Kosher, Kashrus and Hechsherim Master thread

[ExGingi]

depending on your definition of machmir/chumra , there's virtually no such thing.

Just had a lengthy argument on a Kashrus WhatsApp group whether insisting on having a hechsher for dish detergent is a chumra, or something with no real basis, other than being

fanaticly nonsensical

I can probably tell a story about each hashgacha that you claim is mehadrin that would change your mind and for the remaining few, we'll just tell stories about how fanaticly nonsensical they are.the result being there's no one to trust.

That's mostly a marketing term.

Bottom line, either educate yourself on exact details to ask questions or rely on your community standards.
Unfortunately, this level of detail causes confusion and opens the door to this who wish to say 'its all politics and it's all the same.' which is most definitely incorrect.

100%

[aygart]

He's saying it's kosher.

We do know that there is a VERY wide range of what people will use that word for

[avromie7]

We do know that there is a VERY wide range of what people will use that word for

That's on him.

[imayid2]

That's on him.

No, it’s on you. Because you know that, it’s elementary.

[aygart]

That's on him.

Why is it on him for you to know what he means by something that can have a wide range of meanings?

[Yehuda57]

That's on him.

I'm baffled by this, and thus hope I'm misunderstanding. There are many people who will tell you something is kosher when it isn't close to your standards out of well intentioned ignorance, not out of deceipt or malice. Being ok with that because "it's on him" and eating food that doesn't meet your standards is essentially relinquishing said standard.

[aygart]

That's on him.

We say that rov metzuyin eitzel shchita mumchim. Do we say that about a food service hechsher?

[yfr bachur]

That's on him.

At what point of the guy's ignorance and/or lack of religiosity would you agree that it's on you?
Never went to yeshiva? Conservative? Reform? Reconsrtuctionist? Jews for J? Actual Aino Yehudi?

You're putting way more halchick weight on a idea you heard about in third year bais medrash than it actually has.
EA is EIDUS. No different than other eidus. part of eidus is WHAT are you saying EXACTLY. Not "I saw a new moon" - exact position, when, where... ect...

What would you say if there was a box of cookies on a random street corner in Manhatten with a sign "Free - Kosher". Is that Eidus? Is that on "him" or you?

Just to remind you EA is a KULA! Without it we need two kosher eidim even by isur.

Lets put it a different way - would you trust a random jewish looking person to tell you that the kesem you have a shayla on is fine, no problem. Why not? Eid echad neeman beisurin, and this is isurin, No?

[EliJelly]

That's on him.

Me? gehenom?? it's Yankel's fault!

[PlatinumGuy]

Just to remind you EA is a KULA! Without it we need two kosher eidim even by isur.

You're putting way more halchick weight on a idea you heard about in third year bais medrash than it actually has.

In your zealousness to find chumros and issurim you are literally knocking and belittling the Torah itself, דברי אלוקים חיים. It sounds like you have more respect for a takana of  'Vaad arba artzos' (of which the only rabbonim I know of who tell people it is Halacha are conveniently also profiting from charging poor bnei torah for it) than you care about תורת משה.

This is why the Ran said in his Vidduy אֵת אֲשֶׁר הֵקַלְתָּ הֶחֱמַרְתִּי, וַאֲשֶׁר הֶחֱמַרְתָּ הֵקַלְתִּי.

ETA - I read it again and I am just mind boggled. עד אחד נאמן באיסורים is 'a kula' but a (long forgotten) takana of 'Vaad arba artzos' is יהרג ואל יעבור...

[Chuchum Ainer]

In your zealousness to find chumros and issurim you are literally knocking and belittling the Torah itself, דברי אלוקים חיים.

Wut?

[yfr bachur]

In your zealousness to find chumros and issurim you are literally knocking and belittling the Torah itself, דברי אלוקים חיים. It sounds like you have more respect for a takana of  'Vaad arba artzos' (of which the only rabbonim I know of who tell people it is Halacha are conveniently also profiting from charging poor bnei torah for it) than you care about תורת משה.

This is why the Ran said in his Vidduy אֵת אֲשֶׁר הֵקַלְתָּ הֶחֱמַרְתִּי, וַאֲשֶׁר הֶחֱמַרְתָּ הֵקַלְתִּי.

