Conference taveng::bagels

    Maybe they are trying to tell us that none of the chemicals in the
    laundry detergent was produced from anything that wasn't kosher.
    I never noticed that it said that on it anyhow, but then I don't care
    much, since I wasn't planning on eating the soap; if it gets the socks
    clean, it's good enough for me!  I suppose if you were being really
    cautious, you might hesitate to wash things like dishrags and dish
    towels in a laundry soap that might be made out of chemicals processed
    from lye made from non-kosher animal bones, or something.  I think that
    is rather extreme, myself, since I think of the detergent as a batch of
    chemicals, and I don't care if they were mined someplace, or processed
    from some other source (animal bones, or whatever) - by the time they
    are in my washing machine, they aren't remotely food as far as I'm
    concerned.
    
    It could even mean that all the Jewish people who work for the company
    that makes it are shomer shabbas, for that matter - I don't worry about
    that either; I don't think of it as being any of my business as a "soap
    consumer".  I suppose technically that you would be helping a person
    violate the Sabbath if you were shomer shabbas yourself and bought
    something that a non-observant Jew like me produced for you on the
    Sabbath.  That could be an important point for some people.

    Let me assure you that people who keep kosher all year around don't
    plan to eat soap either.  
    
    Two more reasons.
    
    Tablecloths, napkins, and placemats are washed in detergent.
    Since they are used near food, it might be important that are not
    treifed up.  Also, one isn't supposed to get any benefit from an
    admixture of milk and meat.  That might occur in the chemicals used
    to make the soap.
    
     
 

    
    re: -.1
    
    Interesting that you aren't supposed to get a benefit from mixing meat
    and milk.  Now, why doesn't that apply to other "treifisms"? For
    example, I've never heard of a problem with wearing leather products
    that came from non-kosher animals...

re: -.2 and others

I am also a bit puzzled. I thought that there is a point at which an animal
product has been so thoroughly processed that kashrut rules no longer apply.
In particular, there is a discussion in Bagels about whether bone China is
suitable for milchic meals.

If the day ever comes that I decide to keep kosher, I would not want to use
detergent derived from treif animals or milk/meat combinations for esthetic
reasons. My real question is whether there is a Halachic reason in this case?

Dave

    Almost all detergents in the US have a O-U (where's that compose character
    sequence?).  Detergents are a fairly recent invention -- people used to
    use soap to wash clothes, dishes, etc.  Normal soap is made from animal
    fat.  There's stuff called kosher soap that made from coconut oil.
    It comes with a blob of red or blue dye in it so you can tell the
    milchik soap from the fleishik.  Tide was one of the first detergents
    available -- and people used it to wash dishes!

    Another consideration is that detergents with an O-U are generally
    Kosher Le-pesach.  Thus, you can use them on Pesach, don't have
    to sell them as chametz, etc.

    As far as processing all the "animalness" out of animal products,
    there are many opinions, and attitudes have changed in recent years.
    A good example is gelatin.  Jello used to have a K on it -- it's
    made from pig skins, and some conservative rabbis say this is OK.
    Ko-Jel used to be gelatin made from bones of treifly-slaughtered
    kosher animals (cattle?), and it had the hashgacha on a nominally
    Orthodox rabbi.  Ko-Jel used to be widely accepted in Orthodox
    circles (up until the 60's), but gradually lost its acceptance.
    Recently, they switched from gelatin to some vegetable substance
    (agar agar?), and now have an O-U.

    While we are on the subject of laundry detergent, I have noted a
    strange phenomenum in labelling that occurs mostly in detergents
    and especially dish detergent.  On the shelf will be two containers
    with the same code number (meaning same batch) and one will have an OU 
    and the other won't.  I play it safe and only buy the OU one.  Anybody 
    got an explanation why this occurs; other than there were two
    different labels printed?
     

    We used to use the cocunut-oil detergent bars during Passover since
    that was the only dish-washing product that was available that was sure
    to be OK for Passover use, but they sure don't clean dishes very well!
    On the other hand, they leave your skin nice and soft.  (Yes, I suppose
    that I could kasher the dishwasher - some people do kasher theirs for
    Passover depending on which rabbi you ask about it, but my 20-year old
    dishwasher would never survive the experience, so we just wash
    everything by hand for a week - and use a lot of disposable aluminum
    pans and such, which is not so great ecologically...).
    
    Cloth napkins and such hadn't occurred to me - we use paper ones almost
    always.

Reply to: < Note 662.6 by USACSB::SCHORR >

>    While we are on the subject of laundry detergent, I have noted a
>    strange phenomenum in labelling that occurs mostly in detergents
>    and especially dish detergent.  On the shelf will be two containers
>    with the same code number (meaning same batch) and one will have an OU 
>    and the other won't.  I play it safe and only buy the OU one.  Anybody 
>    got an explanation why this occurs; other than there were two
>    different labels printed?

	I don't know about your specific case of laundry detergents.
	But, I have seen many cases where something that you "know" is
	"O-U" suddenly doesn't have the "O-U" where is used to.
	[This note isn't just about the O-U, of course; it's true about
	any of the reliable marks, but I'm using the O-U for illustration.]

	I've found that the cases are pretty consistent and meaningful.
	That is, I've found "when there's smoke, there's fire".

	The lack of O-U usually means that something really HAS happened.  
	When Heinz updated the label on "57" sauce, suddenly the 
	O-U disappeared -- from something which had been O-U for years.  In
	fact, they had reformulated it, and it WAS treif (It's just
	been reformulated again, and it's O-U again...).  Same was true,
	I believe, about "Tabasco" sauce, which now sports a "K". It went
	from O-U, suddenly to nothing, then a year later --  to a "K".
	Same thing for "SOS" soap pads.  At one time, they were O-U.  Suddenly,
	the mark disappeared (and there were boxes "that were", and boxes
	"that weren't". Now, I believe, they're "K".  There was a
	reformulation.

	Another example:  Cheerios cereal.  Today, some packages of Cheerios 
	have the "O-U", some don't.  Even with the same "code". This varies week
	to week. So, you ask, "why is this?"  

	It turns out that the Cheerios are still O-U, per se.  But the packages
	which are not marked with the O-U contain an enclosure --
	i. e., a promotional sample of some other product, which is treif 
	(definitely NOT O-U.)  General Mills agreed with the O-U to with-
	hold printing the O-U on boxes which contain treif.

	To REALLY find out, you need to consult a competent Rav who's 
	regularly plugged into the Kashrut balagan.

>in re:  another note or two...

	You aren't supposed to benefit from treif animals, not just only
	"not from meat and milk".  For example, there is a contact lens
	cleaning solution that is made from pig intestines, which should
	not be used.  There's an opinion that one probably should not use goods
	made from, for example, pigskin "leather."  And, you cannot
	sell (benefit from the sale of) treif food, even to non-Jews (though
	this is a slightly different case).

	I believe that this even extends to pets, etc..  I have "lehrned" 
	somewhere (now, just _where_????) that it is undesireable to 
	keep treif animals unless there is an over-riding reason to do
	so, e. g., one should probably not keep a dog, unless for 
	protection, or reason of blindness, etc., or should not keep a horse
	unless it was needed for making a living, etc.

don feinberg

    RE:-1
    
    Very interesting..  I agree with your statement about changes in 
    products makinging their status variable and that one must be ever 
    vigalent regarding products.  

    I am surprised at your statement regarding benefit from Traif animals.
    Statements elsewhere in this notes file seem to indicate that use of 
    Traif is allowable you just can't eat them.  For example aren't most 
    skin animals Traif yet may furriers are very Orthodox?  Also why can 
    a Obervant Jew use a pig heart valve for a replacement when a plastic 
    one is available?    Any comments?
    
    

    re: .8
    I used to use the contact cleaning solution you mentioned without
    giving any thought to the ingredients in the product.  One day I
    happened to spot that pork was an ingredient and that ended using
    it.  I think the name of the product was Alcon.  What a shock to
    find pork in contact cleaner!

re .8:
	Don,

>	You aren't supposed to benefit from treif animals, not just only
>	"not from meat and milk".  
>	And, you cannot
>	sell (benefit from the sale of) treif food, even to non-Jews (though
>	this is a slightly different case).

	But the Torah explicitly says that one MAY sell a trefah/nevelah
	to a non-Jew. So I must be missing something here.

