Gelatin, Abraham Goldstein, R. Moses Isserles, and More, Part 2

Gelatin, Abraham Goldstein, R. Moses Isserles, and More, Part 2

 Gelatin, Abraham Goldstein, R. Moses Isserles, and More

Marc B. Shapiro

Continued from here

Among the matters I discussed in the previous post were gelatin and consumption of the human body as part of a medical cure. Believe it or not, consumption of human parts not in the context of medicine is mentioned in a short responsum of R. Joseph Kafih. R. Kafih was asked if it permissible to drink various non-Jewish milk products and also gelatin produced from non-kosher animals. He is strict when it comes to milk—and apparently unaware of the widespread rabbinic approval in the United States for regular milk—but lenient regarding gelatin.[1] Incredibly, he assumes that some gelatin comes from human bones, and he believes that it is halakhically preferable to consume this instead of gelatin from animals (although the latter is kosher as well).

Here is an image of the letter sent to R. Kafih and his reply, followed by a transcription of the relevant sections.

האם מותר לאכול כיום:

חלב עכוםאבקת חלב עכוםחמאת עכוםגלטין המיוצר מנבלות וטרפות (במיוחד במוצרים המיובאים מחול בהשגחת הרבנות הראשית)?

חלב גוים נאסר במניןואין להתירואמנם רבני אמעריקא התירו אבקת חלב בשעתווהרבנות כאן סמכה על כך בזמנואך אין להתיר חלב גוי על סמך התר זהחמאת גוים מותרת כמש הרמבם מפני שכבר הלכו צחצוחי חלב שבה. ”ג”לטין‟ לדעתי אין להחמיר בובפרט העשוי מעצמות אדםכי בשר האדם עצמו בעשה להרמבםולאחרים אפלו מצות ”פרוש‟ אין בווכל שכן עצמותיו.

In the comments to the last post, two people referred to the responsa of R. Nahum Zvi Kornmehl as a source regarding gelatin. In the first part of R. Kornmehl’s Tiferet Tzvi, vol. 1, there is a long discussion about gelatin, and it is here that R. Aharon Kotler’s responsum on the topic first appeared. R. Kotler’s letter and other letters found in the sefer also deal with a “kosher gelatin” that was produced by Barton’s candy. R. Kornmehl was the mashgiach of Barton’s so it makes sense that he would be involved in this halakhic issue. What many people might not realize is that R. Kornmehl’s brother-in-law was Stephen Klein, the owner of Barton’s. (Everyone over 50 can certainly remember Barton’s, especially on Passover. Many children, myself included, went house to house taking Barton’s Passover orders. Depending on how much you sold, there were all sorts of great prizes.)

While it was obviously perfectly acceptable for R. Kornmehl to involve himself in the halakhic research regarding Barton’s gelatin, would any of our rabbis today accept a situation where the mashgiach of a factory is a close relative of the owner? I think they would say that this defeats the entire purpose of a mashgiach, whose job is to ensure that kashrut standards are at the highest level, and he is therefore not supposed to have any close personal connections with the owner.

Here is a picture of R. Kornmehl at the Barton’s factory, from Rabbi A. Leib Scheinbaum, The World that Was America 1900-1945 (Brooklyn, 2004), p. 415.

Returning to Abraham Goldstein, one can imagine what he would have said had he been told about R. Moses Isserles’ responsum, no. 54. Here R. Isserles states that there is no halakhic problem consuming olive oil that was stored in containers in which they used pig lard to smooth the surface. (He later notes that there is even stronger support for this ruling if there is only a suspicion, but no certainty, that they used lard on a particular barrel). This ruling by R. Isserles is the exact sort of thing that today we would be told is absolutely forbidden, and Goldstein certainly would have attacked any hashgachah that followed the Rama in this matter.

Interestingly, R. Hanokh Henoch Meyer of Sassov could not accept that the Rama would allow us to eat something that might have pork residue, and he therefore adopted the old approach when confronted with “problematic” texts, namely, asserting that this responsum was not written by R. Isserles. Rather, some student must have been responsible for it, as it is impossible for R. Meyer to believe that R. Isserles would write something that in his mind is so obviously incorrect.[2] R. Judah Leib Landau, in his well-known work Yad Yehudah, Yoreh Deah 103:20 (Perush ha-Arokh), also has his doubts that R. Isserles could have written the responsum:

ובאמת הדבר הוא לפלא מאוד אם יצאו כלל דברים אלו מפי קדשו של הרמא זל

This is the exact approach that was adopted by some in explaining another responsum of R. Isserles, where he justified those in his day who drank non-Jewish wine.[3] There is also another difficult and controversial responsum of R. Moses Isserles—see the discussion on the Seforim Blog here—and in this case R. Yitzhak Hutner also denies that the responsum was written by R. Isserles.[4]

R. Isserles’ opinion in responsum no. 54 is based on the fact that any pork residue would be less than 60, and also that the pork taste is to be regarded as something detrimental to the dish (noten ta’am lifgam). This is indeed a difficult point to understand, as why should pork be noten ta’am lifgam? You can look around and see that lots of people enjoy it. R. Shimon Grunfeld goes so far as to say that it was only because of R. Isserles’ great holiness, which caused him to view pork with such disgust, that he could make the error of seeing pork as noten ta’am lifgam.[5]

עוד דבר אחד חידוש פלא שכתב ששומן חזיר הוא פוגם בכל דבר כמו נבלה מוסרחת עיין שםוהיא תמיה גדולה שהרי אנו רואין כל העכום וכל השרים אוכלים אותו והוא עולה על שלחן מלכיםהן אמת שנפש איש ישראל קצה באכילת חזיר אבל הוא רק משום איסורי של תוהק שאסרה אותו ולכן כל איש ישראל כשרואה חזיר הוא מואס אותו אבל בשביל זה לא חשוב נטלפג דנטלפג היינו שמצד עצם הדבר הוא פוגם . . . ופשוט דאין לסמוך בזה על התשו‘ הנלובודאי שומן חזיר אוסר עד ס‘ או יותר כפי הרגשת הטעםוהרמא זל ברוב קדושתו מחמת איסור התורה על בשר חזיר הי‘ קצה ממנו ככ עד שפלטה קולמסו לכתוב שאינו אוסר משום שהוא פוגם

In his discussion about how pork is noten ta’am lifgam, R. Isserles also says something which I found strange. He writes:

דשאני חזיר דדבר מאוס הוא ביותר מכל שרצים שבעולםעד שאמרו לא יאמר אדם אי אפשי בבשר חזיר וכו‘ ולא אמרו שאר שרציםשמ דזה גרע טפי

R. Isserles cites a passage from Sifra, Kedoshim 9:10, which is quoted in Rashi, Leviticus 20:26, that one should not say that he is repulsed by pork, and that is why he doesn’t eat it, but rather he doesn’t eat it because of the Torah’s command. (Rashi’s version is different than what is found in our versions of the Sifra, and also what is quoted by R. Isserles, but the point is the same.) R. Isserles sees it as significant that of all the non-kosher foods that could have been cited, it is pork that is used as an example, which he believes shows that it is the most repulsive of the non-kosher foods.

The reason I find R. Isserles’ point strange is that R. Isserles’ understanding is the exact opposite of how the passages in Sifra and Rashi are usually understood. The common way of understanding, and I don’t know of anyone who has a different approach, is that you should not say that you are disgusted by pork, and that is why you are not eating it. On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with pork and it is undoubtedly quite tasty. However, we do not eat it because God commanded us not to. This reading appears explicitly in both the Sifra and Rashi, Here is what Rashi states:

רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מנין שלא יאמר אדם נפשי קצה בבשר חזיראי אפשי ללבוש כלאיםאבל יאמר אפשיומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי

This is very different than R. Isserles’ understanding that the rabbinic teaching reinforces the point that we should have a natural aversion to pork, even though the reason for abstaining from it is due to God’s command.

