Kosher, Kashrus and Hechsherim Master thread

[PlatinumGuy]

Toras Habayis (his hechsher, founded so that people can actually afford some hechsher leshitaso) makes no money.

Nobody gets a salary?

[moko]

Nobody gets a salary?

someone getting a salary doesn't mean the hashgacha is making money.
KVH in Boston doesn't make any money on community food service.
They actually operate at a loss at most community food service accounts going as far as subsidizing the hourly mashgiach rate at some locations.
The Mashgichim still get paid but the organization operates at a loss

[TheAsh]

Anyone who understands Hebrew better please translate?

[mevinyavin]

There is a need need for such a takana so they would like for it to apply

So the negius is that they wish people would not randomly trust anybody so they found a random takana to foist on everyone.
I can't speak for Rabbi Bleier, but I know this isn't true by Rabbi Berkovits. His answer to me regarding trusting random people, and even people who I know, was quite clear and nuanced. (You have the halachic right to trust EVERYONE if they are eidim - you know them as frum yidden - and you agree that their definition of kosher = your definition of kosher, which you have the RIGHT to assume but experience has shown to not be the case.)
Yet he unequivocally holds that once a business is functioning off of the food, it needs a hashgacha due to the Vaad's takana. Doesn't sound like a wishful application of something he wants to be true.

We have a halachik system which delineates what poskim have the authority to do. It’s very clear that this isn’t one of them as pointed out in the mr”m I attached. Iirc neither do the mr”m Rabbi Blier quoted say what he claims.

A Psakim Uteshuvos who uses weak language (yitachen) is not convincing to me, but I still want to look at the sources he brings to back himself up. I'll get back to you after looking into those, I hope. I guess the same applies to Rabbi Bleier's sources.

[ExGingi]

Anyone who understands Hebrew better please translate?

Not worth anyone's time or effort. One Hechsher with a very low reputation (to put it mildly) severing ties with another one with an even lower reputation with accusations of attempted bribery.

[PlatinumGuy]

someone getting a salary doesn't mean the hashgacha is making money.
KVH in Boston doesn't make any money on community food service.
They actually operate at a loss at most community food service accounts going as far as subsidizing the hourly mashgiach rate at some locations.
The Mashgichim still get paid but the organization operates at a loss

The Negius which was discussed isn't any different if somebody is 'making money' or 'getting a salary'

[avromie7]

The Negius which was discussed isn't any different if somebody is 'making money' or 'getting a salary'

Who has negius in "pushing" a hechsher when the hechsher isn't making money? The random mashgiach?

[PlatinumGuy]

Who has negius in "pushing" a hechsher when the hechsher isn't making money? The random mashgiach?

Whoever would have a negius if the hechsher 'makes money' has the same negius when he 'gets a salary'.

Of course, Kavod can be a greater incentive than money

[aygart]

Whoever would have a negius if the hechsher 'makes money' has the same negius when he 'gets a salary'.

Of course, Kavod can be a greater incentive than money

If your point is that because someone who's hired later on in the game makes some sort of salary and therefore the Rov is nogeiah bidavar then that's utterly ridiculous if your point is that there is always some minute level of bias somewhere along the way. Yeah, we're all human move on.

[Just A Jew]

If your point is that because someone who's hired later on in the game makes some sort of salary and therefore the Rov is nogeiah bidavar then that's utterly ridiculous if your point is that there is always some minute level of bias somewhere along the way. Yeah, we're all human move on.

Reminds me of the argument over whether there is such a thing as true altruism.

[imayid2]

So the negius is that they wish people would not randomly trust anybody so they found a random takana to foist on everyone.
I can't speak for Rabbi Bleier, but I know this isn't true by Rabbi Berkovits. His answer to me regarding trusting random people, and even people who I know, was quite clear and nuanced. (You have the halachic right to trust EVERYONE if they are eidim - you know them as frum yidden - and you agree that their definition of kosher = your definition of kosher, which you have the RIGHT to assume but experience has shown to not be the case.)
Yet he unequivocally holds that once a business is functioning off of the food, it needs a hashgacha due to the Vaad's takana. Doesn't sound like a wishful application of something he wants to be true.

