Home » Anthony Frosh, Community Life, Recent Posts

COSV President Scolds the RCV

July 22, 2010 – 9:35 pm247 Comments

By Anthony Frosh

In a letter to Rabbinical Council of Victoria (RCV) President Rabbi Yaakov Glasman, Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Victoria (COSV) President Paul Korbl has called on the Rabbis of the RCV to issue a statement endorsing free market competition.  He has also advised that such a statement “should make no reference to or cast any aspersions on any particular Rabbi.”

Korbl also stated that he believes that:

“The general consensus is that multi Hashgochos may be beneficial as competition is potentially a good thing and would lead to a reduction of prices. It is a fact that different Kashrut standards exist and are frequently based on the perceived piety and the level of stringency of the particular rabbi. For this reason it seems to me that any adverse comments on any particular rabbi would in no way be beneficial. It is impractical for one level of Kashrut to be imposed because a minimum level for one person may be too stringent for another.”

However, Korbl’s message to the RCV has fallen on deaf ears, with the RCV releasing a statement by email that could be the described as the very opposite of the statement Korbl called for.  COSV has since removed the RCV statement from their website on advice that it is potentially defamatory. At the time of writing, the statement was similarly absent from the RCV website.

The RCV’s chosen course of action has prompted a follow up email from Korbl scolding the RCV for failing to heed his advice that Korbl says has caused the RCV to lose public credibility.

Print Friendly

247 Comments »

  • Dennis the sensible one says:

    Good reporting. Does the AJN have this story?

  • frosh says:

    I don’t know.

    I’m still too young to subscribe :-)

    Thankfully, my machatonim do subscribe, so I’ll find out over shabbos :-)

  • Bill K says:

    A bit of common sense at last.
    Kudos to Korbl.

  • Why is it so? says:

    Has anyone else noticed that for as far as I can remember the presidency of the RCV has been in the hands of either a Gutnick or one of the grandsons of Mr Glick of Bagels???

  • I love a good kosher bun-fight. Truly entertaining.

  • Michael,

    I find your comment quite offensive. How would you respond if there was a public conflict between two gay peak bodies, and someone commented: “I love a good gay bun-fight?”

  • David, it would really depend on what they were bickering over. I don’t see much of a comparison though. In any case, nice kosher buns are always worth fighting over.

  • This article is propaganda.

    RCV has never taken a stand against multiple hashgochas, that was never an issue. It cannot be shown that RCV has stated that they are against competition. Where? Prove that they hae taken this as a position?

    What are you trying to imply by saying the COSV has taken to RCV original statment off its website? The COSV has this on their website from the RCV which reinforces the RCV’s original staement here: http://www.cosv.org.au/index.php?article=535
    It is quite clear the issue the RCV is addressing is not competition but rather, it is the highly questionable standards of kashrus RCV is addressing.

    So what is Korbl talking about? And who cares if he ‘scolds’ RCV?

  • There certainly are differences in levels of stringency in kashrus, and the RCV is not debating that point and fully recognises this is. RCV is not worried about mere stringencies here. I applaud their efforts to protect the Yiddishe neshomas. Whether or not people take heed of this warning is their free choice but, the RCV has done its job as Rabbis who are entrusted by Hashem with upholding kedusha in the community.

  • frosh says:

    Ms Silcove,

    In that letter you have linked to:

    “…a detailed list of Halachic rulings and practices was submitted…”

    A yet despite numerous efforts by various people contacting the RCV to obtain this “detailed list”, the RCV has been unable to produce it.

    I put it to you that this new RCV statement is both backpeddling and also (in the common vernacular) BS.

  • Not backpedalling at all, it is clarification after being perhaps misunderstood or unfairly maligned in public.

  • And I am sure if anyone rings the Kosher Australia professionals who know these things, they will be happy to give you all the details, scientific and otherwise, you request. Anyone who is truly interested need only do that.

  • frosh says:

    Ms Silcove,

    Anyone with a bit of seichel can see that the RCV has been caught out, and this latest statement from the RCV is nothing but a cover story.

    Also, what has any of this to do with Kosher Australia? It is implicit from what you have said that Kosher Australia and the RCV are not at arm’s length. Why would KA be privy to the details concerning a dispute between the RCV and and one of KA’s competitors? That would be disgraceful!

    I suggest the RCV get someone professional to represent them on this thread, because despite your best efforts Ms Silcove, you seem to be digging them a bigger hole.

  • Frosh, Anyone with a bit of seichel can see that this article is is just good old fashioned muckraking.

    Why would it be disgraceful if RCV and KA came to the same coclusions? After all, they are all Rabbonim. In fact, it is extremely common for various Rabbinic bodies to support and confirm their respective positions on various halachik and communal issues/problems, even without consutling with each other, especilly within the same city. Why couldn’t KA and the RCV come to the same conclusions halachically? Is that so odd? Is it so unusual? Not at all! Why shouldn’t the Rabbonim then take a stand against something that could be causing Yidden to be making aveiras (sins) G-d forbid? Isn’t that their job? And if they all agree regarding an issue halachically, then anyone with a bit of seichel would see that all these learned Talmidim Chochomim have come to the same conclusion because of Divine Providence and this is what Torah is demading. But one would have to be a believer to come to this conclusion.

  • frosh says:

    Ms S.S,

    The KA is not a rabbinic body – it is a business.

  • ariel says:

    Are we still allowed to eat chickens in Monsey?

  • Frosh,
    Every single hechsher organisation is a business. Is not Kosher V’Yosher a business? Big difference though is that while Kosher V’Yosher is a sole trader (who may or may not be a Rabbi) whose income relies on how many certifications he can bring in on his own without answering to anyone else, KA has a board, chemists, and worldwide respected bonafide Rabbonim who are experts in Hilchos kashrus and are salaried employees, so they have no incentive or cannot be motivated by the bottom line for certifying something as kosher.

  • frosh says:

    Ms Silcove,

    Both Kosher V’Yosher and KA are businesses, that are arguably in competiton with each other.

    That is not the problem.

    The problem is that the RCV (as you have demonstrated yourself) does not appear to have an arm’s length distance from KA.

  • Shoshana, how does that logic apply to the Rubashkin case? Not quite the same scenario, but there was lots of motivation by the bottom line there.

  • FACT: Meir Rabi has not suprevised Food & Desire since 2008
    FACT: The RCV is acting independently of KA
    FACT: London Rabbonim have formally requested removal of the letter he is using
    FACT: Meir Rabi has no problem ‘certifying’ a product and then being it’s distributor.(talk about conflict of interst)
    FACT: Has not produced a Rabbinic ordination document when asked.
    FACT: He protests that no-one talks to him yet evades direct questions from Rabbonim, as Rabbi Telsner attested to in shule last Shabbos.
    FACT: there is no transparency as he conceals how he prosecutes his hechsherim so that they cannot be critically assessed by anyone outside of him–his is a closed shop.

  • Frosh you missed my point. You put forth an interesting conspiracy theory you cannot prove.

    I am asserting that RCV is working independently of KA, and came to their own halachik conclusions on their own. The fact that the RCV may see the issues in the same way as the KA does, is not proof that the RCV and the KA are in some sort of conspiratorial collusion based on profit motive or getting rid of the competition. I assert that the RCV and KA may have come to the same conclusions because they are all learned Rabbonim who have a high level of Torah knowledge and, could all see that these standards of KVY are a problem, and they are all concerned about it.

  • SJa says:

    The conduct of the RCV does strike me as a bit concerning.

    First, it is unclear how and to what extent they actually spoke or wrote to overseas kashrut authorities. Was the information they communicated to those authorities actually reflective of R Rabi’s practices. How did those authorities respond? Anything in writing?

    Second, why wasn’t Rabbi Rabi allowed to at least give a proper response to any concerns the RCV had?

  • Been there and seen it all says:

    Shoshanna Silcove says:
    , the RCV has done its job as Rabbis who are entrusted by Hashem with upholding kedusha in the community.
    >>

    “Kedusha”!? Such BS!!! I cannot believe that Silcove is so naive.

    The rabbis upholding kedusha???? Really??
    Like 90% of their congregants (excepting a few shuls and Chabadhouses- not all mind you, as most Chabad Houses and their rabbis are just as guilty as the mainstream rabbis)) are mechalelei shabbos, ochlei nebelos utreifos, boalei niddos and wouldn’t know what tefilin was unless they were tripped up by a YG boy.

    The RCV is concerned about MRabi!? That is their only problem? Why aren’t they concerned in the slightest about the most fundamental laws of our Torah?

    And even in Shuls where there are a few shabbos observers, eg, Mizrachi and Caulfield, 95% of their members when meeting and greeting a member of the opposite sex (especillay at simchos etc,) does so with a kiss. A clear issur arayos de’orayseh!
    Have you EVER EVER heard one of the RCV rabbis say a word about this?
    Of course not! That would be far too dangerous for themselves and their jobs. (And I suppose parnassa is an excuse. At least to us. In the BD shel maalah? Who knows?)

    But give those same rabbis a soft target like MR and they issue fatwas and ‘frun’ announcemnts every 2nd day.

    And especially, Silcove – the repenting Jewess as she likes to label herself, knows very well what anti-Torah lives many of those rabbis members lead. Why isn’t she preaching to them to do something about it.

  • to Been there and seen it all,
    what are you ranting and raving about? You make NO sense at all!

  • Jeremy says:

    RCV upholding kedusha. ROTFL

  • top says:

    I understood Been There VERY well.
    Makes plenty of sense to me.
    For those who require extra help (like SS) he/she is asking why are the RCV rabbis more concerned about Jews eating from KV hechsher than they are about their members eating treif?

    Must’ve been strange for those people to here their rabbi tell them not to eat at Soho or Lorf of Fries – but not a word about the treifos at KFC and McDonalds

  • moshe t says:

    Can anyone open the RCV website?

    I could only see the very bland home page.

    Help please

  • just wondering says:

    Has the RCV issued any statement regarding the practice of some of its members to carry the sefer Torah into the womens section for the ladies to kiss it? Or about giving Torahs to women to dance with on Simchat Torah?

    Has the RCV sought the views of Rav Wosner on this?

    And what about the rabbis who allow bingo and film nights for the shuls? Is there a policy on this? Muttar? Assur ot Reshut?

  • <>

    yeah, those Rabbis ought to stone or give 40 lashes to all those pig eaters and ignoramuses who come to their shules. They ought to give them lie detector tests at the door. Ask them when was the last time they committed adultery, drove on Shabbos, or ate pig. And then the Rabbis should put into cherem anyone who did. Or give them 40 lashes or stone them.

    SARCASM ALERT

  • Ari says:

    I am not sure what this thread and the “controversial psak” thread resemble more-A brawl at a Katanga kiddush or a sand fight at Gandel Besen? Or perhaps a Katanga kiddush brawl in the Gandel Besen sandpit.

    I’d love to get other people’s thoughts.

  • Harry says:

    I admire Shoshana Silcove for trying so hard that her husbands place of employment (KA) get no new competition.
    This is what a great Jewish wife should be all about.

  • anon says:

    How pathetic

    Any fool can see the difference. These Rabbonim are acutely aware of the issues in their shules. Unlike you who want to dump them, these Rabbis take it upon themselves to minister the multitudes rather than sit back and let them be swallowed by either reform, atheism or other…. instead of belittling the people that make up their congregations they try and keep them going, slowly working on them to improve.

    It should be noted that even in those communities where the congregants with the fancy ‘Jewish clothes’, there are MANY KEY halachos being trampled under foot….

    The STAND OUT PROBLEM with Meir Rabi is CLEAR – he is selling suspect activities as main stream Orthodox Judaism. He misquotes the likes of Rav Wosner and Rav ELiashiv. He takes Dayan Abraham and the LBD out of context and miscontrues the relationship he has with Rav Belsky,leaving the reader to believe that he is closely aligned with KLBD and OU for starters. Two hundred odd years ago, our leaders (particularly the Chasam Sofer) told us to fight this type of activity….

    Interesting to note: He is very closely aligned with the Adass community, with children married to other Adass families. Do they eat his food, do they go to his restaurants or do they stay away from his activities and consider him to be an odd bod.

    If they don’t eat his brand of kosher, obviously it’s not good enough!
    Perhaps they should be kind to their brethern and tell them to be careful… or are the members of Adass eating under his hashgocha…

    When it comes to MK, the Adass PR machine will be out in full force to ridicule and poke fun. Here is a man who sits in their midsr and they are quiet, too quiet by half…..

  • Harry, maybe you and all the people in your circle only do things when they are motivated by money but, there are some people in the world who actually believe in principles higher than that. I support KA because I believe in the important work they do, it is essential to the spiritual will being of our fellow Yidden, it is done with EMES, maybe you do not appreciate any of that, you only see dollar signs.

  • Meir Rabi poses NO threat of competition to anyone’s job or livliehood at KA. Each KA wokee\r is a salaried employee, that includes my husband and all the Rabbis too. This means they do not get a single dollar more for certifying a product or establishment as kosher, contrary to Meir Rabi whose entire income rests on how many clients he can certify (therefore all of Rabi’s halachik opinions could be seen as conflict of interest or ‘bribes’ in the Torah sense of the word).

    My opinions stated on this blog regarding KA have nothing to do with protecting KA’S income, its existence, or my husband’s job. Even if Meir Rabi were to grow and become a large kashrus agency, he would still not pose any threat to KA’s income, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

    And to answer the question posed above, yes, Adass does eat Meir Rabi’s food.

  • willy says:

    From my observations those addass people that accept the KA kashrut will also accept KV. And those who don’t, use neither. While RMR is well accepted in that community he and they understand that he is not focusing on their trade. The vast majority of Adass people rely only on their own kashrut for reaqsons of loyalty as well as being convinced that they have a higher standard.

  • Willy, it’s been my experience that very few Adass people rely on KA, and if they do, then they are usually very hesitant to admit it publicly. It is much more common for the Beis HaTalmud crowd to use the KA kosher list and admit to doing so. The politics of tribalism plays an extremely important role in the choice of a hechsher in the Adass community. This is much more so than in Chabad circles, where many people seem open to eating Adass, however, this is not reciprocated.

  • Chad says:

    Reciprocated?? What reciprocation?? KA and Chabad are 2 separate entities. Chabad people work for ka, but KA is an arm of Mizrachi, not Chabad!