After mentioning how we don’t eat pork, the passage continues in Rashi (and this is also how it is quoted in the Rambam, Shemonah Perakim, ch. 6, but not in our version of the Sifra) that the same lesson is applied to the wearing of sha’atnez. We shouldn’t say that we have no desire to wear it, but on the contrary, we should feel that it would be nice to wear it but we cannot because of the divine command. The Sifra also adds the same point about sexual relations, that we do not avoid it because we are repulsed. Rather, we would enjoy this but abstain because of the divine command. Since the passage cites both pork, sha’atnez, and forbidden sexual relations to teach the same lesson, and there is no natural aversion to sha’atnez and sexual relations, it is clear that just as we might wish to wear sha’atnez and have forbidden relations but avoid them because of the mitzvah, so too one should assume that eating pork would be enjoyable. However, we avoid it because of the mitzvah.

The Rambam elaborates on this point in Shemonah Perakim, ch. 6, and he specifically cites the rabbinic passage we have been discussing. He goes so far as to say “that a man needs to let his soul remain attracted to them [pork, sexual relations, etc.] and not place any obstacle before them other than the Law.” What this means in practice is next time you see lobster in the supermarket, don’t be repulsed by it and think it is disgusting. The Rambam, following the Sages, is telling us that we should say “wow, that looks good. I would really enjoy eating it but the Torah says I can’t.” Easier said than done, I realize, but that is what the Sages and the Rambam have told us.

Returning to R. Moses Isserles, the Taz, Yoreh Deah 108:4, quotes another ruling of his that today would not be regarded as acceptable. R. Isserles testifies that the practice was to buy certain food items cooked by non-Jews in their non-kosher pots (Torat ha-Hatat 35:1):[6]

המנהג להקל לקנות מן הגוים דברים המבושלים בכליהם שאין בהם משום בישול גוים (הוא) [הואילוסתם כליהם אינן בני יומןואעפ דנותן טעם לפגם אסור לכתחלהמכל מקום לא חשבינן הקנייה לכתחלהלכן נוהגים היתר פה קראקא לקנות האגוזים של מים שמבשלים הגויםאו שאר דברים

Regarding other leniencies of R. Isserles, R. Zerach Eidlitz[7] is quoted as saying that it would have been OK for R. Isserles to have omitted all the humrot he records if he also omitted two particular kulot: non-glatt meat (Yoreh Deah 39:13) and that it is permitted to eat worms found in cheese (Yoreh Deah 84:16):

נוהגים בתולעים של גבינה לאכלן אעפ שקופצין הנה והנה על הגבינה אבל אם פירשו לגמרי אוסרין אותן

Returning to Goldstein, he would have been outraged by other halakhic leniencies mentioned by outstanding poskim, but again, he approached matters using logic and intuitive feelings, while the halakhic rules do not always fall into line with this. For example, R. David Ibn Zimra, She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Radbaz, no. 1032, defends eating meat together with sugar that was cooked with milk. He states that this is permissible because the milk is batel. R. Hayyim Vital testifies that R. Isaac Luria would himself eat such sugar with meat.[8] Not only would Goldstein have protested against this leniency, but to my knowledge there is no kashrut agency today that would give a hashgachah to a meat product that includes sugar cooked with milk.

Another famous responsum which Goldstein would not have been able to accept—and I know that many Orthodox Jews today also would not be able to accept it—is Noda bi-Yehudah, Yoreh Deah, tinyana,[9] no. 56. Here R. Yehezkel Landau permits a drink produced by non-Jews that included a small amount of non-kosher meat (assuming the meat is 1/60 or less). The meat did not add a taste, and R. Landau ruled that it was batel, meaning that the drink was kosher. I could go on with other such examples but I think you get the point, which is that when it comes to kashrut, great halakhic authorities have come to conclusions that are far from what the average Orthodox Jew would regard as acceptable.

The phenomenon of the masses sometimes having stricter views than the rabbis is an old story. In fact, I once spoke to R. Aharon Felder about kitniyot. At the time, R. Felder was the halakhic authority for the KOF-K. As is well known, kitniyot is batel be-rov (see e.g., Mishnah Berurah 453:9), so I asked him why the KOF-K does not put a hashgachah on products with corn syrup since it is batel. He replied: “The people don’t want it.” In other words, the people will not accept that something with kitniyot can be kosher for Passover, even if it is batel be-rov.[10]

R. Felder also told me that if he was asked he would tell people that there is no problem eating a product with kitniyot if it is batel be-rov. According to this approach, one is permitted to drink regular Coke on Passover, and this is indeed the pesak of R. Yitzhak Abadi. (The other issue that comes up with regular Coke is whether kitniyot derivatives are forbidden on Passover.) I realize that if you extrapolate the “halakhot” of kitniyot from Yoreh Deah halakhic principles about when bitul can be applied, there are sources that would be strict in dealing with kitniyot (as the kitniyot is put in as part of production, rather than accidentally falling in). But what is interesting, I think, is that pretty much all the rabbis I have asked about this have replied in the same way. Rather than explain why we don’t follow the principle that kitniyot is batel be-rov, they have stated simply that when it comes to Passover we are extra strict. (R. Hershel Schachter is an exception, and he told me that kitniyot intentionally put in the product is not to be regarded as batel.)

This issue was raised by R. Alfred Cohen a number of years ago:

With this in mind, we should take another look at the furor which in the past few years has arisen concerning chocolate and candy manufactured in Israel under the supervision of the Rabbinate. Many candies contain corn syrup as the sweetener: Should this be considered a problem for Ashkenazic Jews? Based on the principle that if kitniyot are less than half of the total the food may be eaten, many people see no reason why such candy should be avoided.[11]

Returning to the gelatin issue, we saw in the previous post that R. Yehuda Gershuni was one of the rabbis who gave the hashgachah on Jello. This is noteworthy, as in 1952 he wrote a lengthy article in support of the position of his father-in-law, R. Eliezer Silver, that gelatin is forbidden.[12] Either he later changed his mind or perhaps he never really thought gelatin was forbidden, but it was only out of respect for his father-in-law that wrote his lengthy article. It seems that only after his father-in-law died in 1968 did R. Gershuni publicly express his lenient opinion about gelatin. In addition to his hashgachah on Jello, R. Gershuni also gave the hashgachah to Hormel gelatin.[13]

Incidentally, I found another example where R. Gershuni significantly changed his position. In Ha-Pardes, June and August, 1957, R. Gershuni discusses Yom ha-Atzmaut. Surprisingly, knowing how Zionist he was, in these articles he is not very positive about Yom ha-Atzmaut. He even says that according to Nahmanides establishing this holiday is a violation of bal tosif. As for saying Hallel on Yom ha-Atzmaut, R. Gershuni brings a variety of sources according to which this is improper. Yet in 1961 he published an article with the exact opposite perspective, in which he writes of the great significance of Yom ha-Atzmaut and that Hallel should be recited on this day.[14]

Those who wish to see a video of R. Gershuni can view it here. As far as I can tell, this is the only video of him available online. It is from the 1990 Yom Yerushalayim celebration at Merkaz ha-Rav. You can also see R. Shlomo Fisher in attendance.

In addition to gelatin, my previous post dealt with some of the history of hashgachot in America in the 1930s. In those days, no one could have imagined all the different hashgachot we currently have, as well as the various products that are under kosher supervision. In previous posts here I already mentioned how you can now get toilet bowl cleaner with a hashgachah. Here is an American hashgachah.

And for those who live in Israel, here is one with an Israeli hashgachah (thanks to Stanley Emerson for the picture).

I also noted how in Israel you can buy lettuce with no less than six different hashgachot. See here. But it gets even better, as Shimon Steinmetz sent me this image which shows that you can now get romaine lettuce with seven different hashgachot. Do I hear eight . . . ?

Yet I don’t think Israel has what we have, namely, ant and roach killer under hashgachah. (It is pareve.)

(For those who are wondering, the date on upper right of the OU letters is the date that you view the document, not when the contract was signed.)

You can even get enzyme replacement injections under OU supervision. See here.