You are taking this too seriously. I was lightheartedly responding to this

Yes, that is what people who want nothing to do with it say.

Which is just as ridiculous.

You don’t need to have a specific negius to be wrong.

A Psakim Uteshuvos who uses weak language (yitachen) is not convincing to me, but I still want to look at the sources he brings to back himself up.

It is a דבר פשוט. There are hundreds of takonos from many communities throughout the ages. Why in heavens name are we “bound” by this more than any other? At most you can point to it to show that it is appropriate to make a similar takana, but “communities” aren’t really the same these days.

I guess the same applies to Rabbi Bleier's sources.

Here they are





They lived during/immediate after the Vaad, and probably around those communities. But anyway, do you see them saying what he claims they say?

[TheAsh]

Not worth anyone's time or effort. One Hechsher with a very low reputation (to put it mildly) severing ties with another one with an even lower reputation with accusations of attempted bribery.

What's the other one?

[aygart]

They lived during/immediate after the Vaad, and probably around those communities. But anyway, do you see them saying what he claims they say?

The Darkei Tshuva and Rav Shternbuch seem to feel they apply now.

[imayid2]

The Darkei Tshuva and Rav Shternbuch seem to feel they apply now.

I don’t necessarily agree about the DT but irrespectively it is not a sustainable position.

ETA
I checked RMS, he offers his opinion behind the rationale of the takana and says therefore ראוי להחזיק בתקנה זו. That’s very different than saying the actual takana applies to us. Rather our communities ought to do the same because the same reasons apply.

[yfr bachur]

I mean, we're all respected members of the DDF and all that - but a little anava would be in order.
It's obviously a machlokes haposkim with two separate differing mehalchim.
We can discuss it here, explore the mehalchim, the reasonings, clarify what the shitos are exactly ...
but we have to keep in mind - eilu veilu divrei elokim chaim.

Name calling, and using leshonos like "Very dubious to claim", "absurdly", "ridiculous", "not sustainable", "wrong"...
When talking about shitos that are very clearly held to be true by a significant number of rabbanim and poskim is out of line in my opinion...

You can say that we posters on DDF may be misunderstanding the shita, it's koach, or application...

[yfr bachur]

With the above out of the way, I wade in...

Pardon my ameratzus, but can we please start from the beginning? (Maybe we need to learn a little Jewish and world history...  )

Who/what gave the V4A the halachic "koach" to make takanos?
Was it the fact that they were representative of the united kehilos under its purview?
The de facto acceptance by the relevant members and/or rabbanim of the aforementioned kehillos?
The governmental sanction of the semi-autonomous' nature of the Jewish kehillos under the vaad?
How was the koach of the takanos of the V4A different from the koach of the takanos of, say, Rabbeinu Gershon, or Hillel Hazaken, or Ezra, or Shlomo Hamelech?

How does the split of Lita into its own independent Vaad affect the preexisting takanos of the vaad?
What/why halachic ramifications were there from the end of govt sanction of the vaad (due to non-payment of taxes, I believe), and the subsequent end of the (twice?) yearly meetings of the vaad and what happened with previously enacted takanos?
Shortly after this, the area that had been previously under the vaad was affected by the partition of Poland, and the disappearance of Poland from the Map. What halachic ramifications did this have on preexisting takanos of the V4A?

During the period of operation of the V4A, if a resident of a member kehila traveled to another area, say, Italy, France, EY..., was he still obligated by the takanos of the V4A? (m'dina degemara... chumri makom she yatza misham)
When the V4A ceased to function, were the members of the constituent kehilos still obligated by its takanos?
After the end of the V4A, if someone who moved to a Kehilla which was still keeping the takanos, was he obligated by the the takanos? (makom shehalach lesham...)

[aygart]

With the above out of the way, I wade in...

