Jump to content


Photo

Cholov Yisroel


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 achasshoalti

achasshoalti

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 04:34 PM

Does the halacha of cholov yisroel apply to:
  • powdered milk
  • butter
  • cheese
  • cream cheese


#2 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 05:58 PM

1. Machlokes - Chazon Ish held yes. You should follow that.
2. Not Halachicly. ע"פ קבלה there are those who say yes.
3. Yes
4. Yes

#3 Role Model Wannabe

Role Model Wannabe

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 11:22 PM

Hi Mod, recently I asked a Rabbi if Chalov Yisroel is necessary and he said no, just something nice to do. Here's my question, isn't Kashrus a yes or no, black and white? If Chalov Yisroel is indeed necessary, why do people not keep it, and if it's not, why do people keep it? Unless there's Hashkafa reasoning behind it... And generally, are Halachos black and white? Are the rules right or wrong?

#4 achasshoalti

achasshoalti

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 25 May 2012 - 09:38 AM

thanks!

What about eating by someone who relies on cholov stam, as far as eating hot stuff from their keilim?

#5 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:17 AM

thanks!

What about eating by someone who relies on cholov stam, as far as eating hot stuff from their keilim?

The same Halachos apply to Keilim regarding Cholov Yisroel as they do to anything else that was cooked in Keilim.

#6 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 29 May 2012 - 09:28 AM

Hi Mod, recently I asked a Rabbi if Chalov Yisroel is necessary and he said no, just something nice to do. Here's my question, isn't Kashrus a yes or no, black and white? If Chalov Yisroel is indeed necessary, why do people not keep it, and if it's not, why do people keep it? Unless there's Hashkafa reasoning behind it... And generally, are Halachos black and white? Are the rules right or wrong?

What you heard was not correct. Rav Moshe ZTL himself wrote in two places (could be there is more, but I know of two) that his heter for Cholov Stam was not meant l'chatchilah, but rather in dire circumstances (בשעת הדחק). it was never meant to be used to permit Kit Kats or ice cream. It was meant for a person who needs milk and has no Cholov Yisroel available.

There are many reasons it is possible for something to be permitted only בשעת הדחק. In this particular case, as Rav Moshe writes in one of the places I mentioned above, there can be a good case made to permit the Cholov Stam, but it is not good enough to be conclusive. Therefore, if a person needs to, he can rely on the reasons to be lenient, but the heter is not so simple, and so when there is no pressing need to rely on it, one should not.

#7 moshe

moshe

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:54 PM

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1:47) writes that, “Most observant Jews and also many Rabbanim are lenient regarding this matter and God forbid that one declare that they are acting improperly.”

#8 Kshaniv

Kshaniv

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 09:41 AM

Not to belabor the point, but how does this work? If chalav stam is assur, shouldn't it always be assur? And if there are times that it's muttar, shouldn't it always be muttar? Can you please explain why a halacha regarding kashrus is dependent on circumstance?

#9 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 05:50 PM

Not to belabor the point, but how does this work? If chalav stam is assur, shouldn't it always be assur? And if there are times that it's muttar, shouldn't it always be muttar? Can you please explain why a halacha regarding kashrus is dependent on circumstance?

It's not only a principle regarding Kashrus. It applies to all areas of Halachah.

Theoretically, you're correct that something is either permitted or prohibited. Sometimes the question will be black and white - permitted or prohibited. Sometimes there will be a disagreement among authorities about it but the Rav will be able to determine that one of the opinions or approaches is simply an error. It can be an error in logic or a lack of information, or something else, but the Rav will decide that one approach or opinion is right, and the other is wrong.

But what happens in a case, for example, where there is a Machlokes about it, or there is some ambiguity in the sources, and the Rav being asked the question is unable to determine with 100% certainty that one of the opinions, or ways of looking at the sources, is right and the other wrong? In such a case, the Rav is required to consider various factors, such as how severe the prohibition in question is (for example, is it D'Oraisa or D'Rabbonon, but also more than just that), as well as the balance of evidence on both sides. Based on that, he will determine a course of action. That course of action is considered his Psak.

However, even after that Psak, there still remains a doubt. There may still be a valid minority opinion, for example, or a possible way of reasoning, forced or unlikely though it may be, that would lead to a different conclusion. The Halachic due process requires that the Rav not adopt the unlikely approach, and someone who does adopt it (be he the Rav or the questioner) it is not doing the proper thing. But still, because the Rav has merely been able to say that the the rejected approach is unlikely but he was unable to conclude that it was totally mistaken, that rejected approach sometimes is able to be used under different circumstances. Depending on how unlikely the Rav considers it, and the reasons for his considering it unlikely, he may allow it to be adopted בשעת הדחק / לצורך אורחים / במקום הפסד etc.

So for example, we have a Halachah (SA OH 33:5) that if the strap of the Tefillin became severed, it has to be reconnected in a certain way. But if you cannot reconnect it in the proper way, we allow you to reconnect it other ways, and rely on abandoned lenient opinions, because if you are strict in this instance and consider the reconnected strap invalid, you will not be putting on Tefillin altogether.

Or the Halachah (SA OH 143:4) that if you find a Pesul in a Sefer Torah, and you have no Kosher one available, and no way to repair the Posul one, there are those who allow the use of the non-Kosher Sefer Torah. Because without it, you won't fulfill the obligation to Lein altogether.

In these cases, following the more strict opinion also carries a leniency with it, which constitutes the "dire circumstances." A material financial loss or an undue hardship also constitutes, sometimes, dire circumstances.

Under which circumstances we are allowed to rely on an abandoned opinion, if at all, depends on why the opinion was abandoned, the authority of its author, and various other factors. Deciding that is the job of the Posek.

(Incidentally, we can understand from this the great difference between a real Posek and a rabbi who knows Halachah. Doing research and possessing information about Halachic opinions, and even knowing a lot of Shulchan Aruch and Poskim, will not give the Rav the ability to know the weight of balance between the abandoned opinions and the accepted ones. For that, one has to be a big Lamdan as well as knowledgeable in Halachah. The Hamon Am often accepts people as Halachic authorities eithout realizing they lack this skill, which unfortunately often leads to much confusion and Machlokes. See Requirement #1 in this thread.)

#10 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 07 June 2012 - 04:05 PM

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 1:47) writes that, “Most observant Jews and also many Rabbanim are lenient regarding this matter and God forbid that one declare that they are acting improperly.”


Except that Rav Moshe in two places says that his Heter for Cholov Stam is not to be used except under dire circumstances, and otherwise you are using it improperly.

The Igros Moshe you are referring to means "improperly" as in "blatantly sinful with no line of reasoning to be Melamed Zechus." Because there exists a Halachic way to interpret things that would allow a leniency, weak though it may be, it would be wrong to say they these people are total sinners. But that's only an ex post facto Limud Zechus. That doesn't mean we should tell people who want to do the right thing to rely on a weak Heter.

That is what Rav Moshe means when he says "Baal nefesh yachmir." When asked to clarify this ambiguous phrase, Rav Moshe wrote that what he means is, if there is no serious need to use Cholov Stam, one should not do so. In another Teshuva, his language is that his leniency was only meant בשעת הדחק.

But that still does not make someone who does rely on the leniency a blatant sinner, as if he were doing something with no possible Heter at all.

#11 achasshoalti

achasshoalti

    Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 31 July 2012 - 01:59 PM

Can one who keeps cholov yisrolel eat "OUDE"

#12 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 05 August 2012 - 06:23 PM

Can one who keeps cholov yisrolel eat "OUDE"

??

According to the OU's website, there is no such thing.

#13 JewishAttorney

JewishAttorney

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 08:48 AM

If one is stuck in a foreign airport for 24 hours where the only available kosher product is Hagen Dazs ice-cream that has American OU. May a person who keeps Cholov Isroel rely on Rav Moshe's heter then so as not to starve as opposed to eating it for pleasure? Thanks.

#14 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 08:20 PM

You don't mean "starve" literally, right?

According to Rav Moshe you can definitely eat the ice-cream. According to those who disagree, you can't. I'm not being מכריע.

#15 JewishAttorney

JewishAttorney

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:44 PM

You don't mean "starve" literally, right?

According to Rav Moshe you can definitely eat the ice-cream. According to those who disagree, you can't. I'm not being מכריע.


Thanks Rabbi Shapiro. Yes, I meant starve as in very hungry.

#16 JewishAttorney

JewishAttorney

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 09:38 PM

1. For people who are careful with Cholov Isroel, Is it permitted to order cholov I pizza in a pizzeria that has both Ou-D and Cholov I ( for example most South African dairy cafes to my limited knowledge have both)? If yes, does it depend on a case by case basis if the equipment used for them is totally separate from one another? 

 

2. For such a careful person, is there anything wrong to enter starbucks/dunken donuts/other coffee shops and get a regular black coffee?  Thanks. 



#17 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 24 March 2013 - 12:25 PM

1. For people who are careful with Cholov Isroel, Is it permitted to order cholov I pizza in a pizzeria that has both Ou-D and Cholov I ( for example most South African dairy cafes to my limited knowledge have both)? If yes, does it depend on a case by case basis if the equipment used for them is totally separate from one another? 

 

2. For such a careful person, is there anything wrong to enter starbucks/dunken donuts/other coffee shops and get a regular black coffee?  Thanks. 

1 - It depends on what the Hechsher on the store says about that and how reliable that Hechsher is.

 

2 - This has nothing to do with the above question. The issue there is whether the coffee machines are kosher altogether, being that these places sell treife food on utensils that may be washed together with the coffee makers. See the Star-K article on this here.



#18 JewishAttorney

JewishAttorney

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:41 PM

1 - It depends on what the Hechsher on the store says about that and how reliable that Hechsher is.

 

2 - This has nothing to do with the above question. The issue there is whether the coffee machines are kosher altogether, being that these places sell treife food on utensils that may be washed together with the coffee makers. See the Star-K article on this here.

 

That is indeed an excellent article, thank you Rabbi Shapiro! Wow, I honestly had no clue that just black can also be bad....



#19 JewishAttorney

JewishAttorney

    Member

  • Members
  • 60 posts

Posted 05 July 2013 - 10:40 AM

This story related to this question is directly connected to this discussion but may belong in a forum about polite behavior.

I was in Starbucks a few days ago and saw a man much older man with a beard and a fedora with tsitsis hanging out getting pure black coffee in Starbucks meanwhile I was there without a beard with a small "professional" leather kippa and I felt bad lecturing him about the Starbucks. I spoke to him briefly and suggested to visit a local kosher cafe and briefly mentioned that it's probably better to get black there.

After he left I thought that I did the wrong thing and should have quickly accessed the website from my phone and showed him but I know at that moment I felt uncomfortable. He must have been getting black at Starbucks before I was born.

Again, this is more of a dealing with people question but is there a suggested way to point out to a person something without making him feel embarrassed?

#20 Rabbi Shapiro

Rabbi Shapiro

    Member

  • Administrators
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 14 July 2013 - 03:33 PM

This story related to this question is directly connected to this discussion but may belong in a forum about polite behavior.

I was in Starbucks a few days ago and saw a man much older man with a beard and a fedora with tsitsis hanging out getting pure black coffee in Starbucks meanwhile I was there without a beard with a small "professional" leather kippa and I felt bad lecturing him about the Starbucks. I spoke to him briefly and suggested to visit a local kosher cafe and briefly mentioned that it's probably better to get black there.

After he left I thought that I did the wrong thing and should have quickly accessed the website from my phone and showed him but I know at that moment I felt uncomfortable. He must have been getting black at Starbucks before I was born.

Again, this is more of a dealing with people question but is there a suggested way to point out to a person something without making him feel embarrassed?

You did nothing wrong. You got a Miztvah of tochachah and perhaps even saved him from future problems. As long as you were nice (see Rambam Deos 3:3), you did the right thing. (Perhaps showing him the site on your cellphone would have been better in terms of convincing him, but what you did was fine.)