ETA - I read it again and I am just mind boggled. עד אחד נאמן באיסורים is 'a kula' but a (long forgotten) takana of 'Vaad arba artzos' is יהרג ואל יעבור...

I don't mean it toread the way you see it...
A. I specificaly wrote

A. Takana of the Vaad Arbah Aratzos. while it is a shayla if and who today is obligated by these takanos, the VAA made a takana that we may NOT rely on EA when the EA is selling what he is giving eidus on - rather he must be "certified" by "eiza rav oh av beis din" (if i remember the lashon correctly). Many parts of klal yisroel have behaved as if they accepted the takanos for a nice amount of time (and an additional shayla is that even if they are not actually mechuyav by the original takanos, they may be mechuyav to continue the hanhaga bec of chazaka in hanhaga tova.)

Not torah Misinay, not yehareg v'al yavor - just a mare makom for something that MAY be obligated in halacha

B. The disscussion IS what is the gedarim of EA. When S/o says EA and we ask well what's he saying and the guy answers with a bland "It's kosher" w/o taking into account who the person is, what his knowledge is, why he claimsso  so you can evaluate what the EIDUS of the EA is - this is clearly does NOT fall into the gedarim of eidus of eid echad.
In a case where eid echad is neeman to establish the death of a man (for the purposes of his wife remarrying) Its been a while but I dont seem to remember ANY shita that said that the eid can just come and say "He's dead". There needs to be eidus - who, where, how...

C. Yes, EA IS a kula from chazal - but that doesnt remove it from the requirements of eidus. The point being that without chazals kula the assumption about kashrus sensitive food w/o a valid EA is that it is asur, not that its a chumra to have an EA tell you its kosher.

D. I dont see any place that I

literally knocking and belittling the Torah itself

maybe s/o understanding of it but def not the torah itself.

E. You and I know that the entire kashrus system is built on eid echad. For that matter the original EA in kashrus is that you trust that your wife that she took chala, and had the chicken properly shechted when she serves them to you. The debate is what fullfills the requirments of EA.

F. In a way the disscussion can be focused around what are the Yados of the EA statement "It's Kosher"? At least two posters on this thread what to tayna that you dont NEED any yados rather the stament "its kosher" fullfills everything needed by chazal on all parts of kashrus without any sort of need to see if the claimant knows what he is talking about. Other posters on the thread, myself included, are saying that EA needs yados - i.e. What are you saying, why are you saying it like any other eidus in the torah including all other EA cases (AFAIK - correct me if I'm wrong).

G. This being said I beleive the burden of proof to prove otherwise falls on those advocating the "we beleive any EA who says the magic words "Its kosher" no matter who he is and what food in which local he's talking about"

H. Just a couple of examples to bring out the difficulty in across the board acceptance of the "its kosher" no matter the cirucumstance
You see a jew of unknown religiosity in EY selling cut fruits and vegis. He says it's kosher. What does this include? That he cut the dvar charif with a kosher knife? that it's not orlah? that it's not takroves ovada zara? that its not asur bec of shmita? that it's been truma an maasered properly? or he said its kosher so i can eat it? what about demai?
Someone gives you a celophane wrapped package of square matzos in your mishloach manos and tells you "its kosher". Can you eat these without taking chalah? what about at layl haseder? or maybe theyre kosher chometz matzos?
Someone gives you a fillet of fish w/o the skin. he says it's kosher. does this mean that it was checked for bugs that theres a machlokes if they;re asur or mutar?

[aygart]

E. You and I know that the entire kashrus system is built on eid echad. For that matter the original EA in kashrus is that you trust that your wife that she took chala, and had the chicken properly shechted when she serves them to you. The debate is what fullfills the requirments of EA.

Rav Schachter once showed me an Avnei Nezer saying that with the way hechsherim are structured, it is about the people and not the issurim and that it therefore cannot be from eid echad neeman but rather from a ruba dleisei kaman telling us that the item is kosher.