  • Chad says:

    It’s like saying Adass Cheder is Chabad because you send your kids there

  • Let me clarify. I am asserting that while most Chabad people will eat from Adass approved establishments and products with Adass hechsherim, most Adassniks will for the most part only eat their own Adass hechsher. While Chabad people will often eat at an Adass simcha or hire Adass caterers, Adass people will (mainly) not eat at Chabad simchas or eat products that are not approved by their own Adass hechsher (they will eat imported hechsherim Adass approves of). It is not a two way street of acceptance.

    KA is not a Chabad organisation. However, most of the key kashrus officials who are involved in the nitty gritty day to day kashrus decisions, the Rav Hamachshir Rabbi Mordecai Gutnick, Rabbi Barber, Rabbi Oliver, and Rabbi Wajsbort, are all Chabadniks. Does their Chabad background and affilliaton influence their kashrus decisions and standards? Most likley.

  • For instance, while Chabad does generally eat cholov stam, KA will certify cholov stam products as kosher. So while these Chabadnik employees may themselves only hold by eating cholov yisroel, KA does not align itself with Chabad kashrus standards. However, being that the Rav Hamachshir answers kashrus shilohs, it would be logical to assume that he is influenced in his psak dinim by his Chabad background in learning. This should be obivous at it is a logical assumption.

    The fact is that Rabbi Mordecai Gutnick is recognised worldwide as a top expert in Hilchos Kashrus and because of him KA is seen as having an excellent kashrus standard.

  • correction, While Chabad does NOT generally eat cholov stam

  • Kosher house says:

    Shoshanna Silcove says:
    I am asserting that while most Chabad people will eat from Adass approved establishments and products with Adass hechsherim, most Adassniks will for the most part only eat their own Adass hechsher.
    >>

    I think this is because like charedi Jews elswhere, because KA approves chalav akum products, most local charedim consider the hechsher not to be 100%. One also sees that many charedim in the US for that reason rely on charedi rabbonim but rarely on the OU (only). You find that nearly all OU certified products that are available in charedi areas carry a so-called heimish hechsher, eg, KAJ, Nirbator, CRC etc. And OU actually is a great hechsher and most of its staff these days are former talmidim of charedi yeshivos.

    I fully understand that KA has no choice but to approve chalav akum products. After all, the organisation’s owner is Mizrachi and they would and do demand that their employees allow such products.

    I personally have no problem with that.

    But what does worry me are Heinz baby and baked beans etc products which is claimed that the OU has stated are treif because they share machinery with tinned non-kosher and meat products. (and are not kashered at the correct temperature)

    I have also recently heard that OK’s rabbi has made the same comment. As a father of small children I would be pleased to know the 100% truth about this – as feeding doubtful foods to kids, according to chassidish seforim, can cause them to have timtum haleiv – not something desired.

  • Kosher House, All you need to do is call the KA office and ask them. They will certainly address your concerns.

  • By the way, in the kashrus world at large, the reputation for the Adass hechsher is that it is a haymishe hechsher, at least that is how it is referred to in reputable internationally recognised kashrus circles worldwide. This is commonly known. I am not telling any of you anything new.

  • Kosher house says:

    Shoshana I have checked with adass. They tell me that that they approve of heinz tomato sauces – as long as they are manufactured in Aust – not NZ

  • I meant for you to ring KA, not Adass.But you probably knew that, didn’t you? Trying to be a bit cheeky here, are you? I won’t take the bait.

  • Chad says:

    It’s not only baby foods. Me and others have asked the R
    abbis at KA and were told to refer to KA’s faqs. All it says is that KA have decided it is ok, just to trust them. Their Rabbi has also said that these are needed to be approved because of people who are not strict in Kashrus. This should be indicated in the bulletin, so that chreidi people do not eat what is unacceptable to the OU etc. I can’t see where the good Rabbi is influenced by Chabad in his Kashrus.

  • Chad, anyone can write anything anonymously and it can never be verified. There is no reason under the sun I or anyone else should believe you or anyone else on this blog when they make allegations that are made by unkonwn persons. For every whiner who anonymously blogs here and complains about KA, there are literally hundreds of people who have positive things to say but we don’t hear from them here. Then there are those who post/blog about specific second hand unverifiable ‘information’ about specific products etc. Anyone who truly wants to find out answers will. I know KA is extremely amenable to answeing queries. Call the office. That is if you are looking for answers with an emes.

  • Chad says:

    What I am sayiing is well known by Rabbis and laymen from various communities. You, of course will not believe it under any circumstance, due to your connection with KA.
    And being annonymous really does not make much difference, seeing that you write plenty of things that are nit geshtoigen un nit gefloigen under your name.

  • of course it matters if the identity of the blogger is known or not, as seen by your own statement where you made an assumption about how I will opine based on who I am. I will not engage in anymore of this tit for tat with a non-person hiding in the shadows who doesn’t play fair–while you accuse me of being biased because of my husband’s connection to KA, you expect all of us to take what you (whoever the heck you are) state at face value. You could be a mashgiach at KVY or Adass for all we know and that would greatly effect how we see your views. I will only say I have never spread any misinformation, second hand or otherwise regarding any specific products, and I assert for the last time, anyone who is really emesdike(and not just trying make a diatribe against KA) will contact the KA office and find out for themselves. I stand by the RCV statment and with good solid reasons and facts to back me up, not innuendo or slurs from shadowey scared anonymous blog posters. Yes, showing one’s identity gives a huge amount of clout to one’s postings on any blog.

  • Do you know what KA’s biggest problem is? Apathy. People just don’t care enough.

  • Most of the time when these people post that they rang KA about such and such, and KA said such and such, it is a bold-faced lie. I asked them in the office several times about these specific allegations and they tell me they never got these calls that these bloggers post about, and I have no reason not to believe the good folks at KA since the KA staff is much more trustworthy than these anonymous bloggers who spread innuendo while hiding behind their keyboards like little mice. They spread total BUBBAH MISAHS! These lies are made by people who want to try and do everything they can to damage KA because of their own vested interests, whatever those interests may be, (economic, political, or psychological– use your imagination). Yet, as one blogger mentioned quite astutely before, when it comes to Meir Rabi and all the obvious issues with KVY, they are astonishingly silent. Apparantly, they have a big axe to grind, and it is not a kosher axe!

  • frosh says:

    Shoshanna,

    I agree with you that an opinion from a real name is worth far more than an anonymous opinion.

    Interestingly, apart from yourself (our unofficial KA representative), no other commenters who have defamed (or even criticised) Rabbi Rabi have been willing to disclose their identity.

    While on the contrary, Rabbi Rabi has been willing to write under his own name.

  • Frosh, I am not representative of KA, officially or unofficially. You yourself called me irrepressible. Do you think I am their puppet? Think again!

  • frosh says:

    I certainly do not think that you are their puppet. You clearly have your own reasons for being a brand advocate.

  • Yes, Frosh, agreed, except I do not see it a a ‘brand’ per se, as there are real issues of differences in halacha that cause me to support KA over the other kashrus ‘brands’ in our fair city.

  • dovid segal says:

    kosher house you wrote:

    “because KA approves chalav akum products”

    I don’t think that you know what you are talking abuot, there is no way that KA or any other kashrut organization in the world, will aprove chalav akum!

    According to the halacha there are are only two “types” of milks, kosher milks and what is known as “Chalav Israel”, started as “chalav shechalvo akum v’israel roehu” (milk that was milked by a none jew, and a jew saw the milking, and non kosher milks, what is known as “Chalav Akum” that started as “Calav shecholvo akum v’ein israel rooehu” (milk that was milked by a none jew, and a jew didn’t see the milking).

    In a teshuva printed in “Igrot moshe” YD volume 1 responsa 47, dated 19.6.54, wrote r’ moshe feinstein:

    “… ולכן בחלב שאסרו רק בחלבו עכו”ם ואין ישראל רואהו יש להתיר גם בישראל יודעין ידיעה ברורה דהוי כראיה. וזה שאם יערבו יענשו ויצטרכו לסגור העסק שלהם שהוא הרוחה של כמה אלפים והממשלה משגחת אליהם הוא ודאי ידיעה ברורה שהיא כראיה שלא היה בכלל איסורם. וזה הוא גם לכו”ע דאין טעם לחלוק בזה ולכן הרוצה לסמוך ולהקל יש לו טעם גדול ורשאי וכמו שמקילין בזה הרוב בנ”א שומרי תורה וגם הרבה רבנים וח”ו לומר שעושין שלא כדין. אבל מ”מ לבעלי נפש מן הראוי להחמיר ואין בזה משום יוהרא וכך אני נוהג להחמיר לעצמי אבל מי שרוצה להקל הוא עושה כדינא ואין להחשיבו כמזלזל באיסורין.

    ובאם אחד נהג להחמיר אם נאסר מדין מנהג ג’ פעמים תליא אם היתה כוונתו להחמיר אף אם הדין הוא להתיר וכ”ש בידע בעצמו שיש להתיר ומ”מ נהג איסור יש עליו איסור נדר דנהג ג”פ אבל אם החמיר משום שהיה סבור שאסור מדינא או אף רק שאסור מספק וחשב על המקילין שאולי טועין בדין או שאולי הם מזלזלין באיסורין אין עליו דין נדר מצד מנהגו וא”צ היתר…”.

    It wasn’t the only place that he wrote it, he repeated it in many other t’shuvot.

    He wasn’t the only one to say that if there is a law that prohibits mixing in cow milk non kosher ingredients, and the government supervises that the law is kept, than the milk is kosher, see chzon ish YD siman 41, and the steipler in “karyana d’igarta” part 2 siman 123.

    athe anti Zionist Hungarian rabbonim that declared a jihad on r’ moshe, who was the head of Agudas Iarael in America, started a smear campaign full of lies, against many of his “problematic” teshuvot, and among them was the kashrut of what r’ called company milk or chalav stam, that he thought that it is kosher, and started to call it chalav akum, and that is the reason why you called it chalav akum.

  • Watcher says:

    dovid segal says:
    athe anti Zionist Hungarian rabbonim that declared a jihad on r’ moshe, who was the head of Agudas Iarael in America, started a smear campaign full of lies, against many of his “problematic” teshuvot, and among them was the kashrut of what r’ called company milk or chalav stam, that he thought that it is kosher, and started to call it chalav akum, and that is the reason why you called it chalav akum.
    >.

    Dovid you talk total naarishkeitn. “anti Zionist Hungarian rabbonim “!!

    Like the Lubavitcher rebbe, the Bobover rebbe, Ger rebbe, Belz rebbeReb Aharon Kotler, RY Kaminetzky and dozens of other gedolei yisroel who were not Hungarian and not anti-agudah.

    Same with the Israel Rabanut who label it chalav nochri.

    The non-Charedi London Beth Din puts it this way:
    http://www.theus.org.uk/jewish_living/keeping_kosher/keeping_kosher/kosher_product_search/

    > KLBD – Product made under the supervision of or certified by the
    > London Beth Din.
    > *Chalav Yisrael* – Dairy product containing supervised milk.
    > *Dairy* – Dairy product containing *Chalav Akum *(non-supervised milk).

    So Dovid before attacking check your facts.

  • dovid segal says:

    Watcher you wrote:

    “Dovid you talk total naarishkeitn. “anti Zionist Hungarian rabbonim “!!”
    “Like the Lubavitcher rebbe, the Bobover rebbe, Ger rebbe, Belz rebbe, Reb Aharon Kotler, RY Kaminetzky and dozens of other gedolei yisroel who were not Hungarian and not anti-gudah”.

    You are good in quoting names and numbers, but not so good in understanding a few simple lines, or how to covering up the fact that you didn’t read any of their teshuvot, and you are only quoting somebody that is quoting somebody that didn’t read their tshuvot.

    As to your understanding:

    I wrote: “the anti Zionist Hungarian rabbonim that declared a jihad on r’ moshe, who was the head of Agudas Iarael in America, (and) started a smear campaign full of lies, against many of his “problematic” teshuvot, and among them was the kashrut of what r’ called company milk or Chalav Stam”.

    and you wrote in your answer: “Like the Lubavitcher rebbe, the Bobover rebbe, Ger rebbe, Belz rebbe, Reb Aharon Kotler, RY Kaminetzky and dozens of other gedolei yisroel who were not Hungarian and not anti-agudah”.

    did I even try to say that they were the only‏ rabbonim who didn’t agree with r’ moishes opinion on the issue of chalav stam or any other issue, were the Hungarian? what I was talking about was the “smear campaign full of lies, against many of his “problematic” teshuvot”,(see what wrote his grandson and his son in law in מאן מלכי רבנן”, ראש אגרות משה, אורח חיים חלק ה” ,and is psak on chalav hacevrot, and that did only the hungarian rabbonim.

    Do you know of any others that behaved that way?

    See their lies and half truth regarding chalav hachevrot in:

    משנה הלכות חלק ד סי’ קג, חלקת יעקב, יורה דעה סימן לד-לה, תשובות והנהגות ח”א יו”ד סימן תמא וסימן תפ, ח”ב סימן שעג, דברי ישראל יו”ד סימן טו, קנין תורה בהלכה, חלק א, סימן לח.

    you also wrote:

    “and dozens of other gedolei yisroel who were not Hungarian and not anti-agudah”.

    I am not sure what you want us to believe did all those rabbis, but even they they did object to his psak, it doesn’t their opinion to be a daas rabim and his a daas yachid. See

    שו”ת יביע אומר חלק ז – אורח חיים סימן מד:

    “… אולם הנה ידועים דברי המהר”ם בן חביב בספר גט פשוט (בכללים כלל א), כי לא”… נאמר “אחרי רבים להטות” אלא כשכל הדיינים נקבצו ובאו יחדיו ונחלקו פנים אל פנים, וכל אחד מהם אמר טעמו ונימוקו, והרוב עמדו בדעתם, בזה הוא שאמרה תורה אחרי רבים להטות, אבל במחלוקת הפוסקים והמחברים שלא נשאו ונתנו פנים אל פנים, לא אזלינן בתר רובא, והוי ספקא דדינא, כי אפשר שאילו היו נושאים ונותנים ביחד, היו המרובים מודים למועטים, ושכן מוכח בתשובת הרשב”א שהובאה בבית יוסף חו”מ (ס”ס יג). ושכן כתב בשו”ת מהרלנ”ח (בקונטרס הסמיכה דף רעח ע”ג). וכן העלה המהר”א ששון בשו”ת תורת אמת (סימן רז) דמשום האי טעמא כשיש מחלוקת פוסקים בדיני ממונות, המוחזק יכול לטעון קים לי כסברת המיעוט נגד הרוב וכו’. ע”ש. וכ”כ החזון איש (ערלה, ר”ס יז), שידוע שאין כח הרוב מכריע אלא במושב בית דין, אבל במחלוקת חכמים שהיו בדורות שונים או במדינות שונות אין נפקא מינה בין רוב למיעוט”.

    you wrote: “like the Lubavitcher rebbe, the Bobover rebbe, Ger(er) rebbe”.