>	I believe that this even extends to pets, etc..  I have "lehrned" 
>	somewhere (now, just _where_????) that it is undesireable to 
>	keep treif animals unless there is an over-riding reason to do
>	so, e. g., one should probably not keep a dog, unless for 
>	protection, or reason of blindness, etc., or should not keep a horse
>	unless it was needed for making a living, etc.

	Yeah, and I remember hearing a similar ban on DOLLS of treif
	animals. Hey, come on!

	Maybe this is for Kabbalistic reasons or, in the case of dogs, 
	because dogs (especially in pre-Modern times) were not "pets" but 
	were dangerous animals? (Actually, that's still true for many dogs,
	isn't it?!) 
	
	Funny, but I remember once in Israel overhearing a
	tremendously heated debate between a dog-hating black-robed
	Meah Shearim-nik and a shorts-wearing secularist walking a 
	German (!) Shepherd. I don't recall the details but it struck
	me at the time that the Talmudic references (Baba Kama obviously,
	but I don't remember where) seemed inappropriate AT FIRST, until
	you looked at that monstrous dog's teeth and started to think
	about how hungry he looked for a good bite of you-know-who!

	BTW, I don't particularly [dis/]like cats or dogs myself, so no flames
	please from the local dog/cat lovers/haters!

-Zaitch

re .8:
>	You aren't supposed to benefit from treif animals, not just only
>	"not from meat and milk".  For example, there is a contact lens
>	cleaning solution that is made from pig intestines, which should
>	not be used.  There's an opinion that one probably should not use goods
>	made from, for example, pigskin "leather."  And, you cannot
>	sell (benefit from the sale of) treif food, even to non-Jews (though
>	this is a slightly different case).

    I asked a reliable rabbi about this.  It's perfectly acceptable to
    benefit from anything non-kosher except milk cooked with meat of
    kosher animals (whether kosherly slaughtered or not).  It's probably
    OK to sell a Reuben sandwich (where the beef is not cooked with the
    cheese).  It's definitely OK to sell ham and cheese.  It's definitely
    forbidden to sell beef stroganoff.  Cheeseburgers are questionable --
    it depends what kind of cooking is forbidden (broiling may not be
    treated the same as stewing/boiling).

    Of course, on Pesach it's forbidden to benefit from *any* chametz.

.12>    Of course, on Pesach it's forbidden to benefit from *any* chametz.

It's not clear to me exactly what this means.  Suppose that before Pesach,
I sell my chametz to a non-Jew.  During chol hamoed (the intermediate days
of) Pesach, I take the money that I received from the sale and use it to
buy a piece of kosher le-Pesach cake.

Would this be considered "benefiting" from chametz during Pesach?  If not,
why not?  (Aside from the obvious answer that kosher le-Pesach cakes generally
aren't very satisfying.  :-))

reply to 662.12 by NOTIME::SACKS and others ...


>>	You aren't supposed to benefit from treif animals, not just only
>>	"not from meat and milk".  For example, there is a contact lens
>>	cleaning solution that is made from pig intestines, which should
>>	not be used.  There's an opinion that one probably should not use goods
>>	made from, for example, pigskin "leather."  And, you cannot
>>	sell (benefit from the sale of) treif food, even to non-Jews (though
>>	this is a slightly different case).
>
>    I asked a reliable rabbi about this.  It's perfectly acceptable to
>    benefit from anything non-kosher except milk cooked with meat of
>    kosher animals (whether kosherly slaughtered or not).  It's probably
>    OK to sell a Reuben sandwich (where the beef is not cooked with the
>    cheese).  It's definitely OK to sell ham and cheese.  It's definitely
>    forbidden to sell beef stroganoff.  Cheeseburgers are questionable --
>    it depends what kind of cooking is forbidden (broiling may not be
>    treated the same as stewing/boiling).

	I finally looked some of this up in the sources.  It is, in fact,
	not acceptable to "benefit from anything non-kosher except..."

	The din does not treat the "class" as "treif" (as I had thought I
	remembered). Rather, the cases are brought "individually."  
	It appears that there are some cases of treif that can be profited
	from, such as horsemeat, which are outside of a specific set
	of regulations.

	The case of meat and dairy is brought in Chulin 115b.  
	It says quite unambiguously that you cannot "cook (bishul),
	eat (echol), or benefit/profit (nehenah) from meat and milk 
	together."

	So, you cannot sell a Reuben sandwich, nor a cheeseburger.  It
	doesn't matter how it's cooked; you can't profit from the meat
	and milk together.

	There definitely is a separate case of pig (which I'll try to get to) 
	which has the same "din" -- you cannot profit from it (e. g., you 
	cannot sell a ham and cheese sandwich [or plain ham], for example).

	There are two or three other specific cases  -- i. e., prohibitions
	based on individual items, such as meat/milk, pig, etc., rather than by
	"class" (i. e., "treif").  I will try to remember to look some of 
	those up.

don feinberg

    	This prohibition on benefiting from treif practices is a new one on
    me.   I grew up in an Orthodox shul and Hebrew education, and I'm
    surprised that it never came up.

    	Such a prohibition would actually be quite far-ranging.  If one
    can't benefit from treif, then one can't work in the general
    [not-strictly-kosher] food industry, or in the general hotel or
    restuarant business, or own commercial real estate which contains
    general cafeterias.  Going further, one can't be involved in a
    department store if it contains a general food department, one can't
    own stock in the company which owns the store, and one can't own stock
    in a mutual fund which owns stock in the company...  Where do you stop? 

    	In this day of multinational companies and interlocking businesses,
    how do you determine whether a business is benefiting from treif
    practices?  How diluted does that benefit have to be before you can
    stop worrying about it?  

    	Whatever basis there is for this prohibition is pretty far removed
    from the basic rules of kashrut laid out in the Torah.  I'd be
    interested in opinions from current-day authorities.

    	Another thought:  The laws of kashrut are specifically intended as
    a guide to the Jewish people and are not required of others.  It does
    not strike me as a contradiction for a Jew to observe kashrut strictly
    but to provide non-Jews with a means for eating treif.

    			David

    ...and if the State of Israel provides subsidies to the pate de
    foie gras industry (which, I understand is rather large and 
    profitable -- it ain't chopped liver) how kosher is the interest
    on my Israeli bonds?

Re .16:

What makes chopped goose liver any less kosher than chopped chicken liver?

Pate is served in the Israel Hiltons which are certainly kosher, possibly glatt.

Ed

    If it's real pate de foie gras, the livers used are produced by
    force-feeding the geese.  The livers become enlarged, and as such
    are deemed diseased and thus unfit.  This is my understanding.

    Well, you see, it's a "fence" around the prohibition of eating certain
    things.  But those prohibitions are themselves "fences" against
    doing things prohibited in Gemara, which are themselves "fences"
    against doing things prohibited in Torah, etc.
    
    But since it's not allowed to build "fences around fences", then
    obviously whatever's been fenced in by this last fence is being
    redefined as more-than-a-fence.  Which is a way to make new
    prohibitions without admitting to building fences around fences.
    
    Which is why there's no one right answer.  Different rabbis will
    come up with different answers; Orthodox ones will be stricted
    (preferring more fences) than others.  And some very stringent sects
    will, of course, maintain their monastic look, since the real world
    is full of treif.

re:  .-1

>>                     -< I don't lose sleep over pilpulim >-


	Pilpulim, fine.

	But do you keep kosher?  Do you keep Shabbas?

don feinberg

    Re: .19
    
    	You appear to be very angry, which is an very unfortunate state
    to be in. Yes, the rabbis do institute fences in many cases, and
    some of them can be inconvenient at times. But the bulk of the 
    Talmud is an elaboration of the Five Books of Moses, which is, after
    all, an extremely cryptic document (what are "frontlets", anyway?).
    G-d did not claim that keeping his laws was a simple matter, but,
    according to Nachmanedes' beautiful introduction to the Bible, they
    are meant for our betterment, even if we don't understand how in
    each and every case. Therefore, it is in our interest to strive
    to better understand the laws in order to learn how to observe them
    to the best of our ability. If one has such a desire, the natural
    place to start is with those who have devoted their lives to study
    and elucidation of the Torah. 
    
    	Let's all have a happy, healthy, and yes - KOSHER - Passover.
    
    -Jeremy
    

There just has to be some limit to the prohibition on milk/meat combinations,
else how could a Jew keep a cow since it is a living combination of milk and
meat? Surely, some of the prohibition must begin when an animal is slaughtered
for food (I'm reasoning with logic now so I feel I'm on shakey ground). I would
expect that a Jewish farmer would not raise pigs to be sold for slaughter
because that doesn't "feel" right somehow. A pet pig might be a borderline case.

