Keeping kosher and Conservative Judaism
Robert Kaiser
From part 4 of the Conservative Judaism FAQ
------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: How does Conservative Judaism understand Kashrut?
Wine and grape juice
-----------------------------------------
[From "A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, p.306-307 and 525-526]
The permissibility of Yein nesekh (wines of the gentiles) is a
controversial subject. It was originally prohibited because it was
used for libations in idol worship, and anything used in idol worship
is forbidden to Jews....In our day, however, there is no yein nesekh
since there is no longer any idol worship. [Avodah Zarah 57b in Tos,
Yoreh Deah 123:1 in Rama]. Rather, we are concerned nowadays with
stam yenam, ordinary wine made by handled by gentiles. The Talmud
forbids such wines as a precautionary measure to prevent socializing
with gentiles since it might lead to intermarriage [Avodah Zarah 31b]
or because those who use such wines might...be persuaded to apostatize.
A heksher on wine therefore indicates that no gentiles were directly
involved in any stage of the wine making process.
In the 1970s Rabbi Israel Silverman made a study of the question
and reported his findings in a responsum that was approved by the CJLS.
He found that wine making in the United States in fully automated (his
study did not cover imported wines) and no human hand comes in contact
with the wine from the momemnt the grapes are put into containers and
brought to the winery until the wine appears in sealed bottles. Wines
manufactured by this automated process may not be classified as wine
manufactored by gentiles, and thus do not come under the interdict against
the using of stam yaneem.
A more recent investigation by the CJLS has shown that some
wineries use a small amount of dairy or non-kosher substances as fining
agents in the processing of wine. As such, it is urged that only
rabbinically certified wines be served at the home, at the synagogue and
at communal events. There is, however, basis for the view that considers
the forbidden substances in the finding agents nullified, and such wines
are thus not uncategorically unkosher or dairy. Whenever situations make
it unfeasible or impossible to refrain from drinking them, one who
drinks them is not drinking unkosher wine. If one uses such wine in
one's home, it does not render the home unkosher. Only certified wines
- preferably from Israel - should be used for ritual purposes in the
synagogue.
Milk and dairy products
-----------------------
Many right-wing Orthodox Jews use only Cholov Yisroel milk and
dairy products, meaning milk that has been under constant rabbinical
supervision from milking to bottling, to make sure that it is not
adulterated with the milk of a non-kosher animal. Today this is not
a practical concern in the USA or most western countries; As such,
most Modern and Centrist Orthodox rabbis, and all Conservative rabbis,
have ruled that FDA supervision is sufficient to be considered
automatically kosher.
Fresh fruits and vegetables, grains and cereals, eggs, fowl
-------------------------------------------------------------
All fresh fruits and vegetables are kosher. Canned and frozen
foods are usually permissible since manufacturers add only water and
spices during the packaging process. Sometimes, however, fruits or
vegetables are prepared with milk products or with nonkosher
ingredients such as nonkosher meat broth. A careful reading of the
ingredients is always necessary.... All unprocessed grains and cereals
are kosher. It is important to check the ingredients of processed
items such as dry cereals or baked goods to make sure they have only
kosher ingredients and, if desired, are free of dairy ingredients.
(From Dresner, p.64) Eggs from kosher fowl are kosher (and pareve).
However, because of the prohibition against eating blood, an egg that
contains a speck of blood may not be used. Most domestic fowl are
kosher, including capon, duck (domestic), goose (domestic), chicken,
turkey, guinea fowl and many others.
Cheese and rennet
-----------------
Rennet is the enzyme used to turn milk into curds and whey; it
derives from the lining of the stomach of an animal, and is classified
by most Orthodox Jews as a meat product. Thus, when making cheese,
rennet must come from a halakhically slain animal, and the process must
be supervised by Jews. A vegetable substitute for rennet can be used,
in which case none of these restrictions apply.
Conservative, and some Orthodox, authorities maintain another long
standing Jewish legal tradition: that rennet is actually a secretion
of the stomach wall, and thus does not have the status of meat. Further,
in its normal processing, rennet undergoes a chemical change and becomes
inedible, this halakhic ally becoming a non-food; All foods in this
category automatically lose any kashrut restrictions; They are
considered to have changed so much from their original state that they
are a d'var chadash, a new substance with properties significantly
different from that of their original form. All such substances are
considered pareve (neutral and kosher). Therefore the CJLS has ruled
that all dairy products can be eaten.
Meat (mammals)
---------------
Kosher animals must have both cloven hooves and chew their cud.
All kosher animals are herbivores that can be domesticated, such as cows,
goats, deep and sheep. Jewish law states that kosher animals must be
slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law, large blood vessels must be
removed, and all blood must be removed from the meat; This is most
commonly done by soaking and salting, but also can be done by broiling.
Note that a small group of pious Orthodox Jews, who are among the
greatest consumers of kosher meat, moved to the United States after
World War II; They brought with them an additional qualification; They
refuse to eat kosher meat unless it also meets an ultra-strict standard
in which the lungs of an animal are perfectly smooth ("glatt"). This
standard is rejected as unnecessary by Conservative Jews; Historically
most Ashkenazi Jews in general have rejected this standard, but in recent
decades many Orthodox Jews have begun to demand this.
Fish
-----
To be kosher, a fish must have both fins and scales. The lack of
either characteristic renders that species of fish unclean. Examples
of unkosher fish include shark and catfish. All shellfish, such as crabs,
lobster, and shrimp are not kosher. All sea mammals, such as dolphins,
whales and seals are unkosher. All other sea animals, such as octopus,
squid, jellyfish and eels are unkosher. However, seaweed and other sea
plant life are all kosher.
There are two fish that are somewhat controversial, and have had a
long history of dispute whether they are kosher or not: Swordfish and
sturgeon. Both of these fish have scales as young fish, but lose them
later in life. Most (but not all) Orthodox say these two fish are
unkosher for this reason. The CJLS has accepted a teshuva from Rabbi
Issac Klein that permits them to be eaten; another valid position
within the Conservative movement declines this ruling, and states that
these fish are not kosher. Both views are acceptable within the movement.
Gelatin, Mono and Di-glycerides
----------------------------------
Given their extensive chemical processing, the CJLS has determined
that mono- and di-glycerides, whatever their origin, are pareve and
kosher. ["The Kashrut of Mono- and Di-Glycerides", Proceedings of the
CJLS, 1980-1985] This is also true of many other chemical additives used
in commercial food products. Dresner and Siegel's guide provides an
extensive list of commonly used additives that are kosher and pareve.
One of Kashrut's most controversial topics is the kashrut of
gelatin, which comes from the processed bones of animals. If the source
of gelatin is a kosher animal that was properly slaughtered, than such
gelatin is considered kosher by all Jews. Most American Orthodox Jews
insist that all other gelatin is treif (non-kosher). However this issue
has had a long and contentious history; Respected halakhic authorities
have noted that gelatin undergoes such extensive processing and chemical
changes that it no longer has the status of meat, and as such is pareve
and kosher. As such, most Conservative Jews, and many Israeli Orthodox
Jews, accept that all gelatin is kosher. Pepsin too falls into this
category. Note that another valid position within the Conservative
movement declines this ruling, and states that these products are
generally not kosher without further stringincies and rabbinic supervision.
Both views are acceptable within the movement.
Pesach
------
The laws regarding the use of food on Pesach are more involved,
and involve more restrictions. An easy introduction and guide by the
Rabbinical Assembly can be found in Dresner and Siegel's book, and is
also available on-line at:
http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/info/pesahguide/index.html
http://www.uscj.org/uscj/seabd/alexanaa/pesach.html
A more extensive treatment of the topic can be found in Issac
Klein's "A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice".
More info
----------
For more information on Kashrut, see any of the texts referred
to below.
Samuel Dresner, Seymour Siegel and David Pollock "The Jewish
Dietary Laws" United Synagogue, New York, 1982
Isidore Grunfeld "The Jewish Dietary Laws" London: Soncino, 1972
Issac Klein "Responsa and Halakhic Studies" Ktav, New York, 1975
Issac Klein "A Guide to Jewish Religious Pracitce", JTSA, 1992
Steven Weintraub's Kashrut WWW page:
http://www.pswtech.com/~stevenw/jewish/kosher
Binyomin Kaplan
>
>
> Milk and dairy products
> -----------------------
> Many right-wing Orthodox Jews use only Cholov Yisroel milk and
> dairy products, meaning milk that has been under constant rabbinical
> supervision from milking to bottling, to make sure that it is not
> adulterated with the milk of a non-kosher animal.
I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
prohibited by the Rabbis. The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as saying
that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a danger of
non-kosher milk being mixed in. There is a well-known heter to use non-Cholov
Yisroel milk, but a heter is an emergency provision; it doesn't change the
basic halachah.
Be well,
Binyomin
Jonathan J. Baker
>> Milk and dairy products
>> -----------------------
>> Many right-wing Orthodox Jews use only Cholov Yisroel milk and
>> dairy products, meaning milk that has been under constant rabbinical
>> supervision from milking to bottling, to make sure that it is not
>> adulterated with the milk of a non-kosher animal.
>I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
>keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
>prohibited by the Rabbis. The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
>involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as saying
>that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a danger of
>non-kosher milk being mixed in. There is a well-known heter to use non-Cholov
>Yisroel milk, but a heter is an emergency provision; it doesn't change the
>basic halachah.
There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
Cholov Yisroel.
--
Jonathan Baker | Why does Tebeth have 29 days?
jjb...@panix.com | No A"Z: we don't have a Lama in Tibet.
Binyomin Kaplan
Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> In <36A4F84B...@gs.net> Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> writes:
>
> >> Milk and dairy products
> >> -----------------------
> >> Many right-wing Orthodox Jews use only Cholov Yisroel milk and
> >> dairy products, meaning milk that has been under constant rabbinical
> >> supervision from milking to bottling, to make sure that it is not
> >> adulterated with the milk of a non-kosher animal.
>
> >I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
> >keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
> >prohibited by the Rabbis. The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
> >involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as saying
> >that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a danger of
> >non-kosher milk being mixed in. There is a well-known heter to use non-Cholov
> >Yisroel milk, but a heter is an emergency provision; it doesn't change the
> >basic halachah.
>
> There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
> permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
> Cholov Yisroel.
>
>
I believe the term used is "cholov stam." The whole point of the argument, I
think, is that it isn't either cholov Yisorel or cholov akum.
Be well,
Binyomin
Binyomin Kaplan
Harry Weiss wrote:
> Binyomin Kaplan (biny...@gs.net) wrote:
>
> : Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
>
>
> : > >I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
> : > >keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
> : > >prohibited by the Rabbis. The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
> : > >involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as saying
> : > >that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a danger of
> : > >non-kosher milk being mixed in. There is a well-known heter to use non-Cholov
> : > >Yisroel milk, but a heter is an emergency provision; it doesn't change the
> : > >basic halachah.
> : >
> : > There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
> : > permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
> : > Cholov Yisroel.
> : >
> Actually Reb Moshe calls it Chlav Hacompanies. In volume 8 in a
> discussion he specifically says that it is considred to be Chalav Yisroel.
>
>
> In what respect? There isn't any Yisroel involved. And isn't the upshot of his
> analysis that a Rav can matir government-supervised milk in some circumstances?
> Cholov Yisroel, on the other hand, is simply mutar.
>
> Harry J. Weiss
> hjw...@netcom.com
Do you have the actual passage handy to quote? I did see one letter in which Rav
Moshe had occasion to reaffirm the original heter, and the wording, IIRC, included
the statement "besha'as hadechak yeish lehatir." But obviously he writes about it in
more than one place. My understanding when I read the passage I am referring to is
that the question was about milk that isn't supervised by a Jew (but which is under
government supervision) and that such milk is not called "Cholov Yisrael." This is
certainly the usage that is followed on product packages, and according to you there
is at least a term being used by Rav Moshe that isn't either "Cholov Yisroel" or
"Cholov Akum." Anyway, I'd appreciate some relevant quotes.
Be well,
Binyomin
Binyomin Kaplan
Zvi the Fiddler wrote:
> >The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
> >involve the milk of non-kosher animals, but that is not the same thing
> as
> saying
> >that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a
> danger of
> >non-kosher milk being mixed in
>
> Forgive my ignorance. What is non-kosher milk?
>
> Zvi the Fiddler
In this context, milk from a non-kosher animal. (I corrected my typo
above).
Be well,
Binyomin
Harry Weiss
: Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
: > In <36A4F84B...@gs.net> Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> writes:
: >
: > >> Milk and dairy products
: > >> -----------------------
: > >> Many right-wing Orthodox Jews use only Cholov Yisroel milk and
: > >> dairy products, meaning milk that has been under constant rabbinical
: > >> supervision from milking to bottling, to make sure that it is not
: > >> adulterated with the milk of a non-kosher animal.
: >
: > >I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
: > >keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
: > >prohibited by the Rabbis. The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
: > >involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as saying
: > >that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a danger of
: > >non-kosher milk being mixed in. There is a well-known heter to use non-Cholov
: > >Yisroel milk, but a heter is an emergency provision; it doesn't change the
: > >basic halachah.
: >
: > There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
: > permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
: > Cholov Yisroel.
: >
Actually Reb Moshe calls it Chlav Hacompanies. In volume 8 in a
discussion he specifically says that it is considred to be Chalav Yisroel.
: >
: I believe the term used is "cholov stam." The whole point of the argument, I
: think, is that it isn't either cholov Yisorel or cholov akum.
: Be well,
: Binyomin
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Zvi the Fiddler
>involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as
saying
>that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a
danger of
Harry Weiss
: >The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
Milk from a non kosher animal such as a pig or camel.
: Zvi the Fiddler
Harry Weiss
: Harry Weiss wrote:
: > Binyomin Kaplan (biny...@gs.net) wrote:
: >
: > : Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
: >
: >
: > : > >I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
: > : > >keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
: > : > >prohibited by the Rabbis. The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
: > : > >involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as saying
: > : > >that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a danger of
: > : > >non-kosher milk being mixed in. There is a well-known heter to use non-Cholov
: > : > >Yisroel milk, but a heter is an emergency provision; it doesn't change the
: > : > >basic halachah.
: > : >
: > : > There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
: > : > permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
: > : > Cholov Yisroel.
: > : >
: > Actually Reb Moshe calls it Chlav Hacompanies. In volume 8 in a
: > discussion he specifically says that it is considred to be Chalav Yisroel.
: >
: >
: > In what respect? There isn't any Yisroel involved. And isn't the upshot of his
: > analysis that a Rav can matir government-supervised milk in some circumstances?
: > Cholov Yisroel, on the other hand, is simply mutar.
: >
: > Harry J. Weiss
: > hjw...@netcom.com
: Do you have the actual passage handy to quote? I did see one letter in which Rav
: Moshe had occasion to reaffirm the original heter, and the wording, IIRC, included
: the statement "besha'as hadechak yeish lehatir." But obviously he writes about it in
: more than one place. My understanding when I read the passage I am referring to is
: that the question was about milk that isn't supervised by a Jew (but which is under
: government supervision) and that such milk is not called "Cholov Yisrael." This is
: certainly the usage that is followed on product packages, and according to you there
: is at least a term being used by Rav Moshe that isn't either "Cholov Yisroel" or
: "Cholov Akum." Anyway, I'd appreciate some relevant quotes.
: Be well,
: Binyomin
The source is Igros
Moshe Yoreh Deah 4 Siman V.
This section was based on what Reb Mosheh wrote, but put out after his
death. It has to do with as ituation in Toronto where they had
traditionally bought Chalav Yisroel. It brings down the prvious quotes
that a "Ball nefesh" will get mil watched by a Jew during milking. It
then says from using that terminology not Chalav Yisroel, from a
standpint of the law, milk from the companies is Chalav Yisroel.
It then goes on to say in the Tornto situation they should buy milk under
Jewish supervision since that had been the practice, and their usage will
help keep prices cheaper.
It was dated by R. Moshe on 28 Tamuz 5728.
Binyomin Kaplan
Harry Weiss wrote:
Thank you for the more detailed acccount of what R. Moshe wrote. Unfortunately I am having
trouble understanding the first part of this sentence. Do you mean "from" in the sense of
"about"?
> from a
> standpint of the law, milk from the companies is Chalav Yisroel.
>
It still isn't clear to me what this means. If it means that it is simply mutar in all
circumstances the way that Cholov Yisroel is, doen't this conflict with R. Moshe's
statement "yeish lehatir," which implies something different?
Be well,
Binyomin
Micha Berger
: I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
: keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
: prohibited by the Rabbis.
I respectfully contend that this too is a misrepresentation.
Chalav yisra'el is a p'sak, a halachic ruling, not a takanah (new Rabbinic
legislation). It is part of the general laws of kashrus, and how does one insure
the kosher-ness of the ingredients of the product he eats.
In general, one must assume a Jew is honest. (Until proven otherwise.)
Therefore, if a Jew tells you the milk is purely from kosher animals, it is
kosher.
There is no such presumption for non-Jews. Therefore, milk produced by a
non-Jew, with no Jewish inspection, would theoretically be as suspect as
any other product that lacks kashrus inspection.
And, unlike other inspection cases, but like meat, milk requires constant
inspection and not just random spot checks.
HOWEVER, one case where the word of a non-Jew may be taken for granted is
where the non-Jew stands to lose by cheating. A situation created by the US
FDA (and parallel agencies in many other countries). A dairy would be closed
by the gov't if caught tampering with the milk.
I would say that this is the exact same law as that relied upon for
non-dark beers. There is an exact industry definition of the word "beer"
that a brewery would have to violate (and therefore lose business) to make
non-kosher beer. The industry allows "dark beers" to contain red wine as a
coloring, so a hechsher would be required.
R' Moshe Feinstain holds that halachically one may drink milk milked in the US
even without inspection, relying on the dairy's compliance with FDA
regulations.
That is his halachic position. He writes that haskfically, though, since
we've traditionally gone out of our way to ban non-inspected milk a "ben
Torah" should continue to do so when possible.
I think presenting his leniency as an "on emergency basis" is inaccurate.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6067 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 20-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Micha Berger
: There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
: permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
: Cholov Yisroel.
No, technically he still calls it "cholov stam" (plain milk). He just considers
the force to comply to the FDA a sufficient alternative to a Jew's presence.
Micha Berger
: Actually Reb Moshe calls it Chlav Hacompanies. In volume 8 in a
: discussion he specifically says that it is considred to be Chalav Yisroel.
I retract my previous post to Jon. I don't own volume 8. His earlier t'shuvah
contrasts chalav stam to chalav akum.
Binyomin Kaplan
Micha Berger wrote:
Remember that this all started with someone characterizing Orthodox Jews who keep
cholov Yisroel as "holier than thou" and as worrying that the milk in the
supermarket has pig's milk in it, which makes them sound obsessed with highly
unlikely possibilities. Even what you cite above concening R. Moshe's haskafah on
chalav Yisroel indicates that there is more to it than that.
The letter I saw read, IIRC, "besha'as hadechak yeish lehatir," and that seems
pretty clear to me, but it may be that other statements of R. Moshe are required to
be totally exact about his postion. Now that this is turning into a discussion of
how to construe the opinion of one widely-followed and highly-respected halachic
authority, I am willing to defer to your knowledge and leave the discussion at that,
unless you want to add something.
Be well,
Binyomin
David Goldman
They don't.
Harry Weiss
: Harry Weiss wrote:
: >
: > : > : >
: > : > Actually Reb Moshe calls it Chlav Hacompanies. In volume 8 in a
: > : > discussion he specifically says that it is considred to be Chalav Yisroel.
: > : >
: > : >
Unfortunately I am not at home and do not have either my sforim or Cds
present so I cannot quote the Hebrew. The word from I meant was
referring to "based on" usage of this terminology rather than non
Chalav Yisroel.
: > from a
: > standpint of the law, milk from the companies is Chalav Yisroel.
: >
: It still isn't clear to me what this means. If it means that it is simply mutar in all
: circumstances the way that Cholov Yisroel is, doen't this conflict with R. Moshe's
: statement "yeish lehatir," which implies something different?
You may wish to read the Tshuva itself which goes into the issues of
Neder etc. though they are both Chalav Yisroel and meet the halachic
requirement, it is still better with Jewish supervision.
: Be well,
R
> In <36A4F84B...@gs.net> Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> writes:
>
> >> Milk and dairy products
> >> -----------------------
> >> Many right-wing Orthodox Jews use only Cholov Yisroel milk and
> >> dairy products, meaning milk that has been under constant rabbinical
> >> supervision from milking to bottling, to make sure that it is not
> >> adulterated with the milk of a non-kosher animal.
>
> >I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
> >keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
> >prohibited by the Rabbis. The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
> >involve the milk of kosher animals, but that is not the same thing as saying
> >that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a danger of
> >non-kosher milk being mixed in. There is a well-known heter to use non-Cholov
> >Yisroel milk, but a heter is an emergency provision; it doesn't change the
> >basic halachah.
>
> There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
> permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
> Cholov Yisroel.
That is somewhat of an oversimplification.
If "by his understanding" it *is* cholov Yisroel, then why does he repeatedly
disclaim the heter as being reserved for hardship cases only. Why does he
repeatedly state that he himself does not drink such milk, and why does he forbid
Yeshivas to drink such milk if they have real cholov Yisroel available, even if it
causes financial hardship for the Yeshiva? If the USDA approved milk *is* cholov
Yisroel, then it *is* cholov Yisroel.
Zev Sero
wrote:
>Do you have the actual passage handy to quote? I did see one letter in which Rav
>Moshe had occasion to reaffirm the original heter, and the wording, IIRC, included
>the statement "besha'as hadechak yeish lehatir."
Look at the original teshuvot where he explains his heter in great
detail. IIRC, they're in IM YD vol 1, somewhere around chap 80.
There are 3 or 4 teshuvot in a row, that develop his argument, and
you really have to read all of them to understand what he's saying.
Hint: when you find what appears to be the first one directly on
topic, go back half a column, and read the end of the teshuva
immediately preceding. It's very relevant.
The upshot is that he holds that `chalav hacompanies' *is* chalav
yisrael, and there is no obligation on anybody to get specially
supervised milk, and that anyone who was getting the special `chalav
yisrael' milk because he thought that it was halachically required,
and is now convinced by R Moshe's heter and wants to start using the
ordinary commercial milk, doesn't even need to do hatarat nedarim,
because his original minhag was based on an error (but if he knew
the heter and chose not to follow it, then that becomes a neder, and
if he wants to change he has to get it annulled).
OTOH both there and in several other places R Moshe says that a baal
nefesh should not rely on the heter, and that since the job of a
school is to teach kids to be baalei nefesh, a school *may* *not*
rely on the heter, even if it's short of money, and as a result of
buying special `chalav yisrael' expenses will have to be cut elsewhere,
because buying `chalav companies' would give the kids the wrong message
and undermine their chinuch. So he's kind of having it both ways: his
heter is really and truly good, and one who wishes to follow it has the
perfect right (according to him) to do so, but it's not how a baal
nefesh behaves.
Of course, there are many who simply don't accept R Moshe's reasoning
in the first place, and therefore regard `chalav companies' as chalav
akum rather than as chalav yisrael. But you can't reject his reasoning
without reading it first, and looking up his sources; this is not some
lax `rabbi' playing games, trying to justify a heter that he's already
decided on because it's convenient.
--
Zev Sero Vote Libertarian and WIN a FREE country
zs...@bigfoot.com
Richard Schultz
: On 19 Jan 1999 22:22:06 GMT, Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
: : There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
: : permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
: : Cholov Yisroel.
: No, technically he still calls it "cholov stam" (plain milk). He just
: considers the force to comply to the FDA a sufficient alternative to
: a Jew's presence.
I'm pretty sure that supervision of milk in the United States is under the
USDA (Department of Agriculture) rather than the FDA (Food and Drug
Administration). As I understand it, U.S. law says that if the package
says "milk" without any further qualification, it must contain only
cows' milk, and if it contains the milk of any other animal, it must
say explicitly what type of animal produced the milk in the package.
Since this is all at the level of what the dairy does, it strikes me
as the kind of thing that the USDA is more likely to be in charge of.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
Zev Sero
>On 19 Jan 1999 22:22:06 GMT, Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>: There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
>: permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
>: Cholov Yisroel.
>No, technically he still calls it "cholov stam" (plain milk). He just considers
>the force to comply to the FDA a sufficient alternative to a Jew's presence.
Where does R Moshe use this term? I can't recall seeing this term
anywhere in Igrot Moshe. AFAICT he always calls it `chalav
hacompanies', and maintains that it has the law of chalav yisrael.
Zev Sero
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:25:31 -0600, Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> wrote:
>: I respectfully contend that this is a misrepresentation of why Orthodox Jews
>: keep Cholov Yisroel. The reason is simply that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is
>: prohibited by the Rabbis.
>I respectfully contend that this too is a misrepresentation.
>
>Chalav yisra'el is a p'sak, a halachic ruling, not a takanah (new Rabbinic
>legislation). It is part of the general laws of kashrus, and how does one insure
>the kosher-ness of the ingredients of the product he eats.
>
>In general, one must assume a Jew is honest. (Until proven otherwise.)
>Therefore, if a Jew tells you the milk is purely from kosher animals, it is
>kosher.
What is your source for this approach? R Moshe certainly treats chalav
yisrael as a Rabbinic enactment, not as a simple rule in kashrut. He
points out that if it were simply a rule of kashrut, then even if
someone did mix some treif milk into the kosher, it would almost
certainly be less than 1/60 of the total, and we could therefore assume
that it was nullified.
biny...@my-dejanews.com
zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) wrote:
Zev, just in case these final remarks are addressed to me or partially
addresed to me (since this post begins with a quotation of my query) I would
like to state that I never proposed rejecting Rav Moshe Feinstein's reasoning
or labelling people who don't consume chalav Yisrael as consumers of chalav
akum. It seems that I am being taken to task by some posters for including
Rav Moshe's heter in a general policy of not using heteirim when one doesn't
have to, but I am happy that everybody is affirming (or at least citing Rav
Moshe as affirming) that a pious person should use milk supervised by a Jew
from the time of milking. I agree with everything you write in your final
paragraph, and I found the rest of your post very informative.
Be well,
Binyomin
Binyomin Kaplan
http://binyomin.home.gs.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Simcha Streltsov
: and undermine their chinuch. So he's kind of having it both ways: his
: heter is really and truly good, and one who wishes to follow it has the
: perfect right (according to him) to do so, but it's not how a baal
: nefesh behaves.
does it all mean for people who don't fully control their nefesh, like me,
and do not go by chalav isroel in general, one still should use it
given no (or minimal) other preferences. To put it other way around,
would I be a scoundrel, if I stand in front of two packages of milk
with same quality and price and buy chalav hacompanies?
then, what if the difference is small - whether in quality, or price
or walking distance?
OTOH, as I undersatand some people would treat [other people's]
dishes as treif for their own purposes because of chalav stam -
it seems that from R Moshe's POV they are mistaken, and, thus, may
be transgressing mitzvot bein adam lehavero by refusing to
eat in someone's house. Do they have other poskim to rely upon?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Joe Slater
>If "by his understanding" it *is* cholov Yisroel, then why does he repeatedly
>disclaim the heter as being reserved for hardship cases only. Why does he
>repeatedly state that he himself does not drink such milk, and why does he forbid
>Yeshivas to drink such milk if they have real cholov Yisroel available, even if it
>causes financial hardship for the Yeshiva? If the USDA approved milk *is* cholov
>Yisroel, then it *is* cholov Yisroel.
I also find this hard to understand. Surely it would be wrong to waste
money on milk supervised by Jews if this is unnecessary.
jds
Shaul Bacher
must be careful when looking for a heter with regard to Cholov Yisroel.
The spiritual ramifications and consequences that result from keeping or not
keeping Cholov Yisroel are large. The simple fact that a Jew keeps Cholov
Yisroel despite all the rational that could help him justify that it is not
really necessary clearly demonstrates his kabolas ol and yiras Shomayim.
Zev Sero
>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>> There is a heter to use non-Cholov-Yisroel milk? Where? The Igros Moshe
>> permits American commerical milk because it *is* by his understanding
>> Cholov Yisroel.
>That is somewhat of an oversimplification.
>
>If "by his understanding" it *is* cholov Yisroel, then why does he repeatedly
>disclaim the heter as being reserved for hardship cases only.
He doesn't. He says very clearly that the heter is available to anyone
who wants to make use of it, and that if someone was abstaining from
`company milk' because he thought that it was chalav akum and therefore
forbidden, he doesn't even need to be matir neder (annul a vow), because
his practise was based on an error.
>Why does he
>repeatedly state that he himself does not drink such milk, and why does he forbid
>Yeshivas to drink such milk if they have real cholov Yisroel available, even if it
>causes financial hardship for the Yeshiva? If the USDA approved milk *is* cholov
>Yisroel, then it *is* cholov Yisroel.
He says that milk with an actual Jew watching is a hiddur, and that the
job of a yeshiva is to educate its students to be mehader bemitzvot, so
they may not compromise that mission by relying on new heterim.
Zev Sero
>> Of course, there are many who simply don't accept R Moshe's reasoning
>> in the first place, and therefore regard `chalav companies' as chalav
>> akum rather than as chalav yisrael. But you can't reject his reasoning
>> without reading it first, and looking up his sources; this is not some
>> lax `rabbi' playing games, trying to justify a heter that he's already
>> decided on because it's convenient.
>Zev, just in case these final remarks are addressed to me or partially
>addresed to me (since this post begins with a quotation of my query) I would
>like to state that I never proposed rejecting Rav Moshe Feinstein's reasoning
>or labelling people who don't consume chalav Yisrael as consumers of chalav
>akum.
No, I just took off from your post and kept going. The final paragraph
was intended to make it clear that in this post I was merely discussing
R Moshe's view, and that there are other views. Those who reject his
reasoning would say that abstaining from company milk is not just a
hiddur but a law, and that those who drink it are not merely not being
mehader but are actually drinking chalav akum.
Simcha Streltsov
: The spiritual ramifications and consequences that result from keeping or not
: keeping Cholov Yisroel are large. The simple fact that a Jew keeps Cholov
: Yisroel despite all the rational that could help him justify that it is not
: really necessary clearly demonstrates his kabolas ol and yiras Shomayim.
that may be true - but you did not explain why.
On 1 hand, there are many other wonderful ways to demonstrate your
relationship to Shomayim - is this one the most important?
and if it is the most important one - should I buy my own cow and milk it
myself to acieve the best kabolas ol?
Simcha Streltsov
: I also find this hard to understand. Surely it would be wrong to waste
: money on milk supervised by Jews if this is unnecessary.
I dont see this as a difficult question - you are free to spend
your own money on better anything. the harder question would be
if you are buying it using someone else's money (for school, as
in the original sheila), or if you are invited by someone else -
whenever you compromise principles or make someone else to loose
money if you refuse to drink it
Craig Winchell
Only Lubavich, in my experience, considers the dishes treif. All Chassidim
that I know, with the exception of Lubavichers, and all of the non
Chassidim who I know, treat non-cholov Yisrael milchig dishes as kosher.
Craig Winchell, speaking from experience
GAN EDEN Wines
Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote in article
<787dgi$60l$2...@news1.bu.edu>...
> Zev Sero (zs...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>
> : and undermine their chinuch. So he's kind of having it both ways: his
> : heter is really and truly good, and one who wishes to follow it has the
> : perfect right (according to him) to do so, but it's not how a baal
> : nefesh behaves.
>
> does it all mean for people who don't fully control their nefesh, like
me,
> and do not go by chalav isroel in general, one still should use it
> given no (or minimal) other preferences. To put it other way around,
> would I be a scoundrel, if I stand in front of two packages of milk
> with same quality and price and buy chalav hacompanies?
>
> then, what if the difference is small - whether in quality, or price
> or walking distance?
>
> OTOH, as I undersatand some people would treat [other people's]
> dishes as treif for their own purposes because of chalav stam -
> it seems that from R Moshe's POV they are mistaken, and, thus, may
> be transgressing mitzvot bein adam lehavero by refusing to
> eat in someone's house. Do they have other poskim to rely upon?
Shaul Bacher
>
>that may be true - but you did not explain why.
>
>On 1 hand, there are many other wonderful ways to demonstrate your
>relationship to Shomayim - is this one the most important?
>
>and if it is the most important one - should I buy my own cow and milk it
>myself to acieve the best kabolas ol?
>--
>Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
>simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
>http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
>
>
I look at it this way:
I do not have the right to decide whether or a not a mitzvah is important
even if keeping it does not mach any logic or rational and even if it is
midarabanan.
There is a famous quote that has become law in the Gemorah " Minhag Avoseinu
Be' Yodeinu - That which was instituted by the Rabonon can not be changed
even if the reason for it today. A famous example of this is Yom Tov Sheini
Shel Goliyos even though we have a reliable calendar and no threat from the
Saducees.
I see no reason why Cholov Yisroel is any different - besides the fact that
many great Chassidic leaders who were recognized as great Tzadikim have been
quoted saying that the intake of Cholov Akum has strong spiritual
consequences on the person eating or drinking it.
May we merit an era of Moshiach when "Ve'es Ruach ha tumah aavir min
Haaretz" and there will be no need or cause to worry about such issues.
For five years I lived in a town where the only Cholov Yisroel Milk came
from a nearby farm and that was only if I was there to supervise the
milking. Perhaps heteirim would have permited my family to use other milk ,
but we were non the worse. I strongly feel that these should be the worst
trials and tribulations a yid should have to go through and that these
Heteirim should only be used after care analysys of ones situation.
Shaul Bacher
peh to malign and openly claim that thousands of yidden who are shoimrei
Torah and Mitzvahs are eating treif and are using treif keilim.
Lubavitch are makpid with the above not because of a sheilah in kashrus but
only as a result of the spiritual ramifications and consequences that come
as a result of being slack with cholov Yisroel as I wrote about in prior
postings in this thread especially when it is openly available in basic
dairy products as well as in hundreds of processed products such as
chocolates etc.
It is my personal belief that cholov Yisroel openly shows recognition that
we keep mitzvahs for a higher purpose. It is also a wonderful method of
educating children to understand that we are different and keep mitzvahs and
minhagim because this is purely the Rotzon of the Ribono Shel Olam.
R
> B"H
> Only Lubavich, in my experience, considers the dishes treif. All Chassidim
> that I know, with the exception of Lubavichers, and all of the non
> Chassidim who I know, treat non-cholov Yisrael milchig dishes as kosher.
I have heard this assertion before, but I fail to understand it. It only makes
sense for those who accept R. Moshe's premise (as scj folks are reading the
heter) that cholov hacompanies = cholov Yisrael, and that insisting on
"old-fashioned" cholov Yisrael is some kind of personal chumra. Then, it would
make sense if someone took on a personal chumra to avoid drinking cholov
hacompanies itself and products derived therefrom, but not to treat
dishes-pots-pans in which it was cooked or served as treif.
But for those who do not accept R Moshe's heter, and treat cholov hacompanies
as bone fide cholov akum (or, for the case of milk obtained from a private
gentile in places where there is no government supervision, and which
*everyone* would treat as cholov akum not covered by R. Moshe's heter) then,
like any other rabbinic prohibition, cooking it in a pot renders the pot treif,
and the pot requires kashering. See Rama's explicit ruling on the matter,
Yoreh Deiah 115:1, about 2/3 of the way into the very long hagaha.
R
I am happy to see that prominent Lubavitcher spokespeople from South Africa are
going public with official statements about what "Lubavitch do (or do not)
consider ... treif, Chas ve shalom..."
I consider myself a Lubavitcher b'leiv vanefesh. And the Lubavitcher Rebbe that
*I* know considers (if you prefer "considered," I will not argue the point here)
the Shulchan Aruch to be the arbiter of what dishes are treif and what dishes
are not. Suffice it to say that the Rama on Yoreh Deiah 115:1 explicitly rules
that cholov akum dishes are treif, and have to be kashered.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe was a resident of Crown Heights, and as such, he
considered the late Rav Zalman Shimon Dworkin z.l. to be his Mara d'asra, and on
many occasions, he publically proclaimed him as such.
You may be too young to remember, but Rav Dworkin ruled that not only are cholov
akum utensils treif, but that the kashering of the pasteurization equipment that
was then being done in most milk plants was not sufficient, because the
kashering temperature was less than 212 degrees farenheit. Thus, he ruled that
even most cholov Yisrael of those days was treif.
Again: Rav Dworkin was the Rebbe's publically-proclaimed mara d'asra. You can't
get more "Lubavitch" than that.
As for your worry about Lubavitch being "a pischoin
peh to malign and openly claim that thousands of yidden who are shoimrei
Torah and Mitzvahs are eating treif and are using treif keilim" -- The yidden
who are "shoimrei Torah and Mitzvahs" and yet drink this milk and use these
keilim, are doing so because they rely on a heter that does not consider certain
milks to be in fact cholov akum.
Shaul Bacher
me that R' Moshe Z''l openly expressed regret for his heter for cholov
yisroel, as it has been taken out of context and used as an unquestionable
free ticket to the use of chalav Akum. Apparently he found himself bothered
by those using his heter on the ny market were chalav yisroel is openly
available.
If anybody could clarify the above I`d much appreciate it as I would not
like to put words to R' Moshe's mouth that can not be substantiated.
Shaul Bacher
Shaul Bacher
Shaul Bacher
Shaul Bacher
Zev Sero
>Craig Winchell wrote:
>> Only Lubavich, in my experience, considers the dishes treif. All Chassidim
>> that I know, with the exception of Lubavichers, and all of the non
>> Chassidim who I know, treat non-cholov Yisrael milchig dishes as kosher.
>I have heard this assertion before, but I fail to understand it. It only makes
>sense for those who accept R. Moshe's premise (as scj folks are reading the
>heter) that cholov hacompanies = cholov Yisrael, and that insisting on
>"old-fashioned" cholov Yisrael is some kind of personal chumra. Then, it would
>make sense if someone took on a personal chumra to avoid drinking cholov
>hacompanies itself and products derived therefrom, but not to treat
>dishes-pots-pans in which it was cooked or served as treif.
Yes. It is my understanding that those who treat non-chalav-yisrael
utensils as kosher are basically accepting R Moshe's heter as at least
probably valid, even if they're not willing to take advantage of it
themselves. IOW they're relying on the heter at least to lower the
level of prohibition enough that they don't need to worry about the
small amount of milk that will leach from the utensils to the food
that's cooked in them.
>But for those who do not accept R Moshe's heter, and treat cholov hacompanies
>as bone fide cholov akum (or, for the case of milk obtained from a private
>gentile in places where there is no government supervision, and which
>*everyone* would treat as cholov akum not covered by R. Moshe's heter)
Actually, strike that bit about the lack of govt supervision - milk from
a private goyishe farmer is not kosher, according to anybody, even in
the USA, and the pot in which such milk was cooked must be kashered.
See the end of the teshuva in Igrot Moshe immediately before the first
teshuva that explains his famous heter; in that piece he makes it clear
that there is no heter at all for true chalav akum.
>then,
>like any other rabbinic prohibition, cooking it in a pot renders the pot treif,
>and the pot requires kashering. See Rama's explicit ruling on the matter,
>Yoreh Deiah 115:1, about 2/3 of the way into the very long hagaha.
Indeed.
Simcha Streltsov
: Lubavitch do not consider the dishes treif, Chas ve shalom to be a pischoin
: peh to malign and openly claim that thousands of yidden who are shoimrei
: Torah and Mitzvahs are eating treif and are using treif keilim.
not being a halachik expert, I can testify that some people treat
halav stam aas treif - i.e. they would not eat from the dishes that
were used for halav stam, etc. It may mean that they consider it
treif al pi their nusach, but is OK for others, I dont know.
Shaul Bacher
I had problems with outlook express and was receiving undeliverable messages
not realizing that they had gone through I resent them until I did not get
the error message.
My apologies!
Micha Berger
: Suffice it to say that the Rama on Yoreh Deiah 115:1 explicitly rules
: that cholov akum dishes are treif, and have to be kashered.
You are presupposing the issue. Is US FDA certified milk technically cholov
akum? If the issue is not kashrus, but some kabbalistic concept, then perhaps
your Rebbe felt /concept/ applies even though in terms of the laws of kashrus
it is technically kosher (perhaps following the same reasoning as R' Mosheh)
-- and therefore not cholov akum, and the Rama you quote wouldn't apply.
I'm suggesting out of ignorance. I just think there's a hole in your chain of
logic.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6070 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 24-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
R
> On 23 Jan 1999 17:38:32 PST, R <rut...@concentric.net> wrote:
> : Suffice it to say that the Rama on Yoreh Deiah 115:1 explicitly rules
> : that cholov akum dishes are treif, and have to be kashered.
>
> You are presupposing the issue. Is US FDA certified milk technically cholov
> akum? If the issue is not kashrus, but some kabbalistic concept, then perhaps
> your Rebbe felt /concept/ applies even though in terms of the laws of kashrus
> it is technically kosher (perhaps following the same reasoning as R' Mosheh)
> -- and therefore not cholov akum, and the Rama you quote wouldn't apply.
>
> I'm suggesting out of ignorance. I just think there's a hole in your chain of
> logic.
I am not arguing here. I thought I had made my position clear, but apparently not.
Let me try to restate the case.
1) If one accepts R. Moshe's heter in its entirety, and relies on it, then he may
drink cholov hacompanies milk, eat products made therefrom, and need have no
worries about the utensils.
2) If one accepts the heter, but as a personal chumra chooses not to rely on it,
then he may take on such a chumra regarding the milk itself, and its derivative
products, but not with regard to the keilim. As you state, that would be
acceptable, and that is what I said in my original post.
3) If one does not accept the heter, and considers cholov hacompanies to be bone
fide cholov akum, then he would have to consider the dishes to be treif.
4) If one obtains milk that is *not* cholov hacompanies, but milked by a private
unsupervised gentile (which would not be covered by R. Moshe's heter), then too,
the dishes would be treif and require kashering, even for people who fall into
categories 1 & 2 above.
Craig Winchell
Shaul Bacher <sba...@icon.co.za> wrote in article
<78d7ud$7ud$1...@hermes.is.co.za>...
> Lubavitch do not consider the dishes treif, Chas ve shalom to be a
pischoin
> peh to malign and openly claim that thousands of yidden who are shoimrei
> Torah and Mitzvahs are eating treif and are using treif keilim.
B"H
All I know is that all Lubavichers I know scrupulously avoid eating even
cholov Yisroel in my house, knowing that the keilim they were cooked in
have been used to cook non-cholov Yisroel, whereas the Belzers, Satmar and
other Chassidim and of course, non Chassidim have had no such problem with
eating hot cholov Yisroel cooked in or placed on those same keilim. And
yet, I never said that the Lubavichers claimed I was no shomer mitzvos, as
evidenced by the fact that they drink my wine, and eat fleishigs cooked in
my house (as long as the shechita was acceptable to them).
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
Jonathan J. Baker
>Lubavitch do not consider the dishes treif, Chas ve shalom to be a pischoin
>peh to malign and openly claim that thousands of yidden who are shoimrei
>Torah and Mitzvahs are eating treif and are using treif keilim.
Bullsh*t. I was told by a Lubavitcher Jew that if I put my non-cholov-yisroel
food on his dairy dishes, it would render them traif. This is someone who
will eat my (wife's) fleishig food.
>Lubavitch are makpid with the above not because of a sheilah in kashrus but
>only as a result of the spiritual ramifications and consequences that come
>as a result of being slack with cholov Yisroel as I wrote about in prior
>postings in this thread especially when it is openly available in basic
>dairy products as well as in hundreds of processed products such as
>chocolates etc.
What about the spiritual ramifications of alienating one's fellow Jews?
For a group that purportedly cares so much about other Jews, it's rather
inconsistent.
No. Either they accept Reb Moshe's halachic opinion, in which case
halav hacompanies *is* halav yisrael, and even if they keep by Jewish
milk, halav hacompanies is not treif, or they do not accept Reb Moshe's
halachic opinion, and then consider halav hacompanies to be halav akum.
For the Lubavitchers to hold that halav hacompanies is treif and will
render kelim treif *is* inherently a halachic opinion.
>It is my personal belief that cholov Yisroel openly shows recognition that
>we keep mitzvahs for a higher purpose. It is also a wonderful method of
>educating children to understand that we are different and keep mitzvahs and
>minhagim because this is purely the Rotzon of the Ribono Shel Olam.
Indeed, and thus all of us who accept Reb Moshe's opinion do keep cholov
Yisrael. It is my personal belief that those who treat halav hacompanies
as halav akum show that they keep mitzvot for a lower purpose, for furthering
their prishah min hatzibur. It is also a wonderful method of educating
children to understand that their group is the only true Jews and thus
maintaining an us-vs-them persecution mentality. What this has to do
with the Will of the Creator remains to be proven.
--
Jonathan Baker | Is it Shevat Na or Shvat Nach?
jjb...@panix.com |
Harry Weiss
Organization: ICGNetcom
Distribution:
Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
: In <78d7ud$7ud$1...@hermes.is.co.za> "Shaul Bacher" <sba...@icon.co.za> writes:
: >Lubavitch do not consider the dishes treif, Chas ve shalom to be a pischoin
: >peh to malign and openly claim that thousands of yidden who are shoimrei
: >Torah and Mitzvahs are eating treif and are using treif keilim.
: Bullsh*t. I was told by a Lubavitcher Jew that if I put my non-cholov-yisroel
: food on his dairy dishes, it would render them traif. This is someone who
: will eat my (wife's) fleishig food.
Since the Tshuva of R. Moshe is not fully accepted, those who do not are
correct in following their psak, which is every bit as legit as that of
R. Moshe. Some Lubavitch may accept some kelim at other people's
homes if they know they haven't been used for 24 hours and relying on
Nosein Taam Lifgam, and trying not to create divisions.
: >Lubavitch are makpid with the above not because of a sheilah in kashrus but
You are way off base here. i personally do rely on Reb Moshe's Psak, but
the other psak is just as legitimate and is not perisha min hatzibur in
any way. I am not being a poresh min Hatzibur when I visit my cousin
who is married to an Iranian on Pesach and will not eat rice. When
people who don eat Gebrochts on Pesach, they are not being Poresh min
Hatzibur. Now days most people keept Glatt becaause there are few if any reliable non glatt
slaughterhouses as well as other transportation issues for Non Glatt. In
the old days may people did reliably eat non Glatt. Those Sephardim were
required only accept Bet Yosef Schittah. They are noy being poresh.
: --
: Jonathan Baker | Is it Shevat Na or Shvat Nach?
: jjb...@panix.com |
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Zev Sero
wrote:
>on shabbos in shul, I was discussing this thread and it was pointed out to
>me that R' Moshe Z''l openly expressed regret for his heter for cholov
>yisroel,
I've never heard this.
> as it has been taken out of context and used as an unquestionable
>free ticket to the use of chalav Akum.
*NOT* chalav akum. `Chalav hacompanies', which according to R Moshe
*has* *the* *law* of chalav yisrael. I don't see how anyone could
be accused of `taking it out of context', since IM vol 1 makes it clear
that it *is* a `free ticket' for those who want to take advantage of it,
even if he didn't approve of doing so. A baal nefesh shouldn't eat
pat palter (bread that was baked by a non-Jewish commercial baker,
without Jewish input) either, but there can be no question that it is
absolutely permitted, and any Rabbi who teaches that it's forbidden is
IMHO steering pretty close to heresy.
>Apparently he found himself bothered
>by those using his heter on the ny market were chalav yisroel is openly
>available.
So if he'd had his time again he'd have suppressed his honest halachic
opinion because it would lead people to take advantage of a heter that
he didn't think they should? The Mechaber clearly disapproved of eating
pat palter, but that didn't stop him from writing that it is permitted,
because the fact is that it is.
>If anybody could clarify the above I`d much appreciate it as I would not
>like to put words to R' Moshe's mouth that can not be substantiated.
Zev Sero
>Indeed, and thus all of us who accept Reb Moshe's opinion do keep cholov
>Yisrael. It is my personal belief that those who treat halav hacompanies
>as halav akum show that they keep mitzvot for a lower purpose, for furthering
>their prishah min hatzibur. It is also a wonderful method of educating
>children to understand that their group is the only true Jews and thus
>maintaining an us-vs-them persecution mentality. What this has to do
>with the Will of the Creator remains to be proven
Hasn't it occured to you in your wildest dreams that they simply don't
agree with R Moshe's reasoning, or at least aren't sure enough of it to
risk eating something which, *if* he was wrong, is treif?
On what basis do you reject that theory, and instead ascribe the basest
motives to a group well-known both as mehadrim bemitzvot and as ohavei
yisrael? If you think that Lubavitchers have a `persecution mentality',
you've certainly demonstrated why that might be.
Zev Sero
wrote:
>All I know is that all Lubavichers I know scrupulously avoid eating even
>cholov Yisroel in my house, knowing that the keilim they were cooked in
>have been used to cook non-cholov Yisroel, whereas the Belzers, Satmar and
>other Chassidim and of course, non Chassidim have had no such problem with
>eating hot cholov Yisroel cooked in or placed on those same keilim.
This could be a reflection of the fact that Lubavitchers are among the
most careful in kashrut, much more than many other groups (except, e.g.
the Briskers). Satmarers, e.g., are well-known to keep their high
standards only when at home, and to relax them when travelling (`unter
vegens'), so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they would eat
from your utensils, even if they might not do so in their home towns,
whereas Lubavs generally keep the same standards whether they're in
Brooklyn or in the Congo, and some have trouble understanding a flexible
standard such as that of the Satmarers.
The Satmar attitude to things like non-glatt meat and chalav companies
might be characterised as: this is undoubtedly kosher, but when in NYC,
where it's easy to avoid them, we choose to do so as a hiddur; when it's
difficult to avoid them, we reserve the right to fall back on the basic
halacha. When they visit you, and you make chalav yisrael available to
them, they obviously take advantage of that, but will still use your
utensils, because they're prepared to rely on the heter themselves if
not doing so is difficult.
The Lubav attitude is better summed up as: while there is good halachic
authority permitting these things, and therefore those who eat them are
good Jews, whose yir'at shamayim we don't doubt, whose wine we may
drink, and whose meat we can trust. But we prefer to follow the
stricter opinions that forbid these things, and the force of those
opinions doesn't lose anything merely because we're in New Zealand and
it's inconvenient for us to follow them. Either those opinions are
definitely invalid, and therefore we can ignore them even in Brooklyn,
or they may be valid, in which case we must follow them even in Kansas,
and we choose to consider that they may be valid. Now if R Moshe's
heter is wrong, then your utensils are indeed treif, so it's no wonder
that Lubavs, who hold to the possibility that he might have been wrong,
won't eat from your utensils.
Joe Slater
>It is my personal belief that those who treat halav hacompanies
>as halav akum show that they keep mitzvot for a lower purpose, for furthering
>their prishah min hatzibur. It is also a wonderful method of educating
>children to understand that their group is the only true Jews and thus
>maintaining an us-vs-them persecution mentality. What this has to do
Jonathan, I must frankly say that I cannot understand R' Moshe's view
on this issue even were he not to have equivocated and said that
yeshivas should spend extra money for "real" cholov yisroel. Given
this strange equivocation I am utterly at a loss at how to understand
it.
jds
Micha Berger
Satmar has certain chumros (stringencies), but hold them to be chumros -- not
baseline halachah. Therefore, when it comes to other people's homes, where
interpersonal mitzvos are involved, or in cases where nothing else is
available, they are willing to be lax.
Lubavitch views its stringencies not as chumros, but as their own baseline.
Other, perfectly valid, baselines exist. However, that leaves no room for
leniency. On the down side, that in turn puts kashrus ahead of the bein adam
lachaveiros (interpersonal mitzvos) when faced with choosing between eating
what your host offers or possibly insulting her. Stringency in one thing more
often than not causes a leniency somewhere else.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6071 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 25-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6071 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 25-Jan-99)
Jonathan J. Baker
>You are way off base here. i personally do rely on Reb Moshe's Psak, but
>the other psak is just as legitimate and is not perisha min hatzibur in
There is little enough in this world that we Jews are united on. I
took that other fellow at his word that (all?) (most?) non-Lubavitch
chasidim accepted Reb Moshe's reasoning, even if they take the chumrah
position and buy marked cholov yisroel. If that is the case, then,
only Lubavitch doesn't hold by R' Moshe's psak, that chalav hacompanies
is kosher, but insufficiently chamur.
In which case, the Lubavs are being porshim min hatzibur. Which is not
surprising, given how they do things differently from everyone as a
conscious thing: they pulled out of Agudah 70 years ago, even though many
other chasidim are in it, and even though they pretty much agree with them
on Israeli politics.
>any way. I am not being a poresh min Hatzibur when I visit my cousin
>who is married to an Iranian on Pesach and will not eat rice. When
>people who don eat Gebrochts on Pesach, they are not being Poresh min
>Hatzibur. Now days most people keept Glatt becaause there are few if
>any reliable non glatt
>slaughterhouses as well as other transportation issues for Non Glatt. In
>the old days may people did reliably eat non Glatt. Those Sephardim were
>required only accept Bet Yosef Schittah. They are noy being poresh.
Half the world eats glatt, the other half doesn't, it's an old
Ashkenaz-Sephard split. But what about rice? If you eat at
a sephardi person's house on pesach, do you regard his plates as
chometzdik because they've had rice on them?
It's one thing if you have large constituencies eating/not eating
rice, or glatt. But do those who eat non-gebrockts regard those who
eat gebrockts as eating chometz gamur, or as not being machmir?
Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing separation.
It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to say
"You're a rasha because you eat that" when the overwhelming majority
opinion is that it's kosher.
Binyomin Kaplan
Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> In <hjweissF...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com
(Harry Weiss) writes:
>
> >You are way off base here. i personally do rely on Reb
Moshe's Psak, but
> >the other psak is just as legitimate and is not perisha
min hatzibur in
>
> There is little enough in this world that we Jews are
united on. I
> took that other fellow at his word that (all?) (most?)
non-Lubavitch
> chasidim accepted Reb Moshe's reasoning, even if they take
the chumrah
> position and buy marked cholov yisroel. If that is the
case, then,
> only Lubavitch doesn't hold by R' Moshe's psak, that
chalav hacompanies
> is kosher, but insufficiently chamur.
You should bear in mind that not using a heter does not
require one to have
any opinion at all about its validity one way or the other.
It is a different
issue.
>
> In which case, the Lubavs are being porshim min hatzibur.
I don't think that the principle of "al tifrosh min hatibur"
has anything to
do with kashrus standards or any other standards in keeping
mitzvos. Yes, you
should avoid offending people. But if someone unreasonably
decides to be
offended because you don't eat certain foods, or don't eat
from certain
keilim, or wear your tzitzis out, or whatever, I don't think
there is any
mitzvah bein adam lechaveiro that lets him dictate to you
that you have to
compromise your standards..
> Which is not
> surprising, given how they do things differently from
everyone as a
> conscious thing: they pulled out of Agudah 70 years ago,
even though many
> other chasidim are in it, and even though they pretty much
agree with them
> on Israeli politics.
>
You're accusing the Previous Rebbe of violating "al tifrosh"
now? He was well
known for exhibiting extreme self-sacrifice to help other
Jews, no matter what
their communal affiliations.
>
> >any way. I am not being a poresh min Hatzibur when I
visit my cousin
> >who is married to an Iranian on Pesach and will not eat
rice. When
> >people who don eat Gebrochts on Pesach, they are not
being Poresh min
> >Hatzibur. Now days most people keept Glatt becaause
there are few if
> >any reliable non glatt
> >slaughterhouses as well as other transportation issues
for Non Glatt. In
> >the old days may people did reliably eat non Glatt.
Those Sephardim were
> >required only accept Bet Yosef Schittah. They are noy
being poresh.
>
> Half the world eats glatt, the other half doesn't, it's an
old
> Ashkenaz-Sephard split. But what about rice? If you eat
at
> a sephardi person's house on pesach, do you regard his
plates as
> chometzdik because they've had rice on them?
>
You are aware that rice is kitniyos, aren't you?
>
> It's one thing if you have large constituencies eating/not
eating
> rice, or glatt. But do those who eat non-gebrockts regard
those who
> eat gebrockts as eating chometz gamur, or as not being
machmir?
>
They regard them as eating gebrockts.
>
> Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing
separation.
> It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to
say
> "You're a rasha because you eat that" when the
overwhelming majority
> opinion is that it's kosher.
>
This distinction doesn't have anything to do with perishah
from the tzibur.
Yes, you should go to great lengths not to call other Jews
"reshaim." You
shouldn't unjustly accuse them of perishah from the tzibur
either. BTW, on
many other occasions I enjoy your posts.
Be well,
Binyomin
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
>> only Lubavitch doesn't hold by R' Moshe's psak, that
>chalav hacompanies
>> is kosher, but insufficiently chamur.
>You should bear in mind that not using a heter does not
>require one to have
>any opinion at all about its validity one way or the other.
>It is a different >issue.
If one doesn't use the heter because they think that the reasoning
is wrong (as does Lub.), that is different from not using the heter
because one wants to be machmir. In the latter case, one is being
machmir on oneself without putting oneself in the position of telling
others that they're eating treif.
>> Which is not
>> surprising, given how they do things differently from
>everyone as a
>> conscious thing: they pulled out of Agudah 70 years ago,
>even though many
>> other chasidim are in it, and even though they pretty much
>agree with them
>> on Israeli politics.
>You're accusing the Previous Rebbe of violating "al tifrosh"
>now? He was well
>known for exhibiting extreme self-sacrifice to help other
>Jews, no matter what
>their communal affiliations.
Except the Zionists, and the other chasidim, and the other non-Lubav
Orthodox. Other Jews, but not other Jewish political and communal
groups. They implicitly and explicitly do not recognize the other
tziburim.
>> >any way. I am not being a poresh min Hatzibur when I
>visit my cousin
>> >who is married to an Iranian on Pesach and will not eat
>rice. When
>> >people who don eat Gebrochts on Pesach, they are not
>being Poresh min
>> >Hatzibur. Now days most people keept Glatt becaause
>there are few if
>> >any reliable non glatt
>> >slaughterhouses as well as other transportation issues
>for Non Glatt. In
>> >the old days may people did reliably eat non Glatt.
>Those Sephardim were
>> >required only accept Bet Yosef Schittah. They are noy
>being poresh.
>>
>> Half the world eats glatt, the other half doesn't, it's an
>old
>> Ashkenaz-Sephard split. But what about rice? If you eat
>at
>> a sephardi person's house on pesach, do you regard his
>plates as
>> chometzdik because they've had rice on them?
>You are aware that rice is kitniyos, aren't you?
Kitniyos is not chometz. Kitniyos is explicitly permitted in
the Gemara Pesachim. Thus, at least by most poskim, even though
we don't eat kitniyos, we are allowed to eat non-kitniyos KP food
on plates/pots that were used for kitniyos. Does Lubavitch hold
differently?
>> It's one thing if you have large constituencies eating/not
>eating
>> rice, or glatt. But do those who eat non-gebrockts regard
>those who
>> eat gebrockts as eating chometz gamur, or as not being
>machmir?
>They regard them as eating gebrockts.
To be more concrete, O Dodgy Correspondent, if I were to put matza
brei on your plate on, e.g., the third day of Pesach, would you
simply wash it off and use the same plate the next day, or would
you have to re-kasher or discard the plate as chometz she-avar alav
hapesach?
>> Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing >separation.
>> It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to >say
>> "You're a rasha because you eat that" when the >overwhelming majority
>> opinion is that it's kosher.
>This distinction doesn't have anything to do with perishah
>from the tzibur.
>Yes, you should go to great lengths not to call other Jews
>"reshaim." You
>shouldn't unjustly accuse them of perishah from the tzibur
On your say-so. The Tiferes Yisroel disagrees. In Avos 2:4
s"k 32, he defines prishah min hatzibur in terms of concrete
acts. His first definition is not following the minhag hamakom,
based on a gemara in BM 86b.
Since in this country, whether one is machmir or meikil, by far
the most common custom is to accept R' Moshe's psak, I feel that
Lubavitch in this case is porshin min hatzibur. Now, if they
define the kahal to be themselves, that's their self-serving
solution.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Much delted.
>: Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing separation.
>: It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to say
>: "You're a rasha because you eat that" when the overwhelming majority
>: opinion is that it's kosher.
>: --
>I have never heard a Lubavitcher say that one is a Rasha for eating
>Chalava Hacompanies. They hold that for themselves and do not force it
>on others. That is why the OK, controlled by a Lubavitchers certifies a
>kosher non Chalav Yisroel products, as does the Vaad of Norther CA, also
>heavily Lubavitch. As many have posted Even those Chabad who will not
>use dishes that had non chalav Yisroel will eat meat and drink non
>mevushal wine at the homes of those who do no keep chalav yisroel. They
>would not do so if they considered the person a rasha.
Ah, but consider the Lubavitch definition of a rasha: anyone who sins at
all (see first chapter of Tanya). For the rest of us, perhaps it would
be more appropriate to be more specific: "You know you're eating trefe
food." But the effect is the same.
Harry Weiss
Much delted.
: Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing separation.
: It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to say
: "You're a rasha because you eat that" when the overwhelming majority
: opinion is that it's kosher.
: --
I have never heard a Lubavitcher say that one is a Rasha for eating
Chalava Hacompanies. They hold that for themselves and do not force it
on others. That is why the OK, controlled by a Lubavitchers certifies a
kosher non Chalav Yisroel products, as does the Vaad of Norther CA, also
heavily Lubavitch. As many have posted Even those Chabad who will not
use dishes that had non chalav Yisroel will eat meat and drink non
mevushal wine at the homes of those who do no keep chalav yisroel. They
would not do so if they considered the person a rasha.
: Jonathan Baker | Is it Shevat Na or Shvat Nach?
: jjb...@panix.com |
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
elikr...@my-dejanews.com
>
> B"H
>
> All I know is that all Lubavichers I know scrupulously avoid eating even
> cholov Yisroel in my house, knowing that the keilim they were cooked in
> have been used to cook non-cholov Yisroel, whereas the Belzers, Satmar and
> other Chassidim and of course, non Chassidim have had no such problem with
> eating hot cholov Yisroel cooked in or placed on those same keilim. And
> yet, I never said that the Lubavichers claimed I was no shomer mitzvos, as
> evidenced by the fact that they drink my wine, and eat fleishigs cooked in
> my house (as long as the shechita was acceptable to them).
>
> Craig Winchell
> GAN EDEN Wines
>
Well now I understand you are both talking at cross purposes! Chalilah to say
Cholov Akum is treif as Shaul pointed out in his postings, however once they
are strict with concept of Cholov Yisroel for themselves they will be makpid
to fullest degrees in its observance.
I think that this demonstrates the dedication to the fullfilling the concept
of cholov yisroel and in no way are they condecending on others who adhere to
the heteirim.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Shaul Bacher
>
>>>
>>: Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing separation.
>>: It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to say
>>: "You're a rasha because you eat that" when the overwhelming majority
>>: opinion is that it's kosher.
>>: --
fellow jews and as a result you find your self publicly displaying your
ignorance.
By the way a Rasha on the first page of Tanya is greater than the accepted
norms for a Beinoni or even a Tzaddik by most other people. A Rasha
according to Tanya is somebody who does just one aveirah and it is while he
doing it that he is called the Rasha.
This has been quite an interesting thread and I personally have enjoyed
participating in such a discussion. There are many other forums on the net
to spew hatred and to interact with other frustrated individuals. Please try
to refrain from doing that here amongst us folk who are interested in a
discussion that recognizes the veiws of ALL participants.
Zev Sero
>In <hjweissF...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
>>You are way off base here. i personally do rely on Reb Moshe's Psak, but
>>the other psak is just as legitimate and is not perisha min hatzibur in
>There is little enough in this world that we Jews are united on. I
>took that other fellow at his word that (all?) (most?) non-Lubavitch
>chasidim accepted Reb Moshe's reasoning, even if they take the chumrah
>position and buy marked cholov yisroel. If that is the case, then,
>only Lubavitch doesn't hold by R' Moshe's psak, that chalav hacompanies
>is kosher, but insufficiently chamur. In which case, the Lubavs are being
>porshim min hatzibur.
It may be that the majority of frum Jews choose to accept one psak,
which they're perfectly entitled to do, but who authorised them to
impose their decision on those who disagree with it? Since when is
everyone compelled to accept a new kula just because the majority did?
If a Sanhedrin voted to accept R Moshe's kula, then that would become
the definitive halacha, and it would be forbidden to teach differently,
but no such vote has been taken, and it is the height of chutzpah to
demand of a community that has been known for over 200 years as
mehadrin bemitzvot that they accept a kula just to stop you feeling
insecure.
> Which is not
>surprising, given how they do things differently from everyone as a
>conscious thing: they pulled out of Agudah 70 years ago, even though many
>other chasidim are in it, and even though they pretty much agree with them
>on Israeli politics.
Lubavitch and Brisk never joined the Aguda in the first place. When the
Aguda was formed the Brisker presented 18 demands as a condition of his
joining, and they were not fulfilled. The Lubavitcher Rebbe agreed with
the Brisker, and stayed out too. Individual Lubavitcher chasidim (e.g.
R Mordechai Dubin HYD) were very active in the Aguda leadership, with
the full approval of their Rebbe
>Half the world eats glatt, the other half doesn't, it's an old
>Ashkenaz-Sephard split. But what about rice? If you eat at
>a sephardi person's house on pesach, do you regard his plates as
>chometzdik because they've had rice on them?
No, because the utensils of kitniyot are not forbidden, and may be
used by Ashkenazim without any kind of kashering (it's customary
to set aside separate utensils for baby food, etc, but this isn't
necessary, and even according to this custom they're just set aside
for the rest of Pesach, and may be used the next year with no problems).
Chalav akum, OTOH, does make utensils treif, so if chalav companies is
chalav akum then it follows that the utensils can't be used.
>It's one thing if you have large constituencies eating/not eating
>rice, or glatt. But do those who eat non-gebrockts regard those who
>eat gebrockts as eating chometz gamur, or as not being machmir?
There is no opinion however obscure, that gebrokts is forbidden, whereas
it's certainly a respectable position that chalav companies is forbidden
>Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing separation.
So who separated here? Who changed from the previous age-old practise?
Maybe you should look up the definition of `lo titgodadu'; you may be
surprised by what you find. No community has any obligation to follow
the lead of any other community, or to accomodate its practise to that
of another.
>It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to say
>"You're a rasha because you eat that" when the overwhelming majority
>opinion is that it's kosher.
And nobody says that those who follow R Moshe's opinion are even
slightly naughty, let alone wicked. You're the only one calling
people wicked here.
--
Zev Sero Imminent death of the net delayed, Film at 12.
zs...@idt.net - Joe Greco
Zev Sero
>In <36ACE954...@gs.net> Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> writes:
>>You're accusing the Previous Rebbe of violating "al tifrosh" now? He was
>>well known for exhibiting extreme self-sacrifice to help other Jews, no
>>matter what their communal affiliations.
>Except the Zionists, and the other chasidim, and the other non-Lubav
>Orthodox. Other Jews, but not other Jewish political and communal
>groups. They implicitly and explicitly do not recognize the other
>tziburim.
When has Lubavitch ever refused to help other Jews, whether they're
Zionists or any of the other types that you mentioned?
>Kitniyos is not chometz. Kitniyos is explicitly permitted in
>the Gemara Pesachim. Thus, at least by most poskim, even though
>we don't eat kitniyos, we are allowed to eat non-kitniyos KP food
>on plates/pots that were used for kitniyos.
That's because kitniyot is permitted in a mixture of less than 50%.
If that weren't the case, then we wouldn't be allowed to eat from
kitniyot utensils, and that would not constitute perisha min hatzibur.
>>>But do those who eat non-gebrockts regard those who eat gebrockts as
>>>eating chometz gamur, or as not being machmir?
>>They regard them as eating gebrockts.
>To be more concrete, O Dodgy Correspondent, if I were to put matza
>brei on your plate on, e.g., the third day of Pesach, would you
>simply wash it off and use the same plate the next day, or would
>you have to re-kasher or discard the plate as chometz she-avar alav
>hapesach?
He's not being dodgy, he answered your question precisely. Those who
refrain from gebrokts don't regard gebrokts as chametz, they regard it
as gebrokts, which they do not eat. For some, that may include not
eating utensils of gebrokts (e.g. some Litvaks who only eat gebrokts
on the last day of Pesach when the next year will be a leap year, so
that the dishes will be 12 months old by next Pesach). That doesn't
mean that they think that those who eat it are eating chametz, it just
means that they choose to be mehader and not eat it themselves.
>On your say-so. The Tiferes Yisroel disagrees. In Avos 2:4
>s"k 32, he defines prishah min hatzibur in terms of concrete
>acts. His first definition is not following the minhag hamakom,
>based on a gemara in BM 86b.
>Since in this country, whether one is machmir or meikil, by far
>the most common custom is to accept R' Moshe's psak, I feel that
>Lubavitch in this case is porshin min hatzibur. Now, if they
>define the kahal to be themselves, that's their self-serving
>solution.
Since when is `this country' one community for the purpose of
`lo titgodadu'? Look up the laws of `lo titgodadu', paying special
attention to the case of two batei din in the same city.
Binyomin Kaplan
Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> In <36ACE954...@gs.net> Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> writes:
> >Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
>
> >> only Lubavitch doesn't hold by R' Moshe's psak, that
> >chalav hacompanies
> >> is kosher, but insufficiently chamur.
>
> >You should bear in mind that not using a heter does not
> >require one to have
> >any opinion at all about its validity one way or the other.
> >It is a different >issue.
>
> If one doesn't use the heter because they think that the reasoning
> is wrong (as does Lub.), that is different from not using the heter
> because one wants to be machmir.
My point was that you don't have to choose between one or the other to not
use the heter. You just don't use the heter. If you don't use the heter at
all (even if you are not willing to deny its validity) then it might even
involve rekashering keilim. Can you support your assertion that Lubavitch
denies the validity of Rav Moshe's heter?
> In the latter case, one is being
> machmir on oneself without putting oneself in the position of telling
> others that they're eating treif.
>
> >> Which is not
> >> surprising, given how they do things differently from
> >everyone as a
> >> conscious thing: they pulled out of Agudah 70 years ago,
> >even though many
> >> other chasidim are in it, and even though they pretty much
> >agree with them
> >> on Israeli politics.
>
> >You're accusing the Previous Rebbe of violating "al tifrosh"
> >now? He was well
> >known for exhibiting extreme self-sacrifice to help other
> >Jews, no matter what
> >their communal affiliations.
>
> Except the Zionists, and the other chasidim, and the other non-Lubav
> Orthodox.
This is very wrong. When the leadership of various communities was
collapsing in the Soviet Union in the late 20's in the face of relentless
persecution, the Previous Rebbe stood firm. Other Chassidim, Misnagdim,
Sephardim (there are some in what was the Soviet Union), all looked to his
leadership. Obviously he didn't support the leftist groups who were invovled
in his various arrests and in closing down mikva'os and yeshivos, etc, but
there were a lot of ordinary, not especially religious Jews who also
benefitted from his activities.
But what about rice? If you eat
> >at
> >> a sephardi person's house on pesach, do you regard his
> >plates as
> >> chometzdik because they've had rice on them?
>
> >You are aware that rice is kitniyos, aren't you?
>
> Kitniyos is not chometz.
That was my point. How could kitniyos make dishes chometzdik?
> Kitniyos is explicitly permitted in
> the Gemara Pesachim. Thus, at least by most poskim, even though
> we don't eat kitniyos, we are allowed to eat non-kitniyos KP food
> on plates/pots that were used for kitniyos. Does Lubavitch hold
> differently?
>
> >> It's one thing if you have large constituencies eating/not
> >eating
> >> rice, or glatt. But do those who eat non-gebrockts regard
> >those who
> >> eat gebrockts as eating chometz gamur, or as not being
> >machmir?
>
> >They regard them as eating gebrockts.
>
> To be more concrete, O Dodgy Correspondent, if I were to put matza
> brei on your plate on, e.g., the third day of Pesach, would you
> simply wash it off and use the same plate the next day, or would
> you have to re-kasher or discard the plate as chometz she-avar alav
> hapesach?
We're extremely machmir (by "we" I mean my particular family), to the point
that we put utensils that we drop on the floor away until after Pesach. So I
don't think I would just wash the plate off and use it the next day, but I'm
not sure. Maybe I would ask a rav. But re-kasher it? What for? Avoiding
remote possibilites of chometz doesn't mean that you have to assume that wet
matzah *is* chometz.
>
> >> Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing >separation.
> >> It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to >say
> >> "You're a rasha because you eat that" when the >overwhelming majority
> >> opinion is that it's kosher.
>
> >This distinction doesn't have anything to do with perishah
> >from the tzibur.
> >Yes, you should go to great lengths not to call other Jews
> >"reshaim." You
> >shouldn't unjustly accuse them of perishah from the tzibur
>
> On your say-so. The Tiferes Yisroel disagrees. In Avos 2:4
> s"k 32, he defines prishah min hatzibur in terms of concrete
> acts. His first definition is not following the minhag hamakom,
> based on a gemara in BM 86b.
>
I think the point is how an individual relates to his community--yes,
following its customs, but also sharing its troubles, being involved in
communal mitzvah observance and learning, etc. How this applies in America,
where there are different communities with different minhagim and it isn't
just a matter of location, I don't know. Is the only Breslover in New
Orleans doing the wrong thing by not adopting the customs of the much more
numerous Chabadniks, or is it enough that he supports Chabad activities and
follows Breslover minhagim? I suspect he is doing just fine. But anyway,
now you have an interesting question; you can ask it the next time you
attend a good halachah class. In the meantime, please don't accuse anybody
of anything.
>
> Since in this country, whether one is machmir or meikil, by far
> the most common custom is to accept R' Moshe's psak, I feel that
> Lubavitch in this case is porshin min hatzibur. Now, if they
> define the kahal to be themselves, that's their self-serving
> solution.
I think there are different kehilos, each with its own minhagim. It doesn't
have anything to do with anybody being "self-serving." Klal Yisroel just
doesn;'t have uniform minhagim at present. BTW, I enjoyed your phrase "O
Dodgy Correspondent."
Be well,
Binyomin
Zev Sero
> Chalilah to say Cholov Akum is treif
Well, chalav akum *is* treif; the question is whether milk produced by
huge commercial dairies, in countries where mixing non-cow milk in would
be illegal, is chalav akum or not.
Simcha Streltsov
: If one doesn't use the heter because they think that the reasoning
: is wrong (as does Lub.), that is different from not using the heter
: because one wants to be machmir.
there is a case i nbetween: two groups have two different
traditions, each valid for their group. If you don't think it is
possible, I'll force you to eat grasshoppers in order to keep
am isroel united.
OTOHands,
a) if R' Moshe appeals to logic and not tradition, then maybe
it is hard to appeal to different tradition
b) as most Hasidic traditions started as break-aways from the
established of theor ancestors, it may also be different
c) it is not clear that most or all of those who hold that
Halav Hacompanies is forbidden for them, think others are
following a legit minhag
Simcha Streltsov
: So who separated here? Who changed from the previous age-old practise?
: Maybe you should look up the definition of `lo titgodadu'; you may be
: surprised by what you find. No community has any obligation to follow
: the lead of any other community, or to accomodate its practise to that
: of another.
putting aside the milk of the companies, I dont think a Hasid can
charge anyone with changing the age-old practice. of course, it all
boils down to what is "one" and what is "other" community - several
centuries ago we would probably all agree that to be an "other"
community, you need to have to come from another country or at least
city with different traditions. In our times, we are sadly already so
dis-united that each synagogue is a separate community simply because
they decided to follow differnt rules. this is, IMVHO, not much different
than hilarious heterodox claims of "choosing commandments to observe" -
although on a lesser scale, and some may argue within halachik boundaries.
Simcha Streltsov
: Well now I understand you are both talking at cross purposes! Chalilah to say
: Cholov Akum is treif as Shaul pointed out in his postings, however once they
: are strict with concept of Cholov Yisroel for themselves they will be makpid
: to fullest degrees in its observance.
IMVVHO, if you don't consider Halav Hacompanies treif, you would not have
grounds to refuse to eat from the kosher dishes that were previously used
for the above mentioned halav. You may be as makpid as you want in the privacy
of your home, but you forget that in this case your strictness is not
always beneficial - it comes against the mitzva of not causing dis-unity
to the Jewish people - or even of not causing expense or inconvinience to
a fellow Jew who would need to accomodate your being makpid towards
his dishes. Thus, IMVVHO, the only reason to refuse to eat from those
dishes when invited is to consider them treif al pi your halachik tradition.
: I think that this demonstrates the dedication to the fullfilling the concept
: of cholov yisroel and in no way are they condecending on others who adhere to
: the heteirim.
again, if you indeed consider eating from those dishes a humra, and
refuse to eat from those dishes, you demonstrate lack of observance
of basic Torah concepts of derech shalom and caring for other
people's money and time.
Simcha Streltsov
: Since when is `this country' one community for the purpose of
: `lo titgodadu'? Look up the laws of `lo titgodadu', paying special
: attention to the case of two batei din in the same city.
In my [Jewishly] small shtetl of Boston, one can easily
get 10 batie dinim in session - each with their own outlook.
as I mentioned in the previous post, do we need to have that many?
where all these batei dinim come from, if not from relatively recent
mahlokets - whether on the knives for shhita, or support for Zionism,
or whatever.
Assuming you agree that this existing separation is not 100%
desirable, and merging everyone together in one day is not realistic,
it seems that we should still try to minimize the number of cases
where we differ. But maybe you disagree with my premise, as you
seem to treat the fact of having several batei dinim as a total
reshus to disregard other halachik opinions (I would agree with
that in the cases of long-standing traditions - Ashkenaz/Sephardim,
etc)
Zev Sero
>putting aside the milk of the companies, I dont think a Hasid can
>charge anyone with changing the age-old practice. of course, it all
>boils down to what is "one" and what is "other" community - several
>centuries ago we would probably all agree that to be an "other"
>community, you need to have to come from another country or at least
>city with different traditions. In our times, we are sadly already so
>dis-united that each synagogue is a separate community simply because
>they decided to follow differnt rules. this is, IMVHO, not much different
>than hilarious heterodox claims of "choosing commandments to observe" -
>although on a lesser scale, and some may argue within halachik boundaries.
I think this situation dates from the urbanisation of Eastern
European Jews starting around the end of the 19th Century, and
culminating in WW1, which pretty much killed off the shtetel
(Yankel Rosenbaum HYD was doing his thesis on Jewish life in Poland
between the 2 wars, which is mostly the story of how previously
rural Jews adapted to modern urban life). While in the shtetlach
each village had several shuls and one Rabbi, in the big cities the
people from each shtetl founded their own shul, with their own Rabbi,
and constituted its own community for the purpose of `lo titgodadu'.
Of course, the legal basis for this situation goes back to the Talmud,
so this is not some modern adaptation of halacha to new circumstances,
it's an increased application of a halacha that was well known for
centuries but that for sociological reasons was rarely used.
Zev Sero
>In my [Jewishly] small shtetl of Boston, one can easily
>get 10 batie dinim in session - each with their own outlook.
>as I mentioned in the previous post, do we need to have that many?
It's not a question of whether we `need' so many; we *have* so many,
and the halacha regards that as a perfectly acceptable situation,
and authorises each bet din to exercise its own judgment without
deferring to each other.
Simcha Streltsov
: I think this situation dates from the urbanisation of Eastern
: European Jews starting around the end of the 19th Century, and
: culminating in WW1, which pretty much killed off the shtetel
My assumption was that dis-unity [of Poliosh Jews]
started earler at the 2nd half of 18th/1st half of 19th century: with
Hasidim/Misnagdim and Russian occupation of Poland.
Before that, Vaad Arba Artzot (council of 4 lands) had almost
full jurisdiction over Jews in Poland. And AFAIK Jews mostly lived
in urban areas in Poland already (with the exception of arendators
in Eastern Poland aka Ukraine).
interestingly, it seems that outside of Russian Empire, while
non-O movements flourished, it seems that O- communities were
less fractured, or maybe I just know less ...
back in Russia,
there are several references to attempts of unity - esp.
starting in the mid 19th century - as Yitzele Volozhiner said
to Tzemach-Tzedek - even if your [cabbalistic] justification of
changing the prayers is correct, then you and I should simply stop
praying at all - as the prayer is a Rabbinical commandment, but
unity of Jewish people is from the Torah.
Simcha Streltsov
: It's not a question of whether we `need' so many; we *have* so many,
: and the halacha regards that as a perfectly acceptable situation,
: and authorises each bet din to exercise its own judgment without
: deferring to each other.
to quote Hafetz Haim who responded to the question whether it
is permissible for the soldiers in the Russian army to eat treif
meat - "you can eat, but you should not suck the bones".
the fact of de-facto dis-unity does not take away the mitzva of
unity between Jewish people. It does not mean that you can
always achieve it, or that there can not be overriding principles,
but you seem to be disregarding it at all.
Maybe we should apply the same rule that someone suggested re:
Halav Israel: even if it is irrational to cling to the unity
of Jewish people, let's show our devotion to Hashem and his mitzvot
by creating the unity even when we have an excuse to abandon it.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker (jjb...@panix.com) wrote:
>: If one doesn't use the heter because they think that the reasoning
>: is wrong (as does Lub.), that is different from not using the heter
>: because one wants to be machmir.
>there is a case i nbetween: two groups have two different
>traditions, each valid for their group. If you don't think it is
>possible, I'll force you to eat grasshoppers in order to keep
>am isroel united.
You're missing an important factor: the overwhelming majority of
American Orthodox Jews, including other chasidic sects, accept
the validity of Reb Moshe's psak, even if they choose to use
marked Cholov Yisroel.
If I moved to Yemen, I might well eat grasshoppers in order to
keep am yisroel united. I can't see moving to Yemen, though,
given how many Yemenite Jews have left or can't wait to leave.
--
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker wrote in message <78jhjs$7b2$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
>>>: Consider what "poresh" means: separating. Causing separation.
>>>: It's one thing to say "I won't eat that". It's another to say
>>>: "You're a rasha because you eat that" when the overwhelming majority
>>>: opinion is that it's kosher.
>I s there any reason that you can not resist displaying your hatred for
>fellow jews and as a result you find your self publicly displaying your
>ignorance.
OOooh, I'm being bashed by a Lubavitcher for demonstrating one of the
less holy consequences of their lifestyle choice.
>By the way a Rasha on the first page of Tanya is greater than the accepted
>norms for a Beinoni or even a Tzaddik by most other people. A Rasha
>according to Tanya is somebody who does just one aveirah and it is while he
>doing it that he is called the Rasha.
Exactly my point. And that you regard this as bashing means...?
>This has been quite an interesting thread and I personally have enjoyed
>participating in such a discussion. There are many other forums on the net
>to spew hatred and to interact with other frustrated individuals. Please try
>to refrain from doing that here amongst us folk who are interested in a
>discussion that recognizes the veiws of ALL participants.
Hah. How long have you been on SCJ, Shaul? Inter-movement war is what
the whole group is about, that and refuting antisemites.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Craig WInchell writes:
>> All I know is that all Lubavichers I know scrupulously avoid eating even
>> cholov Yisroel in my house, knowing that the keilim they were cooked in
>> have been used to cook non-cholov Yisroel, whereas the Belzers, Satmar and
>> other Chassidim and of course, non Chassidim have had no such problem with
>> eating hot cholov Yisroel cooked in or placed on those same keilim. And
>Well now I understand you are both talking at cross purposes! Chalilah to say
>Cholov Akum is treif as Shaul pointed out in his postings, however once they
Cholov Akum IS treif, dammit! That goes for Reb Moshe as much as for
Lubavitch. The quesiton is whether commercial cholov yisroel (which is
called cholov hacompanies) or marked cholov yisroel should be used.
>are strict with concept of Cholov Yisroel for themselves they will be makpid
>to fullest degrees in its observance.
Such strictness apparently involves accusing those who don't hold
the same way as being reshoim - eaters of non-kosher food, treifers
of keilim, etc. So why shouldn't I draw a page from their book
and accuse them right back of violating lo tifroshu? As chazal
say, if you are overly strict in one area it can lead to a leniency
in another area. In this case excessive stringency with regard to
kashrut leads to leniency in bein adam lechaveiro.
>I think that this demonstrates the dedication to the fullfilling the concept
>of cholov yisroel and in no way are they condecending on others who adhere to
>the heteirim.
How you can reconcile "not condescending" with "your keilim are treif
even though you think you're keeping kosher" is beyond me.
Zev Sero
wrote:
>>are strict with concept of Cholov Yisroel for themselves they will be makpid
>>to fullest degrees in its observance.
>Such strictness apparently involves accusing those who don't hold
>the same way as being reshoim - eaters of non-kosher food, treifers
>of keilim, etc. So why shouldn't I draw a page from their book
>and accuse them right back of violating lo tifroshu?
When a sefardi says that, according the the Mechaber's opinion, which
he follows, your non-glatt plates are treif, is he calling you a rasha?
Of course not, since he acknowledges that you are perfectly within your
rights to rely on the Rama.
When Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai called each other's chidren mamzerim,
and refused to marry them, were they calling each other resha'im? Of
course not, and - as the mishna says - not only did they each understand
the other's concerns, and not suggest shiduchim with kids whom the other
regarded as unmarriagable, but they also trusted each other not to
suggest such shiduchim.
So when a Lubav says that, with all due respect for R Moshe, he doesn't
want to rely on his having gotten this one right, and risk the spiritual
consequences of ingesting chalav akum if he was wrong, and therefore he
can't eat from your milchig dishes, which - if R Moshe was wrong - are
treif, why should you feel insulted? The only reason that I can think
of is that you have your own suspicions about the validity of R Moshe's
psak, and are insecure about relying on it, so you insist that not only
may you rely on it but so must everyone else.
R
> I think you're summarizing things poorly.
>
> Satmar has certain chumros (stringencies), but hold them to be chumros -- not
> baseline halachah. Therefore, when it comes to other people's homes, where
> interpersonal mitzvos are involved, or in cases where nothing else is
> available, they are willing to be lax.
>
> Lubavitch views its stringencies not as chumros, but as their own baseline.
> Other, perfectly valid, baselines exist. However, that leaves no room for
> leniency. On the down side, that in turn puts kashrus ahead of the bein adam
> lachaveiros (interpersonal mitzvos) when faced with choosing between eating
> what your host offers or possibly insulting her. Stringency in one thing more
> often than not causes a leniency somewhere else.
This presupposes that the host(ess) will take insult when a guest declines to eat
some offerred food or drink. But why should that be? Just as we expect others to
respect our own chumras and kulas, regardless where they themselves stand on these
issues, we should also respect the chumras/kulas of others.
We hav had numerous occasions where a guest declined some offerred refreshment,
explaining that they are observing some personal hidur. We are not offended by it.
Of course, it would help to know the guest's religious preferences in advance, so
that we could accomodate them with something that they *will* eat/drink.
R
> Zev Sero (zs...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
>
> : I think this situation dates from the urbanisation of Eastern
> : European Jews starting around the end of the 19th Century, and
> : culminating in WW1, which pretty much killed off the shtetel
>
> My assumption was that dis-unity [of Poliosh Jews]
> started earler at the 2nd half of 18th/1st half of 19th century: with
> Hasidim/Misnagdim and Russian occupation of Poland.
> Before that, Vaad Arba Artzot (council of 4 lands) had almost
> full jurisdiction over Jews in Poland.
Though the Vaad Arba Aratzos did excercise broad religious and civil
powers over Jewry in the entire Polish Empire, there was little central
control over ritual as practiced in the various individual cities, towns,
villages, or hamlets. The Vaad as a whole set broad policy, and might have
gotten involved when there were disputes between two rabbonim or two
communities. But the Rav of each individual community was the authority on
ritual, law, and custom in his own community.
Joe Slater
>American Orthodox Jews, including other chasidic sects, accept
>the validity of Reb Moshe's psak, even if they choose to use
>marked Cholov Yisroel.
The overwhelming majority of American Orthodox Jews wouldn't recognise
R' Moshe's psak if it bit them on the tochus. If the USA is like
Australia, most of them have never heard of cholov yisroel and most of
the rest think that abstaining from cholov akum is only a hiddur.
jds
Robert Rubinoff
From which we can draw two conclusions:
1) The USA is not like Australia.
2) You shouldn't assume you know what goes on in a community halfway around the
world from you.
Robert
Simcha Streltsov
: villages, or hamlets. The Vaad as a whole set broad policy, and might have
: gotten involved when there were disputes between two rabbonim or two
: communities. But the Rav of each individual community was the authority on
: ritual, law, and custom in his own community.
this s exactly what I am talking about - each community has their own
rules, but if there are differences, people try to settle them if possible -
whether by themselves or via Vaad. if it is not possible - then
it is another story. Zev, OTOH, suggests that every neighborhood
should live by themselves.
psdo you agree with my assumption that this "diversity" was in large
part caused by intraJewish strives, or with Zev who says that is
simply due to Jews moving from different towns to big cities?
Simcha Streltsov
: This presupposes that the host(ess) will take insult when a guest declines to eat
: some offerred food or drink. But why should that be? Just as we expect others to
: respect our own chumras and kulas, regardless where they themselves stand on these
: issues, we should also respect the chumras/kulas of others.
even if they are not as easily offended as some posters here, there is no need
to create extra humras. FWIW, when I went to Israel several years ago,
I asked a Rav that from what I heard, ther are a bunch of different
hashgahot in Israel, some eat some of them, others don't. While it
is easy for me just to buy badatz, I will be visiting a number of friends
whom I did not see for several years and who will make an effort to
prepare something kosher. I will probably not know enough to make my own
judgement about these things as I go, thus I asked the Rav to tell me
the "safe hashgahot".
To my surprise, his response was "yes, many people don't eat some of them,
but I can not tell you that they are not kosher".
he clearly took the social value into account (although this is an unusual
circumstance)
Simcha Streltsov
: jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
: >You're missing an important factor: the overwhelming majority of
: >American Orthodox Jews, including other chasidic sects, accept
: >the validity of Reb Moshe's psak, even if they choose to use
: >marked Cholov Yisroel.
: The overwhelming majority of American Orthodox Jews wouldn't recognise
: R' Moshe's psak if it bit them on the tochus
Jonathan has a point - the "velt" consists of the people who act
according to halacha. Opinions of theothers are less relevant to
such an issue. (AFAIR, that was the rationale for R Kotler to start
Lakewood Yeshiva as a Halav Hacompanies - because R Moshe was
a posek for America. It was changed later to accomodate
increased hasidic students)
Shaul Bacher
Lets forget about Lubavitch and even if one agrees with the Heter or not.
R' Moshe ZT"L will remind you of the famous Ma'amor Chazal :
Kadeish Atzmecho bemutar loch. Sanctify yourself by abstaining from what is
permitted.
Why make such a huge fuss when Cholov Yisroel is readily available in most
Jewish communities. Yes its good to debate and discuss these issues and all
sides of the argument should be respected. But when people like Jonathan
Baker use this type of forum to spew hate it definitely shows that his
motive for debating this subject is not to defend the psak of R' Moshe but
an ill excuse to lambaste and malign other Yidden.
Perhaps by being extra careful what he puts into his mouth even if it is
mutar loch than that which comes out will be equally mehader and he'll will
begin to respect and understand the views of others.
Micha Berger
: Why make such a huge fuss when Cholov Yisroel is readily available in most
: Jewish communities.
Yes, the milk and cheese is, in many (not most) communities, but certainly to
most O Jews. But what about everything else milchig in my pantry? (Except
possibly butter.)
BTW, someone saying the phrase "people like X spew hate" is an example of what
he's saying.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6074 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 28-Jan-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Jonathan J. Baker
>Lets forget about Lubavitch and even if one agrees with the Heter or not.
>R' Moshe ZT"L will remind you of the famous Ma'amor Chazal :
>Kadeish Atzmecho bemutar loch. Sanctify yourself by abstaining from what is
>permitted.
>Why make such a huge fuss when Cholov Yisroel is readily available in most
>Jewish communities. Yes its good to debate and discuss these issues and all
>sides of the argument should be respected. But when people like Jonathan
>Baker use this type of forum to spew hate it definitely shows that his
Bob Kaiser can't get any of the regulars into his camp, now he's got
a Lubavitcher joining him in his delusions. I am not "spewing hate."
I am disagreeing with your position and saying that it is wrong. If
that is "spewing hate" in your book, that tells us much more about you
than it does about me.
>motive for debating this subject is not to defend the psak of R' Moshe but
>an ill excuse to lambaste and malign other Yidden.
Not other Yidden, c"v, but the ideas they spout. And if I was offended
by the behavior of another Yid, do I not have the right to complain about
the behavior, so long as I keep the identity of the person hidden? You
seem to feel that you have the right to complain about my behavior *with*
using my name, and attributing behaviors to me, e.g. "spewing hate," that
I did *not* engage in.
>Perhaps by being extra careful what he puts into his mouth even if it is
>mutar loch than that which comes out will be equally mehader and he'll will
>begin to respect and understand the views of others.
Now who are you refuting? The New Testament?
In point of fact, we do generally use cholov yisroel if it's available.
If we run out, and need some milk *right now* to finish cooking something,
we will go to the corner store and get regular milk with no problems,
rather than drive 45 minutes to get the Jewish milk and ruin the dish
in question.
By the way, to refute your point, as the Reform might say, what
one does ritually does not necessarily affect one's ethical behavior.
R. S. Y. Buchanan
Shaul Bacher <sba...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>Why make such a huge fuss when Cholov Yisroel is readily available in most
>Jewish communities.
If by "most Jewish communities" you mean "large urban Jewish communities
like New York City and Los Angeles," I agree. If you mean throughout the
sundry places Jews live in the world, you're sadly mistaken. I travel a
lot on business, and spend a lot of time living off salad because Cholov
Yisroel is impossible to find. I'm not speaking here of podunk hamlets,
either. Try traveling to Houston for the first time and see what you
think of the kashrut situation on first blush.
To people like me, Reb Moshe's psak is potentially a lifesaver.
>[W]hen people like Jonathan
>Baker use this type of forum to spew hate it definitely shows that his
>motive for debating this subject is not to defend the psak of R' Moshe but
>an ill excuse to lambaste and malign other Yidden.
Shaul, I've been reading (and very occasionally posting) scj for a decade,
and while Jonathan may occasionally get testy with people, I have never
once seen him "spew hate" at anyone, Robert Kaiser's periodic assertions to
the contrary not withstanding.
Perhaps if you were more familiar with the regulars here, you'd know
better what their personalities are like, and be able to tell when Jon is
disagreeing with people (albeit sometimes testily) and when he's really
trying to be a jerk. It might surprise to you to know that, as with most of
the regulars, Jon's jerkhood is outweighed by honest disagreements by
several orders of magnitude.
yehoshua
Robert Rubinoff
Shaul Bacher <sba...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>Why make such a huge fuss when Cholov Yisroel is readily available in most
>Jewish communities.
Aside from the fact that there are many places in which it is *not* readily
available, there are also many otherwise kosher items that contain milk but are
not chalav yisrael. It's not just a question of milk itself. And even when
chalav yisrael items are available, they are often much more expensive
(sometimes because a national brand or store brand may be kosher but not h.y.).
There's enough expense involved in being observant already without adding to it
unnecessarily. I'm not suggesting that you should cheat on kashrut to save
money. But I am saying that urging people to be unnecessarily strict without
concern for the cost is unfair.
Robert
Binyomin Kaplan
R. S. Y. Buchanan wrote:
> In article <78qpbp$1ea$1...@hermes.is.co.za>,
> Shaul Bacher <sba...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>
> >Why make such a huge fuss when Cholov Yisroel is readily available in most
> >Jewish communities.
>
> If by "most Jewish communities" you mean "large urban Jewish communities
> like New York City and Los Angeles," I agree. If you mean throughout the
> sundry places Jews live in the world, you're sadly mistaken. I travel a
> lot on business, and spend a lot of time living off salad because Cholov
> Yisroel is impossible to find. I'm not speaking here of podunk hamlets,
> either. Try traveling to Houston for the first time and see what you
> think of the kashrut situation on first blush.
I recently went to Houston to escape hurricane Georges (which turned out to be
unnecesary for New Orleans residents, although I got to go on a trip instead of
sitting there for two days with the lights off). I made a point of staying in
the neighborhood with the Albertsons with the kosher deli, and I was amazed by
what you can get. Of course, Houston is huge. Now in "podunk hamlets," as you
point out, you aren't going to find Cholov Yisroel products, but that doesn't
mean you are limited to salads. If you eat pas palter and if you eat non
bishul-Yisroel tuna, you can find all sorts of non-milchig things in any
reasonably large supermarket anywhere. If you keep pas Yiroel and buy mashgiach
t'midi tuna, like me, you can still find a fair number of things that you can
eat right out of the package. Many cereals, for instance.
>
> To people like me, Reb Moshe's psak is potentially a lifesaver.
But you don't use it and that is why you write "potentially"? I just ask
because you refer above to eating salads in places where you can't get Cholov
Yisroel.
And to bring up a related subject that hasn't been mentioned yet, isn't it
annoying that a bunch of not intrinsically dairy products are dairy anyway
because of one ingredient or whatever? Wouldn't it be nice if the consumer
clout that kosher shoppers wield in some areas could be employed to influence
manufacturers to make some of them pareve? I think this would be the case if
fewer kosher consumers used cholov stam products so readily.
Be well,
Binyomin
Jonathan J. Baker
>Shaul Bacher <sba...@icon.co.za> wrote:
>>Why make such a huge fuss when Cholov Yisroel is readily available in most
>>Jewish communities.
>Aside from the fact that there are many places in which it is *not* readily
>available, there are also many otherwise kosher items that contain milk but are
>not chalav yisrael. It's not just a question of milk itself. And even when
>chalav yisrael items are available, they are often much more expensive
>(sometimes because a national brand or store brand may be kosher but not h.y.).
>There's enough expense involved in being observant already without adding to it
>unnecessarily. I'm not suggesting that you should cheat on kashrut to save
>money. But I am saying that urging people to be unnecessarily strict without
>concern for the cost is unfair.
I might also point out that there is a certain inconsistency in the
Lubavitch position on cholov Yisroel. If the Rebbe said that people
in CH must be bound by the mara d'asra who disagrees with Reb Moshe's
logic, why doesn't this apply to OK Labs? It's a Lubavitch-run
organization, yet it certifies dairy food that isn't cholov Yisroel.
Binyomin Kaplan
>
>
>
> I might also point out that there is a certain inconsistency in the
> Lubavitch position on cholov Yisroel. If the Rebbe said that people
> in CH must be bound by the mara d'asra who disagrees with Reb Moshe's
> logic, why doesn't this apply to OK Labs? It's a Lubavitch-run
> organization, yet it certifies dairy food that isn't cholov Yisroel.
>
All I know is that the Rebbe said that it is spiritually
important to use Cholov
Yisroel. When I reach for the carton of Cholov Yisroel
yogurt in the store, I don't
have to say to myself "I am doing it because I don't accept
Rav Moshe's reasoning"
or "I am doing it because I accept that the heter is valid,
but I don't want to use
it." If I address these specific matters, I am just
expressing my opinion. How do
you know that there even is an official Lubavitch position
on the validity of Rav
Moshe's reasoning? And I have never heard that the OK is
officially a Lubavitch
institution. I only know that Rabbi Levy is a Lubavitcher.
Be well,
Binyomin
Simcha Streltsov
: sides of the argument should be respected. But when people like Jonathan
: Baker use this type of forum to spew hate it definitely shows that his
: motive for debating this subject is not to defend the psak of R' Moshe but
: an ill excuse to lambaste and malign other Yidden.
I think you either mis-understand or mis-characterize Jonathan's
(and mine too) concerns.
: Perhaps by being extra careful what he puts into his mouth even if it is
: mutar loch than that which comes out will be equally mehader and he'll will
: begin to respect and understand the views of others.
this is fine as an exercise plan, but why not list the respect
and understanding as separate items, not exempted by the virtue of
drinking halav yisoroel or even mashke yisroel.
Simcha Streltsov
: expressing my opinion. How do
: you know that there even is an official Lubavitch position
: on the validity of Rav Moshe's reasoning?
the issue is not with following your own minhag, but
with treating the dishes of other people as treif. that
requires some halachik justification - and it seems that
we are at collective loss here
shabbat shalom
Zev Sero
wrote:
>I might also point out that there is a certain inconsistency in the
>Lubavitch position on cholov Yisroel. If the Rebbe said that people
>in CH must be bound by the mara d'asra who disagrees with Reb Moshe's
>logic, why doesn't this apply to OK Labs? It's a Lubavitch-run
>organization, yet it certifies dairy food that isn't cholov Yisroel.
OK Labs is not a `resident' of Crown Heights. It provides a commercial
service for the benefit of people around the world who keep kosher, and
many of those people do eat chalav companies, so OK does them a service
by telling them which products are kosher by their standard; the fact
that the OK director and staff may not themselves agree with that
standard is irrelevant.
--
Zev Sero Imminent death of the net delayed, Film at 12.
zs...@bigfoot.com - Joe Greco
Binyomin Kaplan
Simcha Streltsov wrote:
> Binyomin Kaplan (biny...@gs.net) wrote:
>
> : expressing my opinion. How do
> : you know that there even is an official Lubavitch position
> : on the validity of Rav Moshe's reasoning?
>
> the issue is not with following your own minhag, but
> with treating the dishes of other people as treif. that
> requires some halachik justification - and it seems that
> we are at collective loss here
>
The issue is the halachah when a heter exists, however valid, but you do
not want to use it. Remember, I am not talking about making negative
pronouncements about the validity of the reasoning of the leading halachic
authority of a generation or judging other Jews to be eating cholov akum.
If I don't use the heter myself, however, then, as far as what goes in my
mouth is concerned, I am acting towards Borden's milk or whatever as if it
is cholov akum. Look in Yoreh Deah 115:1 in the Rema. It says clearly that
keilim are an issue.
Gute Woch,
Binyomin
Simcha Streltsov
: Ever heard of hidur mitzvah - like extra money being spent for a nicer esrog
: or for a better mezuzah or for a more mehuder pair of tefilin. is that a
: waste of money too???
you are on the right track - when you are spending your own money -
it is a great hiddur mitzva. But you don't spend other people's money
for the hiddur of your mitzva. do we agree on this basoc premise?
Binyomin Kaplan
Simcha Streltsov wrote:
> Shaul Bacher (sba...@icon.co.za) wrote:
>
> : Ever heard of hidur mitzvah - like extra money being spent for a nicer esrog
> : or for a better mezuzah or for a more mehuder pair of tefilin. is that a
> : waste of money too???
>
> you are on the right track - when you are spending your own money -
> it is a great hiddur mitzva. But you don't spend other people's money
> for the hiddur of your mitzva. do we agree on this basoc premise?
>
>
Fine, so if I'm the only person who keeps cholov Yisroel attending an event and
the people making the event don't want to accomodate me, I'll understand and just
have fruit.
Gute Woch,
Binyomin
Jonathan J. Baker
>On 29 Jan 1999 11:48:35 -0500, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>I might also point out that there is a certain inconsistency in the
>>Lubavitch position on cholov Yisroel. If the Rebbe said that people
>>in CH must be bound by the mara d'asra who disagrees with Reb Moshe's
>>logic, why doesn't this apply to OK Labs? It's a Lubavitch-run
>>organization, yet it certifies dairy food that isn't cholov Yisroel.
>OK Labs is not a `resident' of Crown Heights. It provides a commercial
>service for the benefit of people around the world who keep kosher, and
>many of those people do eat chalav companies, so OK does them a service
>by telling them which products are kosher by their standard; the fact
>that the OK director and staff may not themselves agree with that
>standard is irrelevant.
It's still inconsistent. Star-K abides by R' Heinemann's standards,
why doesn't OK abide by Lubavitch standards? It's not like it's such
a huge service that it incorporates rabbis from many different
backgrounds. If the director and staff think the food is treif, what
business do they have certifying it? Why should we trust them, if they
can't eat the food they "certify"?
Shaul Bacher
Yes I am refering to large urban cities. However I have lived for five years
in Durban where there is bareley a minyan of Shomer Shabbos families let
alone people who keep cholov yisroel. Twice a week my little daughter and
myself would visit the local dairy farm and watch the milking and return
home with our fresh milk.
Nobody says R' Moshe's heter is wrong the question is when to use it. Today
I had a conversation with a talmid Of R' Moshe who says he can testify that
R' Moshe never personally used products that were not cholov yisroel.
Shaul Bacher
Simcha Streltsov wrote in message <78kl5m$po3$2...@news1.bu.edu>...
>elikr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>again, if you indeed consider eating from those dishes a humra, and
>refuse to eat from those dishes, you demonstrate lack of observance
>of basic Torah concepts of derech shalom and caring for other
>people's money and time.