[TheAsh]

I don't mean it toread the way you see it...
A. I specificaly wrote Not torah Misinay, not yehareg v'al yavor - just a mare makom for something that MAY be obligated in halacha

B. The disscussion IS what is the gedarim of EA. When S/o says EA and we ask well what's he saying and the guy answers with a bland "It's kosher" w/o taking into account who the person is, what his knowledge is, why he claimsso  so you can evaluate what the EIDUS of the EA is - this is clearly does NOT fall into the gedarim of eidus of eid echad.
In a case where eid echad is neeman to establish the death of a man (for the purposes of his wife remarrying) Its been a while but I dont seem to remember ANY shita that said that the eid can just come and say "He's dead". There needs to be eidus - who, where, how...

C. Yes, EA IS a kula from chazal - but that doesnt remove it from the requirements of eidus. The point being that without chazals kula the assumption about kashrus sensitive food w/o a valid EA is that it is asur, not that its a chumra to have an EA tell you its kosher.

D. I dont see any place that I maybe s/o understanding of it but def not the torah itself.

E. You and I know that the entire kashrus system is built on eid echad. For that matter the original EA in kashrus is that you trust that your wife that she took chala, and had the chicken properly shechted when she serves them to you. The debate is what fullfills the requirments of EA.

F. In a way the disscussion can be focused around what are the Yados of the EA statement "It's Kosher"? At least two posters on this thread what to tayna that you dont NEED any yados rather the stament "its kosher" fullfills everything needed by chazal on all parts of kashrus without any sort of need to see if the claimant knows what he is talking about. Other posters on the thread, myself included, are saying that EA needs yados - i.e. What are you saying, why are you saying it like any other eidus in the torah including all other EA cases (AFAIK - correct me if I'm wrong).

G. This being said I beleive the burden of proof to prove otherwise falls on those advocating the "we beleive any EA who says the magic words "Its kosher" no matter who he is and what food in which local he's talking about"

H. Just a couple of examples to bring out the difficulty in across the board acceptance of the "its kosher" no matter the cirucumstance
You see a jew of unknown religiosity in EY selling cut fruits and vegis. He says it's kosher. What does this include? That he cut the dvar charif with a kosher knife? that it's not orlah? that it's not takroves ovada zara? that its not asur bec of shmita? that it's been truma an maasered properly? or he said its kosher so i can eat it? what about demai?
Someone gives you a celophane wrapped package of square matzos in your mishloach manos and tells you "its kosher". Can you eat these without taking chalah? what about at layl haseder?
Someone gives you a fillet of fish w/o the skin. he says it's kosher. does this mean that it was checked for bugs that theres a machlokes if they;re asur or mutar?

These are all nice svaros, but Rashi says the mekor for eid echsd here is a svara because the Torah wants us to be able to eat at other people's houses and trust other people, and that's a nice svara too.

Being suspicious destroys it.

[imayid2]

These are all nice svaros, but Rashi says the mekor for eid echsd here is a svara because the Torah wants us to be able to eat at other people's houses and trust other people, and that's a nice svara too.

Being suspicious destroys it.

That works in a simple reality where the question is purely of trust, meaning is he saying the truth or is he lying.

[EliJelly]

אכשר דרא, nowadays everybody is in the category of חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן

[yfr bachur]

אכשר דרא, nowadays everybody is in the category of חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן

Everyone? Really?

[TheAsh]

That works in a simple reality where the question is purely of trust, meaning is he saying the truth or is he lying.

I dont buy that the kashrus problems of today is worse than the times of chazal. Especially when they were in Eretz yisroel.

[TheAsh]

Came across this on an old facebook post and wanted to share it.

(FWIW, the conservative rabbi who took him over at Bens shared with me some lurid details on Cup-K. Its the first time where conservative was a major improvement.)

[ExGingi]

אכשר דרא, nowadays everybody is in the category of חזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתחת ידו דבר שאינו מתוקן

I assume you are being sarcastic.

The most widely accepted Kashrus standard being דער עולם עסט דאס. 

Regarding the arguments about עד אחד נאמן באיסורין I think an analogy to the actual metzius would be an עד אחד testifying that he checked a basket full of raspberries and blackberries for תולעים, when he actually doesn't know what he's looking for or how to check.