According to the OU, when they are “approached by companies whose products would not inherently need a hechsher, the OU tells them that certification is not necessary. But some companies request kosher certification because that will make Orthodox Jews more likely to buy them.”[15]

Interestingly, since today we take it for granted that all sorts of unnecessary hashgachot are found on various non-food items, in previous years this was seen in a very different light. In 1896 the New York newspaper Ha-Ivri, in an attack on the rabbinical board headed by R. Bernard Drachman, noted how the board had given hashgachot to salt, soap for washing clothes, and stove polish.[16] This scandalous charge was denied by R. Drachman, who noted that these hashgachot were given by a private individual, not his organization. R. Drachman writes as follows, and look how he describes the unnecessary hashgachot:[17]

ההכשרים המוזרים והמעוררים שחוק אשר רמזת עליהם לא מעשי הועד המה כי אם מעשי ידי איש יחיד

While we are on the subject of hashgachot, I think readers will find it of interest that the OU did not accept all the products certified by R. Soloveitchik in Boston, as his hashgachah did not always meet OU standards which had been established by R. Alexander Rosenberg. R. Berel Wein, who succeeded R. Rosenberg as rabbinic administrator of OU Kashrut, reports that he was constantly criticized for this as people thought it very disrespectful to the Rav that the OU did not accept his hashgachah in all matters. R. Wein, however, explains as follow:

In all my meetings with the Rav. I never discussed this sensitive matter with him. However, he once said to me, “As the rabbi of Boston, it is my duty to grant kashrut certification to products that are kosher, even if they don’t necessarily reach the highest standards of kashrut. I know you have to operate under a different set of rules. Don’t be troubled that the OU doesn’t use certain products I certify. I’m not troubled by it.” I never revealed that conversation to the Kashrut Committee, nor did I change OU policy.[18]

However, my question would be, how is the role of OU kashrut different than what the Rav was trying to do? Isn’t the goal of the OU also to ensure kashrut for all types of Jews? How is the role of a communal rabbi in giving a hashgachah for his community different than that of the OU, which is a nonprofit organization that exists to serve the larger Jewish community?

Since part 1 of this post discussed the OK hashgachah, it should be noted that at one time there were actually two hashgachot identified with the OK symbol. Here is an early OK symbol used by R. Harold Sharfman’s Kosher Overseers Association of America. (A different looking OK symbol was actually first used by his father, R. Hyman Sharfman, in 1927.)[19]

It later developed into what was called the Half-Moon K, surrounded by a circle.

This led to a lawsuit by the OK in the 1990s, with the result that the Half Moon K had to appear without the circle.[20] (I don’t know why, as we have seen on other occasions as well, a dispute between Orthodox rabbis was decided in a secular court instead of in a beit din.) After Rabbi Sharfman’s death, the Half-Moon K was taken over by the OU and its symbol was retired.

Sharfman authored a few interesting works focusing on American Jewish history. He also wrote the book, Global Guide to Kosher Foods and Restaurants (Malibu, 1990), from which the above pictures of the OK symbol were taken. The book’s title is not going to interest many, although the subtitle is more intriguing: “An Illustrated History of Kashruth in 20th Century United States.” This is a very rare book and I recently was able to acquire a copy. I was surprised to find that it is really a fascinating work with some great pictures. Because it is so rare I have made a PDF of the book which you can see here.

When it comes to kashrut supervision in the United States, Roger Horowitz mentions an interesting point that in the 1950s there were rabbis who opposed supermarkets selling kosher meat as they claimed that it was forbidden for the meat to be sold on Shabbat.[21] The real reason for the opposition was presumably to protect the kosher butchers from competition, but the argument was not framed in this fashion. I think most will be surprised by such a stringent approach. After all, we don’t want Sabbath violators to also consume non-kosher meat, so why prevent them from buying kosher if they are in the supermarket on Saturday? Yet when asked by R. Yitzhak Zilberstein, R. Elyashiv ruled that if people are going on a trip on Shabbat, and want to order kosher food from a caterer for the trip, that the caterer should not provide them with the food even though this means they will eat non-kosher.[22]

Another surprising development in the kashrut world is that the OU has recently refused to give a hashgachah to a vegetarian product called Impossible Pork. See the Yeshiva World article here, and see also the Wall Street Journal article here. As the Yeshiva World reports, “[Rabbi Menachem] Genack clarified that although [the] OU certifies items related to pork such as Trader Joe’s ‘spicy porkless plant-based snack rinds,’ the agency decided that certifying a product called ‘pork’ was a red line they aren’t willing to cross right now.” 

In the Wall Street Journal article Rabbi Genack is quoted as follows: “The decision was based on the emotional reaction some kosher eaters have had to kosher-certified pork-related products in the past that also had no actual pork in them.” So now company kashrut decisions are based on people’s emotional reactions? Sounds crazy to me. The article continues: “Rabbi Genack of OU Kosher says he suspects that doubters might one day come around and allow faux pork to be certified as kosher.” I don’t understand this at all. Since when does the OU have to get approval from “doubters” to put a hashgachah on a product? Furthermore, I must note, there are already OU certified products that have the name “bacon” in them and are said to taste like the real thing. This includes Bacos (see here), Bacon Flavored Bits (see here), and even a product called Bacon Bits Milk Chocolate (see here). And of course, the Talmud, Hullin 109b, talks about the shibuta fish whose brain tastes like pork.[23]

Since we have been speaking about kashrut in America, let me make one final point about this. Many people are under the impression that it was Jewish emigration to America that led people to give up kashrut, I must therefore call attention to a fascinating article by Asaf Kaniel that shows that in the years 1937-1939 only one third of the Jews of Warsaw bought kosher meat. Granted, this was a very difficult period for the Jews of Warsaw, and had economic circumstances been different I have no doubt that most of these people would have been buying kosher. However, from the large number who abandoned kashrut, we can get a sense as to how tenuous their attachment to this mitzvah was, as it is always the case that during difficult times the ones who are not so attached to something are the first to give it up.[24] (Kaniel also has another valuable article that shows the growth of irreligiosity in Vilna in the early twentieth century.[25])

I know people will be shocked by hearing this, about Warsaw of all places. So let me note that in a 1937 interview given when he was in the United States, R. Elhanan Wasserman stated that religious life in Poland was worse than in America.[26]

2. In my last post I cited something from R. Shmaryahu Shulman who unfortunately recently passed away. In 1951 R. Shulman published his Be’er Sarim which contains hiddushim on the Talmud.

In R. Yitzhak Ruderman’s approbation he states that this is the first book of hiddushim on Shas published by an American-born author. Is this true? I am not aware of anything earlier. As far as I know, the first traditional rabbinic sefer (not hiddushim on Shas) published by an American-born author is R. Eliezer Zvi Revel’s Otzar ha-Sotah (New York, 1941).

R. Eliezer Zvi was the son of R. Bernard Revel.

Is there an even earlier sefer published by an American-born author? There is another sefer that I am aware of, but as it is not an original sefer, I gave Revel the honors. The other sefer was published by R. Bernard Drachman, who was born in New York in 1861. In 1907 he published an edition of Divrei ha-Rivot by R. Zerahiah ha-Levi and R. Abraham ben David, together with his commentary.

Who was the first American-born author to publish a book in Hebrew? This would appear to be Reuven Grossman (1905-1974; he later took the last name Avinoam). Born in Chicago, Grossman spoke Hebrew as his first language. His first book, Mi-Pi Olel (New York, 1915), containing essays, poetry, and the beginnings of a commentary on the Torah, appeared when he was ten years old. As far as I know, this makes him the youngest published Jewish author in history. One of the essays in the book was earlier published in a newspaper when Grossman was only eight years old. (I wonder how much help he had from his father who was a Hebraist.) You can find Mi-Pi Olel here.

The book contains a picture of the young author .

His next book, Ibim (New York, 1918), appeared when Grossman was thirteen years old. You can find it here.

Ibim also includes a picture of Grossman.

You can learn more about Grossman here and here, and in Yosef Goldman, Hebrew Printing in America (Brooklyn, 2006), p. 325.

3. In my last post, I gave a link to my Torah in Motion classes on Saul Lieberman. I also did a 53-part series on the sefer I published, Iggerot Malkhei Rabbanan. You can see it here. My four-part series on the escape of the Mir Yeshiva can be viewed here. My class on Torah study on Christmas eve is here; my class on kitniyot is here; my discussion of the Hazon Ish and R. Zvi Yehuda is here.

4. I can’t end the post without calling attention to an important new publication by Seforim Blog contributor, R. Bezalel Naor. Navigating Worlds is a collection of Naor’s essays that appeared from 2006-2020, including those that appeared on the Seforim Blog. As is to be expected, there are essays on R. Kook, further solidifying Naor’s standing as the leading expositor of R. Kook’s thought in English. There are also essays on a wide range of other topics including Maimonides, Kabbalah, and Hasidism, as well as discussions of passages in the Torah and Talmud, and book reviews.

In addition to the broad themes discussed, Navigating Worlds is full of individual items of historical and bibliographical interest. To mention just one of the many things I learned from the book, on p. 554 Naor cites a report from R. Uri Moinester in the name of R. Joseph Alexander, that R. Hayyim Soloveitchik told the latter that it had taken him two years to study Maimonides’ Guide.[27] This source should be added to what I mentioned in a previous post  here about R. Hayyim’s study of the Guide.[28]

* * * * * *

[1] In reply to a question from Tamir Ratzon, R. Kafih said that one should only eat a product with gelatin if there was no non-gelatin alternative. See Teshuvot ha-Rav Yosef Kafih le-Talmido Tamir Ratzon, ed. Itamar Cohen (Kiryat Ono, 2019) p. 306. This reply is more stringent than R. Kafih’s letter published in this post.
[2] Yad Hanokh, no. 23.
[3] See my Changing the Immutable, pp. 80ff., 95.
[4] See Sefer ha-Zikaron le-Maran Ba’al “Pahad Yitzhak, p. 334.
[5] She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharshag, vol. 1, Yoreh Deah, no. 68. This source and the two prior sources I mentioned, Yad Hanokh and Yad Yehudah, are noted by R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Zikhron Moshe, vol. 3, no. 38.
[6] See R. Hayyim Oberlander’s article in Or Yisrael 56 (Tamuz 5769), pp. 58-59.
[7] See Literaturblatt des Orients, August 12, 1848 (no. 33), p. 525.
[8] Sha’ar ha-Mitzvot, parashat Mishpatim (end).
[9] In this context, where it means “second,” the word תנינא is pronounced tinyana. See Daniel 7:5 where the word appears. In the Talmud, the word appears as תניינא so the pronunciation is obvious. Onkelos, Gen. 1:8, has תנין, and all the editions I checked vocalize it correctly as tinyan. Yet if you google “Orah Hayyim Tanina” or “Yoreh Deah Tanina” you will find lots of examples where the word תנינא is written as “tanina”. Yet this is an error as tanina is a completely different word and means serpent or sea monster.
[10] I heard a shiur from R. Asher Weiss, and in explaining why things became so strict with kitniyot, he quoted R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach who once gave a heter that the people did not want to accept. R. Auerbach joked that it was a kula she-ein ha-tzibbur yakhol la’amod bah. In speaking about the standards of the Triangle K hashgachah, Timothy D. Lytton quotes one kashrut professional as follows: “It’s permissible under Jewish law, but it’s a standard that many people are not willing to accept.” Kosher: Private Regulation in the Age of Industrial Food (Cambridge, MA, 2013), p. 83. In speaking of how the Jewish masses will not listen to the greatest rabbis if they tell them to stop observing even a small custom, R. Reuven Katz refers to the German expression that the rabbi is a rabbi, but the regular Jew is a chief rabbi (Oberrabbiner, lit. “above the rabbi”). “Der Rabbiner ist ein Rabbiner, aber der Jude ist ein Oberrabbiner.” Dudaei Reuven, vol. 1, p. 32a, and see also R. Katz’s letter published in R. Avraham Yudelevitz, Hiddushei Beit Av (New York-Jerusalem, 2012), pp. 18-19.
[11] “Kitniyot,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 6 (Fall 1983), p. 71.
[12] See his article in Kerem, Tishrei 5713, pp. 9ff.
[13] In my prior post I published a responsum on gelatin by R. David Telsner. As Menachem pointed out in his comment to the post, this responsum (with some changes at the end) was mistakenly included in R. Gershuni’s Hokhmat Gershon, pp. 405ff., as if it were written by R. Gershuni. As the editor notes in the preface, because of R. Gershuni’s ill health he was not able to review the book before publication, and this explains how the Telsner responsum could end up in the book (a phenomenon we also know from other books of responsa).
[14] “She’elat Yom ha-Atzmaut,” in R. Shimon Federbush, ed., Torah u-Melukhah (Jerusalem, 1961), pp. 180-192.
[15] Kenneth Lasson, Sacred Cows, Holy Wars (Durham, 2017), pp. 135-136. Lasson also writes (p. 113): “The OU requires that at a minimum all of its mashgichim have Orthodox ordination (semicha) from a recognized rabbinic individual or institution and pray only in Orthodox synagogues.” Yet I know of people in out of the way places who have checked on factories for the OU and they are not rabbis.
[16] See Ha-Ivri, Sep. 11, 1896, p. 1; Harold Gastwirt, Fraud, Corruption and Holiness (Port Washington, N.Y., 1974), pp. 82-83. I once had a rebbetzin insist to me that laundry detergent requires a hashgachah as we put tablecloths in the wash.
[17] Ha-Ivri, Oct. 23, 1896, p. 1.
[18] Wein, Teach Them Dilgently (New Milford, CT, 2014), pp. 97-98. R. Wein also mentions that R. Moshe Feinstein sometimes favored the immigrant rabbis who offered private hashgachot—which was an important source of income for them—over the OU’s more “practical and progressive directions in kashrut” (p. 99).

In earlier years, there were Agudas ha-Rabbonim rabbis who criticized the OU’s hashgachah because there were many synagogues in the OU that did not have mehitzot. These rabbis claimed that you cannot trust an organization that allows non-mehitzah shuls to be part of it. In the 1930s the Agudas ha-Rabbonim rejected the kashrut reliability of the OU after it agreed to work with representatives of the Conservative movement in establishing reliable kashrut in America. See Gastwirt, Fraud, Corruption, and Holiness, pp. 166-167. As for Agudas ha-Rabbonim rabbis, there were those who gave hashgachot—this was how they made a living— but they personally did not eat from all the food under their hashgachah. (Growing up there was a rabbi in my town who told my father not to buy from a certain butcher, even though this butcher was under his hashgachah. The rabbi’s attitude was that the butcher was good enough for non-Orthodox Jews, but Orthodox Jews should not shop there, as he was not able to visit the store as much as he would have liked.) R. Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Siah Nahum, p. 171, completely rejects such an approach.

ברור שאם הרב אינו אוכל מן המאכלים שהוא אמור להשגיח עליהםדבר זה יגרום לזלזול וחילול השם חו

[19] See Harold Sharfman, Global Guide to Kosher Foods and Restaurants (Malibu, 1990), p. 68.
[20] For the lawsuit, see here. Another example of the OK involved in controversy was when it put in a bid to control the proposed “dot-kosher” suffix for Web addresses. The OU, Star K, CRC, and KOF-K opposed the OK’s bid, with the OU stating: “We think that if the term kosher, which has important meaning in the Jewish religion, is commercialized, it will do a disservice to how religion in general should be treated and will harm the kosher public specifically.” See here, and Lasson, Sacred Cows, Holy Wars, pp. 146-147.
[21] Kosher USA (New York, 2016), pp. 190-191.
[22] Zilberstein, Avnei Esh, pp. 892-893.
[23] See here for Ari Zivotofsky and Zohar Amar’s attempt to identify this fish.
[24] Kaniel, “Bein Hilonim Mesorati’im ve-Ortodoksim: Shemirat Mitzvot bi-Re’i ha-Hitmodedut im Gezerat ha-Kashrut,” Gal Ed 22 (2010), pp. 75-106.
[25] “Al Milhamah u-Shemirat ha-Mitzvot: Vilna 1914-1922,” Gal Ed 24 (2015), pp. 37-74. Regarding Kashrut in Vilna, Kaniel notes that due to the difficult economic circumstances, there were occasions when the rabbis permitted butchers to sell non-kosher meat to non-Jews, as long as they were careful to keep the kosher meat separate from that which was non-kosher. See ibid., p. 61.
[26] See R. Wasserman’s Morgen Zhurnal interview included in Mi-Pihem shel Rabbotenu (Bnei Brak, 2008), p. 345.
[27] Moinster, Karnei Re’em (New York, 1951), p. 104 n. 1.
[28] Another source that should be added is Shulamith Soloveitchik Meiselman, The Soloveitchik Heritage: A Daughter’s Memoir (Hoboken, 1995), pp. 109-110, where in addition to discussing R. Hayyim’s interest in the Guide, she also mentions that he had R. Moses Soloveitchik promise never to read this work. “Even years later, when his children were attending the university and the book was part of the family library, Father never touched it. Father always kept a promise” (p. 110).

image_pdfimage_print
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

68 thoughts on “Gelatin, Abraham Goldstein, R. Moses Isserles, and More, Part 2

  1. “R. Isserles’ opinion in responsum no. 54 is based on the fact that any pork residue would be less than 60, and also that the pork taste is to be regarded as something detrimental to the dish (noten ta’am lifgam). This is indeed a difficult point to understand, as why should pork be noten ta’am lifgam? ”

    This would make sense if the Rama meant that pork is noten ta’am lifgam TO WINE, which I imagine most people would in fact find distasteful. But, alas, this does seem to be the way he meant it . . .

