Q&A: Coffee Abroad
Coffee Abroad
Question
Hello Rabbi, I am currently abroad, and I ran into a halakhic question. It is commonly assumed that coffee is permitted anywhere as long as it has no special additives, but it turns out that in many places they use the same vessel in which they boil regular milk to also boil soy milk, and in some places they use non-kosher soy milk—the problem being that they also add non-kosher animal fat to it for texture. Seemingly, that fat is a setting agent that is not nullified in sixty, and therefore the soy milk is not kosher. But the question is whether it is permitted to buy coffee with cow’s milk when the vessel may have released into it during the boiling a small amount of such soy milk (seemingly less than one part in sixty). Is that not nullified in sixty because there is a setting agent here, or is a setting agent only relevant with respect to taste—whereas in cow’s milk it does not set anything and gives no taste or texture at all?
Answer
It seems to me that there is no obligation to be stringent about this.
First, I am not at all sure that this has the status of a setting agent. The texture here is not like milk that turns into cheese, where we do apply the rule of a setting agent, but merely a slight change in texture. And the Noda B’Yehuda, second edition, Yoreh De’ah, sec. 56, wrote that when something is added in order to strengthen, but the basic state would come about even without the setting agent, it does not have the status of a setting agent.
Second, even if it is a setting agent, that is only with respect to the soy milk itself (something like “taste is like the substance itself”). But now the soy milk is only releasing into the cow’s milk. This is like cheese set with rennet from the stomach of a non-kosher animal, which certainly is nullified within a majority of permitted substance if there are sixty parts.
Third, the regular milk then also goes into the coffee itself and is again nullified. This is more attenuated than the case of a setting agent, regarding which the halakhic decisors disagreed whether its effect still remains after three stages (Magen Avraham 442:9).
Fourth, some halakhic decisors hold that a setting agent is nullified when it gives no taste.
One should remember that the entire rule that a setting agent is not nullified, according to most opinions, is rabbinic.
You can see an overview and sources here:
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%AA%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA:%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%93
Discussion on Answer
The non-Jew intentionally nullified it from the outset, and that is permitted for him.
I forgot to add that the whole issue is uncertain, since not all soy milk is set this way. So this is only a doubt involving a rabbinic prohibition that gets nullified twice, etc. etc.
What about the rule that one may not intentionally nullify a prohibition from the outset? After all, the whole rule of nullification in sixty applies only after the fact.