Kosher Blog

Gefen makes a pareve Worcestshire Sauce.

Heinz makes a BETTER worcetshire!

Good to know… I’ll try them, though they’ll probably be a bit less enjoyable to compare than BBQ sauces.

“Robbie’s” also makes a worchestershire sauce without anchovies with a KSA hechsher. Available in L.A. area kosher stores. Don’t know about distribution outside of L.A.

Click here for the Rabbinical Assembly’s teshuva on mixing meat and fish.

With all due respect, I’m sure that most of who frequent are not going to rely on the opinions of Conservative rabbis. We still need Worcestshire sauce without fish or less that 1/60th fish.

David: Your tone is beyond offensive to say the least. It is common amongst observent jews of all stripes to cherry pick their rabbinical advisor so to malign Conservative rabbis as you do is an unfounded smear.

That having been said, I am sure that even if you do not honor the conclusion of the Rabbis of the Conservative movement an analysis of their teshuvah would prove educational nevetheless. And your certainly owe those people respect as having invested time and energy into their efforts.

As is readily apparent from other posting I have made, I do not hold with many Orthodox rabbincal rulings regarding kashrut. Nor for that matter, do I agree with Conservative holdings on some issues. Regardless, I frequently study the rabbinical analysis so that when I engage in legitmate debate with other people, I can speak intelligently on the subject. I would encourage you to do the same.

Heinz may be OU but they has anchovies in their sauces,

The quantity of anchovies in Heinz’s product is small enough (less than 1/60) that the OU considers it to be null (botel). Therefore the OU does not mark the product “OU Fish.” It should be noted that the OU only applies this nullification where the prohibition is based on sakana (danger)(as is the case with fish and meat) as opposed to an issue of issur/heter, (generally speaking, kosher/trayfe or an issue of meat and milk issues) where the OU will not certify a product that contains even a drop of a prohibited ingredient.

Joe says “…the OU only applies this nullification where the prohibition is based on sakana (danger)(as is the case with fish and meat)…”. I don’t claim to have any detailed knowledge of OU’s policies, but if Joe is correct, then this would seem to indicate that the OU agrees that the prohibition is based on a belief that there is a danger to mixing fish and meat.

What exactly is the danger?

This is the issue discussed in the RA teshuva. Does anyone believe that this danger truly exists? If so, what is the basis for this belief? If not, i.e. there is no danger, why the prohibition?

No danger exists in comingling fish and meat according to contemporary scientific sources.

There was a perception of danger at one time, and in fact this is the basis for the secular tradtion of not eating fish and meat together as well. Jews are not unique in this regard.

Both the O-U and Conservative movement recognize this. Yet, many kashrut observers around here act in a knee jerk, narrow minded fashion immediately dismiss the teshuvah of the RA without seeing the opportunity to learn. There may be flaws in the logic, but how do you know if you dont take the time to look.

But scientists are not poskim.
For observant Jews, not eating fish and meat isn’t some cultural quirk like wearing green on St. Patrick’s day, it is halachah. It is a halacha brought down by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch. Just because we don’t understand it doesn’t give us the authority to abolish it.

Some scientists are poskim (rather some Poskim are scientists) but even those that are not, can serve to inform those who are in order to have reasoned descision. As I am sure you are aware, Rambam was not only a spiritual leader but a medical practitioner as well.

To that end, the evaluation of “danger” was made at the time in view of knowledge at the time. We have progressed in our knowledge on many issues and to that end, should revisit issues in a reasoned fashion so we can make informed descisions as a community. That may result (as is the case here) in some decisions being understood and therefore clarified.

In this your immedicate comment, I find it quite interesting that you place in a sacrosanct positon secondary sources who were just learned men seeking to interpret the original law. In our age we are certainly entitled to revisit those secondary sources. This is the nature of Halacha (at least as it was taught in my Yeshiva/Day School education).

I believe David’s main point is still valid: we don’t understand fully why Chazal declared that a mixture of meat and fish represented a danger to one’s health. For reference, the main source text we’re dealing with is Pesachim 76b — not a secondary source.

This prohibition is not something we can just annul based on science, especially because kashrut isn’t based on science. And even if scientists could prove that meat and fish mixtures tear at your insides or that an onion can really pick up meat ‘taste’ from a knife, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference because kashrut is entirely spiritual.

Before we go throwing off the yoke of the commandments, let’s keep things in perspective. I believe the OU does just that: an OU article on the subject fully brings forth the opinions on the matter, and states “It would seem that one can be lenient in these and other related questions … because several major poskim point out that the danger Chazal referred to is no longer prevalent… While we will not permit that which was forbidden, this can explain our tendency toward leniency.”

David’s inital posting blithely disregarded the R.A.’s discussion of this issue without reading it and that is the core of my criticizm. A discourse and inspection of the reasons for observence (regardless of whether you look to those sources as binding) is what is important to this discussion.

Also, one measure of Kashrut obervence is spiritual, but lests be honest that there are legitimate scientific and historical reasons for many observences as well. And in that vein, there is legitimate reason to revisit certain issues. The OU regards itself being liberal in this vein by tending to be lenient in applying this prohibition whereas the RA has gone further. They both rely however on the same analysis, that the perception of danger has evolved.

Further,

Who says I didn’t read it? I read it. I have also read the teshuva from the 50’s that says you can drive on Shabbat and the one that says that a Kohain can marry a divorcee or a convert. They are simply not relevant to me or the vast majority of shomrei kashrus Jews who do not and would not rely on the opinions of non-Orthodox clergy. I have asked a shaila of the Rav I hold by and he has told me that I can’t mix meat and fish. I’d be very surprised if one could find more than mabye two Orthodox pulpit rabbi’s who would say that one could lechatchila mix meat and fish. I would very respectfully suggest that you ask a shaila rather than assuming based on evidence that the halachah has been abolised.

jabbet, I am a curious about your comment, “this prohibition is not something we can just annul based on science, especially because kashrut isn’t based on science.” Yet this particular rule does appear to be based on science… the science of a long time ago.

I say “appear” because I do not consider myself an authority. Yet reading the RA piece, I find it quite compelling. Not only does it lay out the reason for the prohibition as being based solely on an understanding at the time that mixing meat and fish did risk physical harm, it also describes as precedent a case where a different prohibition based on danger was lifted once it became understood that there was no longer a prevalent danger.

Having just now looked at the OU piece that you linked, it appears that the OU is in agreement that mixing meat and fish is not dangerous: “several major poskim point out that the danger Chazal referred to is no longer prevalent”. Although I disagree with the final analysis that they won’t permit what was once prohibited, I respect their choice and most importantly the fact that they understand the history and background of the issue. I only wish that others that read this blog would show the same respect to the RA Teshuva and its authors. Although they may not agree with the final analysis, i.e. it is acceptable to mix fish and meat, they should respect the knowledge and scholarly credentials of the writers.

Starting “with all due respect” you immediately show disrespect for the audience. The issue here is not Orthodox versus Conservative, because there is a divergence on many kashrut issues within the Orthodox community. Indeed, witness the growth of such extreme positions as “Chalav Yisrael” “Pat Yisrael” which years ago did not exist, indeed many authorities permitted use of milk without any oversight but the mere representation of the herd makeup by civil authorities! Rather the issue is the respect necessary for reasoned debate in a polite atmosphere.

Chalav Yisroel and Pas Yisroel certainly did exist years ago. They were instuted by Hillel and Shammai. They are mentioned in the Gemera, the Shulchan Aruch, and the Mishna Breruah.
There is a longstanding custom, that even if one is not strict about pas yisroel year round, one should be between Rosh Hoshanna and Yom Kippur. How could there be a long standing custom to be strict about PY, if the idea didn’t exist?
It most certainly an issue of Orthodox vs. Conservative, because although there a wide divergance of Orthodox opinions it is still all within certain parameters. NO Orthodox rabbi would say that swordfish or sturgeon is kosher. A C rabbi would. Probably no more than 5 O rabbis in America would say that that gelatin made of non-shechted cattle is kosher, or that rennet made from unshechted cattle makes kosher cheese, but probably every C rabbi does.

David: You dont get it. The point I am making is that you should engage in reasoned debate. Your tone dismisses the conclusions of a large group of Rabbis merely because of their affiliation rather than the analysis with which they engage.

HB, you’re right that I owe some more explanation of my statement. My perspective is based on the notion of tzara’at, which the RA teshuva translates as “leprosy.” Those whom I’ve asked about tzara’at have hesitated to translate it as leprosy, which is a specific medical ailment (Hansen’s Disease), as opposed to the affliction described in the Torah, which can affect both people and homes as a punishment for inappropriate behavior between men. (I believe this distinction is discussed in full by Samson Raphael Hirsch.)

I thus understood that tzara’at, though it manifests physically, has a uniquely spiritual cause and a uniquely spiritual resolution.

Like you, HB, I’m not an authority, and, even beyond that, most all of my knowledge is on the practical side of things, which is why I rarely — if ever — start this kind of conversation. But from my limited understanding of tzara’at, I do not see it, as Rabbi Plotkin seems to, in terms of medicine and science. Since Rabbi Plotkin’s teshuva bases its conclusion on strictly scientific grounds — “today we know that there is no sakana affecting tzara’at” — I personally see no halachic elimination of the spiritual hazards inherent in biblical tzara’at.

jabbet — Thank you for your response.

Cholov Yisroel is halacha. The only heter was by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein during the 80’s for American companies when:
1) the FDA regularly checked the milk companies who would be scared of playing with the government. But: the FDA isn’t as strict with their supervision today as in the past and the objection to Rav Moshe’s psak even then was that anyone with $$$ could simply bribe the authorities. And for the thousands of years before Rav Moshe, nobody had any heter to consider American milk to be cholov yisroel. But there is certainly no heter to go to some small farm in mexico and drink the milk without supervision!
2) R’ Moshe’s Heter was only b’shaas hadchak. In those days it was hard to get Golden Flow or New Square and the kids need their milk so there was room for heter. But if you can easily get cholov yisroel milk from the supermarket and you just want to have some non cholov yisroel cream in your coffee…that’s a much harder case to make.

There are many *other* food combinations listed in the gemara as causing sakana but since the problem was with physical diseases and we don’t seem to have a problem with those combinations, we don’t have a problem with eating those foods. We can say times have changed: maybe we or the food has adapted/bred or perhaps the environment was different.

(on the other hand that can happen in reverse as now we are worried about mercury in our fish!)

So with regards to those other foods we can go by science.

But the combination of fish and meat is different because the disease mentioned is a spiritual disease. So while you won’t drop dead if you eat fish with meat, it will affect your neshoma.

Hi i know that some of the twisted smirnoff’s are under KSA the black cherry (my favorite) doesnt say KSA on the label is it kosher?
Thanks