  2. Re kitniyos being botul b’rov, this applies in a bidi’eved situation. There is some question as to whether going out and buying something which already has the kitniyos in it qualifies as bidi’eved. (Though there are sources to say it is, but ISTR that others – possibly RY Eibshitz – say the opposite.) I think that’s the basis for the stringency on using products with corn syrup. If someone had a drink at his house and some corn syrup fell in, I don’t believe any rabbis would forbid using it, even today.

    Re RYBS, I think there’s a balancing act between wanting a higher level of kashrus for those who are at that level, and providing a minimum level for those who are not. The thing about the OU is that they provide certification all over the country, including major OJ population centers which have a lot of highly committed OJ who rely on them. My understanding is that Boston is not at that level, for the most part. So while both RYBS and the OU had to do the same balancing act, the equation was different for someone certifying a product to be used by the Boston community and an organization certifying a product to be used by a much broader spectrum of OJ.

    [On a related note, it’s pretty well documented that the CI was extremely stringent on using the eruv in BB, and he forbade his students etc. from using it. This despite the fact that he was heavily involved in it, and was regularly consulted on all issues which arose in connection with it. It seems his attitude was that it was not at all appropriate to use it (his issue seems to have been that he didn’t believe you could assume it was still intact even if it was checked before shabbos) but that it was better to have the best possible eruv in place for people who were going to carry with an eruv in any event.]

  3. Thanks for post. On the masses being more strict than the rabbis – this also comes in R Kanerfogel’s “Brothers from Afar”, where it seems regular Jews required a greater demonstration (especially mikveh) from Jews returning from apostasy than rabbis (esp. Rashi) required.

    What’s the best way to view / purchase the Gal Ed journals? It’s important to remind ourselves that “90% of Jewry” was not shomer Shabbos before 1939, despite what one might read.

      1. Dr. Shapiro – thanks, I’ll e-mail your work account. On the 90% – I was being a little obscure – in the Rav’s well-known note of praise for the “erev Shabbos” Jew, and his absence in America, in “On Repentance”, he starts by saying “I remember a time when ninety percent of world Jewry was observant and the secularists were a small minority at the fringes of the camp”. The Rav was born in 1903, so his reference was to pre-WW1 Hasloviz – which likely was 90% observant. However, across Russian Jewry Jewry (which would include my great-grandparents)? I highly doubt it. And certainly not after the war.

  4. Regarding the Remo and עד שאמרו לא יאמר אדם אי אפשי בבשר חזיר ,I don’t think the Remo understood it differently. He is merely saying that although חזיר is naturally repulsive it should not be the reason for our refrain. Rather one should force himself to like it and then abstain from eating it due to the transgression only. He then proves it from the fact that Chazal mentioned חזיר and not other non kosher animals which suggests that it is even more repulsive than שרצים. The same could be said about אשת איש which is the most repulsive of sexual relations as one is also causing the woman to cheat. (Of course Shatnez is not repulsive so this explanation doesn’t apply to that particular case).
    This is exactly the way The Rambam explains it in Shemone Prakim as you mention yourself. with the Lobster. (that one should force himself to want it).

  5. 1. The London Beth Din would not allow kosher meat or poultry to be sold in supermarkets until (at least) the 1980’s. This was explained to me by the late Dayan Moshe Swift z”l as having two reasons – first, they didn’t trust “the Jewish housewife” to be able to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher meat products and – connected – they wanted to preserve the stand-alone kosher butcher shops, and keep the community in the habit of patronizing them. Unfortunately, this ran against the economics of meat retailing at the time – and the declining kashrut observance in the community. Housewives preferred the modern ready-packaged, clean-image meat/poultry of the supermarkets to the, er, “Haimish” environments of the struggling kosher butchers. The import of Empire products to the UK, sold in supermarkets, and an accompanying row about ‘Shechitas hutz’ broke the policy; and kosher butchers themselves wanted the opportunity to market their products wherever they could. On the rate of kashrut observance – in the same conversation, which took place walking home from shul on a Friday night in +/- 1970, I asked the Dayan what % of the Anglo-Jewish community he thought would never eat non-kosher meat outside the home. He estimated 50%. I thought about 10%, but didn’t want to contradict him so much, so said “20%”. He stood still, and said “no – it can’t be as bad as that”.
    2. The Dayanim of the same Bet Din were known not to eat the food (at functions etc) which took place under their own supervision, and to avoid eating LBD kosher meat, preferrring the Haredi Kedassia hashgachah.
    3. Not relevant, but, strangely, until around 1974, they permitted non-kosher wines to be served at functions under their supervision. Small cards would be placed on the table saying that the LBD (or its Kashrus supervision division) took no responsibility for the Kashruth of wines and spirits… The practice stopped abruptly when a Baal Teshuvah student (later and still a Heredi rav) published a letter in the Jewish Chronicle questioning the issue!

  6. 1. Regarding whether it would be acceptable to let a brother-in-law serve as a mashgiach, how is that different from the owner paying the supervising agency and mashgichim who are not related? Either way it’s a conflict of interest.

    2. Regarding the Mishna Brurah allowing Bitul BaRov by Kitniyos, it’s not clear (to me, anyhow) he allows it in a case where it’s Nosen Taam..clearly the case of corn syrup in coke is Nosen Taam, so I don’t know how one could extrapolate from the MB’s psak to that case.

  7. It was pointed out to me that R. Aharon Kotler’s teshuvah actually appeared in Noam 8, one year prior to appearing in R. Kornmehl’s sefer.

    1. I believe the Revels had two sons, and neither ever married. (R’ Rakeffet recounts how Bernard Lander asked him to write his doctorate on R’ Revel, who had been his rebbe, as he had no living descendants as a memorial.) I did not know that at least one was such a talmid chacham.

      1. Thank you
        In a related vein – it would be great if you were to write something about Chaim Zev Reines, son of Rav Yitzhak Ya’akov, who, too, never married and wrote a number of small books and numerous articles, all around topics relating to halakha and ethics, questions of social and economic justice etc. From the little I’ve read in them they seem very interesting and deserving to be better known.
        Here’s one of them, on workers in the Talmud
        https://hebrewbooks.org/2335

  8. A remark about kitniyot in Israel. Since sefardim eat kitniyot and are a large portion of the population there would be no problem adding kitniyot purposely and then allowing it for ashkenazim since it is batul berov. Especially since it is generally nishtanu. In fact gaming the dati leumi there are now many rabbis that allow canola oil and lecithin on Pesach for these reasons

    1. R’ Aryeh Stern stresses all the time how there is absolutely no issue with canola oil, as it is a modern invention derived from an American crop (rapeseed) which is poisonous on its own.

      In general, dati leumi are very lenient on all mei kitniyot (foods processed before Pesach that contain even “real” kitniyot) as, outside of charedi neighborhoods, it is nearly impossible to go without them on the chag. (Bear in mind that over half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazim, and while non-dati Ashkenazim, even very secular ones, are usually very careful about avoiding chametz, they tend not to concern themselves with things forbidden for Ashkenazim. That means that something like only 10-15% of Israeli Jews even concern themselves with kitniyot, and the market reflects that.) According to R’ Kook, not even a hatarat nedarim is needed for, say, olim who previously avoided mei kitniyot.

      1. I’m not sure that this is totally accurate. Most hechsherim say “l’ochlai kitniyot” or “does not include kitniyot”. I think that there is a broad variance in practice among dati-leumi families, but I agree that there is a tendency to use products that “include” kitniyot while rice etc. is still vorboten.

        1. But by any measure, it’s easier to just pick up anything marked kasher l’Pesach if one doesn’t read what’s written afterwards.

          There *are* things Ashkenazim can’t eat, like cookies made from matza ashira, that are sometimes not even labelled with anything extra. But soy in cottage cheese seems a bit much, especially as the Geonim never saw soybeans.

      2. “there is absolutely no issue with canola oil, as it is a modern invention derived from an American crop (rapeseed) which is poisonous on its own.”

        OU disagrees. (https://oukosher.org/passover/articles/what-is-kitniyot/) “However, the fault with this line of reasoning is that “Canola oil” is actually “Rapeseed oil” (a.k.a. colza oil) which has been used for centuries in Europe. [“Canola oil” is rapeseed oil specially bred to have less erucic acid (a suspected cause of heart disease) and therefore only this better variation of rapeseed oil is approved for food use in the USA].”

        Indeed, wikipedia says “Rapeseed oil is one of the oldest known vegetable oils”

        1. “Canola” is actually an abbreviation for “Canadian Oil,” maybe because they didn’t like using the word “rape” in a product. Rapeseed is *related* to various plants used for oil since antiquity, but it seems the plant itself was only used for food purposes starting in the 1950’s and Canola was invented (in Canada, as you may expect) in the 1970’s. Whether it is distinctive enough from other varieties not to fall under any prohibition I do not know, but again it is not edible itself. I do know that the related plants include turnips and cabbage (not kitniyot) and mustard (kitniyot).

          Was rape oil- if it was used for food purposes- treated as kitniyot in medieval Europe?

    2. Back before some marketing genius suggested changing the name from “rapeseed oil” to “canola” (and also bred a better version of the plant) it was one of the standard oils used for cooking on Pesach, along with Rokeach peanut oil.
      As I recall from my childhood, some people considered peanuts kitnyot, although most didn’t (see R. Moshe’s tshuva), and, then as now, no one liked the taste of cottonseed oil.

      1. Even cottonseed oil is not used by some, because- believe it or not- it has the same shoresh as “kitniyot”.

        1. do you mean because the English word “cotton” has the same consonantal phonemes as the Hebrew word ‘kitniyot’ ? How strange!

  9. The facts about Warsaw, and other writings I’ve seen from earlier times, make me wonder if in previous generations meat was seen as much more of a fundamental to diet than it is now. Leaving aside levels of observance, if the cost of kosher meat became prohibitive, wouldn’t many people today just cut down on their meat consumption? Or is that just me speaking from Israel, where meat consumption is far less? Did people then, say, have sausage for breakfast and the like?

    1. Your impression is correct. E.g. in Germany when the Nazis banned shechita without prior stunning, the rabbis were thrown into a real quandary since meat was seen as so essential. The idea of giving up meat for chicken was not an option for most. That is why R. Weinberg thought it so essential to find a heater.

  10. Thank you for continuing to bring attention to another one of Rabbi Bezalel Naor’s fantastic seforim. His works are an absolute treasure!

  11. The kitniyot and Bitul is not so straight forward.
    See Maharam Shik Orach Chaim 241 that one should use separate utensils for a choleh eating kitniyot. It appears from him that bitul is only bedieved and we are Machmir Lechatchilah.
    see also Kaf HaChaim 453:27, who permits the Ashkenazi to use the pots only if he is not
    sure whether they had been used in the last 24 hours for kitniyot.
    This is besides the problem of bitul issur lechatchila.

  12. It is reasonable for a rabbi to certify something that is Chalav Stam but not eat it because he is personally machmir to only use Chalav Yisrael.

  13. When I took the star k kashrus training course they told us it is standard policy of the big 6 hechsherim in America to never use bittul. Iirc it was because things can get too complicated particularly with Jewish owners who are more likely to know leniencies than a non jew

      1. OU, star k, crc, kof k, ok, and cor (Canada). They coordinate policy and have a shared database of products that they certify that they use to cross reference in factories

        1. Thanks.

          Different OU people have told me different things: One said that there’s a list of other organizations they automatically trust, but they don’t publicize it because they don’t want to imply that others are no good (and thus risk a lawsuit from those). Another person told it me it was more of a case-by-case basis. I imagine it’s something of a combination.

  14. R Eliezer Zvi Revel actually writes in his introduction to Ozar Hasotah (page 19) that he believes he is the first American born to publish a Sefer.

  15. [16] … I once had a rebbetzin insist to me that laundry detergent requires a hashgachah as we put tablecloths in the wash.

    Ironically, having a hashgacha on laundry detergent might make things worse, as some very stringent folks rely on its being inedible to allow washing items with both dairy and meat in the same laundry load (e.g. a baby’s bibs, one with yogurt from breakfast, and one with cholent). Since the hot water of the washing machine might constitute bishul of the basar b’chalav, the idea is that the detergent is pogem the taam making it not derech bishul…

  16. Re: R. Moshe Feinstein sometimes favored the immigrant rabbis who offered private hashgachot etc. The concern for Rabbis income seemed to be a common position amongst Rabbis, I once discussed with Rabbi Shmaryahu Shulman zt’l an article written by R. Rafael Mordechai Barshansky (Rav in Hommel Russia, and later on in Bronx NY) printed in his Sefer Michtavim Mechutavim (page 173) in which he strongly opposes the notion that milk needs Kosher supervision for Pesach, he writes the same (stam) milk which is drank all year is acceptable unquestionably for Pesach as well. R Shulman commented that he is 100% right in all his Halachik arguments, however there is one area that he is not correct on- the supervising Rabbis earnings! He explained that Rabbonim at that time were generally very poor and these were “good excuses” to help their financial plight.

  17. I wonder if Dr. Shapiro can provide more detail about the claim that REBW said “religious life in Poland was worse than in America”.

    I’m finding it very hard to take seriously the apparent inference that he meant that the overall level of Jewish religious observance was higher in America than in Poland at that time. Mainly because it blatantly contradicts the depictions of numerous other people who lived at the time and saw both worlds. I assume he probably meant it in some very limited context. (I don’t have access to the source cited in footnote 26.)

    1. BH

      The book that is referenced to in the article, can be found on the otzar.

      I dont know how to put up pictures, but see in the letters of Reb Elchonon which are on the Otzar, there is a letter from Reb Elchonon to Rav yechiel Michel Shlesinger.

      Rav Shlesinger was discussing where to move to (in the end he moved to Eretz Yisroel and founded Yeshivas Kol Torah), and was discussing the issues with Chinuch of his kids.

      In this letter Rav Elchonon clearly says that Poland is worth off then America in regards to being Mechanech ones kids.

      Reb Elchonon clearly thought that America was finally starting to work itself out, while Poland was going downhill.

      It should be noted, that Reb Elchonon was located in the Lithuanian area of Poland where the issues were a lot more worse then other parts of Poland.

      Keep in mind that the reason that in 1928 RCO lost the elections for Chief Rabbi in Vilna at such a massive rate, was because it was based on municipal elections in which the frum jews seemed to have been about a quarter of the Jewish population (I dont remember the exact number at this point, but I am trying to make a point).

      1. BH

        Here is from an email which I wrote to someone:

        In regards to percentages of observance among Polish Jewry in the Pre war period, one has to take into account a few factors.

        There were different periods of time, and just like one cannot project his own understanding on what took place in the interwar period, it is also crucial to realize that the interwar period was a unique time for world Jewry where observance fell to very low levels all over. But that would לאו דווקא reflect what would have been the percentage of observance in let us say 1900.

        In addition during various research which I have done, I have seen many different statistical points which would reflect on the level of observance in various areas of prewar eastern or central Europe.

        This includes numbers of kids being sent to the various school system, the amount of votes various groups received in various elections and other such statististics.

        From what I have seen, I can state with utter certainty, that it is hard at times to make across the board evaluations, because many regions were very much different one from another.

