Monday, January 19, 2009

Kashruth In the Workplace Webcast

On the heels of the success of its two previous Kosher Kitchen webcasts, OU Kosher will present “Kashrut in the Workplace,” featuring OU Kosher authorities and Senior Halachic Consultants Rabbi Yisroel Belsky and Rabbi Hershel Schachter. It will be held on Tuesday, January 27, 2:00 pm EST. To watch the webcast live, visit http://www.ou.org/index.php/ouradio/webcast.

The webcast is part of OU Kosher’s continuing and ever-growing educational outreach to the community, which includes the “OU Kosher Coming to Schools and Communities” program, and the highly informative and entertaining Kosher Tidbits postings, now numbering 125 on OU Radio. The most recent Tidbit is on “Torah and Spices” featuring Rabbi Yerachmiel Morrison, and the highly acclaimed OU Kashrut DVDs (available from ).

Rabbi Eliyahu Safran, Senior Rabbinic Coordinator and Vice President of Communications and Marketing at OU Kosher, declared, “The ‘Kashrut in the Workplace’ webcast is a response to many requests and suggestions that the OU poskim deal with the many and complex issues faced on a typical work day in the secular setting.”

Rabbis Belsky and Schachter will lead a Q&A session, which will focus on issues and concerns that typically come up in business and office settings, including use of microwaves, coffee makers, office refrigerators, business meetings at dairy /vegetarian restaurants, and holiday parties.

Viewers of the webcast can send in questions before the session starts to Rabbi Safran at or 212-613-0775, or during the session to Rabbi Eliyahu Ferrell at or 212-613-0701.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Newly Redesigned Product Search

A newly redesigned feature to help the kosher consumer easily locate OU certified products has just made its debut on http://www.oukosher.org. With more than 400,000 products certified by the OU, the feature uses the OU’s technical wizardry to find just what the consumer is looking for, in categories ranging from acids and acidulants to wrapping materials and paper goods. The website is automatically updated daily to keep up with the OU’s newly certified products.

The original product search averaged some 3,000 hits a month over a period of more than two years of existence. Now it is faster and easier to use and is expected to be even more heavily utilized than the old site. The previous version was harder to search with less search criteria. Now it uses a more state of the art, quicker, more user-friendly technology and additional search filters that were not previously available.

“The new product search brings an unprecedented ease in searching for OU certified products,” explained Rabbi Yonatan Kaganoff, OU Kosher Rabbinic Coordinator, who oversaw the project. “Consumers can easily search for products using a variety of categories and criteria. This will help consumers worldwide find the kosher products that they are looking for as well as confirm that that OU Kosher products that they see at their local supermarkets are indeed certified OU Kosher. Sometimes consumers see a new product bearing an OU symbol or product bearing an OU symbol for the first time and want to make certain that the symbol is accurate. The newer, faster product search will allow them to consume these products without concern.”

The OU Kosher website is divided into company and consumer sections; the product database is a highlight of the consumer area. The feature enables the consumer to search by product, such as mayonnaise; by brand; and by dozens of categories. The searcher can also use a variety of “filters” – meat, dairy, pareve, consumer, industrial, Pas Yisroel, and Cholov Yisroel – to narrow the search. For example, there are 1171 pareve varieties of OU mayonnaise on the site, compared with 17 dairy. A range of information is provided about each product, such as company and brand name; status as meat, dairy or pareve; and any special information regarding the product, such as how it should be shipped.

Can’t find the product you are looking for? An additional feature enables the consumer to recommend that product for OU certification. All in all, it’s a tidy package for the benefit of the kosher consumer.

“This is another step in our ongoing quest to service the kosher consumer to avail themselves of the wide variety of OU certified products,” declared Rabbi Moshe Elefant, Chief Operating Officer of OU Kosher.

The newly revised product search can be found at the following URL: http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/product_search

Thursday, January 08, 2009

When Kosher and Allergen Issues Do Not Converge

Rabbi Dovid Polsky, the remarkably patient and knowledgeable managing attendant of the OU’s ever-ringing Kosher Consumer Hotline, does not see a day go by – or even a morning —- without receiving a call that touches on the overlap between kosher certification and allergen concerns.

“I see that Miller’s Heavenly Chocolate is labeled OU-pareve. Yet I also see a declaration of ‘may contain dairy.’ How could this be?”

“The soy milk I just bought states that there is no dairy or lactose in the product. And yet the kosher label says OUD. I’m confused.”

The answer to both of these questions, of course, is that although kosher and allergen considerations often converge, they are not identical.

A production line that churns out non-dairy chocolate may be adjacent to a staging facility for milk powder. Kosher law does not obligate a certifier to be concerned about the possibility that airborne particles of milk powder migrate into chocolate. However, the sensitivity of some allergen sufferers to even the most minute presence of milk is so great that the manufacturer of the non-dairy chocolate may decide it is necessary to inform consumers of the possibility of dairy, even if the possibility is remote and the amount miniscule.

On the other hand, there are cases in which Jewish law understands there to be a connection, or interaction between two entities while allergen considerations are completely ruled out. Soy milk, pasteurized on a heat exchanger that just processed genuine milk, is an example. Unless the heat exchanger is kosherized, the soy milk is considered as though it “absorbed” the flavor of the milk that had been processed on it immediately beforehand. The OU is obligated, in these circumstances, to label the product as OUD. Such an absorption is real according to Jewish law but immaterial to someone with a dairy allergen.

The confusion stemming from these apparently contradictory labels began over ten years ago as food manufacturers became better aware of the health ramifications of failing to declare the presence of an ingredient on a label. There were 121 recalls in the year 2000, as opposed to 35 a decade earlier, according to the FDA. Health experts provided statistics demonstrating growing allergen problems and food labels began including possible allergens that may have unintentionally (e.g., airborne) migrated into a food product.

Food allergen labeling became mandatory in January, 2006. The Food Labeling and Allergen Protection Act of 2004 was motivated by widespread allergen reactions (over 30,000 Americans require emergency room treatment annually ) and on studies that showed that many parents of children with a food allergy were unable to identify major food allergens on ingredients labels. For example “whey” on an ingredients label meant that “contains dairy” must be communicated (readers interested in learning more about the regulations should consult the FDA’s helpful website, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgact.html).

Labeling of kosher products has remained, of course, essentially unchanged. Dairy products should always be labeled OUD and pareve products should be identified as OU. (Quick reminder and potentially huge headache saver for OU companies: All labels, both for certified and uncertified products, should be carefully screened to ensure that dairy products are labeled OUD and that uncertified products do not bear the OU symbol at all. Too often companies have released uncertified products into the marketplace bearing an OU symbol simply because their internal label review procedure was lax and did not catch the symbol on the label).

The many consumer calls show us that people do, indeed, read labels, and that they care about the products they buy. (As the saying goes, for every one person that calls us, there are probably ten people…)

Although kosher and allergen concerns are not identical they do, of course, intersect. Several years ago founding members of the Gluten Intolerance Group (GIG) visited the OU and trained several of our experienced inspectors how to evaluate a facility for gluten-free status. This training was part of the development of the Gluten Free certification that GIG provides. In the last several years the Gluten Free symbol has enabled many members of this important, and unfortunately growing, group of people to purchase products with confidence that what is not listed on the label is not on the product.

Reprinted with permission from Winter 2009 issue of Behind the Union Symbol

Monday, December 22, 2008

Drinking Coffee on the Road

Considering the long days that Mashgichim put in and the hundreds of miles that they drive daily, it is no surprise to hear that most mashgichim rely on coffee to keep them going. While caffeine is a plus for those who work in an office, for those out on the roads those 10 minute coffee stops are quite literally life savers. Let us take a moment to understand if there are any kashrus concerns with picking up a coffee while traveling on the road. This question was presented to the OU poskim Rav Schachter and Rav Belsky.

The primary ingredients in plain black coffee (water, sugar and unflavored coffee) are all group 1, acceptable from any source.

The Pri Chadash Y.D. 114:6 says that although coffee cannot be eaten raw and is served at the tables of kings, there is no issue of bishul akum. He explains that since coffee is essentially a water-based drink, since water can be drunk uncooked, coffee too is permitted.

The Gemara (Avoda Zara 31b) says that one may not drink beer in a non-Jewish establishment, since this can lead to intermarriage. One must take the beer back to their house before drinking. The Rambam says that cider may be drunk at a non-Jewish establishment since it is not as common a drink as beer. What about coffee? Rabbi Belsky said that although one may not drink coffee socially at a non-Jew’s home (see Chachmas Adam) there is no issue of drinking coffee in a store. Rabbi Schachter said that it is preferable that one wait to drink the coffee until one goes back to their car. He understood that the leniency of the Rambam was specifically on cider because it is not a common drink, but coffee today is as common as beer.

Rav Belsky said, in general there is no concern that the utensils that cooked the coffee were used with non-kosher. The coffee pot is usually rinsed out and reused, and is not sent through the dishwasher. Rabbi Schachter added that there would be reasons to be lenient even if the coffee pot was sent through the dishwasher.

Rabbi Schachter said that there is no issue of marris ayin for one to purchase coffee at a McDonalds rest stop. Rav Belsky agreed that this was permitted, but indicated that in such a case one should not sit down at the restaurant tables, which would give the appearance that one was intending to eat a meal, but rather should sit at one of the public rest stop seats. As we mentioned earlier, Rav Schachter recommended waiting to drink the coffee until one returned to their car.

Rav Belsky and Rav Schachter paskened that it is permissible to purchase coffee at a rest stop or convenience store. Rav Schachter added that even if one ordinarily would be machmir about these issues, they should not do so if they feel they are getting tired. Driving when tired, in violation of ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכםis much worse then drinking a cup of coffee which is מותר על פי דין.

לפעמים משגיח נוסע ברכב שלו לשם השגחה וירא פן תחטפנו שינה בדרך ויסתכן, ובכדי להתעורר, רוצה הוא לשתות קאווע, אלא שאין אתו ברכב, ורוצה ליכנס לחנות בלתי-כשרה (מיק דאנעלד“ס, וכדומה) שעל הדרך, ולקנות קאווע משם.
(א) על פי פשוטו נראה שאין כאן בעיא של מראית עין (והייתם נקיים וגו’) כי בידינו כבר ידוע הוא שהרבה בני אדם נכנסים לחניות שכאלו שלא על מנת לאכול ממאכליהם האסורים, אלא על מנת להשתמש בשרותים שמה, או על מנת לקנות קוקה-קולה וכדומה.
(ב) בנדון כשרות הקאווע, אף על פי שלפעמים יוצא הקאווע הכשר מאותו הסילון שיוצא הקאוו“ע הבלתי-כשר, ויש בקאוו“ע הכשר תערובת של משהו איסור, על פי פשוטו היה נראה לומר שאותו המשהו מתבטל בסמ“ך, ואין בזה משום ביטול איסור לכתחילה, שהרי אין כונתו לבטל, ואף דבדרך כלל היינו מייעצים שלא לקנות קאוו“ע היוצא מן הכלי שכזה, בשעת הצורך שכזה שיש קצת חשש סכנה, נראה שאין להחמיר. (ג) ואף שיש מקום לערער על כשרות הקאוו“ע – שלפעמים יקרה שישטפו את הכלי שבו מתבשל הקאוו“ע ביחד עם כלים שיש עליהם פירורי מאכלות אסורות, ועל ידי כן תכנס הבליעה אל כלי ההיתר (של הקאוו“ע), על פי רוב תמיד מכניסים דיטרג‘נט אל תוך מכונת שטיפת הכלים באופן שכזה שתחילת בליעת האיסור אל כלי-בישול הקאוו“ע יהיה בבחינת נותן טעם לפגם, ומותר. (ד) אלא דבגמרא עבודה זרה (לא:) איתא שאסרו לשתות שכר של עכו“ם במקום מכירתו, ולדעת כמה פוסקים אף כל המשקאות הקלות גם כן בכלל הך גזרה (עיין יורה דעה ריש סימן קי“ד), על כן יש ליעצו לרב המשגיח שלא ישתנה הקאוו“ע שמה – בחנות, אלא להוציאו לחוץ ולשתותו ברכב שלו, דבגמרא (שמה) הובאו ב’ הנהגות של האמוראים – אם מספיק לשתותו אבבא דחנותא, או דמן הנכון להחמיר שלא לשתותו אלא בביתו, וכאן – בנידון דידן, לשתותו ברכב שלו הוא החומרא הכי גדולה שאפשר להצריך.
(ה) ועל פי פשוטו אינו נכון למשגיח להחמיר בזה ולנהוג במדת חסידות, ולהתרחק מן הכיעור ומן הדומה לכיעור, שהרי התורה צותה ונשמרתם מאוד לנפשותיכם, וחמירא סכנתא מאיסורא, וחסידות בכהאי גוונא בודאי תחשב כחסידות של שטות.
צבי שכטר

ביסוד אני מסכים מן ה“יוצא לפועל” אבל מש“כ בסעי’ ד’ שכמה פוסקים אסרו משקאות קלות, נעלמה ממני דעה זו ולא שמעתיה מעולם. גם מש“כ ששוטפים כלי הקאווע יחד עם כלי האוכל כמדומה לי ששוטפים בנפרד ביד ולא במכונה ועוד מלבד זה ברוב מקומות מנוח (rest stops) שראיתי, מקום השולחנות אינם קשורים למסעדות אלא לה rest stopsעצמו ואין בהם מראת עין או גזירת חנויות שלהם כי הוקבעו למנוח הצבור ומנותקים מהחנות
ישראל הלוי בעלסקי

Aish M’aish – Bishul Yisroel

In many companies the method for dealing with the issue of bishul akum is to have the mashgiach light the pilot light of the boiler. This is based on the ruling of the Rama (Y.D. 113:7) that if a non-Jew lit his fire from a fire that was lit by a Yisroel, then the food cooked with that fire would not be subject to the issur of bishul akum.

Although the Minchas Yaakov (75:41) holds that one can rely on this leniency even lichatchila, most poskim (Chachmas Adam 66:8, Aruch Hashulchan 113:44) point out that the leniency of the Rama is only bidieved at best. Lichatchila, one may not allow a non-Jew to cook one’s food with such a fire. If so, how do we rely on having the mashgiach light the pilot lights of boilers in non-Jewish companies?

It is important to keep in mind two other sevaros discussed by poskim.

The Maharit Tzalon (161) says that although Chazal initially forbade pas paltar, they never forbade bishul of a paltar. Only bread which is the staple of the meal can lead to intermarriage even when baked by workers for the purpose of selling. Other items, although they may be oleh al shulchan melachim, are not forbidden when cooked for the purpose of selling.

Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt”l held that items cooked in factories in a manner that is different from the way that one cooks in one’s home are not subject to the issur of bishul akum.
Although we do not rely on these sevaros by themselves, we are mitztareif them in conjunction with other sevaros.

For example, we permit steamed tuna fish without bishul Yisroel. Although there is a disagreement as to whether steaming is exempt from the prohibition of bishul akum, we are lenient b’tziruf the above two sevaros (The Maharit Tzalon and Rav Moshe). Similarly, perhaps we can rely on pilot lights in conjunction with the above sevaros.

Rabbi Belsky said that we may be lenient to allow the use of pilot lights in companies; however, the mashgiach should relight the boiler whenever he visits the plant. Since many poskim hold that the heter of pilot lights in only bidieved, when there is a mashgiach available to light the fire, we should not rely on a bidieved. In restaurants since there is a mashgiach temidi available to light the fires, we do not rely on the heter of aish m’aish.

In summary:
• Although we are lenient to allow the use of pilot lights in factories to remove the issur of bishul akum, the boilers should be relit every time the mashgiach visits the factory.
• In restaurants we do not rely on this leniency.

Remembrance of the Mumbai Kedoshim

I had the opportunity to meet Ben Zion Chroman many times in Beijing on Shabbos during the past two years. I always will remember his intense concentration and kavana in his tefillah, especially Shmoneh Esrei. At the Shabbos meals he just loved to sing the Carlebach niggunim. His favorite melody was "Kol haolam kulo gesher tzar me’od, ve-haikar lo lefached kla," meaning "This world is just but a narrow bridge and there is nothing to fear." He would start singing in a very low melodious voice, which would get louder and stronger as he repeated those words with such emotion from the depth of his neshama, getting all present at the table to join in with him.
It was apparent to me that he loved all Jews even though he was a Bobover chassid with a streimel. Rabbi Teitelbaum, who used to sit opposite him at the Shabbos table, would be enthralled by his chaver’s sweet voice and join in as well with all the niggunim. It so happens that I grew up in Far Rockaway, NY, where I davened in Kehilas Yaakov by the Sulitzer Rebbi, the grandfather of Rabbi Teitlebaum, and where my parents still daven. I am sure that both kedoshim gave their lives while singing "ve-ha-ikar lo le-fached kla.”
Hashem yinakem damam…

Rav Moshe Zt’l’s Heter of Cholov Stam Revisited

Halacha states that milk which is produced without hashgacha (r’iyah of a Yisroel) is non-kosher; such milk is termed “cholov akum”. This rule is a gezeirah, lest milk from non-kosher animals be mixed into what otherwise could be assumed to be kosher milk. Milk is only permissible when a Yisroel watches the milking, verifying that milk from non-kosher animal species is not incorporated. (Yoreh Deah 115:1, from Maseches Avodah Zarah daf 35b)

In his famous teshuva about regular (not specially-supervised) milk – what we call “cholov stam”, Reb Moshe Feinstein zt“l rules that such milk is permissible, as governmental inspection of dairies serves as verification that milk from non-kosher animals is not present; since governmental inspection establishes the absence of milk from non-kosher animals as a known fact, the rule of Annan Sahadei – that we are all virtual witnesses to the fact – pertains, and it is as if there is actual visual supervision (by Klal Yisroel) of the milk in domestic dairies. (Igros Moshe YD 1:47)

In teshuva 49 (ibid.), Reb Moshe addresses the question of farms. Although there is governmental inspection of dairy plants, where milk is pasteurized and bottled, much of the milk comes from farms, which Reb Moshe describes as often lacking supervision. If so, how could the rule of Annan Sahadei apply to permit milk? Is there not a lapse in supervision, such that the milk was lacking any governmental supervision from the time it was farmed until it arrived at the dairy plant?

Reb Moshe replied to the person who posed this question that Chazal were gozair on milk only at the point of its transfer to a Yisroel (“bo l’yad Yisroel”). Therefore, only milk which comes to the Jewish consumer from dairy processors can be prohibited as cholov akum; milk which is at farms and travels to dairy plants is not yet subject to the gezeirah. Once this milk is at the dairy plants, it is subject to governmental inspection and becomes the halachic equivalent of cholov Yisroel, as Annan Sahadei applies at that point and tells us to treat the milk as supervised by Yisroelim.

An obvious problem arises in modern times, as governmental inspections of dairies – at least today – does not include tests to determine the animal species from which the milk came. (See section of FDA Milk Plant Inspection Form on page.) Government inspectors test milk for bacteria count and the presence of antibiotics, but they do not verify by tests or otherwise which species of animal produced the milk. Such determination can be made by testing fat or casein ratios of milk samples, but the government does not do this. Whereas in former times (and still today at a handful of dairy plants), it was common for dairies to have on-site farms, and government inspectors would thereby physically see the animals present, such is no longer the case. In light of the current situation, that government inspectors do not in any way test milk to determine the source animals, nor do the inspectors see the milking animals, their inspections would appear to be of no use to create a situation of Annan Sahadei! If so, on what do we base our heter of cholov stam in contemporary times?

Rabbi Eli Gersten, based on diyukim in Igros Moshe (ibid. teshuva 49 and YD 3:17), understood and convincingly demonstrated that Reb Moshe held that since Chazal were gozair only upon the final point of possession of milk prior to its transfer to a Yisroel, the lack of meaningful verification at dairy plants is immaterial; so long as government inspectors visit the dairies and see that nothing is being added to the milk (and see no non-kosher species on-site!), the milk is permitted.

I arranged a conference call with Rav Belsky and Reb Zev Osdoba, RFR at Ahava Dairies, who has worked very extensively with state and federal inspectors over the course of many years, and who provided me with reams of documentation on the details of government inspection programs and requirements. Reb Zev revealed the following information (which I later corroborated independently by reviewing state and federal government websites and speaking with dairy companies):

• Currently, the government inspects all milk farms 2-6 times per year.
• Governmental (state) farm inspection protocol specifically includes a provision that only cows are in the farms’ milking parlors and/or cowyard. This provision (formulated in terms of swine) is part of the standard farm inspection form. (See sections of Dairy Farm Inspection Forms below.)
• Government inspectors track the intake and output of all milk at dairies. Thus, the source farms are identified by the inspectors, and they must correlate with farms approved by the government.

Reb Zev also related that state farm inspectors told him that they have never encountered horses, pigs or other livestock (besides cows) on dairy farms, and that were they to do so, they would immediately report it as part of their responsibilities.

In light of this current state of affairs, such that the farms are indeed uniformly inspected for non-kosher animals, and the dairy plants’ inspectors work with the farm inspectors’ data, Rav Belsky ruled that the heter of cholov stam applies for those who wish to rely on it, albeit based principally on farm inspections rather than on dairy inspections. The correlation of data between the farm and dairy inspections extends the farm inspections’ efficacy to the dairies, from which point the milk is “bo l’yad Yisroel” and retains its permissibility.

It should be noted that the above, newly-formulated position on cholov stam is actually the total reverse of Reb Moshe’s heter: Reb Moshe was mattir cholov stam based on dairy plants being inspected by the government, and government inspection of farms was a non-issue due to the concept of “bo l’yad Yisroel”. Now, in contradistinction, government inspection of farms plays the central role, and dairy plant inspection is no longer central for the heter. It is also important to note that the new position does not rely on “bo l’yad Yisroel” and may appeal to those who were not comfortable using this rationale in this case.

As evidenced by the above p’sak and research, the OU continues to pave the way in kashrus technical data and to service those in Klal Yisroel who wish to rely on Rav Moshe’s heter concerning cholov stam.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Mesorah Fish

On Sunday February 19th, the Orthodox Union presented a conference on a wide variety of subjects pertaining to Mesorah of various “pareve” subjects. The following is a look at the topic I presented, “An Analysis of Kaskeses – Part and Present”.

The first question one must address is the relationship between “kaskeses” and a kosher fish. What exactly defines a fish as kosher? The Pasuk in Vayikra 11:9 describes a kosher fish as one that has “snapir v’kaskeses”, which is generally translated as fins and scales. From the Pasuk alone, one might think that a fish needs to have both simanim in order to be kosher. However, the Mishnah in Niddah 59A (expounded in Chullin 66B) tells us, “kol sheyesh bo kaskeses yesh bo snapir”, that any fish which has “kaskeses” will automatically possess “snapir”. If so, we now see that in order for us to know if a fish is kosher, we simply need to confirm that it has “kaskeses”. The question remains, however, what exactly is “kaskeses”?

The Gemara goes through a back and forth discussion to confirm what exactly is a “snapir” and what is a “kaskeses”. The gemara concludes that “snapir” refers to a fin that assists a fish in swimming, and that “kaskeses” refers to those finger-nail like protrusions on the side of a fish. The gemara asks (in light of the knowledge that every fish possessing “kaskeses” automatically has “snapir”) what the was need for the pasuk to mention “snapir”. The Gemara responds, “Yagdil Torah V’Yadir”, that the pasuk mentions “snapir” in order to “make great” and “aggrandize” the Torah.

The question still remains, what exactly is “kaskeses”? Though it is often translated as “scales”, not all scales are included in the term “kaskeses”. Specifically, the Ramban in Chumash tells us that a “kaskeses” must be able to be removed from the fish either by hand or with a knife, without ripping the underlying skin. Practically speaking, if the scale underneath the skin would rip upon removing the scale, the fish could have “fins and scales”, but not have “snapir v’kaskeskes”, and would not be kosher. The Ramban’s requirement is discussed in the Achronim, but is universally accepted as the halacha (see Y.D.83:1, and Ramah there in the name of Maggid Mishnah).

No limit is given in the Poskim to discuss a particular shape, color or texture of a “kaskeses”. Any scale that can be removed without ripping skin would qualify as a “kaskeses”. The only limit discussed is the size of a scale, namely that it must be large enough to be viewed by the naked eye. Both the Aruch HaShulchan and the Tiferes Yisroel mention this requirement, on the grounds that a view at a normal distance by the naked eye is always the minimum limit specified by Torah Law for something to be legally significant.

The second question to address is how can we know if a particular fish is kosher? Many people believe one can determine a fish to be kosher based upon the scientific classification of the scales of a particular fish. There are five different types of scales: placoid, cosmoid, ganoid, ctenoid and cycloid. Placoid scales are found on many different types of sharks (sharks do have scales, though they rip the skin when removed and thus cannot be considered “kaskeses”), cosmoid are found on lungfish, ganoid are found on sturgeon, gars and bowfin. These three types of scales are rarely found on kosher fish, though I mentioned bowfin (Amia Calva) as at least one example of a kosher fish with ganoid scales. The other two types, cycloid and ctenoid scales, are the ones found on most kosher fish. The scale classifications are based on varying factors,such as the make upof the scale,its relationship to other scales on a fish, and the structure of the growth rings on the edge of a scale (experts can determine how old a fish is by counting rings on its scales, much as they would rings on a tree).

Some Rabbis have postulated that any fish bearing cycloid or ctenoid scales is a kosher fish. They would say that all one needs to do is confirm that a certain species of fish has one of these types of scales to know that it is kosher. There are several reasons why one should disagree with this assertion. One reason, mentioned above, is that some fish contain cycloid scales that are not visible to the naked eye. One example that we encountered in the OU office was a type of sandeel (Ammodytes Americanus) that supposedly had cycloid scales, though all the experts in our office who viewed samples could not see anything on the fish large enough to consider it as having “kaskeses”. Another reason why defining the type of scale is not sufficient to know if it is kosher, is that some fish have embedded scales. American Eel (Anguilla Anguilla) is known to have scales that could be “kosher” if not for the fact that they are deeply embedded into the skin. The same is true for burbot (Lota Lota). One must also bear in mind that there is nothing intrinsic to the definition of any type of scale that requires it be able to be removed from the fish without ripping the skin, as is required for “kaskeses”. Even if anecdotally one can note that a great number of fish bearing cycloid and ctenoid scales tend to have ones that that can qualify as “kaskeses”, one cannot claim that this would be a sufficient determinant of kosher status.

Others have suggested that some sort of kosher fish list be constructed for the benefit of consumers. There are several reasons why this suggestion is not viable. The first is the intrinsic inaccuracy of the use of common names. The same common name can be used to refer to a myriad of different fish. Not all “cods” are kosher; the burbot mentioned above is classified as a “gadidae”, technically making it a cod. In our office, we have encountered incidents with such fish as “torsk” (which can refer to both a kosher and a non-kosher fish), “escolar”(oilfish) which also refers to multiple specimens of varying kosher status, and Turbot (some are kosher, some not). Though the primary example of non-kosher (scaleless) Turbot is usually called “European Turbot”, the fish is actively produced through aquaculture (fish farming) in China and possibly other places. Let’s say for argument sake one could guarantee that a certain common name could refer to only one fish in the world. Surely then we could endorse such a fish list’s recommendation?

In truth, the consumer would be stuck with yet another concern, how does he know the sample he is trying to purchase in fact is the fish with this special common name? One cannot rely on someone who is not halachicly reliable to determine the status of a fish, which is exactly what a consumer who cannot determine the kosher status of a particular fish would be doing! For example, one cannot purchase “tilapia” based solely on the recommendation of a kosher fish list, if there is no way for him to verify that the fish in fact IS a tilapia.

Many cite the Orthodox Union’s renowned fish list, prepared by Dr. Atz. Surely one can purchase fish based on this list? Actually, Dr. Atz himself casts doubt upon the ability to identify a fish by common name. In an article he wrote for Tropical Fish Hobbyist in 1996, Dr. Atz chronicles the “Jewfish”. Dr. Atz shows how in different regions of the world from colonial times, almost every society had a “Jewfish”. Some were kosher, some were not. Dr. Atz concluded that the only thing the various fish had in common was that they were despised for some reason or another (and none was ever documented as having paid retail for anything). Common name is not a determinant.

The Kaf HaChaim also sees common names as inaccurate. In his Sefer (Yoreh Deah 83:5), he notes that discrepancies between different Talmudic accounts of the “shibbuta” must lead one to conclude that there were multiple fish called “shibutta” in the times of Chazal.

B’ezras Hashem, we will discuss in next week’s article how one would determine the kosher status of a fish, as well as a look at how the Talmudic rule of “kol sheyesh bo kaskeses yesh bo snapir” would be applied.

An Analysis of Kaskeses – Part and Present

To summarize, fish that have a kaskeses are kosher. The definition of kaskeses is unique to kashrus, and scientific classifications of scales are not halachikly determinative.

In this article, we will discuss two methods how to practically determine if a fish is kosher.

The easiest way to determine if a fish is kosher, is by manually checking the fish for scales. Simply locate a scale on the side of the fish (preferably behind the gills, tail or fin – as mentioned by the Rama as a chumra to guarantee the scale did not fall off of another fish), grab it between your thumb and forefinger, and gently attempt to pull it out. One should note that scales are always attached to the fish on the side closer to the head. The reason is fairly obvious if you can imagine how a fish swims. If the scale would be able to swing on the side closer to the tail, the current pulling against the now exposed scale would inevitably rip it off as the fish swims. This would be similar to the effect of when one walks with an umbrella in a brisk wind, and does not point it in the direction of the blowing. The umbrella gets caught in the wind and blows inside out. So too, the current would get caught under the scale and rip it off, causing the fish to die due to infection.

After removing the scale, simply inspect the area where the scale came from for a rip in the skin. If the skin seems fairly undamaged, the fish is kosher. If the scale will not come out without the skin ripping, the scale is not a “kaskeses”. Generally speaking, it is fairly obvious whether ir nit the scale ripped. As a practical “aytzah” to get a sense of what skin normally looks like when a “kaskeses” is removed (and the skin does not rip) would be to inspect the skin of other fish which one knows to be kosher.

Though there is no requirement of “mesorah” on fish like there is on birds and animals, the Darchei Teshuva does describe the possibility of determining the kosher status of a fish based on mesorah. Specifically, one may bring a fish (whose “kaskeses” fell off or did not yet grow “kaskeses”) to someone familiar with the specific fish to determine if this is a species that the person has mesorah of it being a kosher fish. It is important to keep in mind that the “mesorah method” of determining kosher status is particularly useful when dealing with various types of mackerel, for example, as mackerels tend to lose their scales when removed from the water. Fish that lose their scales may have a single scale in the three areas mentioned earlier (behind the gills, tail and fin), though without a scale one could still recognize the fish based on its skin.

As with most matters relating to the permitting of a potential Torah prohibition, the person ruling on the fish must be both “halachicly” reliable and familiar with the issue at hand (in our case, the specific type of fish). One should note that a gentile working at a fish store is not qualified to confirm the kosher status of the fish.

The “mesorah method” is based on an idea mentioned in last week’s article, namely that the Gemara tells us that a fish that has not yet grown “kaskeses” or lost its “kaskeskes” is still a kosher specie. One should ask, even if theoretically true, how could one practically determine that the fish is kosher if there are no “kaskeses” on it now? The answer, says the Darchei Teshuva, is that one can recognize the specie based on its skin. There is no mention of someone with a “tvias ayin” on the flesh of a fish, which must be regarded as “kirvei dagim” and is forbidden.

Some have asked how big a piece of skin must be left on the fish for one to determine its status based on the “mesorah method”. Though I have not seen a specific size given, clearly the piece of skin must be big enough for someone to actually be able to say what it is. A few weeks ago, I received an inquiry from a smaller hashgacha organization, that wanted to know how they could accept as kosher fish whose skin had been completely removed except for a small (scaleless) patch, when their mashgiach could not properly identify the fish. I answered that they could not. The only way to accept the fish is by having someone familiar with the specie accept the delivery, and a mashgiach who is not familiar with the specific fish is not acceptable. Consider the following mashul (parable). Suppose a person, r”l, is blind. Halachicly, the person is “ne’eman” to testify in Beis Din. One would not, however, ask the person to confirm which of two identical pieces of meat has a hashgacha printed on the package. Here too, a person who does not have mesorah on the particular fish in question may not be relied upon to confirm the kosher status of the fish by a patch of skin. Such a person could only attempt to remove a scale from the fish, as described above.

Some hashgacha organizations allow for salmon to be accepted without skin at all. The justification behind this policy is that there are no known fish whose flesh resembles the red/pink of a salmon, making the flesh color a “siman muvhak”. Again, this heter would only apply to a case where the mashgiach accepting the fish knows what a salmon is supposed to look like.

Many of us are “zoche” to live in areas where we don’t much think about which fish are kosher or not, as we could not imagine the local “heimish” supermarket selling a non-kosher species. Some of us live in parts of the world where kosher meat is difficult to acquire, and buying fish from the local store is the easiest way to properly feed our families. Though it may seem odd at first, those people have at least one advantage over their brethren living in Jewish neighborhoods. They have the chance to teach themselves and their children how to determine if a fish is kosher, often having no other option. It would be unfortunate if those of us who can easily acquire a kosher fish would lose out on the opportunity to know how to be “mavchin bein hatamei u’bein hatahor”, to be able to distinguish between the pure and the impure.

Chometz Sheavar Alav Pesach

Pesach is a period full of kashrus related halachos. During this unique time we observe various dietary restrictions, which are part of the holiday’s special “halachic diet”. However, kashrus issues associated with Pesach do not end with havdalah after the last day of yom tov. Chometz sheavar alav hapesach, a term that describes chometz that was possessed or controlled by a Jew during Pesach, is strictly forbidden after yom tov is over. This issue is unfortunately quite relevant, since many food manufacturers, distributors, and retail stores may have either full or partial Jewish ownership. In each of these sectors, unless the party or parties involved are shomrei Torah u’mitzvos, any chometz in their possession may very well be forbidden after Pesach.

The prohibition of chometz sheavar alav hapesach was enacted by Chazal as a penalty for violating the issur deoraisa of possessing chometz on Pesach . Chometz shevar alav hapesach is prohibited to eat, and also derive benefit from, after yom tov . However, unlike minute amounts of chometz that falls into a food on Pesach and prohibit the entire mixture, chometz sheavar alav hapesach is nullified in a food with shishim (60x) of heter in the mixture vis-à-vis the chometz.

One very common method of avoiding the prohibition of chometz on Pesach is by selling any chometz to a non-Jew before Pesach . However, some authorities objected to executing a sale with an understanding the chometz will purchased back after yom tov. The Vilna Gaon for example, objected to these sales, as well as using any chometz sold through these methods after Pesach . The primary argument against this practice is that it amounts to he’aramah (trickery), which should not permissible to circumvent an issur deoraisa (torah prohibition) . Nevertheless, sales to avoid issurei chometz in many communities have become an accepted practice, which has support from numerous authorities that disagreed with the Gaon’s concern .

Some poskim distinguished between issurei deoraisa and issurei derabanan (rabbinic prohibitions) regarding this issue . For example, a common practice of not selling chometz gamur, but selling chometz be’taroves (chometz that is part of a recipe, which is not principally chometz) may be based on Rabeinu Tam , who takes the position that in a mixture, there is no Torah prohibition of possessing chometz . Moreover, Rav Yackov Kaminetzky zt’l ruled that people who do not sell chometz because of he’aramah may still accept chometz after Pesach from someone who relied on a sale. Rav Yackov’s reason was that since chometz sheavar alav hapesach is an issur derabanan, it may be permissible to rely on he’aramah after Pesach to avoid a rabbinic prohibition .

Pesachim 29a
Pesachim 28a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 448:3
Shulchan Aruch O.C. 448:3
Ma’aseh Rav 180, 181
Shabbos 139b
Shut Chasam Sofer O.C. 62, 113, Mekor Chaim 448:7:11, Igros Moshe O.C. 4:95. See Sha’arei Teshuva O.C. 448:17
Ibid 5. Some poskim also argued that once bitul chometz is recited, the prohibition is reduced to an issur derabbanan. See Shut Shoel U’Meshiv 2:3:60.
Pesachim 42a
Nefesh HaRav, p. 177

What if a Jewish owned business does not sell its chometz before Pesach? Unfortunately, this dilemma has not been an uncommon phenomenon. These kinds of situations have been addressed and discussed by poskim for generations.

Rav Dovid Friedman zt’l once suggested a very novel approach to permitting chometz that was in the possession of a nonobservant Jew during Pesach . The gemara in maseches Chullin (5a) rules that a mechalel Shabbos’ status in halacha is akin to a nochri. Classically, this halacha is applied stringently in several contexts; for example, if a mechalel Shabbos would touch non-mevsuhal wine, it would become prohibited. However, Rav Friedman suggested that perhaps this principle may be applied leniently in the case of chometz she’avar alav hapesach, since chometz of a nochri is permitted after Yom Tov. Therefore, it would be permissible to purchase chometz from a nonobservant Jewish storeowner, who is a mechalel Shabbos, or schnapps from a partially Jewish owned company , as was the case discussed in the teshuva. However, although very original, this line of reasoning was not accepted by other poskim .

Rav Friedman also suggested that if Jewish ownership only constitutes a minority interest, the minority percentage would be considered botel and nullified vis-à-vis the non-Jewish ownership of the company. This approach was also supported by Rav Itzele Ponovezher zt’l, in order to permit chometz after Pesach from companies that were partially Jewish owned . However, this approach has also not been accepted by contemporary authorities.

Rav Moshe Feinstein zt’l addressed a similar question regarding corporations, and took
a lenient position with different reasoning. Rav Moshe held that if a minority interest of Jewish ownership is not actively involved in company operations, halachically there is no legal Jewish ownership or control, which would render the chometz prohibited after Pesach. According to Rav Moshe, stocks that represent a minority equity interest do not translate into ownership of actual company assets, which would present a Pesach issue. However, if a business is majority Jewish owned, or a minority interest is actively involved in the business, the business relationship is viewed as a partnership and chometz sheavar alav hapesach could be an issue .

In the food distribution chain, there are usually three basic links before food reaches an end user: 1) the manufacturer, 2) the distributor, and 3) the retail store. In the case of a Jewish owned manufacturing company, nowadays the issue of chometz should be addressed by the Rav Hamachshir who certifies the company. The standard practice is to arrange for a sale of chometz to a non-Jew. Whether the business operates during that time, and if it does, under what conditions, will vary depending on the Rav Hamachshir.

In the case of a retail store, if the owner is shomer Torah u’mitzvos presumably all chometz would be sold to a non-Jew before Pesach, and none of that chometz will be sold until after Pesach. However, if the Jewish store owner is not shomer Torah u’mitzvos,
did not arrange for a reliable sale of chometz prior to Pesach, and there is no acceptable Rav Hamachshir to address the issue, any chometz in the store’s possession during Pesach becomes prohibited. This is problematic even if a kosher certification symbol appears on the product label. The product was perfectly kosher before Pesach, but becomes prohibited afterward.

Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote a famous teshuva about a large Jewish supermarket chain that arranged for mechiras chometz prior to Pesach, but nevertheless continued to sell chometz throughout the holiday itself. In that teshuva, Rav Moshe assumed that the mechira remained valid, and the inventory sold during Yom Tov should be viewed merely as merchandise stolen by the store from the new non-Jewish owner. However, the fact that the company was operating business as usual would not invalidate the sale of chometz for inventory remaining on store shelves after Pesach. Therefore, according to Rav Moshe it was permissible to shop in that supermarket immediately after Pesach . However, some earlier authorities disagree with Rav Moshe’s reasoning, and argue that a sale executed in the form of ha’aramah is invalid since the original owner repossessed and sold goods to a third party . Along these lines, some contemporary authorities directly disagreed with Rav Moshe’s psak as well .

Nonetheless, manufacturers or retail stores are usually not sources of confusion with regard to the area of chometz sheavar alav haPesach. The difficult part of the equation is distributors, who are middle men between manufacturers and retail stores. Some distributors, including those that might supply large supermarkets, have Jewish ownership. Distributors who are shomeri Torah u’mitzvos cease operations during Pesach and sell their chometz beforehand. However, those who are not, very likely would not sell their chometz, or might arrange to sell their chometz and continue to operate their business normally during Pesach. The distributors that supply different retail stores will vary between each store. Frum store owners presumably are aware of this issue and should carefully take into account obtaining merchandise from acceptable sources after yom tov. In some cases, the distributors themselves may be frum and would have sold their chometz before Pesach.

When addressing this issue, it is important to bear in mind that chometz sheavar alav hapesach is an issur derabbanan. In cases of rabbinic prohibitions, there is room to be lenient when there is sufficient doubt. Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that if based on a calculation of days most of a store’s inventory would not be chometz sheavar alav hapesach, it is permissible to shop in that store . However, due to numerous complexities involved, especially with large supermarkets, consumers are best off turning to local rabbanim for direction as to where they may shop immediately after Pesach.

Emes LeYackov, Shulchan Aruch 202
Sheilas Dovid O.C. 5
See Mishkenos Yackov Y.D. 36 and Shut Pnei Yehoshua 9
Taz O.C. 448:3:4, Shut Binyan Shlomo 2:32, Shut Shoel U’Meishiv 2:3:60, Mishneh Berura 448:3:11
Zecher Yitzchok 8
Igros Moshe 4:54
Igros Moshe O.C. 1:149, 2:91
Shut Maharam Shick O.C. 205, Shut Maharsham 2:117
Mipeninei HaRav, p.84



Rabbi Bistricer is a rabbinic Coordinator at the OU and is an expert in many areas of Kashrus.

Pas and the Jewish Home

In this article, we will iy”h, focus upon some general aspects of “pas”.We will see that Pas has a unique status in the Halacha because of its chashivus. This involves numerous halachos of Orach Chayim, and Yoreh Deiah. Foods made from the chameishas minei dagan, the following five types of grain, have a special significance in the halacha. They are: Chita, Seora, Kusemes, Shipun, and Shibboles Shual. Wheat, barley, spelt, rye, and oats. Bread made from these minim exclusively, has been assigned by chazal the special status of lechem. The Tur notes that this is because they have been singled out in the Torah among the minim produce for which Eretz Yisrael has been praised. The passuk in Devarim 8,8 states Eretz Chita Useorah Vegefen Vereon Eretz Zais Shemen Udvash chita, seorah. are the main types encompassing all of the rest.

This special status has ramifications in a myriad halachos. Let us look into a few of them. In Hilchos Brachos, they are on top of the hierarchy of the halachic food chain, if you will. When baked they require the special bracha of mezonnos before and the full bracha achrona of al hamichya afterwards. Of course if baked in the tzurah of pas they have the highest distinction of requiring netilas yadayim washing and the super bracha of hamotzie before eating and followed by the full birchas hamazon. Because of their special Chashivus, they are an exception to a general rule in hilchos brachos. If two foods with different brachos are consumed at the same time the din is that one of the foods is deemed as ikkar the main component by virtue of its quantity and desirability. A bracha is made on the ikkar and there is no need for a bracha on the tafel the minor component. However, if the tafel the so called minor component is comprised of the five minim and is present for food purposes (not merely as a binding agent) then it does require its own bracha: The five minim due to their special significance can never be deemed as tafel as minor and will be by definition deemed as the ikkar and need their own bracha. The other component is deemed as the tafel.

Lechem made from the chameishas minei dagan has halachic significance regarding seudos mitzvah as well. Seudos Mitzvah for example the required meals on Shabbos, Yom tov and other occasions require the inclusion of lechem as part of the fulfillment of the mitzvah. Chazal, apparently viewed the seudah as incomplete without being enhanced by the presence of lechem. There is a question in the Poskim regarding seudas Purim. The Magen Avraham rules that Pas is not required. Many later Poskim disagree and require Pas.

Their special status is quite apparent on Pesach as well. If dough made from these five minim becomes leavened before baking then it becomes chametz and is subject to the most severe onesh of kareiss if consumed on Pesach willingly. There are other foods that are forbidden to eat on Pesach to be sure either middrabanan or based upon minhag for example kitniyos legumes but only these can become chametz min hatorah. Conversely, only these minim may be used under the proper conditions of shmirah of watching to bake matzoh to fulfil the mitzvah of achilas matzoh on Pesach.

These five minim come to play regarding Hafrashas Challah as well. There is a mitzvah min hatorah to separate challah from lisha: dough and give it to the Kohain. (as the torah states reishis arisoseichem) lisha is defined as “blila avah” a thick dough. In instances such as sponge cake which is blilla racha a loose batter challah is taken after afiyah baking. This special mitzvah applies only to the dough kneaded of flour from these special five minim. This halacha applies min hatorah only in Eretz Yisrael like the other mitzvohs hatluyos baaretz: special laws applicable to produce of Eretz Yisrael. However, middrabbanan there is a chiyuv of challah even in today’s times and even outside of Eretz Yisrael. It is for this reason that kashrus agencies here as well as the consumer have to make sure that challah is appropriately separated. Why did the Rabbonon decree an obligation of challah separation outside of Eretz Yisrael? There is no such requirement for teruma ,shmita and the other mitzvos hatlyuos baaretz? The Shulchan Aruch based upon the Rambam says that otherwise somehow the laws of challah would be forgotten. Tosfos in Kiddushin answers differently. Challah looks like and resembles a mitzvah upon the person and not like a land oriented mitzvah because although it applies only to the grains of Eretz Yisrael the obligation does not take place in the field but rather later at the time that the dough is kneaded in the home. Therefore the Rabbonon were able to institute it outside of Eretz Yisrael as well. Hagaon Reb Moshe Feinstein Ztl, in his sefer on chumash, notes other unique aspects of Challah. Challah took effect immediately upon entry into Eretz Yisrael as opposed to Truma for example which took effect only after the fourteen years of conquest and distribution of Eretz Yisrael. The Midrash Tanchuma assigns a special role to women in the performance of this mitzvah. The Navi Yechezkel, indicates that this mitzvah results in bringing bracha to the home. Based upon his comments we may say that challah is unique because it has to be taken and given away from the staple food: bread dough that you have worked so diligently for planting the seeds reaping making it into flour and finally kneading into dough. You are now ready to partake and benefit from all of your toil and serve your family. First says the Torah give away a part to the Kohain to tzedakkah. The mishpachas Yisrael is taught that before it may take and partake it must first give to others. This is a crucial mitzvah in the proper chinnuch of the beis yehudi. For this reason immediately upon entry into Eretz Yisrael it took affect. The woman as akkeres habayis therefore has a special role to play in this chinnuch oriented mitzvah. It therefore brings Bracha to the home. Perhaps we may add that for this reason the Rabbonon sought fit to institute it in Chutzah laaretz as well.

It is interesting to note that there is another area in halacha where the chameishas minai dagan become relevant specifically from the time of lisha. There is an issur middrabbonon of kneading and baking dairy bread (fleishig as well is assur). See Yoreh Deiah 97. We have already noted the special place bread has in a seudah. The seudah commonly was eaten with either meat or milk. Therefore the rabbonon prohibited the lisha and affiyah of dairy of fleishig bread lest it be eaten at the meal. Bread was the major part of a seudah; indeed poskim based upon the passuk in Devarim state that lechem, in particular, was assered ki al halechem yiche haadam. (There are other dinim that are particular to lechem based upon this passuk see Yoreh Deiah 87 and 114.)

These five minim have a special status regarding the issur middrobonon of bishul akkum as well. There was an accepted issur middrabbonon of bishul akkum regarding cooked food. This issur was never fully accepted by klal Yisrael nor instituted regarding PAS because such items were deemed chayei nefesh foods vital to subsistence. Nevertheless in many mekomos places the issur is accepted and practiced. It is less restrictive than the issur of bishul Akum to be sure and has its own set of halachik rules and guidelines. Many mekomos however have accepted the heter of Pas Palter as brought in the shulchan aruch. Pas palter refers to commercially baked bread items made of the five minim for which the bracha is hamotzie if one would be koveiah seudah on them. What you may wonder is the status of bagels which are boiled and baked? Bagels are Pas and not bishul even though they are put in boiling water. This is actually addressed by Hagaon Reb Moshe Feinstein Zt”l in Iggros Moshe YD 2 The bagels are baked and hence Pas. The dough is put in boiling water for a short period of time not to cook but in order to give it its unique chewy texture that bagel connoisseurs have come to love. Doughnuts on the other hand are only fried in oil and not baked and therefore are not Pas but rather bishul.

In order to certify a product as Pas Yisrael a rigorous standard of supervision must be adhered to in order to ensure that it is Pas Yisrael according to the Halacha. The nature of industrial baking its complex facilities and the fact that hashgocho tmidis is not always the situation makes Pas Yisrael certification a challenge but one that can be met. This challenge is met by most accepted kashrus certified agencies by having one of the following basic conditions satisfied.

1. A mashgiach or other Yisrael actually lights the fire of the oven. this often is not an option.

2. Pilot light A pilot light is put on and secured by the mashgiach. The source of the fire of the oven is this lit pilot light.Halachikly this is deemed aish meieish. There are two practical considerations that need to be dealt with if using this method. There need to be safeguards implemented to make sure that the pilot remains on. In addition, the pilot should be turned off and relit periodically and regularly by the mashgiach. This is not practical in many situations today because many ovens now are not gas lit but rather electronic and therefore do not have pilots.

3. The mashgiach lights the actual fire of the oven and it always remains on. The company may reduce the temperature for example if the company bakes at let us say 350 then its temperatue may be lowered but not turned off. It must remain on at a minimum agreed upon temperature at which the fire of the oven can bake. At this temperature the eish of the Yisrael is still extant. Again safeguards and careful systems must be implemented to ensure that the oven never drops below the required temperature.

4. A computer phone system has been devised that would be acceptable lehalacha even for the more stringent din of Bishol Yisrael. A machine is installed in the factory which enables the maschgiach outside of the plant to by remote control by entering special designated codes in a touch-tone phone to actually put on the oven. It cannot be diverted. The Gedolei HaPoskim have endorsed this system whole heartedly.

There are cases where Pas Yisroel derives not from Hilchos Yoreh Deiah by rather from Orach Chayim. The Poskim bring in the beginning of Hilchos Shabbos that even those who eat Pas Palter during the week should be Machmir to eat only Pas Yisroel on shabbos because of Kvod Shabbos. There is a divergence of opinion whether this refers only to the Lechamim upon which Kiddush is made or to all Lechem bread eaten during the seudos of shabbos. We have already seen that the chashivus/ importance of Lechem enhances seudah. Kvod Shabbos is even further enhanced by Lechem which is Pas Yisroel. (The Poskim also cite the recommendation that the woman actually bake the Shabbos Challos herself on Erev Shabbos for the following reason mentioned by Rashi in Massechta shabbos based upon a medrash in Bereishis. She should make challah in order to fulfill the mitzvah of separating the challah portion, through which she so to speak makes up for Chava’s woman’s sin of persuading Adam to sin which led to Adam losing his immortality. Adam was referred to as challaso shel olam first separation by Hashem from the Adamah she was meabedes challaso shel olam. This of course would be an additional reason besides the one that we mentioned earlier for the woman’s special role in hafrashas challah.)

In the Halachos of Aseres Yemei Teshuva the Shulchan Aruch cites a ruling with its source actually a Yerushalmi that even those who are not in nizhar in pas yisroel during the year should be nizhar during the Aseres Ymei Teshuva ten days of repentance. Sefarim explain that during this special period of time, of closeness to Hashem, we beseech Hakadosh Baruchhu to bestow chessed and rachamim upon us and it is thus behooves us to act with more chassidus and attempt to be more nizhar in our Avodas Hashem.

It should be understood that while this particular chumra was certainly brought in the shulchan aruch, we need not limit our extra zehirus to pas yisroel alone. Indeed, Poskim explicitly state that it is most important to be extra nizhar and mehader in the area of bein adam lechaveiro during this special period of time. We certainly should make an effort to be machmir and zahir in our speech. Chazal have shown us the critical connection of zehirus from maacholos assuros to our spiritual well being. Consumption of non kosher food is metamtem es halev damages us. A topic receiving much attention today is children off the Derech. It is interesting to note that The Pri Chadash, already about 250 years ago writes that in his time, the reason, that there were so many young people that have gone letarbus raah is because they were not zahir in non kosher food in their youth. Similarly, improper, speech is detrimental to our spiritual well being. The pasuk states mi haish hechafetz chaim ohaiv yamim liros tov netzor leshoncha mara usefasecha middaber mirma. Our chayim ruchniyim depends upon our maintaining proper speech.

Indeed the only mention of the singular word kasher in tanach is in megilas esther when esther tells achashveirosh: vecasher hadavar the matter is proper. In lashon hakodesh davar is in the same shoresh as dibbur which means speech. (See Pninim mishulchan Hagra on Devarim 23, 10) Our food must be kasher our speech must be kasher as well. What goes into our mouths and what goes out of our mouths must be kasher proper and up to the highest standards. Be”h, we should all be worthy to be able to say about our mouths in entry as well as in exit vekasher hadavar.

A Guide for Mitzvah-Keepers with Housekeepers

[Note: So as not to slight anyone, the title “Hagaon” is being restricted to the Ziknei Eretz Yisroel and to Niftarim.]

Mi-Hu Yehudi?
Here’s an Erev Shabbos “mishap” you don’t hear about very often…

A rabbi, the scion of a rabbinic dynasty, sees that things are particularly busy in his home one Erev Shabbos and he asks his Hispanic non-Jewish housekeeper if she can perhaps stay into Shabbos. She agrees readily, but on one condition: they must provide her with two candles to light because her grandmother taught her that every Friday night, she has to light two candles.

The rabbi puts two and two together and realizes that his non-Jewish housekeeper may well be…his Jewish housekeeper.

Moral of the story: never ask a crypto-Jew to help out on Shabbos.

Hopefully, the other non-Jewish housekeepers (henceforth, NJH) employed in Jewish homes are bona-fide non-Jews. However, there are other halachic issues attendant to employing a NJH besides Yichus…

Utensils
The Shulchan Aruch requires us to be careful not to leave our meal utensils with a non-Jew, lest they be used for non-kosher foods. Citing this law, Maran Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein states that it is forbidden to leave one’s NJH alone in the house, lest one’s utensils be used for milk and meat simultaneously or for the NJH’s own unkosher food. Maran Hagaon Rav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv similarly states that one must lock up the utensils when the NJH is left alone in the house. He refers specifically to a NJH with cooking responsibilities.

Poskim (halachic decisors) consider scenarios where you remove any motivation for the NJH to cook. For example, a situation where the NJH has no responsibility at all to prepare food, and is provided with food that she is happy with and that needs no cooking. In such a case, both Rav David Feinstein and Rav Elyashiv rule that the NJH may be left alone in the house without the need for the utensils to be locked away.

Rav (David) Feinstein adds that the NJH can be left alone if she has received instructions about the kitchen and also has a genuine concern that she could be “caught in the act” of violating the rules.

Meat

Another kashrus concern is the prohibition on eating Basar Shenisaleim Min Ha-ayin, i.e., meat that left Jewish surveillance. This prohibition is built on a concern that, in some form or fashion, the kosher meat will be exchanged undetectably with unkosher meat.

There are circumstances where there is no need to suspect that an undetectable exchange has transpired. For example, the prohibition only applies when the non-Jew would benefit in some way from an exchange, e.g., the kosher meat is tastier. Secondly, the meat that left Jewish surveillance remains permissible if (a) it was sealed or (b) if the Jew involved has a Tevius Ayin, i.e., the capacity to examine the meat and discern that this is indeed the kosher meat that he left there. (There are specific parameters for sealing.) Furthermore, the NJH can be left alone with unsealed meat if she has received instructions about the kitchen and also has a genuine concern that she could be “caught in the act” of violating the rules.

Poskim discuss and debate the following question: Do I need seals on my meat if the NJH has no responsibility at all to prepare food, and is provided with food that she is happy with and that needs no cooking? One should consult a competent rav to discuss this issue if one considers adopting this approach.

[It should be noted that all that we have said above about meat applies to skinless pieces of fish, as well.]

Wine and Grape Juice

The presence of a NJH mandates the implementation of safeguards for the wine and grape juice, as well. It is forbidden to drink wine that was touched by a non-Jew, and pouring is considered a type of touching. Furthermore, it is forbidden to leave one’s wine alone with a non-Jew out of concern that they will pour themselves a drink and render the wine forbidden. This array of prohibitions is designed to prevent the closeness that leads to intermarriage and/or the consumption of wine that has been libated for idolatry.

The improbability (or impossibility) of offering libations limits the scope of these halachos. For example, there is no prohibition if the wine-bottle is sealed. (There are specific parameters for sealing.) Furthermore, even if the wine-bottle is unsealed, we need not be concerned about the non-Jew’s touching or pouring if it was Mevushal (cooked) before he handled it, because such wine is typically not used for idolatrous worship. There would, however, still be the issue of the non-Jew being alone with the wine, due to a concern that it will be exchanged for non-kosher wine. The way to address that problem is to tell the NJH to avoid handling the wine. In that case, if she has a genuine concern that she could be “caught in the act” of violating the rules, one may leave her alone with it even if it’s in an unsealed receptacle.

Contemporary poskim address two major questions about Yayin Mevushal (cooked wine). The first is: To what temperature must the wine have been heated to classify it as “cooked”? This is a subject of dispute. The OU’s policy is to follow the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein and require a cooking temperature of 175 degrees F. The second question is: Can we consider pasteurized wine to be Mevushal? Maran Hagaon Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and [l’havdil bein chayyim l’chayyim] Rav Elyashiv maintain (for different reasons) that wine is not to be considered Mevushal merely by dint of being pasteurized. The prevalent practice in America is to follow the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein, who maintains that pasteurized wine is indeed Mevushal.

[It should be noted that all that we have said above about wine applies to grape juice, as well.]

Bishul Akum

A NJH assigned responsibilities to prepare food raises the issue of Bishul Akum (food cooked, baked, etc. by non-Jews). This prohibition only applies to a food which meets two criteria: (1) at this time and location, it is not eaten raw, and (2) it is important enough to be served at a state dinner. If your NJH cooks such a food for you (e.g., meat; eggs), the food is impermissible even if the utensils are kosher and the original ingredients are kosher. The Sages enacted these laws to prevent the closeness that leads to intermarriage.

Ashkenazi practice permits a non-Jew to cook for Jews if a Jew ignited the flame. Consequently, the NJH must be told that only members of the family can turn on the stove and the oven. [Even though these halachos are not applicable to all foods, there’s no reason to turn the NJH into a rabbi!]

Yichud

Employing a NJH raises other halachic issues, independent of kashrus. There is an Issur D’oraysa (Biblical prohibition) of Yichud (isolated seclusion) with certain (Jewish) members of the opposite gender. Hillel and Shammai added to this list and legislated that one may not be alone with a non-Jew of the opposite gender, lest that solitude lead to physical intimacy. Therefore, it is potentially problematic for a fellow to be in the house with the NJH in the absence of his wife.

There are exceptions to the Yichud prohibition, predicated on the solitude being insignificant or essentially non-existent:

(1) Some poskim maintain that if one’s wife is in the same city, no prohibition of Yichud obtains if there is a genuine concern that the wife will pop-in unexpectedly. Not all poskim agree to this, so a competent rav should be consulted personally before employing this leniency.
(2) A fellow can be in the house with the NJH as long as a child is present. This applies only to the day-time and only to a child who is at least 7-8 years old. In this instance, the child functions as a Shomer (guard). If the child is someone else’s daughter, she can only be a Shomeres until she is 9. At 10, it would be forbidden for a fellow to be secluded with her.
(3) There is no prohibition of Yichud when the door to the room is classified by the Halacha as “Pasu’ach Larabbaim” (open to the multitude). For example, if the door is unlocked and someone may walk in unannounced, no prohibition of Yichud obtains. The time and place will obviously have a major impact on whether or not someone may walk in unannounced, so a competent rav should be consulted personally before employing this leniency. The need for rabbinic consultation is especially acute if, for whatever reason, the fellow and the NJH relate to one another as friends on some level and not merely as employer and employee; in that circumstance, the leniency may not apply at all.

Tzeniut

Another potential problem with employing a female NJH is her style of dress. Obviously, a NJH is not bound by halachos of Tzenius (concealment). Consequently, she may show up for work dressed immodestly—and it may not be feasible to give the NJH instructions on how to dress. There would then be two issues to address.

The first issue is that a fellow would not be allowed to say Divrei Torah and Berachos if he saw before him the NJH’s skin from an area that would normally be covered (if she were a single religious Jewish woman). Fortunately, just closing one’s eyes will alleviate this problem. The second issue that may, perhaps, be relevant in certain contexts is the prohibition on staring at a woman for pleasure. This is forbidden on several grounds:

1) In Bamidbar 15:39, it states, “Do not stray after [ ] your eyes.” This includes a prohibition on staring at women for pleasure.
2) Since a fellow is obligated to protect himself from seminal emissions outside of the context of marital intimacy, it is prohibited to engage in sexual rumination. (Staring at women for pleasure is conducive to those ruminations. )
3) There is a prohibition on Girui Yetzer Hara (libidinal stimulation). In the same way that reading erotic literature and listening to love songs are proscribed behaviors because they stimulate the libido, one must also avoid staring at women for pleasure.

It’s worth noting that there is more to immodest female attire than its impact on the male employer. What kind of effect does it have on our children? Do we undermine our educational efforts when we teach a child about Tzenius and then tolerate the NJH dressing immodestly? This is merely one aspect of the broader question of the NJH’s influence on our children. I once heard a great Chacham advocate alertness and vigilance to any employer of a non-Jewish babysitter. He told of a child whose non-Jewish babysitter taught him to kneel when he said Krias Shema Al Hamita! Indeed, a prominent rav in Passaic, NJ, has been quoted in this context as saying, “How can you insist on more supervision for your meat than your children?”

Shabbos and Yom Tov

A NJH also impacts on our Shabbos and Yom Tov observance. As is well-known, it is not permissible to tell a non-Jew to do, on Shabbos or Yom Tov, that which we ourselves are forbidden to do on Shabbos or Yom Tov. This prohibition applies even if we give the instructions before Shabbos or Yom Tov. What is less well-known is that even if we do not ask for it, it is forbidden to benefit from what a non-Jew does for us in “violation” of Shabbos or Yom Tov.

The relationship of domestic servants to their employers in our days is arguably different than it was in previous generations. As such, there may be certain leniencies that the employer of a NJH may utilize for Shabbos and Yom Tov, based on three factors: (1) the NJH’s specific responsibilities, (2) the manner of asking, and (3) the nature of the benefit. This is not the place to elaborate; a competent rav should be consulted personally to insure that Shabbos and Yom Tov are kept properly.

The Honor of God; the Dignity of Man

No discussion of employing a NJH would be complete without a mention of K’vod Habriyos (human dignity) and K’vod Shamayim (the Honor of G-d). In ten words or less: One must treat the NJH well. This means much more than just paying what we promise to pay. It means acting on our awareness that the NJH has inherent worth by dint of her humanity. Weighing in on a topic discussed and debated by the Acharonim (latter-day authorities), Maran Hagaon Rav Ahron Soloveichik writes, “[E]very human being, regardless of religion, race, origin or creed is endowed with Divine dignity. Consequently, all people are to be treated with equal respect and dignity. The Torah says in Genesis, ‘In the Image of G-d, He created Man’ (1:27).” Furthermore, says Rav Soloveichik, “[I]t is incumbent upon one to love all of Mankind created in the Image.” This, arguably, reflects what we find in Pirkei Avos. We are taught, “Be among the disciples of Aharon Hakohen: love peace and pursue it; love people (Habriyos) and bring them close to the Torah.” And we are told that love of people (Ahavas Habriyos) is an attribute of that elevated individual who occupies himself with Torah-study for its own sake.

(Rav Soloveichik adds one qualification to loving non-Jews: “We cannot apply brotherly love to towards all non-Jews, including all the anti-Semites. Love of non-Jews must be commensurate with their behavior.” )

Implementation of this directive has repercussions beyond K’vod Habriyos. It leads to Kiddush Hashem. As the Amora Abayye teaches us, “You should cause G-d’s Name to be beloved” through exemplary conduct. And lest we underestimate the importance of Kiddush Hashem, let us hear the clarion call from the Ramchal and Rav Chaim Friedlander. The Ramchal states that a person can have no higher focus in fulfilling a mitzvah than to generate a Kiddush Hashem, no greater intention than seeking “to magnify and increase His Honor.” Rav Friedlander writes that the “purpose of Creation,” its “bottom-line,” is to generate Kiddush Hashem. He adds, citing Rabbenu Yonah, that “the main reason G-d sanctified us with His Torah and His commandments was in order for us to sanctify Him and revere Him.”

May we all merit to accomplish this lofty task.

Rabbi Ferrell is a Rabbinic Coordinator at the Orthodox Union and is involved with chemical companies and OU Kashrus Education.

Mordechai, Avodah Zarah, Ch.2; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 122:9.
Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah I:61.
Hakashrus, by Rav Yitzchak Ya’akov Fuchs, Ch. 9, n.326.
Personal communication to this writer. Is it possible that the NJH could be left alone in the house without safeguards if she has no reason to eat in the house by dint of arriving after breakfast and leaving before lunchtime? This question requires further investigation.
Hakashrus, Ch. 9, n.326.
Personal communication to this writer.
Chullin 95/a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 63.
Shach, Yoreh Deah 63:6; Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah 63:3.
Hakashrus, Ch. 9, n.326; cf. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 118:10 & Shach, loc. cit. #8.
Chullin 95/B; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 63:1. In OU Document F-40, Rav Hershel Schachter discusses the halachic difference between one seal and two. Vide Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 118 for a discussion of the need for sealing when using a non-Jew as a “delivery boy” or watchman for meat.
Cf. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 118:10; personal communications from Rav David Feinstein and Rav J. David Bleich; Hakashrus 9:111.
The present writer has discussed this question with Rav David Feinstein, Rav Yisroel Belsky, and Rav Hershel Schachter, and they did not come to identical decisions.
Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 118:1.
Avodah Zarah, Ch.4; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 123-124. Rav Elimelech Lebowitz points out that some forbid wine that was merely seen by a non-Jew, and that this stringency is customarily observed in Chassidic communities and by certain non-Chassidic Jews, as well.
Avodah Zarah 60/A; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 124:18, 125-126; personal communication from Rav Yisroel Belsky.
Avodah Zarah 64/B & 69/A-B; Rema, Yoreh Deah 128:1 & 129:1. Vide Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 118 for a discussion of the need for sealing when using a non-Jew as a “delivery boy” or watchman for wine. In Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah 118:1, we see that the concern with delivery boys and watchmen is that they will exchange it for non-kosher wine.
Personal communication from Rav Yisroel Belsky.
Shach, Yoreh Deah 123:1; Taz, Yoreh Deah 123:1.
Avodah Zarah 31/A; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 130.
Avodah Zarah 30/A; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 123:3.
Taz, Yoreh Deah 123:3.The Ba’er Heiteiv, loc. cit. #2, citing Rishonim (see OU Document A-171), states that the reason for this leniency is that cooked wine is not prevalent (“Aini Matzu’i Kol Kach”) and therefore no legislation was made regarding it.
Based on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 118 & 130:3.
Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah 118:1; Shach 130:7; Taz 130:6.
Avodah Zarah 69/A-B; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 129:1. Rav Yitzchok Mincer told this writer that this approach applies to Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 118, as well, although it might pose a logistical challenge.
Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2:52.
OU Document A-171, quoting Rav Hershel Schachter.
Hakashrus 19:45.
Rav Yisroel Belsky explained to this writer that something that is edible raw in an emergency is not considered “edible raw” in the context of Bishul Akum if it’s not eaten raw under normal circumstances.
Avodah Zarah 35/B & 38/A; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 113:1; personal communication from Rav Yisroel Belsky. This is not the place to deal with the question of requiring Bishul Yisroel for a food’s unimportant varieties (e.g., salmon in a can) if its important forms (e.g., salmon steak that’s broiled) are served at state dinners; vide Rav Binyamin Forst, Pis’chei Halacha: Kitzur Hilchos Kashrus, Teshuvah #17 from the Debretziner Rav (p.160). Rav Hershel Schachter discusses the issue of kashering utensils that came in contact with Bishul Akum; vide B’Ikvei Hatzon, Ch. 26 (especially p.157).
Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah 112:1.
Rema, Yoreh Deah 113:7.
Vide Beis Shmuel 22:1, citing Tosafos and the Tur, and Aruch Hashulchan, Even Ha-ezer 22:2
And/or their students: vide Avodah Zarah 36/B. I heard from Chacham Echad that Yichud with a non-Jewess may be an Issur D’Oraysa (Biblical prohibition) for a Kohen.
Avodah Zarah 36/B; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 22:2.
Aruch Hashulchan, Even Ha-ezer 22:1.
Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 22:3.
Vide Beis Shmuel 22:22 & Aruch Hashulchan, Even Ha-ezer 22:15.
Vide Halichos V’halachos Yichud, by Rav Chaggai Elyashiv Na’eh, 6:2. Even the authorities who accept the lenient view (see previous note) would agree that, if the fellow and the NJH relate to one another as friends on some level and not merely as employer and employee, the leniency may not apply at all; vide Halichos V’halachos Yichud 7:4.
Based on Halichos V’halachos Yichud 3:5.
Based on Halichos V’halachos Yichud 9:2-5.
Kiddushin 81/A; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 22:9.
Based on Halichos V’halachos Yichud 8:3.
Based on Halichos V’halachos Yichud 8:6.
Berachos 24/A; Rema, Orach Chaim 75:1.
Mishnah Berurah 75:5. For a very unlikely case where closing one’s eyes would not be sufficient, vide Mishnah Berurah 75:29.
Shabbos 64/b; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 21:1. For exceptions to this prohibition, vide Rema, Yoreh Deah 195:7 & Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 21:3-4. The NJH is not an exception!
Mishnah Berurah 75:7.
Devarim 23:10, explained in Avodah Zarah 20/B and Tosafos loc. cit. d.v. Shelo Yeharhair. The question of avoiding seminal emissions during non-intromittent spousal contact is beyond the scope of this article, but vide Igros Moshe, Even Ha-ezer 4:66.
Cf. Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 21:1 & 23:3. Vide Igros Moshe, Even Ha-ezer 1:56, where he states that the prohibition on gazing at women is due to the fact that it leads to ruminations.
Outside of the context of spousal contact.
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 307:16.
Sha’ar Hatziyyun 560:25.
For a comprehensive treatment of this topic, including the circumstances when there are permits, vide Rabbi David Ribiat, The 39 Melachos, , pp.63-89.
Rabbi David Ribiat, The 39 Melachos, p.82.
Vide Rav J. David Bleich’s article, “Study of Anatomy:I-Dissection” in Tradition 19:3, where he discusses the debate, and vide the Tiferes Yisroel, Avos 3:88 & 3:93.
Logic Of The Heart, Logic Of The Mind, p.62.
Ibid., p.70. According to OU Document X-107, Rav Yisroel Belsky was once asked, “Since there is an obligation to walk in the ways of Hashem, and the verse states, ‘Hashem is good to all; His mercies are on the entirety of His handiwork,’ would we say that bestowing kindness to non-Jews is valid and/or obligatory?” Rav Belsky responded in the affirmative, based on citations from Chazal.
Avos 1:12; vide commentaries of Tosafos Yom Tov and Tiferes Yisroel loc. cit.
Ibid., 6:1.
Logic Of The Heart, Logic Of The Mind, p.78.
Yoma 86/a.
Mesilas Yeshorim, Ch. 19.
Siach Chaim, pp. 147-148.

Kashrus and Allergens

Health matters require the guidance of qualified health professionals. The purpose of this article is to set forth general information pertaining to kashrus designations and how they might relate to allergens. Persons whose health might be affected by allergens should seek the advice of qualified health professionals.

Have you ever seen a product label with the word “pareve” appearing on the front, and a “may contain traces of milk” statement under the ingredient panel on the back? This outward and superficial inconsistency has generated much confusion among kosher consumers. Kosher certifying agencies are regularly contacted by concerned consumers, who understand that they have a responsibility to regularly read product labels, about possible mislabeling of dairy products as pareve. However, the two claims, pareve and “may contain traces of milk” are not inconsistent at all. The statement adjacent to the ingredient panel is known as an allergen disclaimer, which has no bearing as to whether a product is halachically considered milichig or pareve.

Allergens are substances that can be potential catalysts of undesirable reactions by an immune system in individuals that are hypersensitive to that substance. Often, food allergy sufferers are extraordinarily sensitive to specific foods that can cause an adverse reaction by their immune system. The presence or “traces” of these substances can have a negative effect when present in a product, even in proportions of parts per million. Manufacturing and/or label companies routinely place allergen disclaimers on a product label out of fear of legal action. The negative effects of exposing a hypersensitive person to an allergen can be catastrophic, and sometimes even fatal. Food companies are very likely to be subject to possible litigation in the event that someone becomes sick or harmed from consuming their product.

Some very common food allergens include, but are not limited to, eggs, milk, nuts, seafood, and wheat. Manufacturing plants usually have very rigorous requirements, or “special allergen cleanups”, after producing products containing allergens, before the manufacturing of non-allergen containing products may begin.

The FDA has established Good Manufacturing Practices (aka “GMP”) that provide general guidelines for food preparation, processing, packaging, storage and distribution, to ensure wholesomeness of food sold in the U.S. These guidelines extend to allergens as well. The FDA has clearly stated that allergen disclaimers appearing on product labels are not a substitute for following GMP, but nevertheless stipulate that claims of this nature must be truthful and not misleading.

If a food manufacturer has reason to suspect that cross-contamination from an allergen has occurred in a food, they will make a declaration on the production label. If they believe that not to be the case, they typically will not, although some manufacturers may still prefer to err on the side of caution. Companies usually assess the presence of allergens from cross-contamination by swabbing production equipment and analyzing the swabs in a laboratory. Many food manufacturers will establish what is known as an “allergen management program” based on those test results and what seems to successfully deal with allergens on a practical level at their facility. In some instances, food manufacturers may choose to hire an independent organization to conduct allergen audits and make these assessments.

It is very common in the preparation of food that equipment is shared between allergens and non-allergens. When common cooking vessels are used for non-kosher and kosher productions, cooking equipment must first undergo a rigorous kashering before producing kosher. Even before kashering begins, multiple cleaning procedures are routinely performed to remove all reside from the prior production, with potential allergen concerns eliminated after the kashering concludes. However, an overly cautious company may still choose to place a disclaimer on the product because of a non-kosher allergen, like seafood, for additional protection against any legal liability. .

There are other instances where this kind of situation, equipment shared between allergens and non-allergens, may occur. For example, a dairy and pareve cereal may share a common packing line that simply bags and boxes cereal. Nevertheless, the company may feel compelled to place an allergen disclaimer on the cereal box because of possible, miniscule dairy residues that might remain even after some sort of cleaning. Moreover, the same company might even have dedicated equipment for dairy and pareve products, but will still place a disclaimer on the box because of airborne dairy dust that may travel throughout the plant! In either of these two scenarios, the product may be 100% pareve, but there still might be room for concern for allergens.

Packing equipment, for example, does not involve and cooking or heat and therefore does not require kashering from milichigs to pareve. However, extensive buildup of residue from dairy products could potentially affect the status of non-dairy products packaged on the same equipment afterwards. However, if the equipment is cleaned properly to remove any unwanted dairy residue before a pareve product is exposed to the equipment, there is no kashrus issue. The mishna in Terumos states that vessels, which are used to contain teruma, may be also used to store chullin provided that the vessel is cleaned adequately from teruma beforehand. The mishna defines an acceptable cleaning as what is typically done to properly clean a vessel from non-teruma, which is know as kederech haminakrim. The standard practice of cleaning a container from any food is considered sufficient to render it clean, even from teruma, and an overly excessive cleansing of the vessel is not necessary . In practical terms, if machinery is used at ambient temperatures and shared between dairy and pareve products, a standard cleaning to reduce unwanted dairy residue to minuscule, insignificant proportions is sufficient to consider non-dairy products handled by the same machinery as pareve. However, this will very likely not eliminate an allergen concern.

Since allergens are a hypersensitive area, literally, label disclaimers indicating the possibility of cross-contamination from allergens (e.g.-“may contain traces of milk”, “made on equipment that also handles nuts and dairy”, “processed on equipment that also processes shellfish and other seafood” etc.) typically have no bearing on a food’s kosher or pareve status. Consumers should understand that because of this reality, kashrus agencies do not take responsibility to assess whether allergens are an issue at a manufacturing facility. If a consumer is concerned with the possibility of allergens in a product, those questions or inquiries should be addressed directly to the label company. The label company is the one best equipped and prepared to deal with these consumer inquiries and is usually more than happy to provide any needed guidance.

Checking Vegetables for Insects

Waiter: What would you like for an appetizer?

Customer: Salad, please.

The popularity of fruits, vegetables, and berries has increased in recent years due to positive scientific studies about potential health benefits from antioxidants contained in them. However, some consumers have still hesitated to plunge into the world of health out of fear of possibly consuming insects, which are strictly forbidden by the Torah. Nevertheless, kashrus agencies have responded by providing consumers with guidelines as how to handle produce and ensure that insects are avoided. The task may seem daunting at first, but it’s definitely doable. It is possible to have your veggies and eat them too!

The following are guidelines for some select items. There are manuals and guides available from kashrus agencies that provide a more comprehensive list. Please note there is no one absolute and correct way to check vegetables for bugs. There are numerous acceptable methods that have proven to be effective.

Asparagus, Green

DESCRIPTION:
Asparagus is a spear-like vegetable approximately 6–8” long with triangle scales along the sides, culminating with an arrangement of triangular tips.

INFESTATION:
Thrips are primarily found under the triangle scales and somewhat less frequently in the tips of the asparagus.

INSPECTION:
Asparagus can be used in the following manner:
1. Shave down the floret at the asparagus tip.
2. Remove the triangle parts along the side of the asparagus. (A potato peeler is recommended.)
3. Wash thoroughly.

When prepared in this manner, special inspection is not necessary.


Asparagus, White

This hard to find and very expensive cousin to green asparagus has neither open florets nor scales for the insects to occupy. Hence, it may be used without any special preparation. However, it should be washed thoroughly before using.

Lettuce, Open Leaf

DESCRIPTION:
Bibb, Bok Choy, Boston, Butter Lettuce, Chicory, Chinese Lettuce (Napa), Green Leaf, Red Leaf, Romaine, and Watercress all grow in a similar fashion. As they sprout forth from the ground, the leaves begin to open up like a flower. Toward the end of their growth, they begin to close around the stalk.