    I assume that you are saying that they objected to his psak on Chalav Stam who were not Hungarian and not anti-agudah”, I don’t know what and where the Bobover rebbe said it or if he said anything on this topic, but I am sure that the Lubavitcher rebbe, and may be also the Gerer rebbe didn’t say it or even close to it, even that there are those who want us to believe that they said it.

    Where did the rebbe say or write that Chalav Stam is forbiden to drink and is as any Chalav Akum, I know there are those who say that the Lubavitcher rebbe said it, when the truth is that he was talking about “real Chalav Akum”.

    when did the Lubavitcher rebbe say it? I still remember the days when the students of the yeshiva college were served “company milk” in the yeshivah dinning room.

    Which Lubavitcher Rebbe said it?

    the rayatz said about chalav akum is printed in ספר המאמרים (אידיש) ראש עמוד 57:

    “… וכמעשה הידוע וואס איינער איז געקומען מיט זיין איידים, א גרויסער למדן, צום רעבין אין ליאזנא, און האט זיך גיקלאגט אז דער איידים האט זיך תמיד געפירט בהנהגה טובה, נאר פלוצלונג האבן איהם אנגהויבן אריינפאלן ספיקות אין אמונה, און עהר אליין האט דערפון גיהאט גרויס צער, האט איהם דער רבי גיזאגט, אז עהר איז נכשל גיווארן בלא יודעים מיט חלב עכו”ם … וואס חלב עכו”ם והדומה דאס איז א כלי זיין פון דעם יצר הרע …”.

    it is intrestingto see in אג”ק כב, עמוד קלב where the Rebbe writes:

    “… ובפרט ע”פ סיפור הידוע מרבותינו נשיאנו, איך שחלב ישראל דוקא נוגע לחיזוק האמונה, וחלב שחלבו עכו”ם ואין ישראל רואהו, מביא ח”ו לספיקות באמונה, וק”ל”.

    while the rayatz writes “והדומה”.

    the milk there he is talking about is “real” Chalav Akum, and not company milk, that r’ moishe said that it is kosher, and I don’t know of anyone who said that drinking kosher milk brings ספיקות אין אמונה to a person.

    The saying of the Rebbe Rayatz is brought by the last Lubavitcher rebbe zt”l in many igros and in none of them in relation to company milk.

    So my question to you is: which Lubavitcher rebbe said it, and where did he write it?

    Did the rummer start in “t’shuvot v’hanvagot” part 1 YD siman 441, where he writes against r’ moishes heter, and he wrote:

    “ויש להקפיד מאוד על אסור חלב עכו”ם, והאדמו”ר מלובוויץ (רבי יוסף יצחק) קבלה בידו ששתיית חלב עכו”ם פוגם אצלו האמונה”.

    harav shternbuch made a connection between what the rayatz said and what he said himself, while the truth is there is no connection, it is clear to me that the rayatz didn’t talk about chalav akum only, and never said “ויש להקפיד מאוד על אסור חלב עכו”ם”, as he wrote ”וואס חלב עכו”ם והדומה”, and I will add, that it is not clear to me, what is the meaning of והדומה, as there are different opinions if the “timtum hamoach” is only the result of eating forbidden foods, and if it is only if eating foods that are forbidden m’dorayta (isur ceftza) or even when eating foods forbidden m’drabanan (isur cheftza), or it is also the result of doing any forbidden act.

    You also wrote that the Gerer rebbe said so, are you able to say which gerer rabbe was it, and where he said it, as I found written in t’shuvot v’hanvagot” (harac Shternbuch) part 2 YD siman 373:

    “וכן שמעתי מכ”ק האדמו”ר רבי ישראל אלתר זצ”ל (the beis isroel) שבחלב עכו”ם ראוי להחמיר, שיש בזה עוד כמה טעמים, והוסיף, שהקפדה על אי שתיית חלב עכו”ם, מוסיפה ביראת ה’, ועל דברי האחרונים שבזה”ז אין לחשוש כ”כ לחלב טמא, אמר “אין זה כ”כ פשוט”, ונתכוין שיש לזה עוד טעמים כהנ”ל”.

    I am not sure how much of what he writes, was said by the Gerer Rebbea or were his understanding, as he writes:

    “ועל דברי האחרונים שבזה”ז אין לחשוש כ”כ לחלב טמא, אמר “אין זה כ”כ פשוט”, ונתכוין שיש לזה עוד טעמים כהנ”ל”.

    I didn’t see there that he said that Cholov Stam is forbidden, only that “שבחלב עכו”ם ראוי להחמיר”, and my question is, why do we have to believe him, that what he נתכוין is what harav shternbuch thinks that he thought, and why didn’t he ask him what is the meaning of “אין זה כ”כ פשוט”.

    Anyway, where did he say that it isn’t kosher?

    It is not enough to write “dozens of other gedolei yisroel” without telling who they are and what and where they said it.

    You also wrote:

    “Same with the Israel Rabanut who label it chalav nochri”

    I knew it, however there are those who think this is not very smart, see rabbi Waiytman (the rov of “T’nuva” in his article “chalav nochrim b’yameinu” techumin 22 page 468 footnote 5.

    it is clear to me that writing “chalav nochri” is not the same as writing “chalav akum”, while chalav akum is a term used for generations known to describe non kosher milk, and to say that the product is kosher, but you can write that the product contains chalav nochri and the same time also write that the prduct is kosher, as it is a new term, and the inventor that decided to use the term, can give it any meaning that he wants, and in our case to be kosher milk but it is not supervised by a jew.

    In my opinion, the LBD’s description of Dairy*: – Dairy product containing *Chalav Akum *(non-supervised milk), is not more than plain stupid.

  • Yechi says:

    Dovid, everyone who disagrees with is either stupid or Hungarian.

    The London BD know exactly what they write.
    And they, despite not being Hungarian anti-agudists, hold that chalav stam/hacompanies etc is to be considered chalav akum. They still give their OK on such factory products.
    However in the milchik cafes and restaurants in London under their hashgacha, they do not allow non-chalav yisroel.
    Very stupid – no?

    And Rav Moshe Sternbuch is also a Hungarian?

    Really time to check your sources and not simply bash people who disagree with your ‘daas torah’.

  • dovid segal says:

    yechi

    Instead of making statements as a fact, without having any proof, why don’t you try to think for a change.

    I know it is hard for you to do that, as kol hahatchalot kashot, but it will get easier.

    you said:

    “The London BD know exactly what they write”.

    what sounds a very logical proof to you, sounds to me not logical at all.

