Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Rav Moshe holds that tuna needs a masgiach timidi for it to be consumed,every fish needs to be checked for the simanim.However, by milk he brings a savarah that the government is sufficient and a mashgiach timidi is not needed and one can technically drink such milk.

what is the difference by fish why can't we say the same savarah like milk,I believe Rav Ahron Kotler used such a savarah.

share|improve this question
5  
Off the top of my head: milk is only a rabbinic problem. –  Double AA Oct 11 '13 at 14:54
2  
Also: the government doesn't check (or have a fine) for simanim. They do check (and fine) for milk. –  yydl Oct 11 '13 at 20:31
    
@yydl They don't check and fine to ensure that every fish in a can of tuna is a tuna? –  Double AA Oct 13 '13 at 0:55
1  
@DoubleAA, re your last comment: I can't say with any certainty, but I highly doubt it. –  msh210 Oct 13 '13 at 1:22
    
@DoubleAA both milk & fish are rabbinic prohibitions based on a חשש דאורייתא. Any mareh makom for R. Moshe? –  wfb Oct 13 '13 at 1:34
show 4 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Rabbi J. David Bleich quotes R. Moshe on this question as follows ("SURVEY OF RECENT HALAKHIC PERIODICAL LITERATURE," Tradition 18:4):

Rabbi Feinstein addresses himself specifically to the question of government supervision and to the contention that fear of punitive measures may constitute an adequate substitute for the presence of a mashgiach. Rabbi Feinstein peremptorily dismisses the notion that government inspection might constitute an adequate safeguard. Moreover, he argues, even a mashgiach "exiting and entering" (i.e., a mashgiach who comes and goes periodically but who is not constantly present) is not sufficient. Such supervision is satisfactory, declares Rabbi Feinstein, only if the activity under supervision is one of sufficient duration so that the mashgiach, on his return, might be able to apprehend a malfactor in the midst of the act. Removal of the skin of a fish, however, can be accomplished so swiftly that a person who wishes to substitute a nonkosher fish need not fear that the kashrut supervisor might return and catch him in the act. Therefore, rules Rabbi Feinstein, it is necessary for the mashgiach to be present constantly throughout the canning process and for him to examine each fish.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.