Glatt Kosher Meat
This is the approved revision of this page, as well as being the most recent.Jump to navigation Jump to search
Kosher vs Glatt
- The Ashkenazic minhag for centuries was to allow the bodek to check the lungs for adhesions and peel or rub them off. If they come off cleanly the Rama holds it is permitted. While some limit this minhag to adhesions in certain places and only rubbing and scraping, others expand the minhag to include adhesions of all kinds and even allow scraping. The mainstay of Ashkenazic poskim accept and support this minhag. The term glatt refers to a higher standard in removing adhesions that today has become accepted as the proper standard for Orthodox Jews.
Bet Yosef vs Glatt
- Unlike Ashkenazic practice, Sephardim are strict not to allow any adhesions on the lungs Even according to Sephardim, an adhesion that is easily removed by the passing of a hand gently is permitted. at all.
- Sephardim need to be careful to only eat "Bet Yosef" meat because according to Shulchan Aruch even "Glatt Kosher" meat isn't kosher.
- If a Sephardi is traveling and is invited to a place where they eat "Glatt Kosher" but not "Bet Yosef" it is permitted for him to eat with them, especially if it is a seudat mitzvah.
- There is no concern of eating at the house of someone who keeps Kosher but isn't careful about Bet Yosef meat if it is possible that they weren't used within 24 hours.
- Most of these mekorot are found in the Bet Yosef and Darkei Moshe 39:10-17.
- The Tur 39:10 writes that the minhag in some places is that they would shake the lungs to remove any adhesions because any adhesions that come off aren't really adhesions since a real adhesion would stay in place even if you rubbed it all day. The minhag cited by the Rama was to crush, rub, and peel off the adhesions and if they come off completely it is kosher.
- Rishonim who allow mishmush: Minhag of some places (Tur 39:10), Ri Halavan (Kol Bo 101, cited by Bet Yosef 39:11-2), Kol Bo (cited by Darkei Moshe 39:20), Mahari Vayil (cited by Darkei Moshe 39:20), Maharash (cited by Darkei Moshe 39:20), Rosh (according to Maharshal cited by Shach 39:33), Rama 39:13. See also Rabbenu Yerucham (cited by end of Bet Yosef 39:10:2) quoting the lenient position of Chachmei Lunil and Narvona.
- Rama is only lenient if the adhesions are ksidran, but for shelo ksidran he says not to do mishmush unless it is a hefsed merubeh. Bach 39:15 writes that the minhag is to do mishmush in all cases even shelo ksidran even if it isn't a hefsed and it isn't necessary to protest. Shach 39:37 agrees.
- Pri Megadim M"Z 39:17 (cited by Pitchei Teshuva 39:14) forbids scrapping off a adhesion and if the bodek does so the animal is teref. This is implied by Taz 39:17. However, Tiferet Tzvi and Chatom Sofer cited by Pitchei Teshuva 39:14 say that there's something for this minhag of scraping off the sirchot to rely upon. Aruch Hashulchan 39:109 agrees.
- Rama 39:13, Maharshal (cited by Shach 39:33), and Taz 39:17 all accept the minhag of rubbing off adhesions. Gra 39:26 seems to be strict. Rav Ovadia (Yachava Daat 3:56, Yabia Omer YD 5:3) also quotes the Shlah and Chayei Adam who are strict.
- The OU describes that the practice of gently peeling off adhesions and is better than the manipulation of mashing and massaging the adhesions of the Rama. They say that this practice which started in the 1890s is considered glatt. Similarly, Rav Moshe Heinemann defines Glatt as lungs with adhesions that were exceptionally thin and the adhesion peeled off easily, while kosher means the adhesions were thicker and wider. Hakashrut Lmaaseh p. 76 writes that up to three adhesions that are removed easily it is still called glatt. Yeshurun v. 28 p. 374 has a letter from Rav Yekutiel Efrati that Rav Elyashiv held that adhesions that are removed very easily with passing a hand gently like spiderwebs (קורי עכביש) and not rubbing should still be labled chalak but not chalak bet yosef. Rav Shein said that Rav Machpud's standard of bet yosef is that the lung is smooth like marble and not sticky paper or spiderwebs (קורי עכביש).
- The Tur 39:10 writes that the Rashba (Torat Habayit 2:3 34b, responsa 1:304) wrote vehemently against the practice of rubbing off adhesions and held that anyone who does that is feeding terefot to the Jewish people. Rabbenu Tam (as cited by Rabbenu Yerucham in beginning of Bet Yosef 39:10:2) and Rambam (Shechita 11:7-8) as understood by Rav Dovid Ibn Yichya (Terefot n. 14, cited by Bet Yosef 39:10:1) agree with the Rashba. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 39:10 codifies the opinion of the Rashba. Rav Ovadia (Yachava Daat 3:56, Yabia Omer YD 5:3) quotes many other Sephardi poskim who accept the opinion of the Rashba.
- Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 39:13 quotes Rabbenu Simcha Mvitri who allows an adhesion which was removed by the passing of the hand of a bodek. The Shulchan Aruch's language is even if the hand passed briskly, however, the Taz 39:16 quotes the Maharshal who only allows the passing of the hand gently. This is language of the OU: "even the Beis Yosef would agree that adhesions that are so tenuous as to separate with ease, via the simple passing-through of the hands of the bodek, are likewise acceptable, and are considered ‘ririn.’"
- Another practice that isn't as serious as rubbing is shaking the lungs to remove any parts of the lungs that are stuck. Rishonim who allow shaking:
- OU writes "Rabbi Yosef Karo said that that NO adhesions are permitted: one cannot risk their removal, for adhesions do not cover an existing hole. Rather, they develop, and afterwards can detach, and create a hole. We dare not toy with these adhesions, lest we give the animal the appearance of kosher status. This is the (aforementioned) view of the Rashba. “Those authorities require only ‘chalak,’ or totally smooth lungs. This standard is known as ‘Chalak Beit Yosef,’ smooth, as per the Beis Yosef,” Rabbi Klarberg said." This is also the view of Rav Moshe Heinemann that Bet Yosef means that there are no adhesions at all. This seems to be the opinion of Rav Ovadia Yosef as well.
- Yabia Omer YD 5:3. Some claim that there are slaughterhouses in America that market their meat as Bet Yosef, but, in fact, it is not Bet Yosef. Rather, it's just meat from South America or labeled such using a lenient definition of what is considered Bet Yosef. One should consult with a rabbi who has extensive knowledge of the Kashrut industry and Sephardic Halacha to determine which brands are acceptable.
- Yabia Omer YD 5:3 quotes the Dvar Shmuel Avuhav 320 who is lenient for a Sephardi who is traveling to eat regular kosher meat since there's a safek safeka. 1) The meat might be completely kosher even according to the Bet Yosef. 2) Maybe the Rama is correct. Even though generally we need to check out a safek safeka if possible (efshar livarer) the Bach 437 holds that is only true of checking about an action if it was done properly but not to check out if something naturally occurred. Also, the Bet Yosef 437 holds that it is only true of checking if there's a chazaka of isur but if there's no chazaka one doesn't have to check. (See Magen Avraham 437 and Shach YD 187:19 who agree with Bet Yosef.) Therefore, after the lungs were checked to be Glatt there's a chazaka the animal is kosher and the chance of it being non-Bet-Yosef is considered something one doesn't have to check into. In conclusion of this question the Rashba (Chullin 53b) and Shach (Klalei Safek Safeka 110:35) seem to hold that one does need to check the facts of a safek safeka if possible, yet the Shaar Hamelech (Mikvaot Klalim n. 3) argues. Also, since the host might not know, it could be embarrassing to ask, and it might cause a fight one can rely on the opinions that one doesn't need to check into a safek safeka.
- Yabia Omer YD 5:3:2 is lenient based on the concept of stam kelim sheinan bnei yoman. Tosfot A"Z 38b explains that the reason to be lenient is that their pots probably weren't used in the last 24 hours and even if they did they might not have been used for a taste that would impart a good taste into the food being cooked. He quotes the Bayi Chayey YD 8 who agrees with his ruling.