Mashgiach and Kosher Standards

The following is from

http://www.kosherveyosher.com/mashgiach-standards.html

According to what is on this web site it seems to me that the standards of supervision that are in place in restaurants, pizza shops and take outs in Brooklyn and many other places leave something to be desired. YL

Information for this article garnered from OU<http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/ou_recommendations_for_vaad_hakashrus_supervision/&gt;
[Picture]
Yotze VeNichNess - Random Coming and Going
Meat may not be cooked until it has been "Koshered". The meat must be soaked in water, salted, which draws out the blood and then rinsed, HaDocha AchaRona.
A well known illustration of Yotze VeNichNess is found in ShO YD 69:10; in a case where we last saw the meat we are Kashering when it was left standing in the kitchen with the non-Jewish servant, after it had been salted. It is now discovered cooking in a pot. We can not accept the non-Jewish servant's statement that they rinsed it. The meat is not Kosher unless we can establish that the non-Jewish servant is in fear of being discovered to have not washed the meat as it should. This fear is determined by what is known as Yotze VeNichNess.

Level of Supervision – Yotze VeNichNess
  1. It is strongly recommended that a Mashgiach Temidi, a permanent full-time supervisor be in attendance from the unlocking of the premises until the final closing.
  2. Where absolutely necessary very frequent Yotze VeNichNess, which means that a Mashgiach pops in randomly a few times every day, would be acceptable.
  3. The foundation of Yotze VeNichNess is instilling fear. The owner manager must fear being caught doing the wrong thing.
  4. Comprehensive knowledge of the entire facility and all entries and exits, and its nooks and crannies must be mastered providing the Mashgiach with the ability to predict “weak spots” in the system’s integrity. A Mashgiach who does not display expertise in these arenas does not instill any fear in the owners managers, and is in fact sending an undisguised invitation to the owner manager to arrange substitutions.
   5. Obviously, the greater the potential gain from cheating the greater must be the fear factor. Therefore the frequency of these visits depends entirely upon the potential gain from substituting non-Kosher with Kosher foods.
   6. We must also evaluate the ability of the Mashgiach to “catch” the violation. The owner manager is not going to bring non-Kosher meat into the eatery whilst it is still in its non-Kosher livery. We must have clear unequivocal guidelines that enable the Mashgiach to discover the substitution.
   7. Small eateries, restaurants, bakeries and pizza shops, have a far greater opportunity and incentive to use non-Kosher ingredients than large manufacturers. They must be visited often and rigorously inspected to truly create a sense of fear.

What actually satisfies Yotze VeNichNess?
It appears that the Shulchan Aruch, other than providing some general guidelines, does not define this in detail, because an effective deterrent is that which creates fear, and this depends very much upon the circumstances, the incentive to substitute, the nature of the relationship between the owner manager and the Kosher certifier, and the power of the deterrent.

Generally speaking:
   a. an establishment that uses products for which there is significant price differential between Kosher and non-Kosher, requires systems that can verify with certainty that substitution has not been arranged.
In the meat final rinse, HaDocha AchaRona scenario, there are a number of significant considerations:
  First and foremost, it applies to a Rabbinic prohibition. Cooked or salted blood is not prohibited by Torah Law. In cases of doubt, Rabbinic prohibitions are resolved leniently whereas Torah prohibitions are resolved stringently.
  Furthermore, even within the Rabbinic lenient rubric:
    i. A servant of the household is subservient to and in fear of the master and the household
   ii. Non servant workers are assumed to not be in fear [Shach, PrMg 42; ChDaAs BiUrim 15]
         1. The Mechaber, by his description, “a non-Jew who is a servant in a Jewish home …” rather than “a non-Jew who has placed the meat in the pot and we are unsure if it was rinsed”
         2. However, Yad Yehuda [41] suggests that even a non-servant will be fearful if he fears a penalty, and Yad Avraham suggests that a servant is fearful without Yotze VeNichNess.
  iii. A Jewish non-religious worker is more cocky and needs greater vigilance than a non-Jew [Rema ShO YD 118:1]
  iv. The servant is familiar with the procedures and knows what to do
   v. The servant knows that members of the household are nearby
  vi. Any member of the household may pop in at any time
vii. The procedure for washing the meat takes some time so there is more fear

Rabbis
  Those ultimately responsible for determining Kashrus must have Orthodox Semicha and live a Frum life. It is advantageous to have specific training and experience in practical aspects of Kashrus supervision.

Ne’emonus
  It is critical to Kashrus, that only those who are Shomer Torah Umitzvos have ceredibility. All facts relevant to Kashrus must be verified by such people. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein,zt’l insists that a reputation for honesty and integrity does not suffice to provide the necessary evidence required for Kashrus. [Igros Moshe 40, I:54 and II:43]

Mashgichim
1. Mashgichim
    a. must live a Frum life.
    b. should be trained in practical aspects of Kashrus supervision.
    c. ought to be paid by the Kashrus organization and not by those being supervised.
            i. this is generally not a viable option.
  2. Mashgichim mostly serve a dual function, they assist the business and they also supervise it.
  3. Such arrangements are far from ideal, but we should endeavour to at least ensure that the Mashgiach:
   a. is able to directly attend to his primary function without impediment.
   b. is not required to perform menial tasks which undermine his stature and authority.

Level of Supervision – Shomer Shabbos
  4. A Shomer Shabbos owner manager cannot be his own Kosher Mashgiach. This does not constitute effective Hashgocha. We have recently witnessed tragic cases where Shomer Shabbos proprietors were caught [and heaven help us – how many have not been caught] selling non-kosher product. This more than proves the inherent deficiency of such arrangements.
   a. Although some may defend this as being Halachically justifiable, [eid echod neomon bi’ussurin, one witness is acceptable regarding questions relating to Kashrus] this arrangement is seriously flawed and invariably leads to tragedy and erosion of the value and performance of Kashrus.

Level of Supervision – Conflict of Interest
  5. The OU insists that restaurants and caterers must be supervised by a Mashgiach who has no financial interest in the facility. While this policy is undoubtedly one to aspire to, individual Rabbonim must assess the Kashrus needs of their communities and determine whether it is feasible to maintain such standards.
  6. The entire facility or at least the storage areas for these foods must be locked whereby the Mashgiach alone or his designates have access to these foods.
  7. A non-Shomer Shabbos person must not have access to the locked areas.
  8. Locks and seals must be tamper-evident.
  9. Security requirements can be met by having a key available in an envelope sealed with at least two seals.
10. Whenever an emergency occurs requiring access to the key, the Mashgiach must be notified and the overseeing rabbi’s approval must be sought.
11. The lock must then be changed to offset the risk of the key having been copied.
12. Foods requiring Bishul Yisrael, Jewish participation in the cooking, are not adequately provided for with Yotze VeNichNess. A Mashgiach Temidi is required, unless a locking device is in service which makes it impossible to relight the pilot light without the PIN code the Mashgiach. [this is an OU standard which I do not believe is fact a Halachic requirement]
13. Commercial food production in or for first world markets, is strictly governed by Health and Safety and Traceability requirements. This means that every single step must follow pre-defined documented protocols that are designed and verified by external auditors. In short, it is basically impossible to alter ingredients or processes without going through a long investigation that requires full documentation. And it is certainly not worth their while.
   a. As such, Yotze VeNichNess may not be required at all, since there may well be adequate evidence to provide a Halachic ruling by being able to access these records.

Ironically you found this on the site of a hechsher that almost nobody trusts. Australia's equivalent of Mr Israel Steinberg.

What you have to understand is that the OU does not determine the halacha. It has its standards, based on its clientele and what level of supervision it believes they need. Other hechsherim are the OU's *equals*, if not greater, and have every right to set different standards, especially if their clientele is different.

For instance, I have been told (but haven't seen it inside) that the Darkei Teshuvah (R Tzvi Hirsh Shapiro of Munkatch) would not give a hechsher on food, but on the proprietor. If he couldn't trust the proprietor to work without supervision he wouldn't give the hechsher no matter how strict a supervision the fellow was willing to endure. In other words, his rigorous standards in choosing clients allowed him to employ very loose standards in supervising them. The OU has the exact opposite policy: it certifies anyone who wants it, and it does so by treating *everyone* as untrustworthy. Each approach is legitimate, but they result in very different business models. An organisation the OU's size simply can't run on the Darkei Teshuvah's principles; a boutique hechsher run by a single yerei shomayim, and taking on no more business than he can personally handle, can.

I thank Prof Levin for referencing my website re Kashrus standards however,
I suspect it would have been more accurate to say - according to Halacha,
rather than - according to what is on this website - the standards of
supervision that are in place in establishments in Brooklyn and many other
places leave something to be desired.

I do not know the nature of the businesses that R Levine references but if
there is a fair chance that regular substitutions with non-Kosher will
provide a significant profit increase [like meat or cheese] then the need
for intense Hashgacha is increased, however when there is little incentive
to make substitutions, the need for intense Hashgacha is less.
This is all included in the Halacha.

I make a determined effort to reference Halacha sources for all articles I
publish and that article certainly does.

One can only wonder why Reb Zev felt the need to point out that the OU does
not have a monopoly on Halacha.
No one suggested that they do, not R Levine in his posting nor in the
article he referenced.

Also saying that - the OU has its standards, based on its clientele and
they choose the appropriate level of supervision they believe is required -
may be misunderstood. It does not mean that the OU ignores Halacha,
ChVeShalom. Rather the OU adheres strictly to Halacha and also various
customs, but chooses a path that suits their business model.

In spite of Rabbanim differing about the standards they apply, there must
be agreement about the Halacha. Either something is Muttar or Assur, and if
there is an argument, the disputants must present their arguments - Kach Hi
Darko Shel Torah.

But this seems to rarely happen. We usually get - our rabbi says this is
Kosher or not Kosher - and that is the end of the discussion. It then
devolves into an argument about whose rabbi is bigger.

The scarcely concealed class divisions alluded to in Reb Zevs comment -
other Hechsherim which are the OU's *equals*, if not greater ....
characterise the worst aspects that plague Kashrus certification. After
all, by what measures are we making these evaluations and more importantly,
for what purpose?

And I truly wonder if those providing Hechsher have full rights to set
different standards suited to their clientele, when it is fairly clear that
such differences feed an unsightly aspect of our beautiful communities, and
may well be driven [also] by business considerations; ensuring they retain
their market and constituents.

And BTW - what is it that makes a Hechsher untrustworthy?
And when is it permitted to publicise such information [as Milhouse does]
And by which device does one measure that almost everybody or nobody trusts
a particular Hechsher.

As for giving a Hechsher on the proprietor, I suppose no one can be coerced
to give a Hecsher on anything or to anyone - but what is the point? I am
astonished that Reb Zev suggests that by endorsing the person, the Rav
HaMachshir may therefore employ very loose standards in supervising such
people. How could a responsible Rov place an Ehrlicher Yid in such a
position? We have Halachos that govern how many people are required to
collect and distribute Tzeddaka.

In conclusion it is useful to study Reb Moshes comments [see Teshuvah
http://www.kosherveyosher.com/lone-rabbis.html\] - he explains that a
community Kashrus must be completely financially independent. It must be
entirely supported by the community [a levy paid by all the members of the
community] and the food manufacturers and service providers do not pay a
penny for their certification.

If any financial benefit is derived from providing certification, then the
status of the Kashrus org and its standards are compromised, in which case
the larger Kosher agencies are likely to be less trustworthy because they
are not fearful of any negative consequences. They are like a juggernaut
that keeps on moving forward and crushes any memory of their errors,
mistakes and shortcomings, whereas the smaller agencies live in fear of
being careless or making an error that will almost certainly be used to
attack and obliterate them.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi