniel wrote
Nitpicker,
Well, be a nitpicker if you want. I certainly pity you.
wow! Cant even pay a small visit without getting burned.
I think you misunderstand. I try to be helpful by pointing out
facts or distinctions that I perceive that others have missed.
that’s is all I meant by the sn nitpicker. Many others here do the same though, that’s how you have a discussion.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with me.
I didn’t discuss the rishonim.
I happened to open a Tshuvos Harama today and saw the two T’shuvos that rebdoniel referenced. Let me just say that they were grossly misrepresented. The one about wine is the most tentative Limudei Zchus I’ve ever seen (look at it; it’s beyond clear that he doesn’t even want to say it but feels like he has to to not Passul an entire community) and he admits that getting married on Shabbos was a minority opinion that he utilized in an incredibly B’dieved situation. Referencing the T’shuvos the way you did is a pure Ziyuf of Torah. And to answer your sarcastic question, yes, we would do as the Rama did in those precise situations.
a) I was making a rhetorical point.
b) In reference to MDG: I am trained in academic methods, so perhaps I am influenced by the approach of Haym Soloveitchik, Professor Israel Ta-Shma, zt”l, Prof. EE Urbach, zt”l, and others who utilized a contextual approach to the study of halakha.
c) A rishon cannot disagree with the Talmud because everything up to and including Ravina and Rav Ashi is binding. The shitot of the Rishonim do not have the valence of canonical Torah, as the Talmud does.
d) The Rema’s approach on these issues is similar to how Tosafot view clapping on shabbat and mayim achronim, how Rabbenu Tam views gevinat akum, and how Teshuvot Mayim Hayim views women’s hair coverings. These are approaches which render psakim either on the basis of human need or changing social circumstances which contravene actual halakha as presented in the Gemara. (See Hakham Yosef Faur’s article on The Legal Methodology of Tosafot in Dine Yisrael for one explanation).
e) On Nat bar Nat: The main point here is whether you can be somech on nat bar nat l’chatchila. Nobody disputes it b’dieved, including the Rema.
But what do Ashkenazim do with the shita of the Darchei Teshuva? Here we have an Ashkenaz posek who says b’shem the Siftei Daat that if something parve is cooked in a meat pot, then only the klipa is assur to eat with halav. And, also, the Shach is more machmir than the Rema, and says that the tzalu is assur even b’dieved (unlike Rema).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.