Pardon my ameratzus, but can we please start from the beginning? (Maybe we need to learn a little Jewish and world history...  )

Who/what gave the V4A the halachic "koach" to make takanos?
Was it the fact that they were representative of the united kehilos under its purview?
The de facto acceptance by the relevant members and/or rabbanim of the aforementioned kehillos?
The governmental sanction of the semi-autonomous' nature of the Jewish kehillos under the vaad?
How was the koach of the takanos of the V4A different from the koach of the takanos of, say, Rabbeinu Gershon, or Hillel Hazaken, or Ezra, or Shlomo Hamelech?

How does the split of Lita into its own independent Vaad affect the preexisting takanos of the vaad?
What/why halachic ramifications were there from the end of govt sanction of the vaad (due to non-payment of taxes, I believe), and the subsequent end of the (twice?) yearly meetings of the vaad and what happened with previously enacted takanos?
Shortly after this, the area that had been previously under the vaad was affected by the partition of Poland, and the disappearance of Poland from the Map. What halachic ramifications did this have on preexisting takanos of the V4A?

During the period of operation of the V4A, if a resident of a member kehila traveled to another area, say, Italy, France, EY..., was he still obligated by the takanos of the V4A? (m'dina degemara... chumri makom she yatza misham)
When the V4A ceased to function, were the members of the constituent kehilos still obligated by its takanos?
After the end of the V4A, if someone who moved to a Kehilla which was still keeping the takanos, was he obligated by the the takanos? (makom shehalach lesham...)

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=857&pgnum=144

[mevinyavin]

You are taking this too seriously. I was lightheartedly responding to thisWhich is just as ridiculous.

Don't worry, I'm not taking this any more seriously than you are. 

You don’t need to have a specific negius to be wrong.

You don't have to not have negius to be right, either.

It is a דבר פשוט. There are hundreds of takonos from many communities throughout the ages. Why in heavens name are we “bound” by this more than any other? At most you can point to it to show that it is appropriate to make a similar takana, but “communities” aren’t really the same these days.

I assume you mean you want to see some ... I guess ... intermediate source that some people took the Vaad's takana seriously after it no longer had any tokef? Maybe some hold it was in force long enough to become an established minhag? (I assume you hold that some don't hold that way.)
I'm not sure what you mean by communities. Are you referencing the sugya of minhag hamakom in order to say that it doesn't apply in the US?

Here they are
...
They lived during/immediate after the Vaad, and probably around those communities. But anyway, do you see them saying what he claims they say?

Hard to say from those sources alone that the validity of the vaad was extended. Requires context to prove one way or the other. If they were after, though, I assume you want to say that they were saying it is already the minhag hamakom and ein leshanos, but your makom has nothing to do with it. That last may not be the case. If you moved from those places to America, can you drop that requirement?
It would be better IMHO to have a source from that time and place which matirs it. Again, I understand that some of today's poskim assume it is law and some assume it is not (you have to say that Psakim Uteshuvos assumes not, for instance, regardless of his language).

[imayid2]

but we have to keep in mind - eilu veilu divrei elokim chaim.

This is just wrong

Name calling

Huh?

[imayid2]

I assume you mean you want to see some ... I guess ... intermediate source that some people took the Vaad's takana seriously after it no longer had any tokef? Maybe some hold it was in force long enough to become an established minhag? (I assume you hold that some don't hold that way.)
I'm not sure what you mean by communities. Are you referencing the sugya of minhag hamakom in order to say that it doesn't apply in the US?
Hard to say from those sources alone that the validity of the vaad was extended. Requires context to prove one way or the other. If they were after, though, I assume you want to say that they were saying it is already the minhag hamakom and ein leshanos, but your makom has nothing to do with it. That last may not be the case. If you moved from those places to America, can you drop that requirement?
It would be better IMHO to have a source from that time and place which matirs it. Again, I understand that some of today's poskim assume it is law and some assume it is not (you have to say that Psakim Uteshuvos assumes not, for instance, regardless of his language).

Taking it seriously or it being a minhag is a far cry from what it said in that paper which was basically that the takana בכל תקפו is in full force. That is just flat out wrong and none of the sources he quoted said that.

I'm not sure what you mean by communities. Are you referencing the sugya of minhag hamakom in order to say that it doesn't apply in the US?

No just that our communities aren’t the same in the sense that we don’t really make these type of strong communal edicts.