By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times
In a recent OU Kosher Halacha Yomis, the following question was posed:
“Why does the OU certify dairy English muffins?”
The OU answered as follows:
“For many years, the distinctive look of the English muffin was considered an identifiable mark that the product is dairy. Today, that is no longer the case, as pareve English muffins have become common. However, the OU certifies English muffins because the percentage of dairy in the muffin is much less than one part in sixty and is batel bishishim. Pischei Teshuva (Yoreh De’ah 97:6) writes that one may bake dairy bread provided the dairy ingredients are nullified and do not give taste (i.e., the dairy ingredients are less than one part in sixty). While we are not permitted by Halacha (Jewish Law) to intentionally nullify an ingredient (this is known as bitul issur lichatchila), the prohibition relates to non-kosher ingredients and not to milk which is inherently kosher.”
But is this issue so clear cut?
It would seem, rather, that if milk was placed in a dough and the dough has sixty times the amount of volume than the milk, we actually have a debate among the Poskim. Rav Yosef Trani, author of the Maharit (Vol. II Siman 18) permits it since it was nullified in sixty. The Chavas Daas permits it as well. Both are cited by the Pischei Teshuva.
However, both Rav Yonasan Eibeschutz (1690-1784) in his Kreisi uPleisi and Rav Shlomo Eiger (1785-1851) in his Gilyon Maharsha in Siman 97 forbid it and write that it does not become nullified.
The Beis Meir,a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, asks why it would not nullify just as we find that milk and meat become nullified?
Some say that since it is a permitted substance mixed with a permitted substance, we do not apply the standard rules of nullification. Another possibility is that it is on account of a fine. The Kaf HaChaim (97:6) writes that since it is a debate one should be stringent and not do so – even if there is shishim. The Chochmas Odom Klal 50 writes that when there is a doubt as to whether it has the taste of milk, one may taste it.
If the milk was purposefully put in the dough, Rabbi Avroho Chaim Einhorn, author of the Atzei HaOlah (Volume II Taaruvos Klal 2:5) writes that even when there is sixty times the volume of the milk it is forbidden. He writes, however, that if it was done by accident one would be permitted to add to the dough so that there will be sixty times the volume of the milk.
We see from the above that the issue is a matter of great debtae in the Acharonim. Sefardim who follow the Kaf haChaim and Ashkenazim who follow the rulings of the Gilyon Maharsha as a a matter of course should avoid it.
BACKGROUND TO DAIRY BREAD IN GENERAL
The Gemorah (Pesachim 36a) writes, “One may not knead dough with milk. If he did the entire bread is forbidden on account of becoming accustomed to an Aveirah.” Since bread is a staple of meals, Chazal (YD 97:1) forbade the baking of dairy or meat bread, unless the bread was baked in a special manner.
This means that one may not add milk or whey to a raw dough and bake it as bread. This is true even if the amount of milk added is miniscule (PMG on TaZ 97:1). The bread is entirely forbidden to be consumed – but the Gemorah does mention an exception.
EYE OF THE OX EXCEPTION
Ravina qualifies this statement of the Gemorah by saying that if one bakes the bread “K’ain Turah” then it is permitted.
What does K’ainTurah mean?
Rashi explains that it means as small as “the eye of an ox.” When the bread is small it will not last long enough for a person to forget what was added to it, therefore, it was not included in the initial prohibition.
The Rambam and Rif, on the other hand, understand it to mean that the bread is shaped like an ox. In other words, if the bread is given some special shape that will be a reminder as to the fact that the bread is dairy and it was not included in the initial enactment forbidding it.
The Shulchan Aruch (97:1) rules leniently like both views. Thus one can either make the bread small or in a special shape. If one fills up the bread with cheese, this too is considered like a special shape (Aruch HaShulchan 97:5)
The prohibition is at the baking of the bread, when the dough becomes bread. Thus once the bread is baked, there is no way to remove the prohibition (Pischei Teshuvah 97:3 citing the Chavas Daas).
ENGLISH MUFFINS WITH HAMBURGERS
There were some who wished to claim that the shape of the English muffin itself was never used with meat, and therefore it does not present a problem. However, there is an ever-growing trend to use English Muffins with hamburgers. Googling it will eveal over a uarter million hits. This argument is therefore not so tenable, in this author’s view.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
15 Responses
I have never heard of a parve English muffin and if you google search the term “Guinness beer dairy” you will also find hundreds of thousands of images even though every child knows that it is not.
Thank you Rav Hoffman.
I believe a similar problem exists with the OU certification of nearly one thousand coffee creamers. Although they contain a cheese derivative, the OU allows the producers to label them as “non-dairy” per U.S. government regulations.
True, they are labeled as OU-D. But that is in small print, while the false “non-dairy” is in large bold letters.
Shoprite has their own brand that is Pareve.
Why not just buy stuff with a proper hechsher and stop relying on so many kulos especially in elul were meant to avoid pas stam etc we have so much on the market ba”h wh ich is parve according to all!
The coffee creamers and the english muffins are different issues. There is no halachic issue (except Cholov Yisroel) with the creamers. The OU does not “allow” the companies to state non-dairy (or any that are under other hashgachos)…it is required by the US Government due to the required allergen disclosures for people who are lactose intolerant. There is a thread in the YWN Coffee room on this topic.
Besalel: I don’t know where you live but here in NYC there are plenty of pareve english muffins available including Shoprite and Weight Watchers.
If you are so sure the non dairy claim on creamer is false you have a lawsuit on your hands. Sue the manufacturer, distributor and all establishments that sell it. Otherwise stop the ou bashing.
Avraham. The ou is not a hechsher someone like you should use. Someone who makes assumptions, the ou says again and again not to, is clearly not someone who should use it’s certified products. There is a difference between a health statement and a kashrus statement. The kashrus statement made by the ou is found in one place, the symbol. Everything else on packaging are marketing claims made by the manufacturer. If you can’t remember that then the ou is not for you.
There are several pareve brands.
While many ignoramuses like to poke fun at the OU, let’s take a minute and remember who stands behind this hashgacha. This specific hechsher was given by Rav Shechter and Rav Belsky ztl.
With all due respect to the esteemed author and the commenters, disagreeing with the gedolim of america is not something that should be done lightly. And poking fun or putting down their standards should never be done.
I call on YWN to remove this article and all comments. And publicly ask for mechila. Its Elul.
Question for Rav Hoffman – According to the Rav there are two issues of concern here.
A) Whether Bitul B’shishim can be applied here?
B) Whether the concept “K’ain Turah” can be applied?
On the latter the Rav seems to be of the opinion that although at one time it may have been applicable, regardless, today being that there are people who eat muffins with meat it therefore can not be considered “K’ain Turah”. If I have understood the Rav’s opinion correctly, then I have two questions.
1) Do Jews also eat muffins with meat? (I no longer live in America, so I real don’t know.) If not, why should we base our halachas on hanhagas of Goyim?
2) If we can at least leave “K’ain Turah” as a sufek then can’t we combined the two limudim to create a ספק ספיקא. Sufek – perhaps it’s “K’ain Turah” and even if you say it’s not, perhaps it’s bitul b’shishim.
I think Thomas’ English Muffins were parve many years ago. Does any else remember this?
2.
Oy, where to begin with you.
The OU isn’t responsible for the “non dairy” on the OUD certified creamers any more than they would be responsible for the correct flavor to be listed.
And by the way, that ingredient you refer to is called CASEINATE. If you’re going to make a tzimis, you need to know the ingredients!
Kvod haRav,
Rabbi Hoffman, I have to say this is a time where perhaps it would have been prudent to call HaRav Herschel Schachter shlitaa in the OU, and as we say in yeshiva, “tu doch di inyan” to get all the info.
Had that been done, the article would have also mentioned that the OU no longer certifies dairy muffins l’chatchila, meaning nothing new. If I recall some Thomas’ are even marked parve and even the ones marked OUD, aside for the original “flavor,” don’t contain dairy however they’re made on common equipment as the original so they’re marked dairy. This STILL means they can’t be eaten WITH fleishigs.
jdb – Unlike Mark Levin’s comments who’s were similar to yours, but without hostility and thus will probably be considered by the Rav, yours will most likely be ignored. If that is the case, then you words were for not. I assume you wanted a positive results from you censorship. Instead, people will most likely negate what you said and your alias will remain in their mind as one to skip.
Better to heed chazal’s words, “Divrei Chochomim B’Nachas Nishmaim”
Dear Reb Mark Levin,
The explanation from the OU that began my piece was issued a few hours before my article was written. If it is outdated, my apologies, but it was written in response to an article just posted.