Volume 30 Number 77
Produced: Sun Jan 9 10:09:43 US/Eastern 2000
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Boiled Wine
[Gershon Dubin]
Boiled Wine - Yayin Mevushal - According to Chabad
[Chaim G Steinmetz]
Cheese
[Mark Steiner]
Cholov Yisrael
[Oren Popper]
Chumros
[Gershon Dubin]
Gezerot
[Eli Turkel]
Milk additives rendering the milk unacceptable
[Andrew M Greene]
Sherry & Malt Whiskey
[Yisrael Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:34:30 -0500
Subject: Boiled Wine
Rav Moshe Feinstein writes in Yoreh Deah Chelek Gimel that
heating wine to "yad soledes bo" (subject to dispute how hot this is,
but it is definitely much lower than the boiling point) is sufficient to
remove the prohibition of a nonJew's wine. He considers the possibility
that even lower temperatures may suffice.
I believe that the kashrus organizations, nevertheless, boil the
wine to make it acceptable to the dissenting opinions.
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim G Steinmetz <cgsteinmetz@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 11:14:06 -0500
Subject: Boiled Wine - Yayin Mevushal - According to Chabad
Re this issue, the question (as I understand it) is not boiling milk or
wine, the issue is the degree necessary to Kasher the keilim.
Rabbi Dvorkin z"l wrote in a letter (printed in his book Kovetz Razash
- my translation) "Cholov Akum forbids the keilim through cooking (RMA
Y.D. 115), & all milk and milk products in the US are cooked with heat
of Yad Soledes which therefore forbid the keilim if it was cholov
akum. All cholov yisroel milk products are made in non Jewish factories,
those that are mehader heat the keilim ("hagoloh") to 170 - 180 degrees,
which really is not considered hagoloh, since hagoloh has to be a heat
of 212 degrees which is considered "raising bubbles" and less [than this
heat] is nothing (Tur 452, Beis Yosef in name os SMAK Trumas Hadeshen
131, Taz 94, Pri Chodosh, Chok Yakov, SA Horav 452 .. see also Darkay
Teshuva 121:50)".
As I recall, at the time there was some disagreement on this issue even
among Chabad Rabonim.
See also a similar view in Igros Moshe YD V2 Siman 31 near the end
(page 43).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Steiner <marksa@...>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 09:00:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Cheese
Some comments concerning Isaac Zlochower's enlightening discussion.
1. I should have been clearer regarding "cheese." There are two reasons
for the prohibition of cheese that are accepted by the poskim: (a)
because of the nonkosher curdling agent; (b) because the milk used is
not "cholov yisroel." As for (a), although Tosafos (a.z. 35a) states
that where vegetable rennet is used, cheese is permitted, and in fact
Jews ate unsupervised cheese in Narbonne, France, for this reason, the
consensus is against Tosafos, just as Isaac states. The reason is that
cheese is a "dovor she-biminyan," an edict rather than a ruling which
can be overturned only by another Sanhedrin. Although it is true that
so-called "cholov akum" [incidentally, the term "akum" does not exist;
it was invented because of censorship--in every old ms. the word is
"goy"--I mention this because some serious halakhic errors have occurred
because of misunderstanding the word "akum"] would seem also to be in
this category, as the Hasam Sofer states, nevertheless the Vilner Gaon
(Y.D. 115:13) states that cheese is in a special category--see his
brilliant proofs there. Note that the Remo however permits unsupervised
cheese where there is a tradition of doing so (as there was in parts of
France). As for (b), i.e. where the cheese is supervised but "cholov
akum" is used, the poskim are much more lenient, because the Talmud
states that cheese cannot be made from pig's milk, etc. The Remo says
that such cheese is mutar "b'dieved." As for butter made from "cholov
akum", the Mechaber states that we don't intervene [ein mohin] in a
community practice to allow such butter. If I'm not mistaken, the
German communities, who did not drink "cholov akum" used unsupervised
butter.
Note that the practice of the OU, which gives a hechsher to cheese made
from unsupervised milk, is certainly defensible, because the milk is not
"cholov akum" but what Reb Moshe calls "milk from the companies"
[industrial milk], which is supervised by the government. Now all these
practices would be forbidden if "cholov akum" were absolutely "tref."
Something like the explanation of the Hazon Ish must be used to explain
these positions. However, I agree with Isaac that cheese seems to be in
a special category.
Regarding substances forbidden because they were considered dangerous,
these do not raise any new issues of principle. In fact one reason
given for the prohibition of nonJewish cheese is that it may contain
snake venom!! (This reason was not accepted, however.) Indeed, the
Shulkhan Arukah discusses dangerous foods in Y.D. chapter 117, right
after the chapter on "cholov akum." The principle is the same: once the
Sanhedrin forbade foods for any reason they would seem to be forbidden
absolutely, even if the reason is no longer applicable. The only
explanation for the lenient practice concerning "uncovered water" (where
even the shulchan arukh permits drinking it "today") is that the
original gezeirah itself took into account the changing times, or as the
Hazon Ish puts it (brilliantly) the gezeirah was not to rely on the
statistics (rov).
Mark Steiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Oren Popper <opopper@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 21:47:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Cholov Yisrael
In MJ Volume 30 Number 51 Avi Feldblum wrote:
<snip>
<< The question one needs to ask is whether the halachot surrounding
Cholov Yisrael / Cholov Akum represents a metaphysical / Kabbalistic
approach to the benefits / impacts of the Cholov Yisrael / Cholov Akum,
or is it simply a question of factual situation related to the kashrut
state of the milk at hand.>>
IMHO it is not one or the other, but rather both go hand in hand, and
the issue is not limited to Cholov Yisroel, but to any mitzva. There is
the 'dry' factual halocho regarding the question at hand, and there is
always a metaphysical effect to go along with it. This is probably one
of the things the teachings of Chassidus are all about.
<<...If however one's perspective is that the question is what is the
halachic kashrut status of this milk, then one is of the opinion that
what Hashem wants is for us to only eat/drink Kosher and may have no
opinion on the topic of Cholov Yisrael / Cholov Hacompanies.>>
Even when taking the 'dry' halocho, there is a clear case to be made
that Hashem definitely 'cares' that we drink/eat only Cholov Yisroel.
[As has been extensively pointed out, R' Moshe's tshuvot indicate that
what he calls Cholov Hacompanies is al pi (according to) halakha
considered Cholov Yisrael, so there is no clear case in my opinion that
HaShem 'cares' which milk we buy in the supermarket in the US. Mod.]
<<...One next would want to understand what was R' Moshe's reasoning
behind viewing drinking Cholov Yisrael as a chumrah. >>
I do not have R' Moshe's psak in front of me, however, I find it hard to
believe that R' Moshe ever considered drinking Cholov Yisroel a chumra.
R' Moshe found a HETER for those who wish to drink milk but have a hard
time getting Cholov Yisroel. I'm sure R' Moshe would have never
permitted using non-Cholov Yisroel l'chatchila for anyone living in
today's Boro Park, Flatbush or any similar place, where Cholov Yisroel
is readily available (except in order to be melamed zchus).
In MJ Volume 30 Number 51 Mordechai wrote:
<< Eliezer Shemtov uses the term 'chalav akum' (milk of idol and planet
worship / worshipper) for commercial milk that is not 'chalav Yisroel'
(Jewishly supervised). Isn't the correct term 'chalav stam' (general,
non - Jewish milk)?>>
No. The term used in Shulchan Oruch is Cholov Akum. I believe the term
"cholov stam" (as well as the term "cholom hacompanies" and any other
similar term) were coined by those using Cholov Akum (probably wanting
to feel beter about the practice, or use a cleaner loshon).
[I respectfuly suggest that the discussion is NOT about Cholov Akum at
all. Everyone agrees that Cholov Akum is forbidden. The discussion is
whether there is a catagory of milk, that has been given the popular
term "cholov stam" or "cholov haCompanies" which is halakhically within
the catagory of Cholov Yisroel, but which one wishes to differentiate
from what is popularly also called "cholov Yisroel". By the way, does
anyone know whether the term cholov hacompanies was coined by Rav Moshe
or not? Mod.]
<<when you substitute the (to my knowledge) incorrect term of 'chalav
aku"m' for 'chalav stam' , you are wrongly giving the impression that
this milk has some kind of association with idolatry (avodas kochavim
umazolos) and idolators, which tends to make Jews instinctively recoil
from it and find it repulsive.
A term that includes 'aku"m' in it carries very heavy negative baggage
with it - with is not associated with the term 'stam'.>>
Which is why I assume the term was coined by those using it, but not by
the Shulchan Oruch which uses the term Aku"m to refer to a non-Jew. As a
matter of fact, the Shulchan Oruch title for all these type of Halochos:
bishul, cholov, pas, etc. as "hilchos ma'acholei Ovdei Kochavim"
<<(We also have this type of situation, I believe, with wine. There are
two terms used there - yayin nesech for wine connected to avoda zara and
stam yaynam for other general non - Jewish wine, not connected with
worship.>>
These are two terms used in Shulchan Oruch. As a matter of fact the
Shulchan Oruch begins these halochos with the title "Hilchos Yeyn
Nesech" and starts the halochos with the term "stam yeynom".
The reason for this is that the clear distinction is that Yeyn Nesech is
Ossur M'de'oraiso, and Stam Yeynom is an issur m'derabonon, and as all
the commentaries point out, the reason for the issur derabonon is
twofold: it is not permitted to drink it "mishum bnoseihen" - to
distance ourselves from marying their daughters, it was further
forbidden even b'hano'o as a gzeiro "mishum yeyn nesech".
OTOH, Cholov Yisroel (along with Pas Yisroel, Bishul Yisroel, etc.)
begins and ends as a derabonon.
<< Also - being that he is in Uruguay, I think it is possible that the
government inspection system and media, etc. there may not be as well
developed as in the USA for example, where they exert pressure on milk
companies to keep their product pure.>>
Besides the fact that in the USA milk companies do not even have to
report any ingredient which is less than 0.2% (or is it 2%, please
correct me). And while this amount is botel b'shishim (unless the 2% is
correct, but even then it is only a sofek) that was not the question on
hand.
<<Perhaps in such places (as in the Czarist Russia of the 'alter rebbe')
there is more reason to insist, even more strongly, upon cholov yisroel,
than in other places (e.g. the USA). Of course, baal nefesh yachmir al
atzmo (on himself) and 'tavo alav bracha' (may he be blessed). The
question is, whether everyone must adopt this practice in all cases.>>
Your presentation of the question is a blatant distortion thereof. Using
Cholov Yisroel exclusively is not a 'practice to be adopted', it is a
clear din in Shulchan Oruch. The heter to use non-Cholov Yisroel (or
Cholov Akum - as it is called in Shulchan Oruch) is something one might
decide to adopt.
Oren Popper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:51:14 -0500
Subject: Chumros
<< From: Joseph Tabory <taborj@...>
I don't entirely agree with the following idea which I heard in the
name of Rabbi Elimelech Bar-Shaul (or maybe I heard it from him). He
said that when people get married, the chasan signs a kesubah which
outlines his obligations to his wife. Anything that he does beyond that
is a "chumrah". But, of course, in the relationship between husband and
wife, the real relationship is developed far beyond what the ketubha
obligates. Take it away from there.>>
The ksuba defines, in the main, the monetary obligations of the
husband to the wife. It is not meant to be a contract for their marital
relationship although it is mentioned there, as well as in the Tenoim,
where it is more clearly spelled out. Ayen sham.
Gershon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 100 11:16:24 +0200 ("IST)
Subject: Gezerot
> Mark Steiner writes
> My opinion is that any gezeirah which is regarded as not applicable
> because of changing times, even though a Sanhedrin has not been convened
> to abrogate the gezeirah, must be in the "second" category of gezeirah.
> (For the simple reason that there is no other reasoning which could
> permit the abandoning of a gezeirah.) Mayim aharonim is certainly in
I am still confused how one decides what belongs in each category.
The rule seems to be things we do against the gemara are in category II.
Not the most precise of rules.
Examples:
Dancing on shabbat
Using medicines on shabbat
Many people dance on shabbat on the assumption that today nobody fixes a
musical instrument. On the other hand almost no one allows medicines on
shabbat (except on certain circumstances) even though we don't make our
own medicines.
Eli Turkel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew M Greene <agreene@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 07:12:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Milk additives rendering the milk unacceptable
In MJ30:73, Moshe Rappoport writes:
> I recall reading an article in the New York Times about 2-3 years ago
> (in their section on Media and Advertising) about 2 milk companies that
> were slugging it out for market share in the Western Massachusetts area.
>
> One company ran an ad showing a vial of yellowish liquid and claimimng
> that the competitor was putting this much fish-derived vitamin
> supplement into each quart of milk.
It was worse than that. Garelick farms started using vitamins derived
from shark oil (because they're more "natural"); as a result they lost
their hechsher. Hood, their main competitor, made a big deal about it at
the time.
(Because the oil was added by non-Jews, in minute quantities, and its
flavor is insignificant, many area poskim ruled that b'diavad the use of
Garelick dairy products didn't treif up dishes and one needn't embarass
one's host if served Garelick milk, but l'chatchilah it's not
acceptable.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 22:08:44 +0200
Subject: Sherry & Malt Whiskey
The big news from Efrat, where I spent Shabbat, was Rabbi Shlomo
Riskin's about-face. He had issued a psak that single-malt (scotch)
whiskey was non-Kosher in that it was mellowed in caskets that
previously contained sherry which was un-Kosher and the whiskey would be
absorbing the sherry. Only a third time use of the same casket would be
permissable. Single malt scotch is the more expensive brands -
Glenfidditch and up. Well, that set the cat among the pigeons, so to
say. Someone got on to a relative from England who does the Hashgacha
work there (Scotland), and Riskin reversed himself the next week.
Someone mentioned batel b-shishim among other reasons. Any comments
from list members?
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 30 Issue 77