INFESTATION:
The insects most commonly found in open leaf lettuce are small green aphids or thrips. The leaves of the vegetable often camouflage these insects. The open structure of these vegetables allows insects to penetrate the entire head. Often, insects may be found between the innermost layers of leaves of an infested head. Therefore, each leaf must be washed and checked individually. The use of a light box for checking lettuce is extremely helpful.

Please note: Many of these varieties feature curly leaves with many folds in which the insects tend to hide. We therefore recommend that they be washed and checked with extreme caution.

INSPECTION:
1. Cut off the lettuce base and separate the leaves from one another.
2. Soak leaves in a solution of cold water and vegetable wash. The proper amount of vegetable wash has been added when some bubbles are observed in the water. (In the absence of vegetable wash, several drops of concentrated non-scented liquid detergent may be used. However, for health reasons, care must be taken to thoroughly rinse off the soapy solution.)
3. Agitate lettuce leaves in the soapy solution.
4. Spread each leaf, taking care to expose all its curls and crevices. Using a heavy stream of water or a power hose, remove all foreign matter and soap from both sides of each leaf. Alternatively, a vegetable brush may be used on both sides of the leaf.
5. Leaves should be checked over a light box or under strong overhead lighting to verify that the washing procedure has been effective. Pay careful attention to the folds and crevices in the leaf where insects have been known to hold tightly through several washings.

Herbs-Fresh-Household Use

DESCRIPTION:
Fresh basil, cilantro, dill, mint, oregano, parsley, rosemary, sage and thyme are often used as spices or garnishing.

Please note: Curly leaf parsley is very difficult to check. It is therefore recommended that only flat leaf parsley be used.

INFESTATION:
Aphids, thrips and other insects may often be found on the leaves and stems of these herbs. Insects tend to nestle in the crevices between the leaves and branches of herbs. These insects can curl up and stick to the leaf once they come in contact with water.

Recommendation: In order to determine if a particular bunch of herbs is infested prior to washing, bang it several times over a white cloth. This is most important when checking oregano, rosemary, sage and thyme. If only one or two insects are found proceed with the steps below. If three or more insects are detected in a particular bunch of herbs it should not be used.

INSPECTION:
1. Soak herbs in a solution of cold water and vegetable wash. The proper amount of vegetable wash has been added when some bubbles are observed in the water. (In the absence of vegetable wash, several drops of concentrated non-scented liquid detergent may be used. However, for health reasons, care must be taken to thoroughly rinse off the soapy solution.)
2. Agitate the herbs in the soapy water, in order to loosen the sticking excretion of the bugs.
3. Using a heavy stream of water, thoroughly wash off the soap and other foreign matter from the herbs.
4. Check both sides of each leaf under a direct light.
5. If one or two insects are found, rewash the herbs.
6. If any insects are found after repeating the agitation process twice, the entire bunch must be discarded.

Please note: When preparing herbs such as cilantro, dill and parsley for soup, they may simply be washed thoroughly and placed in a cooking bag.

Raspberries

DESCRIPTION:
Considered by many the most intensely flavored member of the berry family, the raspberry is composed of many connecting drupelets (individual sections of fruit, each with its own seed) surrounding a central core. There are three main varieties — black, golden and red, the latter being the most widely available. Fresh raspberries are typically available from May through November.

INFESTATION:
Raspberries can be heavily infested with small mites and thrips. These insects can be nestled on the surface of the berry as well as inside the open cavity of the raspberry. Occasionally, small worms may be found in the cavity of the berry. Note that tiny, dark-colored, leaf-like or seed-like protrusions in the berry’s cavity may appear similar to insects, making the true insects difficult to discern.

INSPECTION:
Due to the very delicate nature of raspberries, they cannot be placed in water nor may they be extensively handled. Therefore, we recommend the following procedure as the most practical and effective way of checking raspberries:

1. Stretch a white cloth or sheet of white freezer paper over a light box or on a countertop with ample overhead lighting. Raspberries should be dropped one by one onto the white surface. This will dislodge at least some of the insects that may inhabit the berry.
2. If insects are found in a pint of berries, the pint might be infested and may not be used. There is no washing procedure that will guarantee removal of all of the insects.
3. If after dropping the berries no insects are found, the berries should be visually inspected one by one. Pay careful attention to the cavity of the berry where insects often hide.

The above article is based on the OU Guide for Checking Fruits, Vegetables, and Berries-2nd edition.

Rabbi Bistricer is a Rabbinic Coordinator at the Orthodox Union and specializes in, among other things, fruits and vegetables.

Retail Dairy Products: Whats, Hows and Whys

Previous installments in this series have investigated dairy foods from the perspective of the posek, mashgiach and kashrus administrator. We delved into halachic and highly-technical material, attempting to gain insight into the many complexities of dairy kashrus.
This presentation will address the kashrus of dairy products from a different perspective – that of the retail consumer, who shops the aisles and seeks practical advice and a basic, yet firm understanding of which dairy products do and do not pose kashrus concerns, how these concerns affect the kashrus of the products, and why the consumer should or should not exercise caution when purchasing these products.
It should be noted that although much of the information will be presented in brief – as this is a practical guide and not a research paper - this forum provides us with the flexibility to include some interesting products which heretofore were not addressed at all in previous installments of this series.
One more point: Consumers occasionally assume that the presence of an OUD symbol on a dairy product – especially milk - indicates that the product is chalav Yisrael (made from specially-supervised milk). Such products are not chalav Yisrael unless stated specifically on the label. The OU, as well as most national kashrus agencies, relies on the position formulated in Igros Moshe (YD 1:47-49) which rules that regular domestic commercial milk (in the United States and most developed countries) is acceptable. That having been said, OU-certified products which do bear a chalav Yisrael statement are produced with the most meticulous chalav Yisrael standards and are often supervised in active partnership with other well-respected kashrus agencies which cater exclusively to the chalav Yisrael consumer base. This presentation follows general OU dairy policy, but – as you will see - the issues addressed in the vast majority of the discussion pertain to chalav Yisrael products as well.

Enough introduction – let’s begin:
Milk
For those who consume chalav stam (regular commercial milk without special rabbinic supervision): Unflavored whole, skim and low-fat milk in the refrigerated section of one’s supermarket may be purchased without any kosher certification in the United States and most developed countries.
Although dairies which pasteurize, homogenize and bottle milk are at times also shared by kosher-sensitive products, there are several factors which alleviate concerns posed by possible sharing of equipment by milk and other products.
1. Use of regular milk production lines for other products is not the norm.
2. Milk plants’ “Cleaning In Place” (“CIP”) sanitization systems serves to kasher or nullify the effects of equipment’s shared use with other products.
3. Even in a situation where another product is manufactured on the milk line, the residual taste of other products in milk, if any, is (PLEASE KEEP IN WORD “OFTEN”) negative (nosain ta’am li-f’gam), resulting in no ta’am issur (prohibited absorbed taste) in the milk. (See Yoreh Deah siman 103.)
Commercial milk contains vitamins A and D. [how often are these not kosher?]Although these vitamins may be kosher-sensitive – as they can derive from non-kosher fish oil -, they are used in extremely miniscule quantities and do not affect the kosher status of the milk.
It must be noted that any milk which bears an OUD symbol means that the OU visits the milk facility and assures that the production equipment is either dedicated exclusively to milk or is formally kashered for milk production. Presence of the OUD symbol on milk also indicates that all vitamins in the milk are kosher. (The OU does not rely on bittul – halachic nullification – in its certification, and the appearance of an OU symbol indicates that an OU mashgiach personally visits the production facility on an ongoing basis to verify the kashrus of the certified product, even if it is milk, bottled water, or any other innocuous food.)
Flavored milk, such as chocolate milk, always needs hashgacha (kosher supervision). Aside from the not-so-innocuous flavors used, flavored milks also utilize stabilizers (kosher-sensitive ingredients which contribute to smooth texture) and sweeteners. Egg nog likewise needs reliable kosher certification, sharing the same concerns as flavored milk (and it also requires kosher-sensitive egg nog flavor or base).
Juice, Punch, Iced Coffee and Iced Tea
These products are often manufactured at dairies. The reason for this is that these beverages are usually pasteurized (heat-treated to destroy harmful bacteria), and their packaging requirements are similar to those of milk. Since these pasteurization and packaging requirements are somewhat compatible, dairies find it efficient (and profitable) to share their equipment with production of these non-dairy beverages.
In theory, pure orange, grapefruit and apple juice are always kosher (unless they are from Eretz Yisrael, in which case Terumah and Ma’aser must be taken). However, dairies which process these juices often share lines with various other products (most notably non-kosher grape juice and – of course - milk). Although the three rationales presented earlier which permit milk to be purchased without hashgacha apply here, the various factors involved in the case of juice production (such as the likelihood of non-kosher grape juice sharing juice equipment and the potential use of juice lines for other beverages) may be reason for the consumer to exercise caution. If one does purchase orange, grapefruit or apple juice without kosher certification, it is important to be sure that there are no additives. Ruby red grapefruit juice often has non-kosher carmine color added.
Iced tea and iced coffee contain various additives and need reliable hashgacha.
Punch is a blend of juices, flavors and often colors, and it needs kosher certification. (Punch frequently contains non-kosher grape juice or is made on equipment shared with non-kosher grape juice.)
Long Shelf-Life Beverages
Unlike refrigerated beverages, long shelf-life milk and juice box beverages are much more prone to share equipment with various other dairy and non-kosher products. These items are aseptically pasteurized at extremely high temperatures, and the plants which manufacture them are commonly multi-functional facilities which frequently process anything and everything – from milk to chicken broth to grape juice to (non-kosher pork and beef) gelatin-based confectioneries. Although the actual aseptic pasteurizer is sterilized at very high temperatures, related equipment is often not cleaned at temperatures which kasher, and caustic solution (to be pogem (embitter) non-kosher absorbed flavor and render it null) is often not used between all products. One should not purchase long shelf-life beverages without reliable certification.
Buttermilk
Most retail buttermilk is not at all the same as natural buttermilk, which is derived from the production of butter. Retail buttermilk is milk which is inoculated with lactic acid, and it may contain non-kosher emulsifiers or stabilizers. Please never purchase without reliable hashgacha!
Powdered Milk
Fluid milk is dried into powder on equipment called “spray-dryers”. In order for it to be instantly soluble, powdered milk is agglomerated, meaning that the powder’s particles are lumped together with moisture. This enables them to dissolve better into water. The equipment used for drying milk into powder and for agglomerating it is often shared with non-kosher foods; therefore, powdered milk should always be bought with kosher certification.
Condensed Milk
This product is often sold in small cans reading “Sweetened Condensed Milk”, and is particularly useful in many baking applications. Although it is not loaded with ingredients, it does require hashgacha. Here is why:
When products are condensed, much of their excess water is removed, thereby forming a concentrated version of the original product. Condensers (often referred to as “evaporators”) vacuum water out of liquids and operate at very high temperatures. Evaporators at dairies and other types of plants are often shared by a variety of different products and are not sanitized in a manner which constitutes a kashering. Hence, when purchasing condensed products, seek out those which bear a reliable hechsher (kosher symbol).
Half and Half
Half and half is presumed by some consumers to be automatically kosher. These consumers reason that since half and half is half milk and half cream, which are of course kosher, one can use half and half without concern. Whereas consumer presumptions are sometimes accurate, this one is surely not!
Half and half – from a kashrus perspective - suffers from two maladies:
1. Cream (dairy fat) is not always kosher. There are two types of cream: sweet cream, which is derived from milk (and is kosher), and whey cream, which is derived from cheese-making. Whey cream is often non-kosher, and the cream in many dairy products can be in the form of pure whey cream or a blend of sweet cream and whey cream.
2. Half and half contains emulsifiers which enable the milk and cream to mix properly. These emulsifiers may be animal-derived.
Bottom line: Half and half is not innocuous. Its kashrus needs a thorough interrogation and must be certified by a reliable agency.
Nutritional Fluids (Protein Beverages, Infant Formulas)
If you thought that half and half posed potential problems, wait ‘til you find out what these nutritional products contain.
Protein beverages usually contain casein – the predominant protein in milk, which is spray-dried into powder, and they also often contain whey proteins - which come from cheese-making. The casein in these products is usually spray-dried twice: once when converting it from its liquid state into a powder, and again after it is rehydrated and made into a soluble casein salt called a caseinate. The drying equipment used for casein/caseinate may be shared with anything, thus making casein/caseinate a kosher-sensitive product.
Whey is even more sensitive from a kashrus standpoint. Whey can become non-kosher in any of three ways (pardon the bad pun):
1. The cheese from which the whey is derived was made with non-kosher animal-based rennet (the enzyme which forms milk into cheese). Non-kosher rennet forms the cheese and whey and is a davar ha-ma’amid (an ingredient which gives form) in both the cheese and whey and is never batel (nullified) in them when non-kosher (ShuT Chasam Sofer Yoreh Deah 79), even though the amount of rennet used in cheese-making is very minute.
2. The whey is derived from cheese made at hot temperatures. As we will address later, cheese made without special on-site kosher supervision is deemed non-kosher; it is called “Gevinas Akum”. However, the whey which derives from Gevinas Akum is not per se non-kosher, as whey is the portion of the milk which did not become converted into cheese, and it is therefore not subject to the unique kosher stringencies of cheese. If otherwise-kosher whey has hot contact with Gevinas Akum, the whey is rendered non-kosher as well, just as any kosher food which has hot contact with a non-kosher substance becomes non-kosher. (Among the more common hot-temperature cheeses are some varieties of Swiss, plus Parmesan and Romano. It should also be noted that some Dutch and Scandinavian cheeses undergo a hot wash in their vats, along with their whey, right after these cheeses are produced. This process renders the whey non-kosher, as it causes the hot absorption of non-kosher cheese taste into the whey.)
3. The whey comes from Mozzarella or Provolone cheese production. Although these cheeses are not coagulated with very high levels of heat, they are transferred from their vats after coagulation to a hot cheese cooker. While being cooked, these cheeses are stretched and pulled, endowing them with an elastic texture, making them ideal for melting into Italian dishes. The cooker's water (now full of taste, fat and assorted residue from these non-kosher cheeses) is commonly salvaged and incorporated into whey, making the whey non-kosher.
Whey is clearly a kashrus minefield, and any product containing it needs very tight hashgacha.
Now that we have dealt with powdered milk, condensed milk, casein/caseinates and whey, touching upon emulsifiers as well, we are ready to address infant formulas - as they contain all of these ingredients and more. There is no rationale for purchasing uncertified infant formulas, as the kashrus risks they pose are immense. In the event of lack of availability of kosher formulas (or nutritional supplements, for those who truly require them), the consumer must consult a competent halachic authority for guidance.
Yogurt
The manufacture of yogurt begins with milk, plus the frequent addition of condensed skim milk and skim milk powder (to lower fat ratios) and cream (to raise fat ratios). Stabilizers, such as gelatin, gums and starch are dosed in, and the product is pasteurized. Subsequently, the yogurt is cooled, and it is inoculated with cultures and kept warm for several hours. Fruit blends and flavors are also commonly incorporated into the product.
It is clear that yogurt needs reliable kashrus certification. The potential use of cream (which may contain non-kosher whey cream), condensed skim milk and skim milk powder (which may be processed on non-kosher equipment) themselves warrant vigilance. Gelatin,- unless specially ordered as kosher and bearing reliable hashgacha - is from non-kosher animal sources, even when identified as ‘kosher gelatin’. Yogurt fruit blends sometimes contain carmine color, which is a deep red shade extracted from beetles. Yogurt cultures may be grown from non-kosher nutrients and may be processed in culture laboratories on equipment shared with all types of things (including proteins from animal organs). Unlike many dairy products which in previous times were often somewhat innocuous in terms of kashrus, yogurt was never considered to be free of kosher concerns even in its most simple, primitive form. Bottom line: don't purchase yogurt without a good hechsher.
Ice Cream
Ice cream is made from a base of cream, which - like yogurt - often includes skim milk powder and condensed skim milk to control fat ratios. The base (referred to as a "mix" in ice cream plants) is pasteurized and cooled, and stabilizers (to prevent ice cream from turning into ice crystals) and sweeteners are added. The mix is whipped (to incorporate air into the mix, so that it is not a heavy, think ice cube-like chunk), and flavors, variegates (soft syrupy materials, like fudge and caramel) and particulates (bits and pieces, such as nuts and chips) may be added. The ice cream is then immediately frozen.
Clearly, the cream, condensed skim milk and skim milk powder are issues, as are the stabilizers, variegates and particulates. There is no need to elaborate here on the need to only purchase ice cream with reliable kosher certification.
Sherbet and Sorbet
No, these are not two ways to spell the same product. Sherbet and sorbet are very different foods, and their differing halachic status is critical (yet sadly sometimes overlooked).
Sherbet (according to the legal definition, per the US Food & Drug Administration) is dairy dessert which has 1-2% dairy content. Sherbet is milchig, similar to ice cream, but the majority of its ingredients are fruit bases and flavors.
On the other hand, sorbet is officially a non-dairy frozen dessert. Because the words “sherbet” and “sorbet” sound similar, some consumers mistakenly assume that sherbet is a pareve food. By definition, sherbet is dairy.
Both sherbet and sorbet require kosher certification. Here is why:
Sherbet often contains skim milk powder and condensed skim milk. Both sherbet and sorbet contain stabilizers, which provide smoothness of texture and prevent the product from forming into ice crystals. Fruit bases, flavors and artificial colors used in sherbet and sorbet are likewise kosher-sensitive. In order to enable the various components of sherbet and sorbet to blend properly, emulsifiers are often used. As noted earlier, emulsifiers can be animal-derived. This is serious stuff…
Although the FDA defines sorbet as non-dairy, Halacha occasionally begs to differ. While in theory, sorbet should be pareve, and much of the sorbet on the market is indeed pareve, some sorbet is certified as dairy – even though it contains no actual milk. Why is this?
Two things can render sorbet dairy from a halachic point of view:
1. Production on dairy equipment: Sorbet is almost always manufactured on equipment used for ice cream. This equipment is often not koshered when transitioning from ice cream to sorbet, and the sorbet made after ice cream is therefore considered to be dairy. (One can eat such sorbet after a meat dish, but it may not be consumed with meat. It is halachically classified as “Nat bar Nat”, as it has absorbed dairy taste but no physical dairy content. See Remo in Yoreh Deah 95:2.)
2. Actual dairy content: Some sorbet ingredients may have dairy content. For example, berry flavors can contain milk, which provides for smooth mouthfeel.