        You could have in one region, where more than 70% of the children are being sent to religious schools, while in Brisk or Vilna the rates of children being sent to religious schools are downright terrible.

        In general Warsaw was a cosmopolitan area which like NY was a Kibutz Goliyos of Jews from the entirety of all segments of the Population, making it also hard to exactly evaluate such matters.

      2. Well, America, as it turned out, didn’t work itself out. Starting just about then nonobservance and assimilation began to skyrocket. No doubt it would have been *safer* to be there than in Poland (and of course being alive is a sine qua non to being frum, not to be crude about it), but that’s not what he was talking about.

        1. I’m actually not sure that’s true, ironically.

          What happened in America, to a large extent, was that it became much more segregated religiously. So even while a big percentage of people dropped out, the ones who were of different religious streams may have been more secure. Which is highly relevant in the context of a guy worried about his children.

          If you have Jews of all stripes, from hard-core communist or Reform to most committed Orthodox, all living together in Jewish neighborhoods, interacting extensively and sharing many of the same institutions, then the risk of one’s children choosing another path is higher. If one’s social milieu is largely limited to those of similar religiosity, then that risk is substantially lessened.

          What happened in the time you describe is that the vast majority of those who were nominally Orthodox, or semi-Orthodox, drifted away from Orthodoxy, and if they didn’t then their children did. This accounts for the broad pattern that you describe. But if you were a highly committed OJ at that time, I think your kids’ chances were pretty good. I’m guessing that Poland was even less segregated at the time, and it’s possible that your chances were worse.

          But I don’t believe that the overall level of religiosity in Poland at that time was worse than America. That does not seem like a serious claim.

          1. American Jews of the 1930s were mainly unobservant, but virtually all of them were total amharatzim or if you prefer, tinok shenishbe. In Poland, by contrast, and speaking broadly , there was an outright hostility – sinnah – towards the frum. Relatedly, because of the great ignorance, in America the gulf between the religious and non-religious was massive. In Poland, where everyone spoke the same Yiddish, most went to chadorim or had some Jewish education, it was very different.

            Quite similar to Israel, in many ways. Agree or disagree, many people (especially a few decades ago) felt the environment in Israel was worse spiritually than America. RE Wasserman may have agreed regarding Poland.

  18. Isn’t the goal of the OU also to ensure kashrut for all types of Jews?
    =======================\
    R H Schachter recently stated their policy is to ba acceptable to the broad orthodox community thus they are generally machmir.
    KT

  19. A few months ago, I was in attendance at a shul in Teaneck, at which Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO of OU Kashrus, publicly expressed his satisfaction that uneducated consumers believe the OU represents some sort of quality standard unrelated to kashrus. That is unconscionable.

    Furthermore, placing a hechsher on a poisonous product such as roach killer or toilet bowl cleaner is nothing less than a Bizayon HaTorah.

  20. Marc, it seems that your main intent in these last several articles is to showcase random and unconnected food items that most hold is prohibited but at least one rabbinic personality permitted due to whatever reasoning.

    As such, I would draw your attention to an online book which makes this exact point in a whimsical manner – titled “Wormy Cheese, Cloned Pig Meat and much more for a Kosher table?” – by a Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons.

    http://chaimsimons.net/englishkitchen.pdf

  21. Prof Shapiro,
    Excellent article as always, but I think you may be creating a tempest in a teapot here. I recently learned through several of these sugyot and many of the great rabbis you quote with these kulot are IMHO simply not quoted accurately.

    The Teshuvot Rema re: pig oil was referring to olive oil being transported in barrels that MAY have been previously smeared with lard in order to prevent oil leakage. The Rema cites 5 sniffim le’hakel including vaday 60, no taste, steep fines etc. ONE of them was that this shuman chazir is pagum to oil after cooking [which is leshitato with other treif oils]. Yes, he does state that in his opinion shuman chazir is pagum, but he does not rely on that to allow the olive oil (or any other food).

    Re:Taz in YD 108 – המנהג להקל לקנות מן הגוים דברים המבושלים בכליהם שאין בהם משום בישול גוים (הוא) [הואיל] וסתם כליהם אינן בני יומן, ואע“פ דנותן טעם לפגם אסור לכתחלה, מכל מקום לא חשבינן הקנייה לכתחלה, לכן נוהגים היתר פה קראקא לקנות האגוזים של מים שמבשלים הגוים, או שאר דברים
    I do not understand your issue with this ruling and what does this have to do with Goldstein? Taz is quoting nuts cooked in water by non-Jews in their pots are permitted for consumption as they do not have any inherent kashrut issues and are presumed not to. All across Europe nowadays this is still relied upon – all the Europe kosher lists are just that – food without inherent kashrut issues manufactured on clean equipment by non-Jews.

    Re: Noda B’Yehuda – He is referring to a non-Jew adding meat in the process of making whiskey [similar to his earlier teshuva re: isinglass] only to siphon off the sharpness – otherwise it’s only b’dieved – and this is an Ain Mevatllin Issur question – can a Jew purchase this – as there is vaday 60 but is done as part of the process by non-Jew. This I would agree with you and assume Goldstein would have opposed like he did with Coke at his time.
    I recall R Spitz in his Food Halacha Analysis book you quoted in part 1 has a ‘gantze megillah’ on the subject. How did you miss that if you quoted the book?

    Similar re: Sugar and R. David Ibn Zimra – the milk was added as part of the process to refine it and was evaporated out. Again a question of bittul issur and whether Khatikha Naaseh Neveila – but not an actual kashrut question. Pri Megadim beg. YD 97 cites this approvingly and even rules like this for Ashkenazim.

    Re: Kitniyot being battel B’rov is true but not necessary lemaaseh – as that halacha is only b’dieved – and if it fell in on Pessach. You quoted R Felder as saying it’s no real problem – but R Gedalia Felder in Yesodei Yeshurun seems to prove that it is still a problem of bittul issur for Askenazim (with the possible exception of derivatives and kitniyot shenishtanu) – see here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=4175&st=&pgnum=414

    So, I guess to sum up my question, I’m just more than a bit confused here. Are you simply trying to draw a common denominator between these disparate halachot? As otherwise each seems to have a separate set of issues and do not necessarily seem to be halachically equivalent.

    1. I was not trying to draw a common denominator, other than to point to kashrut pesakim that in America at least, people would find more than strange.

    2. I don’t see where you see in R. Gedaliah Felder anything in opposition to what his son told me. On the contrary, see p. 415. The issue I discussed with his son, R. Aharon, is if the non-Jewish company puts the kitniyot in, do we still say it is batel.

      And why do you say it has to fall in on Pesach?

  22. Contrary to what you say, the Rama was ready to permit even if it was known for certain that they used the pig lard. And he cites the various kulot you mention.

    1. I don’t know. Perhaps. Rema seems pretty emphatic that the amount of alleged lard smeared into the barrels is so minute that it cannot impact the overall makeup of the olive oil and not even the goyim can taste it – the bulk of his teshuva seems to be proving this.
      Here is a link – https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1204&st=&pgnum=98
      Then, on the top left corner he adds the other sniffim l’hakel including further down that “b’nidon didan she’aino davar barur shemasimin bi chazir k’mo shekatav maalat kvod Torato b’atzmo (meaning the questioner) peshita d’azlinan l’kula v’lo machzikinin issura lomar shnitarev bo”.
      One thing is definitely clear from his teshuva, that Rema certainly would not have permitted food exclusively based on his holding that pig lard is essentially pagum. As he writes toward the conclusion “u’lechen nirah li mikol hani taamei d’shemen zayit muttar, u’puk chazi mai amar davar”.

  23. Regarding kitniyot being batel b’rov, R. Reem Hacohen has a teshuva permitting this, explaining several reasons why the prohibition of אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה does not apply in this case, and citing other talmidei chachamim who hold the same view:

    לכאורה אם תערובת קטניות אינה בכלל הגזירה, ממילא מעיקרא לא גזרו עליה, וגם אם נאסור לבטל לכתחילה עדיין התערובת תהיה מותרת. יש להוסיף את דעת הרמ”א בתורת חטאת המובא בט”ז (יו”ד קח ס”ק ד), שם נאמר כי נהגו להקל ולקנות דברים שאין בהם משום בישולי עכו”ם גם אם התבשלו בכלים שהיתרם הוא רק בדיעבד. זאת, משום שהקנייה של דבר מבושל אינה נחשבת לכתחילה. יש להוסיף את דעת הי”א בתורת הבית הארוך (בית רביעי שער ג) שבאיסור דרבנן שאין לו עיקר מן התורה מבטלין איסור מלכתחילה, ובשו”ת באר יצחק מצרף שיטה זאת כסניף לקולא.