What about the case of pets, especially those species that it is NOT customary
to eat, i.e. dogs and cats? (Even tho there are parts of the world where people
eat dogs; that's not the local custom.) I guess if it's OK to keep horses, then
it's probably OK to keep dogs (or a catfish in ones aquarium).

Also, what about a pig leather? If it's not meant to be eaten, is it OK?

Dave (one of the perplexed)

    The responses to my (sorta intentionally flam-ey) .19 illustrate
    the differences between the movements and their approaches.  Orthodoxy
    starts with the notion that the Torah is cryptic and partial, and
    obviously the Oral Law was needed to round it out.  Non-Orthodox
    movements hold that the interpretations of Torah needn't treat the
    Talmud as the final arbiter.  Re-interpretation is thus the norm,
    especially in Reform.
    
    What's the "milk and meat" business?  In the Torah, it says three
    times not to seethe a lamb in its mother's milk.  (Or was it a kid?)
    It must be important if it's there three times.  But no mention
    of a) other meats; b) other mothers' milk; c) other combinations
    of milk and meat; d) poultry; e) benefitting by the a-d above. 
    The written Oral Law (contradition in terms and thus suspect by
    Reform methodology, not by Orthodox who holds it's from Sinai) adds
    to the (Written) Torah.  Subsequent rabbinic interpretations add
    more fences.
    
    Reform methodology is different.  First we ask, "Why is there such
    a prohibition"?  From modern history we know that neighboring tribes
    had various sacrificial rites.  We also know that intermarriage
    was viewed as a Bad Thing.  So we see a lot of prohibitions in the
    Torah against a) socialization leading to intermarriage (they eat
    shrimp, we don't, etc.) and other dilution; b) participation in
    non-Jewish religious rites.
    
    So to me, I don't extend "do not seethe a lamb" into "don't mix
    chicken and yoghurt".  I do extend it into "don't participate in other
    religions' observances".  Like taking communion, being baptized
    into some other religion, etc.  It's not the Orthodox opinion, but
    it works for me, and it makes me feel closer to my deity and people
    than some blind obedience to a curious amalgamation of injunctions.
    
    So, rhetorically, what's keeping kosher?

    RE: 662.23

                                                               Orthodoxy
   > starts with the notion that the Torah is cryptic and partial, and
   > obviously the Oral Law was needed to round it out.

    No.  Orthodoxy starts with the belief that the Humash is the word of
    God, written down by Moses. (Although some traditionalists may be
    willing to consider variations on how it was recorded, the central
    assumption is that what we have is of divine origin.)  Orthodoxy also
    holds that the Mishnah is also of divine origin, although transmitted
    in oral rather than written form for about a millennium.  The key is the
    belief in the divine origin of these commandments, not lack of clarity.

   >                                                     Non-Orthodox
   > movements hold that the interpretations of Torah needn't treat the
   > Talmud as the final arbiter.  Re-interpretation is thus the norm,
   > especially in Reform.
    
    The non-Orthodox movements do not accept the Humash and Mishnah as
    being the literal word of God; depending on who you ask, these
    documents are considered more or less divinely inspired, but of human
    authorship.  That means that humans can modify or repeal them.

                                                Aaron

    re:.24
    note that .21 says, in defense of Orthodoxy,
>    But the bulk of the 
>    Talmud is an elaboration of the Five Books of Moses, which is, after
>    all, an extremely cryptic document (what are "frontlets", anyway?).

    so I don't claim credit for that notion.  "Cryptic" is a curious
    term anyway, with lots of nuances which I think generally do apply.
    But that doesn't mean, to me, that I agree that Mishna is from Sinai,
    or for that matter that Tanach is bit-for-bit of direct divine 
    dictation.  And even if it were, then it was still dictated in context
    of its day, its recipients, and the recipients' understanding of
    language and concepts.  Thus in the absence of new revelation, it
    would need re-interpretation to apply to a changed world.  But that's 
    where we agree to disagree.

    Re: .21
    
    > all, an extremely cryptic document (what are "frontlets", anyway?).
    
    Well, basically, "frontlets" are the opposite of "backlets". :-)
    
      Alan