Coffee Creamers
To the surprise of many, creamers are truly just about anything but cream. Although they may contain cream, these products are loaded with emulsifiers, starches, sweeteners, and often caseinates. It is quite common for such products to have no cream and to therefore bear on their packaging "Non-Dairy Creamer", while they really contain caseinates, which are purely dairy. The reason for this apparent deception is that casein is not manufactured in the United States, and the US dairy lobby - which seeks to keep casein out of the country and promote the use of domestic milk powder instead - has succeeded in compelling food labeling regulations which attempt to sway consumers away from products which contain casein and caseinates. These products are thus termed "non-dairy", so that consumers will have the impression that the products are not natural and contain some type of artificial chemical imposter rather than real, natural dairy ingredients.
Kosher consumers occasionally see "non-dairy" creamers INSERT “AND” assume that they are pareve. Unless these products (which obviously need hashgacha) bear a "pareve" symbol, they must be treated as dairy.
Butter
Traditionally, butter was made by taking a bucket of sweet cream and churning it, so that its fat coalesced and clumped together (into butter), and the excess liquid (buttermilk) was removed. Because milk from non-kosher animals does not churn into butter, many halachic authorities ruled that butter is exempt from the requirement of chalav Yisrael and that butter, therefore, can be purchased from anyone. (See Rambam Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 3:16 and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 115:3.)
For the most part, times have changed. Butter is often made from whey cream or from blends of sweet cream and whey cream; some butter, more common in Europe than in the US, contains cultures, and Europe also has something called "traced butter", which contains food-grade chemical tracers which can inform the recipient of the butter's cream source; these tracers are often non-kosher. Furthermore, butter often contains starter distillate, which is a flavor agent derived from whey and milk condensate. In short, butter today is markedly more complex than in the days of Chazal.
In theory, if one could determine that butter in a certain location were only made from sweet cream and had no additives, such butter would be kosher and would not require certification. European Union dairy regulations bar butter plants from manufacturing sweet cream and whey cream butter under the same roof. If one could ascertain that an EU butter plant is a sweet cream facility and that no additives are used, there is room to permit such butter without hashgacha. The problem is that one usually needs a kosher certification agency to make such verification; it is therefore not practical or accurate to say that one can purchase butter from EU facilities without hashgacha.
In the US, butter is graded according to its purity of taste and mouthfeel. AA grade butter is bland and smooth, while lower grade butter is more tangy and may be rougher to the palate. Some have argued that AA butter may be purchased without kosher certification, as only sweet cream can provide purity and blandness of taste (and AA butter does not contain starter distillate). Whey cream, which comes from cheese production, is naturally more tangy and flavorful. The truth is that even AA grade butter can contain some whey cream, so long as the whey cream doesn't detract from a pure and bland taste. The OU therefore does not accept or endorse butter without reliable hashgacha.
Hard Cheese
As noted earlier, Chazal forbade cheese which was not manufactured with supervision. (See Avodah Zarah 29b and 35a, Rambam Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 3:13 and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 115:2.) Although the Amora'im in the Gemara present various rationales for this ban (AZ 35a and 35b), the rationale advanced by Shmuel - that we fear that unsupervised cheese may have been coagulated via rennet from the stomach of a neveilah (non-kosher slaughtered) animal - is adopted by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch rules that even if one knows that a certain cheese was not manufactured with non-kosher rennet, such cheese is nonetheless totally prohibited. This is the Halacha.
The Remo (YD ibid.) rules that for a cheese to be kosher, there must be supervision; the mashgiach thereby verifies that only kosher enzymes were used. However, the Shach (ibid. s.k. 20) and the Gra (ibid. s.k. 14) argue with the Remo and postulate that the supervisor must himself physically add the (kosher) rennet to the milk to form the cheese. These authorities maintain that the requirement for Gevinas Yisrael is akin to those of Pas Yisrael and Bishul Yisrael, such that there be physical action by the Yisrael in creating the food. Many poskim rule like the Remo and several rule like the Shach and the Gra; most recognized kashrus agencies are careful to make sure that both opinions are satisfied when certifying cheese.
It is imperative that consumers know that all hard cheese requires reliable hashgacha. It is unfortunate that many cheeses bear unreliable kosher symbols – some of which appear to be very elaborate, religious-heimishe hechsherim – but are actually representative of agencies which have inferior standards (such as relying on an extreme minority opinion – rejected by most Rishonim and poskim - that hard cheese does not need a mashgiach present – see Remo in Yoreh Deah ibid. s. 2), [ can you give examples of lower standards?]or represent agencies with a lack of adequate and trained mashgichim. Never purchase cheese unless you are fully sure that the agency which certifies it is reliable and maintains acceptable halachic and supervisory standards. Cheese without proper hashgacha is Gevinas Akum and is considered by Halacha to be wholly non-kosher, even if its ingredients are themselves kosher.
Soft Cheese
Some poskim rule that even soft cheese, such as cream cheese and cottage cheese, is subject to the special Gevinas Yisrael requirements explained earlier, and that lack of fulfillment of these requirements renders such cheese Gevinas Akum. Other poskim hold that only hard cheese is encumbered by these special regulations, but that soft cheese is automatically kosher so long as its ingredients are kosher and it was made on kosher equipment. (See Aruch Ha-Shulchan YD 115:16, Chochmas Odom 53:38 and Igros Moshe YD 2:45.) The OU and most national kashrus agencies adopt the latter position.
Regardless of the position adopted, soft cheese does have many basic kosher issues. Many soft cheeses (cream cheese in particular) use cream as an important ingredient. Soft cheeses utilize many stabilizers, necessary for a smooth and uniform texture. (For example, cottage cheese is often thickened by using gelatin, and cream cheese is made dense and smooth by the use of powdered gums.) Whey powder is likewise a common additive in the manufacture of these products. Thus, even if one does not require Gevinas Yisrael for soft cheese, it cannot be purchased without kosher certification, due to its many kosher-sensitive ingredients.
(It should be emphasized that the terms "hard cheese" and "soft cheese" are not precise. What we call "hard cheese" refers to cheese which can only be made by using rennet - which itself can be animal-derived or artificial. Some rennet-set cheeses (such as Danish bleu cheese, feta and many goat milk cheeses) are indeed soft to the feel but are classified as Gevinas Akum in the absence of rabbinic supervision or involvement, as these cheeses require rennet to form. "Soft cheeses" are those which coagulate via acidification; no rennet is needed. These acid-set cheeses are often actually hard, but they are not subject to the rules of Gevinas Yisrael and Gevinas Akum according to many authorities, as they do not use rennet and were therefore never included in the gezeirah (rabbinic decree) on cheese.)
Imitation Cheese
There are two types of imitation cheese. One type is totally not a cheese product; rather, it is a concoction of soy, oils, flavors and stabilizers. This type of imitation cheese may also contain dairy ingredients. In any case, its many ingredients are quite kosher-sensitive, and kosher certification of such product is necessary.
A second type of imitation cheese is made from rennet casein. Rennet casein is milk's casein protein when curdled via rennet, exactly like rennet-set cheese. Rennet casein has the same halachic status as hard cheese. Imitation cheese made from rennet casein surely requires tight hashgacha.
Imitation cheese of all types is made at very high temperatures and is often made on equipment shared with non-kosher products. Supervision of these items commonly entails kashering and very careful monitoring by the mashgiach.
It is interesting that kosher rennet-set cheese and imitation cheese made from rennet casein is more costly than its non-kosher counterpart. This is because the cost of the full-time on-site rabbinic supervision which is necessary to manufacture these products as kosher is passed on to the consumer (as is the case with kosher meat and wine, which likewise require full-time on-site rabbinic supervision). Kosher-certified acid-set cheese (and some imitation cheese which does not contain rennet casein - when made in all-kosher facilities) is not usually more expensive than non-kosher varieties of these items, as full-time on-site supervision is often not needed.
The kosher concerns of retail dairy products are many and complex. It is hoped that this presentation assists in clarifying these concerns and assisting in their understanding on a practical level.

Rabbi Gordimer is a Rabbinic Coordinator at the Orthodox Union, and specializes in dairy products.