Volume 30 Number 63
Produced: Mon Jan 3 8:27:48 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Airline Meals (2)
[Jonathan Grodzinski, Louise Miller]
Cholov Yisroel (3)
[Michael Horowitz, Akiva Miller, Mendy Chitrik]
Rabbanim and Supervision (2)
[David I. Cohen, Daniel Israel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Grodzinski <JGrodz@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 01:26:30 EST
Subject: Airline Meals
Harry Weiss writes:
<< The OU however, should be familiar with how the airline meals are
used and who uses them and should put some additional requirements on
these, just like they stopped the mezonos role situation. >>
As a European air traveller I am accustomed to having a meal with a roll
(sic) made with "Mei Peyrot" served during the flight.
On a recent trans Atlantic flight, I was somewhat annoyed to find that
the roll served was accompanied by a note saying that it was "HaMotzi",
and not "Mezonot", as one is obliged to make Hamotzi if one is Kovea
Seuda etc. .There then followed a suggestion that if it was
inconvenient to wash "Netilat Yadayim" [ since when was washing on an
airplane convenient? show me an airline seat with built in washing
facilities and I will show you covenient "Netilat Yadayim" ], I should
put the roll aside and eat it when it was convenient to wash.
I was annoyed at having my decision making taken away from me. If I want
to eat a roll without washing, I would far prefer to do so with a "Mei
Peyrot" roll. I might prefer to wrap my hands and eat it. I might even
prefer to eat it separately from my meal as I might a piece of cake, and
in such a situation everyone would agree that a "Mei Peyrot" roll
requires no washing.
Why could not the roll be made with "Mei Peyrot", and the attached note
point out that if one eats the roll as part of the meal one should wash
"Netilat Yadayim", however if it was inconvenient to wash , better to
put the roll away and eat it separately from the meal?
Can anyone explain why the OU takes our choice away?
Jonathan Grodzinski (fourth generation Master Baker - London, UK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Louise Miller <daniel@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:16:00 -0800
Subject: Airline Meals
I try hard never to board a plane without sufficient food for myself and
my family to hold us over until we reach our destination. Maybe it's
because I fly out of a city that has its airline meals brought in, but I
almost NEVER get my kosher meal. Last flight my son and I received
nicely wrapped Ovo-LactoVegetarian meals labelled with our names. (Come
to think of it, last time I flew that airline, the same thing
happened.....)
ESPECIALLY if you keep cholov yisroel, or you are flying Pesach, bring
your own food! Peanut butter and jelly, and some of those instant soups
are better than fishing through the trefe meal for an apple. (We were
travelling from California to Israel. A long time to pack for, but it
would have been an even longer trip without food.)
Flight attendants rarely understand the problem, and can get quite
irritated at the reaction of the typical hungry Jewish traveller who has
just realized that he isn't getting dinner, while he's been smelling
food for 45 minutes. Do yourself a favor and do a mitzva. Stay calm
and pull your PB and J out of your carry-on.
Anyone who is interested in carryon food suggestions is welcome to
e-mail me privately.
Louise Miller (who travelled for THREE days with 2 kids coming back from
Israel because we kept getting bumped and missing connections, and
no one starved, but I kept thinking of Scarlett O'Hara who swore that
she'd never go hungry again.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Horowitz <michaelh1@...>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:37:15 PST
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel
> Regarding R' Moshe Feinstein's heter, it should be pointed out that in
>his most recent teshuvah (vol. 8 p. 161) he restricted his heter to
>shaas hadchak only! "vlo bishvil yoker me'at" i.e. the minimal
>difference in price isn't a factor in using this heter. Upon who does
>modern orthodoxy rely on if R' Moshe himself doesn't allow it?
While I have not read the teshuva of Rav Moshe I find this attack on
"Modern Orthdoxy" offensive. I know the non Modern Orthodox Talmudic
University of Rabbi Zweig poskens that it is acceptable to eat chalav
stam if it is less expensive. The same for my own Aguda Israel member
Rabbi.
Whatever halachic issues exist regarding the widely followed practice of
eating chalav stam it has nothing to do with being modern vs right wing.
Halachic issues should be studied with the idea that we are learning
torah, and not used to, in violation of Torah, bash large segments of
Jews.
[Sentiment of the above poster are strongly agreed with by the
Moderator. Please try and read your postings over before sending them
out, and make sure that they are written in the tone and manner that
enhances discussion and Ahavas Yisrael. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 12:42:22 EST
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel
If Posek A rules that government supervision suffices for milk, and
Posek B rules that it is not sufficient, then I can easily see *other*
rabbis trying to compromise between the two.
For example, another rabbi might say that under normal circumstances one
could drink the government-supervised milk, but if it is not difficult -
or under other special circumstances - he should use the
Jewish-supervised milk. Or, yet another rabbi might rule that under
normal circumstances, only Jewish milk should be used, but where that is
particularly difficult, the government milk is acceptable. There can be
a wide range of such "middle ground" positions.
My difficulty is with the position of Rav Moshe Feinstein himself, which
*sort* *of* contradicts itself in some ways. There are many snippets I
could use to illustrate my question, but I think it will be clearest if
I offer the following paragraph, which I will translate in its entirety,
so that there is no suggestion that he might have changed his mind at
some point. The below is taken from Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 1:47, fourth
paragraph:
<<< And so, the milk which they forbade was only where a non-Jew milked
it without a Jew watching. We can allow it allow it where the Jew has a
clear knowledge, which is like seeing. As far as they might mix in
[non-kosher milk], they will be fined and would have to close their
business, so [using only kosher milk] is a profit of many thousands. The
government watches over them, and this is definitely a clear knowledge,
which is like seeing that there were no forbidden things involved. Also,
this is according to all opinions, and there is no reason to argue with
this. And therefore, one who wants to rely and be lenient has good reason
and is allowed, just as most people who are Shomrei Mitzvos, and also
many rabbis, and Chas V'Shalom to say that they are acting against the
law. But nevertheless, for Baalei Nefesh it is proper to be strict, and
this does not constitute "showing off". And that's how I act, to be
strict on myself. But one who wants to be lenient is following the law,
and should not be considered as a m'zalzel b'isurin [one who treats
prohibitions lightly]. >>>
I do not understand this view. If <<< this is according to all opinions,
and there is no reason to argue with this >>> then why would anyone, and
most particularly Rav Moshe *himself*, want to be strict?
The only answer I can imagine, is that there is some spiritual value to
Jewish supervision, as some recent posters have suggested. One compared
Jewish-supervised milk to Tahor food: While Tamay food is unquestionably
allowed, it does have some spiritual disadvantages which make tahor food
preferable. Or perhaps, as another poster wrote, the advantage of Jewish
milk is the economic boost given to certain parts of the Jewish
community.
In many places, Rav Moshe writes about how very sure he is that the
Torah allows "cholov hacompanies" without any question. But in many
other places, he suggests that various people -- schoolchildren, for
example -- should drink only the milk which was actually supervised by a
Jew who watches, rather than simply "knowing with a clear knowledge"
that the milk is kosher.
I never noticed him offer any explanation WHY those people should be
strict. It is clearly NOT a case of uncertainty on his part, and he
feels that this view is "l'kulay alma", according to all opinions. Is
there anyone who can offer any other thoughts on this apparent
incongruity in Rav Moshe's views?
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mendy Chitrik <MChitrik@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 15:08:53 EST
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisroel
Concerning the consumption of Cholov Akum I would like to note:
1. The Chatam Sofer ( responsa Yoreh deah, 107) writes that Cholov Akum
is "Neesar Beminyan", and as such it is forbidden to consumption and
close to a Issur Torah, [and is] like a Neder. He ends off his response
by adding that "whoever breaks the Geder a snake should kill him" (Chas
vesholom).
(See Sdee Chemed, Maareches Chalav, Talmudic Encyclopedia "Chalav" note
19, Chchmas Odom Klal 67, a. and more)
2. Yosef Braun mentioned The Chazon Ish (y.d. ch. 41)see also The
Chelkat Yaakov (vol.2, response 37-38) that brings a few anecdotes about
the Chazon Ish's approach to Chalav Akum. a) in the name of Rabbi Moshe
Soloveichik that asked the Chazon Ish about a rumor that was spread out
in his name, that he Chas Veshalom allowed the consumption of Chalav
Akum. The Chazon Ish's response was: "What else would they say about me?
Soon they will say that I am allowing an Eshet Ish". b)A very reliable
source that had told the Chelkat Yaakov personally that the Chazon Ishe
forbade Cholov Akum even to a 5 year old child.
He [who is the he here, the Chazon Ish or the Chelkat Yaacov? If the
Chazon Ish, we seem to have a disagreement in what the Chazon Ish wrote,
see Mark Steiner's posting in v30n56. Mod.] also writes in length that
according to halacha we can not rely on the government supervision,
which is considered just a "smach" and an unreliable source of
information. He also points out the Chemical tests can not differentiate
between milk that comes from a cow to milk that comes from a donkey, and
the government does rely on such tests.
[3. repeat of definitions of cholov yisrael /cholov akum as indicated in
earlier postings. snipped - Mod.]
4. In the Beer Moshe (vol. 4, response 52) he writes about Kavvanet
Halev (and of vol. 1)"and he proved Chad Vechalak that we can nor rely
on the government's supervision, that makes sure that there is no Chalav
Tameh". (To note that the Kavanat Halev wrote a 67 page book about this
subject). So he writes in another place in harsh words (Vol. 6, response
130) "and on such [that says that Chalav Akum is allowed] I call that
the light of torah had not shined on him, and he does not know between
right and left to push away Chazal's decree that made a Syag, just
because the times had changed, time is not worth to spend on such things
at all, and with a personal reasoning to erase a full chapter of the
Shulchan Aruch, and their things are void "betelin umevutolin" ... and
Ossur Lishmoa".
5. Carl singer writes that about "Using an Eruv" as a chumrah and its
implication to childrens education.
It is interesting to note that the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zi"a, did not agree
to put up an Eiruv in the Crown Heights neighborhood, so that the
children would grow up knowing that on Shabbat they should not carry, so
that when they go elsewhere when there is no Eiruv they would know not
to carry. Furthermore he suggested that people should put up an Eiruv,
but they should not publicize that fact, so the Eiruv will serve only to
help out the people who mistakingly carried out of their home so that
they will not be "nichshal" in Chilul Shabat!.
Mendy Chitrik
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David I. Cohen <BDCOHEN613@...>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 13:47:40 EST
Subject: Rabbanim and Supervision
In vol. 30 # 54 Oren Popper wrote:
>>I guess I wasn't clear enough. This was a dairy meal, and the note was
>>indeed a general note. It did not have any mention of dairy kashrus
>>standards. I would only imagine that when someone claims to be
>>glatt-kosher (I think it even said chassidishe shechita - whatever that
>>means) and pas-yisroel, cholov yisroel would go without saying.
Since when? Glatt kosher refers only to a kashrut standard of
slaughtered meat -- are the lungs smooth (glatt) or not. The standard
relevant to baked goods, pas akum or pas alter is entirely separate,
based on entirely different halachik principle that are not relevant to
treifos issues with animals. Similarly, cholov yisrael is an issue of
how one can be assured that the milk comes from a kosher animal, and
whether one can rely on government regulation. It is a totally separate
issue, based on totally separate halachic criteria.
Just because each in its own way has stringent and lenient points of
view concerning their applicability, and just because they all deal with
generic use of the term "kashrut" in the sense of what can be eaten,
does not imply that these three halachic issues go in tandem if one is
consistent in their halchic outlook.
David I. Cohen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Israel <daniel@...>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 00:09:34 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Rabbanim and Supervision
Oren Popper wrote:
> I would only imagine that when someone claims to be glatt-kosher (I
> think it even said chassidishe shechita - whatever that means) and
> pas-yisroel, cholov yisroel would go without saying.
Actually I think it is quite common to eat only glatt meat, and also
(but not simultaneously ;) ) eat chalav hacompanies.
Also, another poster referred to chalav stam as an "MO" shita. I
certainly know many Yeshivishe individuals who drink chalav hacompanies.
Daniel M. Israel
<daniel@...>
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 63