    יש להוסיף סברה חזקה להיתר קניית מוצרים שיוצרו לפני הפסח. בשו”ת באר יצחק כותב: “משא”כ קטניות דבנ”ד דמערבין אותו מקודם הפסח דאז מותר לבטלו ברוב כיון דשם היתר עליו מקודם הפסח”. ולכן עירוב קטניות בערב פסח אינו בגדר של “אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה”, והוא מוסיף שם, “בפרט דאינו רק תקנת הגאונים”. הרב יהודה פריס שליט”א (תחומין יג) במאמר מקיף על קטניות מביא את הטיעונים הנ”ל להיתר. כמו”כ יצא עתה ספר מקיף על הלכות כשרות, “ואכלת ושבעת”, שנכתב על ידי שני ת”ח גדולים הרב אלישיב קנוהל והרב שמואל אריאל שליט”א וגם בספר זה פוסקים להתיר קניית מוצרים שיש בהם תערובת קטניות בתנאי שהקטניות אינן ניכרות ואינן רוב כנ”ל.

    See here:
    https://otniel.org/lesson/%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/

  24. Prof. Shapiro,
    With all due respect, you wrote “R. Felder also told me that if he was asked he would tell people that there is no problem eating a product with kitniyot if it is batel be-rov. According to this approach, one is permitted to drink regular Coke on Passover”.

    However, the Yesodei Yeshurun on the page you cited – 415 – cites many Askenazic authorities – including the Magen Avraham, Chayei Adam and Noda B’Yehuda – who disagree with such a notion (based on the Rema’s wording regarding mustard), maintaining that l’arbeiv b’yadayim is still prohibited – even before Pesach [meaning when it was still technically permitted as prior to Pessach kitniyot certainly is not an issue].
    According to this understanding, purchasing regular Coke would not be OK for Pessach [unless one perhaps wants to make use of the Kitniyot derivative / nishatnu hetter].

    The OU states similar in an online article –
    “Kitniyot is batel b’rov, which means that if someone accidentally put kitniyot into their Pesach food, the food is b’dieved permitted assuming the food contains more non-kitniyot than kitniyot (Rema 453:1 as per Mishnah Berurah 453:9). This means that although the food may have a pronounced taste of kitniyot, the food is permitted (unless there are recognizable pieces of kitniyot which haven’t been removed)…Some argue that Mishnah Berurah’s ruling is limited to cases of b’dieved and doesn’t justify the l’chatchilah creation/certification of such an item, and others argue that nishtaneh may be limited to cases where the forbidden item becomes inedible in the middle of its conversion to the “new” item….
    Thus, although we’ve seen a number of disagreements as to whether certain foods are or aren’t kitniyot, those disagreements are limited to one who wants to consume the actual item or a hashgachah certifying someone else who is intentionally putting the ingredient into a food.”

    Also, as noted in R Spitz’s book you quoted previously, ever since since the Rav Geffen vs Rav Pardes Coke story and Rav Moshe’s later strongly worded teshuva – calling it “mechuar hadavar” – no hashgacha worth its salt would rely on bittul to grant a hechsher lechatchilla – and certainly not for Pessach.
    I wouldn’t want to rely on one that did…

      1. Prof. Shapiro,
        B’mechillat kevodcha, to tell you the truth, I’m not sure of your intent with the previous comment or how exactly it answers any of the issues I raised in previous comments.
        After stating what I cited above, the Yesodei Yeshurun writes that “however, kitniyot derivatives – according to several poskim the din would be different as I will explain further regarding oil and other food products manufactured from Kitniyot prior to Pessach.”
        He then launches into an entire chapter on subject detailing the extensive machloket haposkim on the subject – with no clear-cut psak, but acknowledging both sides.

        I mentioned this several times in previous comments that the issues with the Rema’s hetter of Kitniyot being battel b’rov is only b’dieved “unless one perhaps wants to make use of the Kitniyot derivative / nishtanu hetter.”

        Hence, as I already mentioned it, I am unsure how that answers up the questions raised.

  25. The Revel work on Sotah shows how strong the influence of environment is. Long discussion about copulative positioning which would not find a place in a regular Sefer. Even quotes his consulting experts in the field. Also noteworthy that he is confident of the assertion that his mother’s family, Travis, are descended from the Treves family and thus descendants of Rashi. I am not sure if genealogists think that is correct.

  26. Why would buying coke which is made by a non Jewish company be a problem of לערב בידים? The company is doing it anyways so it would not be a problem of ein mevatlin issur lchatchila.
    R. Felders point was that the bittul was already done as part of the recipe by the company, and therefore is totally mutar. Where is this contradicted by Yesoday Yeshurun?

    1. On page 415. Yesodei Yeshurun spells it specifically and that this would apply by Kitniyot as well.
      The “company doing it anyways” is exactly the issue and acc. to many rishonim and acharonim is considered Ain Mevattlin issur.
      As detailed in r Spitz’s Food Halacha Analysis book that Marc quoted -in the Coke chapter – that was the debate between R Geffen & R Pardes with Coke in the 1930’s and that is what reliable hechshers no longer do as R Moshe called relying on bittul mechuar hadavar.
      R Geffen wrote that specifically in his teshuva as his reason for prohibiting. You can find it on Hbrewbooks.

      1. Yesodei yeshurun is talking about you yourself being mevatel. It is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
        If a non Jew made a product in which there exists nullified issur it’s 100 percent muttar lechatchila to eat it. Which achronim or rishonim are you referring to? there is a rashba that perhaps is machmir on bitul as a manner of kvieus, but that not accepted lhalacha by many. for example, COR Toronto under the leadership of R Gedalia Felders son, allows Canadian whisky even though it contains some stam yainom.
        Granted for a kashrut agency to certify the product it would be michuar hadavar, but that wouldn’t negate its permissibility. (Unless they change their recipe in order to constitute bitul upon the kosher agency’s instructions)
        R. Felder wasn’t saying he would certify coke, rather as a product which is known to be kosher year round, it would be permitted to buy it on pesach even if the kashrut agency abided to Rav Moshe and didn’t certify it for pesach. Because we know it’s kosher. R Belsky in shulchan halevy pg 124 essentially says the same thing.

        1. -Given that Rav Moshe Feinstein (YD 1:62) says thatwhen required by manners he himself would drink blended whiskey with some stam yeinom (so as not to appear presumptuous–he says he prefers to avoid it generally), I would imagine that it is very hard for any Kashrut agency in North America to forbid it.

  27. On Eliezer Zvi Revel, you will find him discussed in Rakeffet-Rothkoff’s book under the name Hirschel. There is also a photograph of the whole family. See, e.g. from p. 41 of the 1st edition:

    “On May 27, 1912, a son, Norman, was born to Bernard and Sarah Revel. Sarah returned to Marietta for his birth. (Norman later graduated from Yeshiva College and subsequently became a businessman.) On August 19, 1913, a second son, Hirschel, was born in Tulsa. (He was to graduate from the Teachers Institute and Yeshiva College. In 1942 he received the doctor of Hebrew literature [D.H.L.] degree from the Yeshiva Graduate School for his critical edition of the ‘Hilchot Sotah’ [Laws of the Woman Suspected of Unfaithfulness] in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, which he also published. Hirschel alternated between scholarship and business until his death on September 20, 1961.) “

    As far as I can tell from the grave numbers at Mount Carmel Cemetery, he is buried between his parents: Bernard is in 4, Hirschel in 5, Sarah in 6. It seems, from the photos on Geni, that Norman is also buried there.

    I no longer have access to Ancestry from home, but the 1940 census should provide more information. There is a hint in the Ancestry search information (before hitting the paywall) that Hirschel may have once been married.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *