Comments on: Suit Claiming Hebrew National Hot Dogs Not Kosher Dismissed

By: shimen

shimen — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 06:54:48 +0000

#10 Refers to #9

By: shimen

shimen — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:17:09 +0000

oh yes? back it up, name all hashgachas and de scandels (where we can verify them)

By: cherrybim

cherrybim — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:41:26 +0000

Every super hashgacha including heimeshe hashgachos have been involved in kashrus mishaps and scandals over the years except for one. Triangle K has never had a scandal associated with it, no matter how much everyone has tried to trip them up. So much for the yappers.

By: shimen

shimen — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:46:07 +0000

#1 most of the millions of jews in the world dont believe torah misini’ let alone torah shebal peh codified in 4 parts of jewish law. No 5 hilchos shechite, 39 simonei trifos etc (‘Where does it say’they all… ) Who does believe,the few shomrei torah which your kind mock and lable chareidi, black hatters,litvish chassidish exremists sfardish,lebavitch who each have their own shecite, hashgach..each according to their kehiles specifications. They wouldnt touch hebrew national.So when you state ‘the majority of yidden..’your referintg the my 1st 2 lines kind of yidden Like the talmud states’reyacha bemitzvos’.You should remember de klall when de gemmorah, poskim refer to ‘klall yisroel’ they are reffering to shmomrei torah mitzvos Like the talmud states ‘reyacha bemitzvos’, who blieve with every fiber of their being in the relevation of har sini of both torahs, written and oral. Even MO are on slippery slope. Once you start mixing keddusha and timme (see coffee room subject under ‘MO going off derech’ over 1600 comments). They are all missing the point, when it comes to learn kefirah subjects ‘kol boayhu lo yeshiven’.

By: taxpayer

taxpayer — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:54:01 +0000

ironic that the last name of the judge is ‘frank’

By: Moose613

Moose613 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:10:00 +0000

Triangle K has been problematic for years. To say it is a matter of personal choice begs the question.
The judge in this case gave a very good reason for throwing out the case. How can a secular judge, expecially a non-Jewish one, rule on a question of kashruth that has produceed varying opinions from different Rabbis?

By: Softwords

Softwords — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:03:11 +0000

#1 – It is quite clear that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about. I happened to have had a very close relationship with several Chashuva Rabanim that are well noted and respected in Kashrut. NONE OF THEM, ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM, would recommend relying on the Star-K.

#4 – I have personally been told statements in the same line as what you mention.

I can not say what is the status of HN Hot dogs, but according to everybody, the hot dogs are not Glatt.

By: straight talk

straight talk — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 03:29:36 +0000

Many years ago a prominet posek in kashrus was asked during a public forum attended by hundreds of frum people if the triangle k was reliable, his answer was- “if you could eat the product without a hechsher than you can eat it with their hechscher on it, but if the product requires a hechscher than don’t rely on theirs”

By: StraightTalker

StraightTalker — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 03:12:05 +0000

To #1. I don’t know who your rabbi is, but as far as I’m concerned none of the major orthodox kashrus agencies recognize or list triangle k on its approved kashrus symbols list. Most orthodox Jews I know do not each such a hechsher, so I have no idea where you are coming from. And surely a Gadol Hador like you claim yourself to be wouldn’t consume such a hechsher of franks in any case.

By: akuperma

akuperma — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 01:31:14 +0000

What this means is in no case can an American court rule on a kosher dispute except maybe in the case of someone who asserts that pork is kosher. That means that if a product with a clearly “bad” hecksher advertises itself as kosher (heh, we asked the rabbi, and she said it meant all the requirements in the bible – who cares about those nutty hasidim), it isn’t for the American courts to intervene.

The case appears to have been decided on a motion stating that it failed to assert a valid legal claim. It would have been better if it has been decided on the basis that the claim was not support by the facts.