Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 13

Thu, 25 Jan 2018

• 1. Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Rav Breuer' Position on Chalav Yisroel (Akiva Miller)
• 5. Even More on Rav Breuer's Position on Drinking Chalav Yisroel (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 7. Re: Fwd: Vegetarian Restaurants - Halacha or What (Zev Sero)
• 8. Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources (Rabbi Meir Rabi)
• 9. Re: Chalav Gevinas Yisrael - Halachic sources (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Chalav Yisrael: Required or recommended (elazar teitz)

At 02:58 PM 1/24/2018, Akiva Miller wrote:

>I do not know what Rav Breuer held regarding plain milk, but I do know
>this: In the 1970's (and onward) both Haolam and Migdal cheese were
>under KAJ hashgacha, and although Haolam was chalov yisrael, Migdal
>was not.
>
>(Haolam is still under KAJ, but Migdal is currently under the OU. I do
>not know when or why it changed.)

IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it 
is permitted,  because milk from non-kosher animals will not 
"coagulate."  I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180124/5227167a/attachment-0001.html>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 03:23:09PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: IIRC the halacha regarding making cheese from Chalav Stam is that it
: is permitted,  because milk from non-kosher animals will not
: "coagulate."  I believe that the Chochmas Adom says this.

The Rambam (Ma'akhalos Asuros 3:13) says it's altogether a non-issue
(muteres) because ein haleiv beheimah temei'ah misgabein.

More relevant to KAJ (and the two of us), the Rama YD 115:22 says that
we permit bedi'eved, "ki davar tamei eino omeid".

In practice, it is difficult to get most kinds of milk to become cheese.
However, the Mongols did make horse cheese, and the Serbs make pule cheese
from Balkan donkey milk. (And for the last decade or so, there has
been pig cheese
<http://www.foodworldnews.com/articles/37455/20150914/dutch-farm-worlds-first-sell-cheese-pigs-milk.htm>,
but I don't expect a taqanah to reflect 21st cent science.)

I came up with 2 possibilities.

1a- Chazal didn't hear about horse cheese, so they couldn't include it
in a taqanah. Or
1b- It was so removed from the Bavel to EY region we were living in,
they weren't mesaqein for the remote possibility.

2- It is meant as shorthand -- tamei milk doesn't congeal *to make one
cheese together with kosher milk*. Which is likely true, given that
butter separated because the butterfats have different densities and
don't mix. So, if it has at least enough kosher milk to look and smell
like a kosher cheese, it much be all kosher milk.


But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav
aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice
among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look
for CY cheese.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 24/01/18 17:01, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 
> But to close with the post's intended point: The Rama says that chalav
> aku"m cheese is only kosher bedi'eved. Which explains common practice
> among (Ashkenazi, I don't know Sephadari norms) CY consumers to look
> for CY cheese.

AIUI if we know the milk was produced for cheese-making then it's mutar 
lechatchila for a Yisrael to make cheese with it.  (Or, according to the 
Rama, for a nochri to make cheese with it under a Yisrael's supervision, 
but the general psak today is not like the Rama.)

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

.
R' Micha Berger asked:

> For that matter, I am wondering what a she'as hadechaq would be
> for this case. If there is powdered milk, one could rely on R
> ZP Frank's far narrower pesaq lehatir. For that matter, vegans
> get their calcium without milk. Even a necessity like coffee
> could be consumed with soy or almond milk....

The Star-K's page about Starbucks
(https://www.star-k.org/articles/kosher-lists/1709/starbucks/) might
be relevant. It is NOT about Chalav Yisrael, but still...

> All drinks listed below are permissible under one of the
> following conditions:
>
> ... ... OR
> ... ... OR
> When one is traveling. According to Star-K policy, traveling
> creates a sha?as hadchak (i.e., no other viable option is
> readily available) during which one need not be concerned with
> the restrictions on the beverages listed below. Traveling means
> when you are away from your hometown. You do not need to be
> driving on the highway to fit into the category of traveling.

Akiva Miller

I received the following from a grandson of Rav 
Yosef Breuer who was very close to him. he has asked me not to reveal his name.

YL

I sent him the following which is from what Micha posted.

The fellow who claimed "that Rav Breuer?  held that drinking Chalav
Yisroel was a "good Chumra" and permitted the 
drinking of ordinary milk by members of KAJ." has 
given me a hard time with the response I posted 
from someone close to Rav Breuer,  so I wrote to you.

He (Micha) wrote

In response:
:> R. Breuer held that it was halacha to drink Cholov Yisroel - not a
:> 'chumra.'
:
:> If one could not get cholov Yisroel - if on a trip, or it was not available
:> in one's neighborhood, then one could rely on R. Moshe Feinstein's
:> permitting non-cholov (stam).

I think this snippet of the response is internally inconsistent.

One doesn't have to drink milk, especially for a duration as short as a
trip. So this isn't like a heter for a she'as hadechaq. If RYB really
held that CY was iqar hadin, how could he allow violating that din for
a trip?

As I said, his shitah was apparently that CY was a chumerah. Albeit one
very worth keeping. Which has not stopped being consistent with this now
thrice-cited story:

I have had some back and forth with him, and that 
is why I wrote to you. He still insists that Rav 
Breuer held that Chalav Yisroel was a nice chumra,?  but not ikar hadin.

Would you care to add something so that I can 
finally straighten  this fellow out?

This grandson of Rav Breuer replied

I cannot help if the man does not understand how 
halacha works. R Moshe did not dismiss the 
halacha of chalav Yisroel by saying that one 
could drink USDA supervised milk; he said that in 
the case of USDA supervised milk the din of 
Chalav Yisroel did not apply. Accordingly, where 
one could not get Chalav Yisroel, then one can 
drink USDA milk.. That does not make Chalav Yisroel a chumra.

R Breuer gave hashgocho to cheese which was not 
chalav yisroel, because the halachah states that 
milk for cheese need not be supervised. This does 
not mean that he did not hold from the din of chalav yisroel.

I know the individual who went on trips and was 
permitted to add Chalav Stam to his coffee--it 
was for a lengthy trip, and he was dependent on 
coffee which he could only drink with milk. He 
could not be told glibly to stay off milk for a 
trip. Rav Breuer ruled for him as halacha, not as a leniency.

I trust you will not use my name and I really do 
not want to get involved in what will be an 
endless blog exchange (the individual is unaware 
that cottage cheese, yogurt were used in the pre 
Chalav Yisroel days not beyond halachic 
parameters; there is a teshuva of R Moshe to R Schwab on the subject).






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180124/7a307541/attachment-0001.html>

personal experiences are a moving tribute
but moving tributes are not Halacha - and we know they can be very
misleading of and even contrary to Halacha. It is sad that in these
discussions, Yiddishkeit seems to be trending towards being shaped by
stories, and Halacha by legends.

R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for two (dairy) vegetarian
restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis mine]
to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils.
He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this.

Two points,
- the threat of losing certification is REAL
- the workers tried nonetheless
- so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware that
he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach was
ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their boss,
risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather large
dose of salt.

Second point
Halacha is not concerned about these issues - as we pointed out earlier, we
provided chapter and verse - and yet here we are once again on this crazy
merry-go-round where True Reality, the Halacha, is ignored. Halacha is not
and is not supposed to be, a guarantee.

But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though the
statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant observer
trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations presented as
facts that even the rabbi [who authorises these sub-Halachic-standard
Melbourne Australia meat establishments - that are owned and operated by
publicly Mech Shabbos and which have no full-time supervision, nor any
system by which the Kosher agency can reconcile how much meat was bought
with how much meat was dispensed] did not make.

You can watch and read the rabbis public attempt to justify - [
http://www.kosherveyosher.com/8-critical-kosher-alert.html]
Vegan Restaurants are suggested to be not Kosher but some will be quite
content to eat in an establishment such as described above, where the rabbi
is unable to explain under which Halachic rulings it is Kosher. This is not
fantasy. :)

And have a look at these related communications with AKO  [
http://www.kosherveyosher.com/ako-2013-emails.html]
= = = = =

Here is another observation that suggest we question the efficiency and
competence of some Kashrus agencies - R Ch Tatel tells us - an entire week
dedicated to preparing a restaurant for kosher certification [cleaning and
kashering  equipment, replacing those that could not be kashered,
verifying kashrut
of ingredients] was for naught. Why? Because one critical ingredient was
unavailable with Kosher certification.
Here is the equivalent in the real world - you get a builder to quote on
home renovations and AFTER youve paid your deposit and the job is started,
you discover that your renovation violates the local building codes.
One is hardly likely to recommend that builder and I would suggest we ought
not trust the competence of such a Kosher certifier; their heart may be in
the right place but they are pretty far off the mark in competence.
= = = = =

here is another issue, just now raised re Veg Restaurants - bugs in the
veggies.
Let us accept that this is a Halachic concern - so dont order the leafy
salads. Chopped or frozen or cooked leafy veg i.e. those which via
processing are likely to have any bugs pulverised or even less, just had a
leg broken off; are Kosher. Before you retch - keep in mind all wines and
many jams are without doubt, made from infested fruit. and it is Kosher
LeMeHadRin Min HaMeHadRin.



Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837 <+61%20423%20207%20837>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180125/5c3905d2/attachment-0001.html>

On 24/01/18 17:22, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:

> R Chaim Tatel, who served as Mashgiach for?two (dairy) vegetarian 
> restaurants for many years, assures us that staff would TRY [emphasis 
> mine] to bring their own food and cook it in the Kosher utensils.
> He assures us that one restaurants lost their certificate due to this.
> 
> Two points,
> - the threat of losing certification is REAL
> - the workers tried nonetheless
> - so we are supposed to believe that in spite of the owner being aware 
> that he may lose his certificate and warned his staff and a Mashgiach 
> was ever-present and vigilant- they nevertheless continued to defy their 
> boss, risk losing their jobs and harm the restaurant ... needs a rather 
> large dose of salt.

It should not be surprising at all that people try to get away with 
things they've been told not to do.  The workers don't understand that 
it's a serious offence.  They think the rabbi won't find out, and that 
even if he does find out nothing will happen to them.

But that's all with reference to certified places.  The topic we're 
discussing is *non*-certified vegan places, and at them there is 
*nothing* preventing workers from cooking their meat in the restaurant's 
equipment, and it is *standard practice* in the industry for them to do 
so.


> But at least it is testimony unlike another response made as though
> the statement itself creates reality; made by an outside distant
> observer trying to defend the indefensible with fantastic speculations
> presented as facts 

Someone may be fantasising, but it's not me.  My information comes from 
very reliable sources who know exactly what is happening.  The plain 
fact is that all butchers and all meat establishments under Kosher 
Australia have full time supervision, *plus* layers of nichnas v?yotse.



-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was
accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly
persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. So
there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese Decree. It
was instituted to promote Social Isolation.

In fact by its very definition, A Takana can only be instituted where
whatever it is that is being banned is otherwise permitted by HKBH.

It is not necessary for Chazal to disclose every case engineered to
socially isolate Y from their gy neighbours.  And we may just as easily,
perhaps even more convincingly ask: Why would we not assume Chazal saw need
to further bolster their policy of social isolation?

Bishul Akkum, Pas Akkum have nothing to do with Kashrus because even if we
observe that all ingredients and utensils are Kosher - that is not enough -
it is still not Kosher. These require Kosher participation.
Bishul Akum and Pas Akum [surprisingly to us] present no Halachic danger re
ingredients and Keilim. As Reb Akiva illustrated, Bishul Akum was obviously
not instituted for Kashrus reasons because even if we witness the gy
placing the raw potato on his clean brazier, it is not Kosher. But as soon
as we fan the flames a little - then it becomes Kosher. But more
importantly Chazal needed their BAkkum decree to ban foods cooked in their
horribly non-Kosher domestic kitchens.

On this note it is instructive to recognise that one suggested reason for
the Cheese Decree is that it might be made from milk which includes some
non-Kosher milk [it cannot be pure or mainly non-K milk because that has a
different colour and could not be passed off as cow's milk. The milk for
making the cheese would not have been collected with that purpose in mind
because that is plain silly - it would be a waste of the non-Kosher milk
which does not become cheese but washes out with the whey, Rema 115:2.
Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for
drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it was
leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.]

Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese MUST be
made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at all because the
cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael.

Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes that all
cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has probably made
it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk]. In that
case, as long as we can establish that all ingredients are Kosher - the
cheese is K by Torah Law.
However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to
guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher rennet
either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar, it is still
not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael? Participate in
making it.

There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas
Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese.  [BTW
we are more stringent and follow the Shach, cheese is like Bishul and
requires Kosher participation]

Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; there may
still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say - it is
forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher.

Indeed the decree of ChYisrael bans all gy milk even when it is collected
for cheese-making and is certainly exclusively from Kosher animals. That is
the nature of Chazals decrees. Cheese is the same, even when it is
identifiably made with non-animal rennet [its texture is identifiable]
Chazals decree bans ALL cheeses. And so it also bans all milk unless it has
some form of guarantee.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180125/33b59ea2/attachment-0001.html>

On 25/01/18 03:41, Rabbi Meir Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> Chazal refused to discuss the reasons for the Cheese Decree until it was 
> accepted [Gem AZ 35] as they realised the reasons were not particularly 
> persuasive and it could be easily knocked down in its formative years. 

That is *not* what the gemara says.  The gemara says it was the practice 
in the West not to discuss the reason for *any* decree for *one* year.


> So there is precious little Kashrus Halacha to support the Cheese
 > Decree. It was instituted to promote Social Isolation.

On the contrary, the amoraim openly discuss possible reasons, and 
isolation is *not* one of them.  The majority of rishonim ruled like 
Shmuel, that the reason is for fear that it was made with rennet from a 
non-kosher animal.  This was *not* a certainty, but it was common enough 
that Chazal worried about it and forbade all cheese made by a nochri 
(or, according to the Rama, without supervision).


> Rather the milk would have been collected for drinking or to sell for
> drinking - in which case the deception would go unnoticed - but it
> was leftover and could be preserved by making it into cheese.]
> Now, if we are to assert that it goes without saying that cheese 
> MUST be made with ChYisrael - then this reasoning makes no sense at
> all because the cheese MUST be made with milk that is ChYisrael.

And yet that is what the Rama explicitly does rule. Milk that is milked 
for drinking, and therefore the issur was chal, cannot be kashered by 
turning it into cheese.  Therefore there is something wrong with your 
reasoning.   For instance, this supports RMF's shita that the issur of 
milk is not chal until the milk comes into Jewish ownership.  Therefore, 
until gevinas nochri was forbidden, a nochri *could* rescue milk that 
was still in his ownership by turning it into cheese, which he could 
then sell to Jews, but Chazal (according to R Chanina) were worried that 
since he milked it for drinking he might have added treif milk to it, 
and remnants of that would still be present in the cheese, so they 
forbade it.


> Is it certainly incorrect to posit the following - Halacha assumes
> that all cheese from a gy is prohibited by Torah Law, because he has
> probably made it with non-Kosher rennet [and possibly also used non-K milk].

Nobody suggests that it's an issur Torah;  there are many cheeses that 
are set with kosher rennet (or, according to R Chanina, that are made 
with 100% kosher milk).


> However Chazal wanted to ban even this. Even when a Yid is present to
> guarantee the Kashrus of the milk and also bring along some Kosher
> rennet either from his own Shechted calf or tree sap or flower nectar,
> it is still not Kosher. So what need we do to have Gevinas Yisrael?
> Participate in making it.

According to the Shach, yes.  The Rama disagrees.



> There is only one problem - the Rema Paskens [YD 115:2] that Gevinas
> Yisrael is made by having a Y WATCH the manufacturing of the cheese.
> [...]
> Perhaps it is true that not ALL the non-K milk is filtered out; 
> there may still the leftover milk, but it is certainly wrong to say -
> it is forbidden; the Rema Paskens [115:2] that the cheese is Kosher.

No, for two reasons: 1) because the Rama does not pasken like R Chanina 
that the reason for the gezera is because of leftover milk.  He paskens 
like Shmuel that it's because of the rennet.  Therefore, he says, if we 
saw him use kosher rennet it's OK.  2) because the Rama paskens the milk 
must be CY too (unless it was originally milked for cheese-making).





-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

My understanding of the dispute regarding chalav stam seems to be at
odds with the assumptions underlying the discussion of the past few days
on Avodah.

As I have always understood it, there is no doubt on the part of any posek
that chaleiv akum is an absolute issur, not a chumra, and not one that
is subject to being overridden because of circumstance short of pikuach
nefesh. The sole matter in dispute is what constitutes chaleiv akum.

Milk of kosher animals comes in two, and only two, varieties: either it
is chaleiv Yisraeil, in which case it is permitted, or chaleiv akum,
in which case it is prohibited. The only question about chalav stam
(or, as RMF more accurately referred to it, chaleiv hacompanies) is to
which of the two categories it belongs. Those who prohibit it claim it
is chaleiv akum; those who permit it consider it to be chaleiv Yisraeil.
The basis for the disagreement is that while the simple description of
chaleiv akum is "chalav shechalavo aku"m v'ein Yisraeil roaihu," the
g'mara itself modified it, stating that a Jew's witnessing the milking is
not an absolute requirement; it suffices that the circumstances be such
that the aku"m be afraid to introduce non-kosher-species milk because of
the presence of a Jew in the vicinity who might catch him in the act --
a yotzei v'nichnas.

Normally, when Chazal made a g'zeira, it applied whether or not the
underlying reason applies. Thus, e.g., to avoid questions of paternity,
Chazal dictated that a woman whose marriage was terminated may not
remarry for three months. This applies even if the woman in question
is a 95-year-old who has had a hysterectomy, even though there is no
chance that she is pregnant by her first husband or might be impregnated
by the second. Chazal did not prohibit entering into a situation where
problems of paternity might arise. The decree was not to get married
for three months. The* reason* for the decree was the potential problem,
but the decree itself was no marriage for three months.

Were it not for the exception of yotzei v'nichnas, the same would apply
to milk If, for fear of the introduction of chaleiv t'meia, there had
been a blanket edict against drinking milk whose milking a Jew did not
witness, there would be no room for discussion about the status of chalav
stam -- a Jew did not witness its milking, and hence it would be assur.
However, there was an exception built in, and the question then is how
far it goes: is it only the fear of a Jew's imminent arrival, or is it
any situation in which the non-Jew is afraid of being caught, such as
fear of the penalties imposed by the USDA.

It is here where chumra and kula come into play. One may be meikil
and consider fear of the USDA to be the equivalent of fear of a yotzei
v'nichnas, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv Yisraei, permitted in all
circumstances.  One may hold l'chumra, that what Chazal permitted is the
only exception, and thus chalav stam is true chaleiv akum, and is thus
prohibited in all circumstances.  Another may hold that one should rely on
the opinion of the meikilim only bish'as had'chak, but otherwise one should
not rely on that opinion.

In light of the above, it should be obvious that Rav Breuer held
chaleiv akum to be assur.  But the statement is also irrelevant to our
discussion, since does not cite an opinion on his part as to whether or not
chalav stam is chaleiv akum..

It should be obvious that in countries where there is no equivalent of
the fear of the USDA, that according to all opinions, no matter what the
sh'as had'chak, chalav stam is absolutely chaleiv akum, and hence
absolutely prohibited.

EMT
.


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)