2

According to the certifying agency of Nabisco Oreo cookies, which are marked OU-D:

The equipment is not necessarily cleaned before the production of these cookies, and there may be a small amount of dairy residue present. Nonetheless, the dairy component would be minimal, and from a Halachic perspective, the dairy residue is nullified (botel bishishim) and of no consequence. The bottom line of all this is that these cookies may be consumed after meat and poultry, but not simultaneously.

IMSMC, according to the Maharshal, being stringent by not relying on the halachik principle of nullification (bittul) is considered heretical/quasi-heretical (as unjustified rejection of a traditional halachik principle; as opposed to the traditional principle of ein mevatlin issur l'chatchila - not intentionally nullifying forbidden food). Nonetheless, this does not appear to reflect normative practice.

However, in the case of "dairy" equipment, there appears to be the added issue that it is not clear that there was even bittul to begin with (i.e. based on the language cited above, it seems there is at least an additional uncertainty whether any given cookie has even a trace amount of dairy).

Accordingly, which halachic authorities (rishonim and/or achronim) does the OU rely on in crafting its ruling that even an alleged uncertainty (safek) of a possible trace amount of heter dairy should nonetheless prevent eating the overall product together with meat (assuming, of course, that Oreos are considered nosein taam lishvach [tasty] in a cholent)?

  • 7
    Click-bait title – ezra Apr 29 '18 at 15:43
  • 2
    How is this different from any other case of Nat bar Nat? – Double AA Apr 29 '18 at 17:05
  • @DoubleAA Please CMIIAW but the description provided by the OU doesn't sound like they are describing bliyos of cooking equipment definitely used within 24 hrs. for dairy, but rather an uncertainty regarding whether a possible "residue" was left on the "equipment" (seemingly suggesting that which was used without heat). Thus it seems like at least one safek of whether dairy was there at all to begin with, and even if it was, we are sure it is batel. Do we say the Ramo's chumra of nat bar nat if we don't even have a certainty of chalav to begin with? – Loewian Apr 29 '18 at 18:40
  • @ezra Nah. Just recipe suggestion;) – Loewian Apr 29 '18 at 18:40
  • @Loewian While I disagree and think that they are assuming there are Ben Yomo Bliot at least in some of the batch, to address your question anyway it sounds just like they are presenting the Shakh 89 19 about a pot that you didn't clean fully (or some variation on his suggestion) – Double AA Apr 29 '18 at 19:55
1

The OU's psak is based on treating the cookies as a case of Nat bar Nat i.e. dairy 'taste' absorbed by the machinery is then considered to have been absorbed by the pareve cookies, even if the machinery is completely clean of any dairy residue on the surface.

The stringency not to eat such a food directly with meat, but to permit it immediately following meat, is based on Rema Yoreh De'ah 95:2.

This article by R. David Brofsky gives a nice overview of the topic. Key quotes which are relevant here:

The Rema notes that food which is fried or cooked in dairy utensils may not be eaten WITH meat. However, this food may be eaten after meat, even during the same meal. Therefore, one may serve a cake baked in a dairy pan for dessert after a meat meal.

...

In recent years, terms such as "chezkat chalavi," or "dairy equipment," have entered the vocabulary of the kosher consumer. These terms derive from this position of the Rema. Food which was cooked in "dairy equipment" is considered "be-chezkat chalavi" and should not be eaten with meat, but may be consumed afterwards. Furthermore, if it is unintentionally mixed with meat, the mixture may be eaten.

  • +1 for the sources but I'm not sure that answers the q. The description provided by the OU doesn't sound like they are describing bliyos of cooking equipment definitely used within 24 hrs. for dairy, but rather an uncertainty regarding whether a possible "residue" was left on the "equipment" (seemingly suggesting that which was used without heat). Thus it seems like at least one safek of whether dairy was there at all to begin with, and even if it was, it is certainly batel. The Ramo seems to be discussing where we are sure the pareve item was cooked in a recently-used-for-dairy pot. – Loewian Apr 29 '18 at 18:36
  • @Loewian Can you provide a link to the OU’s explanation? Would be helpful to see the whole thing in context – Joel K Apr 29 '18 at 18:38
  • @Loewian Hmmm. Interesting. While I still stand by my answer, I see how the way they write it could be read in the way you do. Maybe call / email them to clarify... – Joel K Apr 30 '18 at 16:00
  • 1
    @Orion I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that bliyos only apply via liquid. In terms of heat, I would assume that the heat needed to bake the dough into cookies would be sufficient. – Joel K Apr 30 '18 at 17:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .