1. Among the many questions that come to us at the OU Kosher Hotline and Webbe Rebbe email service, one of the most frequently asked is, “(favorite product) bears an OU-D, but there does not seem to be any dairy ingredients in it. Is it really pareve?” To make a long story short, it depends on the product. In many cases, the product may actually contain dairy ingredients. The most common example is that of “non-dairy” creamers. While most of the ingredients are pareve (non-dairy), they almost always contain sodium caseinate. While to many of us the name might sound as if it’s a type of salt, it is really derived from milk, making it a dairy ingredient.
Sometimes, a dairy ingredient could be listed among dairy ingredients without being itemized. For example, butter flavors are sometimes listed together with other flavors under the name “natural flavors.” However, in many other cases, there are no dairy ingredients in the products in question. Does that mean that they are really pareve? Not exactly. The D for dairy designation means that the product has been processed on equipment upon which dairy products were produced. According to Ashkenazi Jewish practice, if pareve food is heated up in a utensil in which dairy was previously cooked, the food cannot be eaten together with meat. On the other hand, if one has already eaten meat, one can eat such a product without having to wait the customary six hours. Jews of Sefardi descent are permitted to mix such items with meat. As we have seen in the previous paragraph, the rules regarding dairy equipment are somewhat complex. Also, we have found that many companies do not completely clean off their machinery after running dairy products on them. Something else to keep in mind: Companies ask us all the time to re-formulate their ingredients. This means that even if a product does not contain any dairy ingredients today, it does not mean that that stay the same tomorrow. (oukosher.org)
איתמר דגים שעלו בקערה רב אמר אסור לאכלן בכותח ושמואל אמר מותר לאכלן בכותח.
2. It was stated: If a fish was removed from the fire and placed, still hot, in a bowl in which meat had been eaten, Rav says: It is prohibited to eat the fish with the (yogurt/dairy dish) kutaḥ, since the fish has absorbed meat from the bowl. And Shmuel says: It is permitted to eat the fish with kutaḥ.
(א)דגים שנתבשלו או שנצלו בקדירה של בשר רחוצה יפה שאין שום שומן דבוק בה מותר לאכלם בכותח משום דהוי נותן טעם בר נותן טעם דהיתירא ואם לא היתה רחוצה יפה אם יש בממש שעל פי הקדירה יותר מאחד בששים בדגים אסור לאכלם בכותח:
3. (1) Fish that were cooked or roasted in a well-washed meat pot with no fat stuck to it is permissible to eat with kutach because the fish is "nat bar nat d'heteira" (2 degrees of separation from the permissible taste of meat):
הגה ויש מחמירים בצלייה ובישול לאסור נותן טעם בר נותן טעם (ריב"ן בשם רש"י ובארוך כלל ל"ד הביא המרדכי וא"ז) והמנהג לאסור לכתחילה ובדיעבד מותר בכל ענין (ארוך)...
4. [Rema:] There are those who are strict with regard to roasting and cooking (fish in a meat pot) and prohibit second-degree taste, and the custom is to prohibit it before the fact. After the fact, it is permissible in every way....
כי לפעמים כתבתי להקל בהפסד מרובה או לעני בדבר חשוב או לכבוד שבת והוא מטעם כי באותן המקומות היה נ"ל כי היתר גמור אליבא דהלכתא רק האחרונים ז"ל החמירו בדבר לכן כתבתי דבמקום דלא אפשר יש להעמיד הדבר על דינו
וכן מצינו בקמאי ובתראי דעביד הכי" (רמא הקדמה לספר תורת חטאת).
5. At times, I ruled leniently in cases of monetary loss or in cases involving something important to a poor person or for the honor of Shabbat. My reasoning is that in those situations I concluded it is completely Halachically permissible to act leniently, but the later authorities ruled stringently. Thus, I wrote that if it’s impossible, the matter will revert to its proper legal standing. We have found many earlier and later authorities who behaved in a similar fashion. (Rema, Introduction to Sefer Torat Chatat)
השדי חמד מתמודד עם העובדה שחכמי וורשא (האשכנזים) נהגו להתיר כלי ברזל מצופים, מפני שסברו שאינם בולעים. ומקשה השדי חמד שהרי הרמ"א החמיר בדין כלי זכוכית, ואם כן אין לאשכנזים אסמכתא להתיר כלים שאינם בולעים...למעשה השדי חמד סובר שמנהג האשכנזים להחמיר בכלי זכוכית הוא מנהג התלוי במציאות, וכאשר ישנה מציאות כללית שאין לחשוש לכלים שבולעים, כמו המציאות בימינו, ניתן להתיר את הכלים בלא הגעלה גם לאשכנזים.
6. "The Sdei Chemed analyzes the fact that the rabbis of Warsaw, who were Ashkenazim, would allow iron utensils that were coated/glazed [after being cooked with non-kosher food], because they held that these utensils do not absorb hot food. The Sdei Chemed asks [how this is possible] since the Rema is stringent regarding glassware, so Ashkenazim cannot be lenient regarding utensils that do not absorb taste...practically speaking, the Sdei Chemed holds that the custom of Ashkenazim to be stringent regarding glassware depends on circumstance, and if generally speaking utensils do not absorb non-kosher taste (as is the case today), it would be permissible to use such utensils without [the koshering process] even for Ashkenazim." (Rabbi Yitzchak Dvir, "Bliyat Keilim Biyameinu")
7. Sanitizing food manufacturing equipment is a much bigger responsibility than washing up after preparing a meal at home, as well. That’s because manufacturers and packagers have an enormous responsibility to keep their equipment clean. The potential for foodborne illnesses is something that all manufacturers and packagers need to guard against at all times. Meaning, they must follow strict food safety protocols that include cleaning and sanitizing all equipment every night. This is essential not only because it keeps them compliant with food safety regulations, but also because consumers put their faith and trust in them. An outbreak of foodborne illnesses that originates at one of these manufacturers or packagers means that trust is violated, resulting in severe consequences beyond the legal repercussions they may suffer. For these companies, keeping their equipment clean is more than a matter of good hygiene — it’s also good business. ("Sanitizing food manufacturing equipment a big responsibility", foodsafetytech.com)
(ו) סתם כלי עובד כוכבים הם בחזקת שאינם בני יומן לפיכך אם עבר ונשתמש בהם קודם הכשר התבשיל מותר...ואפשר שעל ידי הרקחים (או שאר אומנים) מותר שכל האומנים מיחדים כלים נקיים למלאכתם כדי שלא יפגמו אומנותם....
8. In general, utensils of a non-Jew are assumed to be post 24 hours since last used to cook non-kosher food, therefore if food was cooked in such a utensil it is permissible...and if the food is commercially produced it is permissible (even outright) because commercial food producers have dedicated utensils that are cleaned so that their production lines won't become contaminated...
(א) הלוקח טלית מצוייצת מישראל או מתגר עכו"ם [ואומר שלקחן מישראל נאמן] [נ"י הלכות ציצית] כשר דכיון דתגר הוא חזקה שלקחה מישראל דלא מרע נפשיה...
9. (1) One who buys a tallit with tzitzit on it from a Jew or from a non-Jewish merchant (Rema: and if he says that he bought it from a Jew, he is believed) it is valid, because since he's a merchant there's a presumption [that he's telling the truth] that he bought it from a Jew because he wouldn't do bad to himself (and ruin his career by lying to customers)...
(ד) מי לימוני"ש שמביאים העובדי כוכבים וכן חתיכות דג מליח שמביאים העובדי כוכבים בחביות מותרים: הגה מפני שמביאים הרבה ביחד ואף אם נאסרו מקצתן שנחתכו בראשונה עם סכין עובד כוכבים נתבטלו באחרים הנחתכים אחר כן שאינן נאסרין כי כבר נתבטל טעם הסכין בראשונים ולכן כולם מותרים וכל כיוצא בזה (בית יוסף בשם שבולי לקט)
10. (4) Lemon juice made by gentiles and cut pieces of salted fish that are brought by gentiles in barrels are permitted. Rema: Because they bring large quantities at once and even if some of them are prohibited, for they were cut first with a non-kosher knife, they are nullified amidst the others that are subsequently cut, for the ones cut later do not become prohibited for the taste in the knife was nullified in the first items cut and so the entire group is permitted. And so too all cases of this sort.