Ask the Rav #6: Fish Oil supplements;

Question

I consistently purchase omega-3 fish oil supplements that carry the highest level of kosher certification, specifically Badatz Edah HaChareidis. Recently, after making a substantial purchase of several bottles from a new store, I discovered that the product—although identical in appearance to the one certified by Badatz—is instead under standard Rabbanut supervision here in Israel. Given the significant financial investment, am I permitted to use these supplements, at least under extenuating circumstances (b’dieved)? Or should I attempt to return them and refrain from using them altogether?

Answer

Your commitment to purchasing fish oil with the highest level of kosher certification is commendable, particularly because the production process for omega-3 oils often involves blends that may include non-kosher fish sources. Nevertheless, in this situation—where the purchase has already been made—you may adopt a lenient approach for several reasons:

1. Kosher Certification Exists: Although the supervision is not of the highest standard, the product does carry a recognized kosher certification.
2. Form of Consumption: The supplement is ingested as a capsule, which is considered an atypical manner of eating (shelo k’derech achila), further reducing halachic concerns.
3. Significant Financial Loss: Given the considerable expense involved, halacha allows for leniency in such cases.

Therefore, while it is ideal to maintain your usual standard, under these circumstances, you may rely on the existing certification and use the product.

Sources:

See Shach Y.D. 155:13; Yabia Omer 2:12; Hakashrus 11:21-22

Question

Has the Rebbe ever addressed or provided guidance regarding an avel (mourner) completing the entire set of Mishnayos—the Shisha Sidrei Mishnah—during the year of mourning? If so, within what timeframe is this directive to be fulfilled?

Answer

Indeed, the Rebbe encouraged individuals to adopt the practice publicized by the Rebbe Rashab, specifically for mourners, to complete the entire Shisha Sidrei Mishnah by the conclusion of the eleven months of Kaddish recitation. At the very least, the Rebbe recommended studying the beginning and end of each tractate, a custom similarly observed in the completion of Tikkun Leil Shavuos.

Sources:

See our corresponding Sefer, “The Laws of Mourning”, Volume 2, Chapter 24, Halacha 6 for the full details on this subject and the various references and sources

Question

In the beginning of Parshas Vayigash, during Yehudah’s discussion with Yosef, Yehudah argues that bringing Binyamin down to Egypt was a bad idea and that Yosef should not have requested it. He makes a statement which is unclear to me regarding whom it refers to: Yehudah says that bringing Binyamin, “having him leave his father, would cause “him” to die.” Is this “him” in the verse referring to Binyamin—that they were afraid Binyamin would die as a result of the journey as happened to his mother and as was assumed to happen to his brother Yosef—or is it referring to Yaakov, that they feared Yaakov would die from anguish and worry? Please clarify.

Answer

You have raised a very precise question, one that is indeed debated among the great Rishonim and commentators on the Chumash. The verse in question is Genesis 44:22:

“וַנֹּאמֶר אֶל אֲדֹנִי לֹא יוּכַל הַנַּעַר לַעֲזֹב אֶת אָבִיו, וְעָזַב אֶת אָבִיו וָמֵת.”

(“And we said to my lord: The boy cannot leave his father; if he were to leave his father, he would die.”)

Rashi explains that this refers to Binyamin—they were afraid that Binyamin would die on the journey, since his mother died on the road, his brother disappeared on the road, and all travel is inherently dangerous. Therefore, there was special concern for Binyamin’s safety. This is also the view of the Ramban.

However, the Ibn Ezra (according to one version) and the Chizkuni interpret the verse as referring to Yaakov Avinu. They argue that the concern here was for Yaakov, who was elderly and frail, and could die from anguish and worry.

The Ibn Ezra, in another version of his commentary, interprets that this verse does not definitively indicate to whom it refers—whether to Yaakov or to Binyamin—and that the Torah intentionally left the wording ambiguous, allowing for both interpretations. This approach is found in other verses as well, where the subject is left open to multiple understandings.

The Chizkuni explains that the beginning of the verse לֹא יוּכַל הַנַּעַר לַעֲזֹב אֶת אָבִיו refers to the danger facing Binyamin, while the conclusion—“and he will leave his father and die”—refers to Yaakov. According to Chizkuni, Yehudah’s argument in this verse is that there is an inherent risk of death for both Binyamin and Yaakov.

In any case, later in the Pesukim [Pasuk 31] it is made clear in Rashi that there was also concern that Yaakov might die, so even according to Rashi and the Ramban, there was worry for both Binyamin and Yaakov. The only question is which concern is being referenced in Yehudah’s initial argument.