I bought a container of non-dairy creamer. It is labeled OU-D. Am I safe in assuming that it contains no dairy and is just DE (made on Dairy Equipment)?
Although one would assume that non-dairy creamers do not contain dairy ingredients, most non-dairy creamers do contain a small percentage of sodium caseinate, which is a milk derivative. The odd use of the term “non-dairy” on such products is the result of regulations passed by the US FDA years ago. In response to a strong dairy lobby, the FDA forbade the use of the word “dairy” as a descriptive term when the dairy content is below a certain level. The same is true of margarine. Some margarine brands may contain dairy ingredients even if labeled non-dairy. To make a proper determination about OU-D margarine or creamers, please contact the OU hotline at 212.613.8241 or the Webbe Rebbe at kosherq@ou.org.
Why are some brands of Worcestershire sauce labeled OU-Fish while others have a regular OU?
Halachah does not permit eating fish and meat together. The OU-F, indicating that a product has a fish ingredient, becomes important in situations where the fish ingredient is not obvious. The product should not be eaten with or cooked with meat or with foods made with meat ingredients. While halachah allows cooking an OU-F product on meat equipment, some have a custom to have a separate pot for cooking or reheating fish. It is permitted to eat an OU-F product right before or right after eating meat. An OU-F product may be eaten and/or cooked together with dairy foods.
On products whose fish content is recognizable, either because the product is actually fish or includes the name of a fish (e.g., tuna salad), the designation might be a plain OU.
Many Worcestershire sauces contain anchovies. In products containing a fish ingredient (as opposed to products containing a dairy or a meat ingredient), the amount of the fish ingredient in relation to the other ingredients in the product is the determining factor as to whether to label the product OU-F or not. If the ratio of other ingredients to the fish ingredient is less than 60 to 1, the product is labeled OU-F. If the other ingredients are equal to or greater than the kosher-mandated (60 to 1) ratio, halachah considers the fish ingredient to have dissipated in the other ingredients and the OU does not require that the product be marked “F,” though it might be marked “F” anyway. This explains why some OU-certified Worcestershire sauces containing anchovies are assigned OU-F and other brands are assigned OU. In the latter case, it is because the quantity of the anchovies in the product was small and it is therefore nullified.
Is it permissible to add Worcestershire sauce to meat if the label has a regular OU?
There is a dispute among rabbinic authorities as to whether fish is nullified in 60 parts. The OU follows the lenient position. As such, Worcestershire sauce that contains anchovies at a ratio of 1:60 may be labeled OU, without a fish designation; however, if the anchovies are more than one part in sixty of the sauce’s components, the product must be labeled OU-Fish. The question remains whether it is permissible to intentionally add an OU-certified Worcestershire sauce, which contains a small percentage of anchovies, to a meat dish? With respect to non-kosher foods, bitul (nullification) only applies after the fact, in the event an accidental mixture occurs, but it is not permissible to intentionally effectuate bitul (in the words of Chazal, ein mevatlin issur lechatchilah). Does the same apply to fish, such that it would be prohibited to intentionally introduce fish to a meat dish at a level where the fish would be batel? One could argue that fish is not a prohibited item, but rather a food that poses a danger when eaten with meat. Nullification removes the danger and therefore it may be permissible to intentionally nullify the fish component. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, zt”l (quoted in Peninei Ish) maintains that one may in fact add a small amount of fish to meat. As such, one may intentionally add OU-certified Worcestershire sauce to a meat dish and consume the final product. This is particularly the case with Worcestershire sauce, since the anchovies were already batel in the sauce itself.
For simplicity’s sake, some companies prefer to label all their Worcestershire sauces with an OU-Fish symbol regardless of whether the amount of fish is nullified or not, and the OU accommodates such requests. One may contact the OU office at kosherq@ou.org to inquire if the amount of fish in a specific brand of sauce that bears an OU-Fish logo is indeed nullified.
The OU certifies crackers and popcorn containing parmesan seasoning. Since parmesan is a hard cheese that requires one who eats it to wait six hours before eating meat, do I similarly need to wait six hours after eating these snacks?
