Making bread in fleishig pan

uneeq: the Tzemach Tzedek would not be an issue here. His sole problem is because wine is gnerally consumed with Fleishigs, so adding minute quantities of milk would be Bittul Issur. Once the OU adds “D” to the label of the the muffins, it is no longer likely that a frum Jew would eat them with meat, and there is no issue of Bittul Issur.

BTW, Thomas is owned by Entenman’s, which I suspect is Jewish owned.

Hello99,

uneeq: the Tzemach Tzedek would not be an issue here. His sole problem is because wine is gnerally consumed with Fleishigs, so adding minute quantities of milk would be Bittul Issur. Once the OU adds “D” to the label of the the muffins, it is no longer likely that a frum Jew would eat them with meat, and there is no issue of Bittul Issur.

Except that, as you noted in your letter, a siman after the fact, especially on packaging, is ineffectual.

From the OU’s site (I haven’t read it yet):

By: By Rabbi Dovid Cohen

Muffins have a unique shape.

Rav Schachter rejected this reason as follows:

The dairy ingredient is batel in the muffin.

??? ????

????? ???? ??????

hello: The Rashba is referring to circumstances where a Siman is a valid solution, namely in the home, and even there its uniqueness must conclusively indicate its status.

I disagree strongly with your understanding of the Rashba. As you have quoted him above

In my opinion, the Rashba holds that the bread can be kosher if it is seen as “questionable”. Meaning, that when someone sees the bread, they will come to question either a)the purpose of the siman or

b) the status of it whether it’s dairy or meat.

That is what he is referring to in the last line, that a person will see a siman and will come to ask and be told.

If I live in a house where home made corn bread is regarded as a questionable product, I am fine according to the Rashba, because I will come to ask someone and will get the right answer.

My rosh kollel has a Tshuva concering Bimbo Bread which has milk powder in it. I will try to get a hold of a copy to repaste here.

DY: “The motive of Shishim seems logical to me

Not to me, since ein m’vatlin issur l’chatchilah, which the poskim do apply to milchig bread.”

As above, there is no bitul issur unless it is likely to be eaten with meat, which is unlikely considering the OU-D designation.

uneeq: “Well the chavos da’as says that putting siman after the baking doesn’t help as the pas is already ossur, and making a siman only works before the bread is finish being baked. I saw this in other achronim too.”

What I answered DY answers your question as well.

uneeq: “You would have to prove that the issur also applies to other things aside for bread”

First of all, bourekas are bread. Secondly, the Tzemach Tzedek who applied Ein Mevatlin was discussin wine and the Taz forbids a spice grinder, clearly not bread foods. The bottom line according to their opinion is that anything eaten with both meat and dairy must remain pareve, and this would apply to bourekas as well.

“This doesn’t apply to borakas unless you can prove that borekas are eaten with (directly, it’s not enough in the same meal) meat and dairy.”

In EY they are commonly easten as a side dish with the main course, which could easily be meat.

Uneeq,

The poskim (e.g. Chochmas Adam) are mattir milchig cake because it’s not the derech to eat it with milk. Apparently, pastries, even though not bread, are otherwise included in the issur.

Hello99,

Since milchig or fleishig bread are assur, and intention doesn’t help, there should most certainly be an issue of ein m’vatlin here. See the Gilyon Maharsha’s wording, in quoting the Tzemach Tzedek, who learns this way. See, however, Badei Hashulchan who seems to bring it your way.

Do you understand R’ Schachter’s ???? ???????? I don’t; if it’s batul, why not eat it with a hamburger? (I still don’t understand why it’s batel – they obviously put it in for the taste!)

DY: Rather than relying on the Gilyon Maharsha or the Badei HaShulchan, I suggest you look up the Tzemach Tzeddek (HaKadmon) inside. It’s been a couple of years, but I’m pretty sure he writes what I said in his name.

I don’t understand that point from Rav Shachter either, though I would be uncomfortable telling someone to eat it with a hamburger because it lead to Takala. One could anticipate that rumors will abound that all Entenman’s products are really Pareve, which is presumably not true.

It would be Batel because it is only a Ta’am Kalush, and only Milsa d’Avida l’Ta’ama is Assur when less than 1/60. Reb Chaim (Brisker) brings a beautiful illustration of Ta’am Kalush. If I made a stew with 61 ingredients apportioned evenly, would it be tasteless? Each individual flavor has 60 against it, and the end result should be water. Obviously Bitul b’Shishim does not mean it imparts NO flavor, just that whatever it contributes is Halachically insignificant.

Hello99,

Thanks for the idea. Here it is, like the Gilyon Maharsha brings it; he compares milk in dough to milk with chicken.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43091&st=&pgnum=242

A siman after the fact should not work.

I would add only if it’s intrinsically unlikely, as in a dessert pastry. English muffins are not intrinsically unlikely to be eaten with meat. The packaging won’t help, though.

Hello99,

I’m not sure what you mean. Do I need to cite a source that a siman only works during the baking?

Do I need to cite a source that intention isn’t sufficient?

It seems, BTW, that until you brought it to there attention, they were certifying the muffins without concern for bittul at all. While it was the only muffin with that tzurah, they were apparently relying on the tzurah despite the fact that

1) It was made for mass distribution

2) The tzurah was certainly not made as a specific dairy designation (although I think the R’ma, who is mattir fleishig Shabbos bread based on the tzurah, doesn’t require this).

Perhaps that respected and knowledgeable poster actually holds the halacha is not like the Rashba; he might have just been saying it to pile on arguments against another poster who in the mind of the former was rather recklessly stating an incorrect and dangerous heter.

DY: “Do I need to cite a source that a siman only works during the baking?

Do I need to cite a source that intention isn’t sufficient?”

Can you cite any sources that the above restrictions apply to Bitul Issur l’Chatchila and not solely to the prohibition of creating bread withperceptibleble Milchig flavor.

Can you cite any sources that the above restrictions apply to Bitul Issur l’Chatchila and not solely to the prohibition of creating bread withperceptibleble Milchig flavor.

There aren’t likely any, because whether bittul issur l’chatchila applies here is a machlokes to begin with. So, we’ll go with reasoning.

If it’s assur to be m’vatel milk into bread, it would have the status of not batel, and the same rules would apply as bread with a perceptible milchig flavor.

The Rashba is not relevant here. His limitation is based on its similarity to a Ma’amid, and as we know from YD 87 regarding rennet, Ma’amid is only applicable to Issur and not Milchigs or Fleishigs.

Ah, but you’re once again forgetting that milchig or fleishig bread is not merely milchig or fleishig, it’s assur.

In truth, see the Pischei Teshuva towards the end of YD 134 that the Halacha likely doe snot follow the Rashba.

Then why your comment to yitayningwut?

Only bread likely to be eaten with meat.

Where do you get that from? Milchig bread is assur as is, despite intentions or ex-post-facto simanim.

“it would have the status of not batel”

Not true. The Issur b’DiEved on one who was MEvatel Issur is ony a Knas.

According to the TZ”TZ that the issur to be m’vatel issur applies here, why should’t the knas apply here as well?

Mixing fleishig rennet with milk itself is not an issue of Ma’amid if the meat is intrinsically Muttar. Bread intended to eat with meat cannot be worse than the meat tself!!!

How is that nogeia here?

The Shulchan Aruch and Rema in YD 134:13 DO Pasken the Rashba.

Make up your mind how you want to pasken, but don’t change just to prove your point against whomever you happen to be disagreeing with on a given day.

True that Milchig bread is Assur, but this bread is NOT Milchig!!!

True that Milchig bread is Assur, but this bread is NOT Milchig!!!

It would be if we would apply the din of ein m’vatlin, which is precisely what we’re arguing about. See Rav Schachter’s opinion of what the halacha would be in our case acc. to the TZ”TZ.

However, you have not demonstrated any proof or valid logic that Ein Mevatlin applies to a product that would not be eaten with meat.

You haven’t demonstrated that there’s any halachic validity to an assumption that something won’t be eaten with meat, other than a siman in the bread itself, or a davar muat. An OU D has no validity to create a halachic assumption that it will not be eaten with meat.

Although unnecessary for my argument, I should point out that Thomas markets primarily to a customer base which would certainly eat it with meat.* I don’t understand Rav Schachter’s argument that intention goes according to the buyer.

I have none, this is just my opinion. I should clarify that there are opinions (cited in Badei Hashulchan, and my understanding is that the Chochmas Adam holds this way as well) that ein m’vatlin issur l’chatchila does not apply at all for milk in bread. According to them, it would not be a problem. I am merely opining that according to the TZ”TZ, the OU D doesn’t help.

You’re right, I’m not as familiar with ma’amid as I would like to be, but isn’t your raya from ma’amid really a kasha on the TZ”TZ, not on me?

Maybe choc’s right, and my tone was too harsh, so please be moichel me. Let me rephrase my question. Why do you object to someone (Yitayningwut) not requiring an OU on his food, based on no bittul even with more than 60 on an intentional ingredient when that same OU is someich on intentional bittul of more than 60?

Accepted.

I think almost all of your points can be resolved by rectifying two misconceptions.

Consequently, the rules of which type of Siman are effective at removing the Issur of Milchig bread are not relevant to determining how to avoid Ein Mevatlin. While the photo you linked illustrates that Goyim may eat meat with English muffins, the OU-D designation will preempt this with frum Jews. Numerous Poskim in Siman 87 as well as in 89 mention ?”? ????? ?? ???. If you wish to propose otherwise, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Hello99,

A few quick points:

I think we need to distinguish between the issur l’chatchilah of ein m’vatlin issur, and the issur b’dieved (you’re correct that I misused the term “not batel”, because for some it’s muttar, but the effect on the mevatel and the mi shenisbatel bishvilo is that it’s treated as not batel).

Concerning b’dieved, Rav Schachter clearly writes that according to the shittah of the Tzemach Tzedek, it would be assur – “?????? ?? ??? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????”.

Anyhow, if we assume that it is batel, I think based on 99:5, we can safely conclude that at worst, that the OU is mistaken, anyone relying on it (including Thomas) would not be more than a shogeg , so we should limit our discussion to the perspective of the certifying agency. I believe that the OU holds that putting a hechsher on a product makes any ingredient be considered mevatel l’chatchilah (although I don’t think Thomas is Jewish owned).

Clearly, according to the Tzemach Tzedek, it’s assur l’chatchilah, so we cannot throw out the normal rules of the issur of “ein loshin”. In other words, I don’t understand what you wrote, “Since it is a completely separate Sugya from the original Din, it has its own set of Halachos and it cannot be presumed that the rules of the full-fledged Issur apply.”, since we are indeed discussing l’chatchila, which is not a separate sugya.

Concerning the Rashb”a, aside from applying it l’chatchila (even if not b’dieved), the Pri Megadim (M”Z) on ma’mid writes that avidi l’tama is worse than ma’mid.

As far as your final point, I still don’t think you need to feel obligated to be moch based on a “significant” view, if it’s not absolutely halacha p’sukah. You probably should have written in that original post that it’a an added point. I do agree, though, that the ingredients might be outright tarfus and that most processed foods need a hechsher.

You still do not comprehend Ein Mevatlin. Even in a case where it is Assur b’DiEved it is merely a Knas and NOT a continuation of the original Issur.

I guess my post was indeed incoherent (to you) because I didn’t say that it’s a continuation, rather a knas so that one doesn’t gain from his issur. The knas, though, is that the bittul is ineffective for him.

I’ll rephrase the rest of my (incoherent) post, and break it into numbers to make it possible to at least respond to the parts which you do comprehend.

1) I concede that, if we were to assume that the amount of milk would render it batul, it would be muttar to eat the muffins, because even if it would be assur to be m’vatel it, there would be no knas since it’s a shogeg.

2) This does not allow the OU to certify it, however, if we assume that certification amounts to bittul l’chatchila.

3) I do not concede that it’s batel at all, however, since the milk is avidi l’taama. See Shach 98:28 that a recognizable taste is never batel, even in 60 (Taz argues, but I believe the halacha follows Shach). It should therefore be assur even b’dieved.

4b) Rav Schacter obviously feels that if ein m’vatlin would apply here, the kula we find by ma’mid would not apply here. He writes,

?????? ?? ??? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????. Although I disagree with (or at least don’t comprehend) his other points, you characterization of my opinion as “a misconception” would have to apply to his as well.

5) I also pointed out that since most issurim d’rabbanan regarding bb”c do not apply to the issur hana’ah, the fact that if one mixed in a small amount of milk with meat it would remain muttat in hana’ah does not indicate that there is a kula regarding bittul of a davar muttar.

6) A side point, not from my previous post:

Badei Hashulchan, in Biurim pg. 350 asks on the Chocmas Adam, why it’s muttar to taste bread into which some milk was kneaded; we find no such kula for any other issur, even d’rabbanan, and if the bread has the milk taste, it’s a davar assur (as I mentioned earlier, The CH”A doesn’t seem to apply ein m’vatlin to milchig bread).

My suggested answer: if one kneads a small amount of milk into dough and bakes bread with the intention to taste it immediately and see if the taste is detectable, it’s considered a davar muat, which is muttar. Even if the taste is detected and the remainder of the bread must be discarded, the small amount tasted was murrar.

What do you (and anyone reading this) think?

Hello99: I am still not sure why you are completely comparing a Milsa D’avida L’ta’ama to a Ma’amid. Can you give the source/link this Rashba so we can see it inside? I would think that Avida L’ta’ama, while operating under similar principles to Ma’amid, would be worse, particularly in this situation. (Especially because I think I recall hearing that we treat a Milsa D’avida L’ta’ama as not Bateil because it’s inherently Nosein Ta’am, not because it’s a Ma’amid.)

Also, I think that you may be mistaken in applying the Shach 87:35 here. He does not say that by all Heter. The basis for something becoming Basar B’chalav is that Derech Bishul Asrah Torah. So you need meat to give flavor into milk (or vice versa) in a way that is a Derech Bishul. There is a separate Issur of a Davar Hama’amid. We say that a Ma’amid is never Battul, so we treat the Issur like it’s there. Thus, when you have a N’veilah Hama’mid in something, it is like a N’veilah. Having meat be Ma’amid in milk is fine because there is no Nesinas Ta’am so it never becomes Basar B’chalav. You just happen to have a food with both meat and milk in it that is Muttar to eat. In this case, however, we are not concerned with something becoming Basar B’chalav. We are concerned with something becoming Assur because it has an Issur D’rabannan of having milk in it. If we treat this milk like a Ma’amid (according to your understanding of the Rashba) and that it never be Batel, then these products now have milk in them, which makes them Assur Mid’rabannan.

(As an aside, I’m not entirely convinced that the bread becomes Assur immediately and you can’t add the Siman after the fact. If your intention is to add a Siman by stamping a letter D or something like that into the bread as soon as it comes out of the oven, I’m not entirely convinced that that wouldn’t work.)

Regarding a later Siman: The Chavos Da’as Biurim 3, Pri Megadim SD 1, Chasma Sofer Bava Metzia 91a, Gilyon Maharsha, Zivchei Tzedek, Yad Yehuda, Ben Ish Chai, Badei HaShulchan and Artscroll all write that the Siman must be from the time of baking, and I didn’t find anyone who argues. Are you convinced now? Even the Chochmas Adam who mentions making asiman later explictly limits it to an inadvertant leakage of shmaltz and not an intentional addition.

Also, see the Kreisi u’Pleisi in the name of his grandfather who mentions dividing the dough into small portions among numerous people subsequent to the baking, and does not propose making a Siman. Apparently it is too late for a Siman, as the Issur has already descended upon the dough.