Kosher, Kashrus and Hechsherim Master thread

[yitzgar]

Does Skittles littles grape flavor have any actual grape juice in it?

[aygart]

I had a feeling you would come back with this garbage.

Just to give a bit of explanation why I am calling it garbage for those who don't see the obvious....

1. טרפון אחי שינה ועליו ראיה ללמד
2. This is the standard fallacy of so many garbage conspiracy theories and tumults to give something vague and put the onus to "prove it is not the case" while not backing up the claim. Milk is mutar to drink. It is a pasuk. Everyone has been drinking milk since matan torah, and it was the first thing the yidden ate after matan torah. People have drunk milk from their own individual cow or from a mix from a number of cows owned by farmers. Nobody has ever assered it based on this reasoning or made such a distintion. If you want to asser it you need to show us that something is different now than it was in the past. Go ahead, demonstrate it. If all you can do is place vague numbers and supposed statistics without articulating what they are and then say you prove it is the same that is a garbage argument. There is no possible way to prove they are the same to satisfy this if you did not lay out what distinction you are making. How many cows were in herds then? How large of a herd does it need to be? 5 cows? 10? 100? 1000? With some of the vague numbers you threw out the threshold would be very low. You are making a vague claim without saying the reasoning and refusing to back it up then say "Prove me wrong".

 What about eggs? You have the same thing there. Whole eggs from a treifa are not batel and you can make similar cheshbonos there. Free range chickens are MUCH worse. They definitely bought eggs that chicken farmers mixed together from different chickens for quite some time. Yet everyone ate these eggs.
Any challenge gets a reply of how they are denying reality but no clear description of what you feel the reality is has been forthcoming. Things are claimed to be irrelevant and whatever without explaining at all why. At the very least explain what the claim actually is. There is no way to possibly disprove a claim when when someone studiously avoids articulating what the basis of the claim is. This is Alex Jones style garbage.

[imayid2]

Just to give a bit of explanation why I am calling it garbage for those who don't see the obvious....

1. טרפון אחי שינה ועליו ראיה ללמד
2. This is the standard fallacy of so many garbage conspiracy theories and tumults to give something vague and put the onus to "prove it is not the case" while not backing up the claim. Milk is mutar to drink. It is a pasuk. Everyone has been drinking milk since matan torah, and it was the first thing the yidden ate after matan torah. People have drunk milk from their own individual cow or from a mix from a number of cows owned by farmers. Nobody has ever assered it based on this reasoning or made such a distintion. If you want to asser it you need to show us that something is different now than it was in the past. Go ahead, demonstrate it. If all you can do is place vague numbers and supposed statistics without articulating what they are and then say you prove it is the same that is a garbage argument. There is no possible way to prove they are the same to satisfy this if you did not lay out what distinction you are making. How many cows were in herds then? How large of a herd does it need to be? 5 cows? 10? 100? 1000? With some of the vague numbers you threw out the threshold would be very low. You are making a vague claim without saying the reasoning and refusing to back it up then say "Prove me wrong".

 What about eggs? You have the same thing there. Whole eggs from a treifa are not batel and you can make similar cheshbonos there. Free range chickens are MUCH worse. They definitely bought eggs that chicken farmers mixed together from different chickens for quite some time. Yet everyone ate these eggs.
Any challenge gets a reply of how they are denying reality but no clear description of what you feel the reality is has been forthcoming. Things are claimed to be irrelevant and whatever without explaining at all why. At the very least explain what the claim actually is. There is no way to possibly disprove a claim when when someone studiously avoids articulating what the basis of the claim is. This is Alex Jones style garbage.

You aren’t saying anything. Calling something a conspiracy without explaining it’s permissibility, because you don’t understand it, on the basis of a completely different set of circumstances which you decided the onus is one way, is absurd.

And yes, to claim that it’s not a statistical impossibility is a stunning denial of reality. The matirim explain that we don’t care about the reality, not deny, as you continue to try, that it exists.
https://traditiononline.org/survey-of-recent-halakhic-periodic-literature-is-the-milk-we-drink-kosher/

Why you feel the need to call this famous and widely discussed question “garbage” when it is discussed very seriously by many T”C is beyond me.
 

[aygart]

You aren’t saying anything. Calling something a conspiracy without explaining it’s permissibility, because you don’t understand it, on the basis of a completely different set of circumstances which you decided the onus is one way, is absurd.

And yes, to claim that it’s not a statistical impossibility is a stunning denial of reality. The matirim explain that we don’t care about the reality, not deny, as you continue to try, that it exists.
https://traditiononline.org/survey-of-recent-halakhic-periodic-literature-is-the-milk-we-drink-kosher/

Why you feel the need to call this famous and widely discussed question “garbage” when it is discussed very seriously by many T”C is beyond me.
 

So go and explain to us what the claim actually is. You continue to avoid doing this. Don't just say it is different. Explain why. You continue to avoid doing this. You say it is impossible. Yet you continue to avoid explaining why and how.

It is discussed as being Rav Schachter's question and he and maybe a handful of others are the only ones who stopped drinking milk because of it and doesn't tell others to do the same.

Until you can explain something here then what you are presenting is garbage. You are using all the argument tactics of every conspiracy theorist. That is how you are presenting this.

[imayid2]

So go and explain to us what the claim actually is. You continue to avoid doing this. Don't just say it is different. Explain why. You continue to avoid doing this. You say it is impossible. Yet you continue to avoid explaining why and how.

It is discussed as being Rav Schachter's question and he and maybe a handful of others are the only ones who stopped drinking milk because of it and doesn't tell others to do the same.

I have no idea what you want from me. I posted earlier from Rabbi Dovid Cohen where he noted that the modern industry is unlike it ever was. If you have the numbers on what it used to be and they are anything similar, by all means share it. And explain it, because it requires a explanation, not just “they always drank milk so it has to be mutar in every circumstance”.

[imayid2]

It is discussed as being Rav Schachter's question and he and maybe a handful of others are the only ones who stopped drinking milk because of it and doesn't tell others to do the same.

It isn’t “his” question, and I have no idea why any of this is of any relevance.

[imayid2]

You have from the beginning been challenging the assertion that it is a statistical impossibility that there isn’t more than 2% treifos. Talk about Alex Jones conspiracies, sheesh.

Do you stand by that?

[aygart]

I have no idea what you want from me. I posted earlier from Rabbi Dovid Cohen where he noted that the modern industry is unlike it ever was. If you have the numbers on what it used to be and they are anything similar, by all means share it. And explain it, because it requires a explanation, not just “they always drank milk so it has to be mutar in every circumstance”.

Post you claim. Don't just say something is different. Why does that difference tell us anything? If you only need five cows to get there then who cares that we now have a million. I am not even asking you to prove anything just didn't say it's different without explaining how and why that makes a difference. You haven't even made a clear claim about anything. Any question is denying reality. Just make your claim clearly.

[aygart]

You have from the beginning been challenging the assertion that it is a statistical impossibility that there isn’t more than 2% treifos. Talk about Alex Jones conspiracies, sheesh.

Do you stand by that?

If it is so clearly true you should be able to back out up. There is nothing wrong with challenging something presented as fact to be backed up.i haven't even said it want true. I challenged it is a very good way to put it. Put the claim out there don't just give me the scientific consensus garbage.

[imayid2]

Post you claim. Don't just say something is different. Why does that difference tell us anything? If you only need five cows to get there then who cares that we now have a million. I am not even asking you to prove anything just didn't say it's different without explaining how and why that makes a difference. You haven't even made a clear claim about anything. Any question is denying reality. Just make your claim clearly.

I am not sure what claim you are claiming I claim to which I shouldn’t say something is different.

I started this conversation by saying that

It is a statistical impossibility that there isn’t more that 2% of what we’d generally consider חלב טריפה in our milk irrespective of the DA question.

you referring to that?

[imayid2]

If it is so clearly true you should be able to back out up. There is nothing wrong with challenging something presented as fact to be backed up.i haven't even said it want true. I challenged it is a very good way to put it. Put the claim out there don't just give me the scientific consensus garbage.

I posted the numbers, are you following the conversation? Why don’t you elucidate the flaws you find in  the numbers presented by Rabbi Cohen and Rabbi Bleich instead of repeatedly asking me to back up something which to the best of my knowledge no one who discusses this denies.

[imayid2]

Rabbi Shachter talks about the milk here @ about 47:00
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/729136/

[Kmusic22]

Rabbi Shachter talks about the milk here @ about 47:00
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/729136/

Do you personally drink milk?
Based on what hetter?

[imayid2]

Do you personally drink milk?
Based on what hetter?

Who cares.

Whatever the heter is it may very well have to do that מין במינו בטל מדאורייתא and Chazal not being gozer in such a case. If someone is so worried that DA cows are causing a problem מדאורייתא than they may not have a heter to drink any milk at all. (Unless of course you deny reality and call it a conspiracy theory).

[yshad]

Suggestion: Split this thread into two. One that discusses hechsherim and kashrus info, and another that discusses halachic topics related to kashrus. If one is looking for kashrus info the halachic discussions really clog the thread.

More like: One thread for Kashrus info, and another for @aygart and @imayid2 for their chavrusashaft

[moko]

Whatever the heter is it may very well have to do that מין במינו בטל מדאורייתא and Chazal not being gozer in such a case. If someone is so worried that DA cows are causing a problem מדאורייתא than they may not have a heter to drink any milk at all. (Unless of course you deny reality and call it a conspiracy theory).

just discussed this with a few Rabbi I'm last night. Some agreed, others not so sure.
More Were inclined to say that the heter is based on the fact that it's based on a ruba delesa kaman and bitul and /or statistics don't play a role even in a large taaroves unless we established a new chazaka

[imayid2]

just discussed this with a few Rabbi I'm last night. Some agreed, others not so sure.
More Were inclined to say that the heter is based on the fact that it's based on a ruba delesa kaman and bitul and /or statistics don't play a role even in a large taaroves unless we established a new chazaka

Personally I don’t really understand that mehalech.

You can see some teshuvos about it here where they do go with that.
https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=50299&st=&pgnum=106

(That mehalech should also allow us to “pasken” that the cows milked at chalav stam farms aren’t DA since most aren’t.)

[aygart]

I posted the numbers, are you following the conversation? Why don’t you elucidate the flaws you find in  the numbers presented by Rabbi Cohen and Rabbi Bleich instead of repeatedly asking me to back up something which to the best of my knowledge no one who discusses this denies.

https://traditiononline.org/survey-of-recent-halakhic-periodic-literature-is-the-milk-we-drink-kosher/
 

His discussion is this one.

This would also be an issue with any milk from a group of cows since there are tariffs that are miut hamatzui.

Based on this, he uses a prevalence of 10%, and he also discusses a threshold.

What is the threshold? When did it hit that threshold?

How large of a herd does it need to be? 5 cows? 10? 100? 1000?

He uses a herd of 100 cows and calculates the probability of it being below 1.667% as 0.0003% and uses this for his discussion.

Those discussing the issue do not disagree with such a threshold but rather, as you mentioned, discuss its relevance. They consider a herd of 100 to be

a number great enough to create a statistical metzius

This means that the

The amount of cows being milked at once

is

A distinction without a difference.

since the threshold is well below what is currently mixed.

There is good reason to belive that milk or its derivatives such as milkfat, whey, and curd, were mixed from groups of that size from time immemorial. Yet the discussion of this issue is only recent AFAIK.

[Ver hut gazugt]

Also, I wonder how many of the shechted animals are actual treifus or are treifus l’chumra.

[imayid2]

His discussion is this one.Based on this, he uses a prevalence of 10%, and he also discusses a threshold.
He uses a herd of 100 cows and calculates the probability of it being below 1.667% as 0.0003% and uses this for his discussion.

Those discussing the issue do not disagree with such a threshold but rather, as you mentioned, discuss its relevance. They consider a herd of 100 to be
This means that the
is since the threshold is well below what is currently mixed.

There is good reason to belive that milk or its derivatives such as milkfat, whey, and curd, were mixed from groups of that size from time immemorial. Yet the discussion of this issue is only recent AFAIK.

“Good reason to believe” isn’t the same as being explicit. So yes, everyone agrees that’s strange it hasn’t been touched upon and indications are it was always done.

 Nevertheless the reasoning is critical to know if various factor may make a difference.