If the seasoning is primarily made from parmesan cheese, then one should wait six hours (or whatever one’s custom is). However, cheese seasonings are often made with enzyme-modified cheese (EMC) that is mixed and essentially diluted with other bulkier ingredients, such as whey or blander cheese powders. In volume, the other ingredients constitute the majority of the seasoning. Yad Yehudah (YD 89, 30) writes that a hard cheese that is blended into another food and softened through cooking does not necessitate waiting six hours. Similarly, in the case of enzyme-modified cheese, Rabbi Hershel Schachter, senior posek at OU Kosher, explained that since it is actually a soft cheese (albeit with a very strong flavor), once it is diluted to become a fraction of the seasoning, one would not have to wait after eating it.
I am cooking chicken soup and would like to taste it and spit it out, just to see if it is flavored properly. Will this make me fleishig?
The Rishonim present two reasons why one must wait six hours between meat and dairy. Neither reason applies in this situation.
• According to Rashi (Chullin 105a), the need to wait is due to the residual aftertaste of meat that lingers in one’s mouth. This issue does not apply in this case, because the soup was not swallowed.
• According to Rambam (Hilchos Ma’achalos Assuros 9:28), the rationale for waiting after meat is because of the likelihood that meat may be lodged between one’s teeth (“basar bein hashinayim”). This concern does not apply to liquid chicken soup.
The Peri Chadash (89:18) and Aruch Hashulchan (89:14) write that one who merely tastes a fleishig “tavshil” (food cooked with meat) is not required to wait six hours. All that is required is to clean out one’s mouth by eating some food (e.g., crackers) and having a drink (e.g., water). This was also the ruling of Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky, zt”l, as well (Emes L’Yaakov, p. 306, n. 35). The Peri Megadim (Mishbetzos Zahav 89:1) writes that even when neither reason applies, one should still wait six hours because of a concept known as “lo plug” (halachah is consistent, even where the initial reason for the restriction does not apply). However, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (Hagahos Maharshak on the Peri Megadim) writes that even the Peri Megadim would agree that “lo plug” does not apply in this case.
Bone china, as its name suggests, is made with animal bones. Is there a kashrus concern with using bone china?
Bone china is made from clay and bone char. Bone char is a form of activated carbon that is made from almost completely incinerated animal bones. Since the bones were burned, there is no kashrus concern even though some of the bones could be from non-kosher animals. In truth, even if the bones were not burned, it would not be an issue. Sefer Panim Me’iros (3:33) writes that one may fashion cooking utensils (e.g., spoons, ladles) from the bones of non-kosher animals so long as they have been dried and contain no marrow. Although Rambam (Hilchos Ma’achalos Assuros 4:18) writes that one may not eat bones from a non-kosher animal, they may be used as utensils. This is because the Shulchan Aruch (YD 99:1) states that dried-out, marrowless bones do not impart ta’am (taste). Therefore, utensils made of dried bone will have no impact on food.
What berachah should be recited on seaweed?
Seaweed is an alga. With respect to reciting a berachah, seaweed is similar to mushrooms, as neither have roots and they do not draw nutrients from the ground. Therefore, the berachah for both mushrooms and algae is Shehakol. Furthermore, even if seaweed had roots, one could argue that it would still be Shehakol, since it grows hydroponically and not in soil.
What berachah is recited on vegetables that are grown hydroponically (in water without soil)?
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, zt”l (Yechaveh Daas 6:12), writes that the proper berachah to recite on hydroponically grown fruits and vegetables is Shehakol. He explains that since they do not receive any nourishment from the soil, they are comparable to mushrooms for which the berachah is Shehakol. He compares the halachah of a berachah for hydroponics to the status of shemitah. Although it is forbidden to plant in soil in Israel during shemitah (even in a flowerpot), the Chazon Ish and others ruled that one may plant hydroponically because planting in water is not the same as planting in soil. However, Rabbi Shmuel Wosner, zt”l (Shevet HaLevi 1:205), Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 2:149) and many others maintain that the berachah for hydroponically grown vegetables is Ha’adamah. They explain that Chazal established a uniform berachah for the entire species regardless of how a particular vegetable is grown. For example, since tomatoes ordinarily grow in soil, people refer to a tomato as a “peri adamah” (a fruit of the land). It is therefore appropriate to recite the berachah “Borei peri ha’adamah,” irrespective of whether a particular tomato was grown in the ground, in a flowerpot, or hydroponically. Rav Ovadia Yosef conceded that if one recited “Borei peri ha’adamah” on hydroponically grown vegetables, the berachah is valid bedieved.
This article is adapted from OU Kosher’s Halacha Yomis, a daily email containing brief halachic tidbits. To sign up to receive Halacha Yomis, visit oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/.