    And if they, despite not being Hungarian anti-agudists, hold that Chalav Stam/hacompanies etc is to be considered Chalav Akum, and still give their OK on such factory products. However in the milchik cafes and restaurants in London under their hashgacha, they do not allow non-chalav yisroel, says only one thing, that they are not only very smart but very stupid.

    I knew that Harav moshe Sternbuch isn’t an Hungarian by birth, but I also know that he is an Hungarian by mentality. It comes with the job.

    I check my sources and not simply bash people who disagree with with my opinion, which is much more than you do, but I don’t blame you for not checking, as you don’t know where to start.don’t know where to start.

  • Yechi says:

    Dovid
    Looks like your know EVERYTHING and everyone else is either stupid, Hungarian by birth, Hungarian by Mentality or Hungarian by their show size.

    Well, to be totally frank, give a Hungarian any day – rather than a puffed up know-all

  • dovid segal says:

    Yechi

    shavua tov

    what is it that is bothering you?

    id it that I know more than you?

    I can assure you, that it is not something to be proud off, or something that will make me or anybody else a Baal Gaava.

  • Brooklyn Yukel says:

    Shoshana Silcove,
    When did you go from being an anti establishment truth fighter who had the guts to take on the powerful Lubob p.r bulldozer machine with it’s false messiah doctrines and it’s self centered hero worship to being an enabler of another Lubob controlled monopoly??
    I hope it’s not something in Melbournes water!
    I also noticed that on your blog you have veered heavily back into Lubob/Rebbe worship.You know I was counting on you as one of the few normal Lubavitchers, now you’ve joined the Millhouse crowd.
    Scary

  • Brooklyn Yukel says:

    Dovid Segal,
    I really enjoyed your knowledgeable analysis of Cholov Yisroel and what is known as “cholov stam”.
    I think it’s important to note that R’Moshe Feinsteins ruling was that in America or another country where the law forbids mixing pigs milk it would be permissable according to all opinions (besides what he calls a baal nefesh).In truth, however, it is actually a machloikes rishoinim and Achroinim whether this prohibition applies when the farmer has no “unkosher animals in his flock” The Pri Chodosh actually rules that it is permissable.R’Moshes innovation was that EVEN according to the opinion that does not accept this leniency, it is still permissible.
    It is important to note that Cholov Akum is an “issur derabonon” and generally we are more lenient in such prohibitions.
    I am perplexed by the quote you have from Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok of Lubavitch, that Cholv Akum (vehadomeh) causes “sefeikos be’emuno”.
    How can such a quote be used in a halachik argument?Off course if one is a Lubavitcher they should follow their rabbis, but what is Rabbi Sternbuch doing by using such an (unsourced) argument?We have rules of Torah that cannot be “won” by claiming some kind of divine inspiration to say it’s prohibited.Loh bashomayim hi.In fact a great rabbi was excommunicated for using divine intervention to try and win a halachik debate.
    I really would like a explanation why an issur derabonon would somehow be more “metamtem es halev” than an issur deoyraysah, and therefore we would not rely on a leniency beissur derabonon?
    Small example:According to almost all Rishoinim, chodosh is noheg bechutz lo’oretz, Even in a harvest owned by a gentile.This is the psak of the shulchan Oruch in yoreh de’ah 293 .(The Ba”ch was lenient about a gentile harvest)We have not heard of Lubavitchers being very machmir in this, nor have we heard any claims that eating chodosh will cause “doubts in emunah”
    I just cann’t understand how this would be a halachik consideration

  • Brooklyn Yukel, it is clear you never really knew me, you only knew one dimension of me. I have not changed, my committment and my opinions about the Rebbe has always been the same as they are now.
    I have never been anti-establishment as you claim. What is the establishment anyway? I have always been in the ‘camp’ of the “Yudel Krinsky- Merkos-Agudas Chassidei Chabad-anti Meshichsit-pro-Dovid Fischer” faction. That is one establishment. When my son was in Yeshiva College I went up againt the Yeshiva Executives, so in that instance I was anti-establishment. There is no real Chabad establishment per se. And if you scroll down my blog you will see “My Rant on Igros Voodo” which is an extremely hard hitting condemnation of a widely observed practice by many in Chabad today. And in the present case of the RCV vs Meir Rabi, I stand with the establishment because I believe that is the correct position to take. I disagreed strongly with Rabbi Telsner on the Yechi sign in shule, but agree with him on his stand against KVY. So you see, you cannot put me into a box. I do not follow some party line. I am a thinker, and take each issue as it comes. Also, my blog is not all about controversial issues alone, but it is also meant to inspire people with the beauty of Yiddishkeit and the Lubavtich Rebbe as I see it.

  • zalman says:

    Yukel, Shoshana is Shoshana. and she well knows on which side her bread is buttered (with non-cholov-yisroel butter – approved by the KA)

    Hubby Chaim has for many years been paid by KA – thus despite everything that she may think, KA is perfect and woe betide anyone who tries to encroach on their turf, eg KVY.

    And amazingly, although she (and Chaim and RM Gutnick [both] and Yanky Barber) are devout Chabadniks, they seem to totally ignore/abuse the POV of the last rebbe the Reyatz re unsupervised milk causing timtum halev.

    A prominent visiting Chabad rabbi with family here who saw the many families who were having problems with children who have ‘frayed out’ said that he hadn’t the slightest doubt that this was the result of allowing children to eat and drink non-cholov yisroel – including shakes, Big Ms, mars bars and all the other ice cream and confectionary lines.

    he told us that in places where the kids did not eat these questionable products, there are far less problems.

  • Zalman,
    Why don’t you tell us who you are? After all, you are such a great man of vision who knows exactly why Chabad children went off the derech, as if The Abishter told you Himself! And we all also know that children in other chereidi communities who do eat perfect cholov yisroel ,all under a Chassidisha hechsher of course, not a ‘frie’ one like Mizrachi (sarcasm alert), never went off the derech, not ever, not once! Of course you Zalman being a man of great holy vision, you should avail of us of your wise leadership because I am certain if you were in charge of KA you would be a benevolent dictator and ensure that every single Jew in Melbourne would only eat cholov yisroel and make sure no other kosher milchigs would be available in all of Melbouurne! Yes, things would be so much better under your wise leadership–I can see it now, kosher sushi at every Chinese food joint in the city every alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays, the only kosher cheese allowed in the city would be Tempo, and none of those Chabadniks in charge any kashrus organisations, only Meir Rabi and Adass, a match made in heaven.

  • Now without sarcasm—Is it better for Jews who are not Chassidim per se to eat non-kosher milchigs or chalav akum? Perhaps Zalman would rather they all eat treife milchigs?

    We all know that Chassidim go mehudar mitzvah. Other Jews may not hold to that level. Cholov akum is kosher, isn’t it Zalman?

  • CORRECTION–by mistake I wrote ‘cholov akum’, I meant to write ‘CHOLOV STAM’ as that is the correct term. (lest David Segal lecture me)

  • zalman says:

    What is better or not I don’t know. But I do know that many of our Chabad families in melb have got problems with their children (and you Shoshana know this very well).

    So if a respected Chabad talmid chacham tells me what he think the reason is, I can accept it.

    And yes according to most poskim, what you call chalav stam is actually chalav akum and is treif. And if by accident you boiled it up in a pot – you must kasher that pot. Please check this with any of the KA rabbis -if you have any doubts

  • zalman says:

    Oh, and Shoshana, about time you got over your Meir Rabi obsession.
    We heard you the first 300 times,

  • Brooklyn Yukel says:

    Zalman
    I”d rather not play Hashem here and “know” why kids are feeling religously challenged.
    What I can tell you is that as Dovid Segal pointed out the story with the Baal Hatanya was with REAL cholov akum, not milk that R’Moshe Feistein a leading decisor in life and death issues ruled was permissable.
    Taking the liberty in calling something R’Moshe ruled was muttar “treif” sounds like a severe case of “timtum halev”
    Btw, today there is a very serious question of tarfus in milk, nothing to do with cholov yisroel, rather with a veterinary procedure done to cows where there is a puncture made in their intestines to release a build of cas do to their unhealthy feed

  • It’s amazing that the likes of Zalman and Broklyn Yukel are supposedly so learned in halacha yet, we don’t even know who they are. They remin obscured in the shadows like scared rabbits, typing secretly from their keyboards. Are they expecting people to accept all their halachik insights and deep Torah thoughts and then run to the Rabbis and tell them they were doing it all wrong? Are they expecting the Rabbis to read their blog comments and change their ways?

    The fact is that Rabbi Gutnick, a respected worldwide kashrus authority disagrees with the likes of the shadowey rabbits and has paskened, as have many other respected Rabbonim, that cholov stam is indeed kosher. The fact is that KA is the premier kashrus organisation of this city and these typing rabbits will not change that. The typing rabbits must not only be scared but frustrated too. So they get snarky at me and throw out half truths and innuendo and slander from their hiding places like little rabbits who throw out little pebbles at a giant and then sucrry back into the safety of their rabbit holes

  • Ben says:

    Harav Moshe Feinstein does say, that when producing Cholov Yisroel, the pasteuriser needs to be kashered at a minimum of 212F (100c) after the pasteuriser was used for not cholov yisroel(even after not cy milk that he gave a heter for). That says a lot.

  • Brooklyn Yukel says:

    Shoshana,
    Please don’t get carried away.
    I actually said that R’Moshe Feinstein was matir.
    I just pointed out a general problem with ALL milk.Reread the comment,please

  • Brooklyn Yukel, I am not getting carried away, I am attempting to jest.

    All you anonymous rabbits area joke to me. None of you have the guts or integrity to come out of the closet while you impugne my motivations and get snarky and spread loshon hora about fine Yidden who work hard to ensure all of you (EVEN YOU INGRATES AND PIOUS FRAUDS WHO WANT TO DESTROY AND NOT BUILD) don’t eat treife.

    By the way, the OU accepts cholov stam is KOSHER but I guess some of you weak cowards in the shadows (who probably are henpecked by your wives too) know better than they do, wheoever the heck you are.

    Most of you are so Australian. Know why I say that? You have that famous Aussie propensity to be jealous of people who achieve things you cannot, to be jealous of those who have greater stature than yourself, to want to be top dog even if you do not have a clue what you are talking about, because you simply cannot stand the fact that it is NOT you are your people who are the ones on top, so you have to tear them down, and you try to hide all that in a holy garment, but the truth is you suffer from the TALL POPPY SYNDROME.

  • Zalman says, “What is better or not I don’t know. But I do know that many of our Chabad families in melb have got problems with their children (and you Shoshana know this very well).

    So if a respected Chabad talmid chacham tells me what he think the reason is, I can accept it.”

    Your whole theory is bunk Zalman, because Chabad families DO NOT EAT CHOLOV STAM therefore this cannot be the reason they are having problems, can it? And you care so much about our Chabad children NOT!

  • MML says:

    Shoshana check your facts. You don’t half know what is going on.
    Most of the kids in YBR will – when outside – eat anything on the KA list (even if at hoome the parents won’t have chalav stam.

    And of course for a long time cholov akum was served to the kids in [Eds: Name of institution removed*]. Hey, I was there myself.

    * Eds: MML if you feel strongly about publishing this allegation with the institution named, please email us at editorial AT galusaustralis DOT com with your full name, verifying that it is in fact true

  • <<<>>>

    These are NOT facts but absolute and pure LOSHON HORA and you are really evil for posting these lies. You are so frum you worry about the minute details of hilchos kashrus yet you anonymously spout such disgusting slander against the entire Chabad community–you are truly vile.

    Every devoted Chabad family I know holds by cholov yisroel inside the house and outside and so do their children. And that is a FACT!

  • I strongly suspect Zalman and MML are the same person posting but we won’t know unless they fess up to being so dishonest.

  • Shoshana,

    1. People choose to post anonymously on web sites such as these for many legitimate reasons. It is wrong of you to attack them for this and to discredit what they have to say simply because they don’t put their name to it. I for one would much rather see you respond to the substantive issues raised instead of “playing the man” and speculating on who the individuals may or may not be, and what their motives for writing are.

    2. Re “Every devoted Chabad family I know …”. I don’t know how many devoted (or not-so-devoted) Chabad families you know; it’s quite incredible that you can state as a “FACT” what their (and their children’s) observance of CY is. I think there are probably plenty of Chabad families who eat the “chalav stam” that are certified by the KA. The FACT is that neither of us know what level of kashrut people observe.

    zalman,

    While Chabad custom is to be very stringent regarding “chalav akum”, drawing any causal relationship between that and the problems their children have with frumkeit is as absurd as the people in Boro Park blaming tragedies on people using the Eruv.

    Did he suggest that if they give up their Mars bars, they will suddenly become frum again? Is it really such a simple formula? How careful we are in observing kashrut is just one of so many factors that influence how frum (we and) our children stay.

  • David, First point :I only bring up their anonymous status of their posts because they know who I am, and they use their knowledge of my identity to attack me (like saying my husband works for KA therefore I am bribed, etc.)and that is really hitting below the belt and unfair. How dare these hidden scared rabbits hit at me when they hide and I cannot hit back? They are despicable for doing that!

    David, second point: And I state that the Lubavtichers I know for a FACT, yes, a fact, only eat cholov yisroel. I did not say all Lubavitchers do so, and I think that I can state what I know to be true from my own experience.

  • MML & editors,

    I can personally attest that many years ago at Yeshivah College, we received daily bottles of “chalav akum/stam” milk provided by the government. Between that and the flouride, I only see my dentist every six months :)

    Shoshanna,

    By responding to their “personal attacks” with same, you only bring down the level of the whole discussion.

    That said, it is not reasonable for anyone to suggest that your views of KA are entirely unbiased. Because your husband works there, you are nogeya b’davar, and even if this does not influence your opinion on a subconscious level, you view is perceived by readers as not an independent one.

    While I haven’t seen anyone say you were bribed, and am not suggesting this for an instant, consider the Torah view of how “shochad” automatically influences a judge, and the lengths to which some amora’im went to avoid conflict of interest in that role.

  • David, but these cowardly anonymous rabbits bring in all other kinds of personal attacks against me besides my husband’s job, and that is despicable! And we do not know who they are, they could very well be working for Adass or KVY or have another connecton and they are just as biased from that. So you see, putting down one’s name, while it may be the more ethical thing to do, it opens one up to be attacked by cowardly swine. I have broad shoulders but that doesn’t mean I sit and take it like a shmatte, that I will never do.

    As far as the cholov stam being delivered to Yeshiva College, as we all know that is a community school catering to many non-Chassidic families who hold by cholov stam, so this in no way proves that Chassidic children drink it. As a matter of fact, in my experience 25 years in Lubav (in NY for over a decade and here for the rest) any Chabadnik worth their Chabad stripes is strictly cholov yisroel and so are their kids (unless they go against their parents and cheat but that is a different story).

  • And if anyone thinks that ‘Zalman” really sincerely cries over Chabad children going off the derech, G-d forbid, then I have a great piece of land in Qld I’d love to sell you. ‘Zalman’ uses all his ‘holy halachic’ points as knives to attack the enemy (in this case KA) with.

  • Inkerman says:

    Mrs Silcove, you just don’t get it. Anyone who or whose spouse works for an organisation such as Kashrus, will not be taken seriously when saying how good they are. It doesn’t matter that all those posting are annonymous weasels, cowards, rabbits and all the others, which includes myself. You can rave and rant on and on, the great majority reading this think you are talking from conflict of interest. You are living of the wages from KA, therefore Al Pi Torah and common sense, you cannot be impartial. You would be the last person one would ask answers about the issues at KA.

    Regarding those having a go at you, this is the way these blogs work. Things get personal and nasty things can be said(from which you are also not immune to writing). No one takes these blogs very seriously, that is one reason why 99.5% post annonymously. Anyone posting with their real name, especially controversially must be ready to accept personal abuse, especially when this poster does the same. Personally, I think you’re crazy for revealing your name and making yourself a target. All you end up is with abuse and it doesn’t do much for your name, and nothing positive comes from it. A while back in this or one of a similar thread you were bashing Rabbi Rabi. A fellow poster “Jason” who was also bashing the Rabbi, told you to shut up. And this is by someone on the same team as you. Who needs it? Unless, of course, you get some enjoyment out of it.

  • Inkerman, if you believe that blogs are not taken seriously then why do you bother? Seems to me you would be crazy to waste time on something that no one cares about, unless you enjoy it.
    Anyone who posts anonymously is not taken seriously, but my experience has been that whenever I did post under my real name I was taken seriously and in fact, my postings have actually changed some people’s minds and actions. I also found that many people agreed with me on all kinds of issues and gave me encouragement for having the courage to say what they are too scared to say. As far as the abuse, don’t worry, I can take it, and am not losing any sleep over it.

  • zalman says:

    David Werdiger says:
    zalman,
    Did he suggest that if they give up their Mars bars, they will suddenly become frum again? Is it really such a simple formula?

    Sadly not. Timtum halev is not that easy to wipe out.

    Check with your kids and ask them what percentage of their friends are makpid on cholov yisroel products. You may be shocked.

  • Zalman, what is your point? Have you made your own survey of Lubav kids’ eating habits? Do you realize that you are slandering the entire Chabad community here? Why would you slander the Chabad community by asserting that they are lax with kashrus or that they are bad parents? What is the axe you are grinding? Are you an Adassnik or a mashgiach for Adass with a chip on your shoulder against Chabad and KA? What is your objective on this blog other than spewing your sinas chinam and stirring up machlokes? All done in the guise of a holy garb of course, with a slew of halachas under your belt, a bunch of loshon hora stories, and innuendos for good measure. Not nice at all. And certainly you are using the kashrus issue as a weapon against those Jews you perceive as unworthy. You said you believe cholov stam is trefie and then you assert Chabad kids eat cholov stam. Who exactly do you think you are, a ‘holy’ self righteous dude, whoever you are, to assert that Chabad kids eat trefios? Very nasty indeed!

  • dovid segal says:

    yukel.

    My intrest in the topic of Chalav Israel, started only after I went to NZ to supervise the milking of cows for the production of milk powder, and what I saw there was a million light years from what I knew, when I returned to Australia I decided to study the topic of Chalav Israel, and I came to the conclusion that even though the final product had the hechsher of the badatz, if it was kosher, it was only because r’ Moishe’s Heter.

    You wrote:

    “it’s important to note that R’Moshe Feinsteins ruling was that in America or another country where the law forbids mixing pigs milk it would be permissible according to all opinions (besides what he calls a baal nefesh”.

    Did I miss something?

    R’ moishe never wrote, that it isn’t permissible to a baal nefesh, but wrote that a baal nefesh should and allowed l’hachmir. see שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן מז
    אבל מ”מ לבעלי נפש מן הראוי להחמיר, ואין בזה משום יוהרא, וכך אני נוהג להחמיר לעצמי, אבל מי שרוצה להקל הוא עושה כדינא, ואין להחשיבו כמזלזל באיסורין

    You also wrote:

    “I am perplexed … but what is Rabbi Sternbuch doing by using such an (unsourced) argument?

    He is using that in the machloket agaist r’ moshe, that wasn’t a machloket in halacha, but it was what people call “dirty politics”, and in such a war anything goes.

    A few month ego when Harav landau from Bnei Brak lost his contract for the Hashgocho in the shtraus factory to harav rubin from Rehovot, he started with a campaign against him, and called him in public a מקיל for using surveillance cameras in the milking sheds, and when asked what is the problem with surveillance cameras, he answered that it is a chumra al pi kabolo!

    On the topic of surveillance cameras in the milking sheds, see Harav Z. Weitman in Tcumhin 22 from page 466.

    “We have not heard of Lubavitchers being very machmir in this”
    there is a long article written by Harav C. Rapporton on this topic in “Pardes Chabad” no. 13 pages 213-229 where he points to the alter rebbe who wrote in שלחן ערוך הרב אורח חיים הלכות פסח סימן תפט סוף סעיף ל: “אבל כל בעל נפש לא יסמוך על המתירים הללו, ויחמיר לעצמו בכל מה שאפשר לו, כהסכמת רוב הראשונים והאחרונים, שהחדש נוהג מן
    התורה אף בחוץ לארץ ובכל מקום אף בשל נכרים, כי כן עיקר

    I saw many who point to the teshuva of harav breish in chelkas yaakov YD 34, where he wrote against r’ moishe’s heter, but I didn’t see even one posek from all thouse macmirim, who pointed to his tshuva in YD 30 where he wrote:

    ובזמן האחרון נתרבו המערערים מפני חשש זיוף השמן, ואף כשנכתב על הקופסא שמן זית נקי, ובפרט בארץ איטליא נתגלה בזמן האחרון זיוף גדול בענין זה, ולאו כל הארצות והממשלות שוין בזה. ושמעתי שבעיר לונדון ועוד מקומות החרדים התחילו להיזהר בזה. ובכל אופן עכ”פ צריכין להיזהר לבחור בסארדינען הבאים מאלו המקומות ששם שמן זית או שמן צמחים מצוי ביותר, ועל הקופסא יהי’ כתוב שמן זית או צמחים והממשלה בשם קפדנית ולא מקבלי שוחדא, וכאמור שלאו כל הממשלות שוות בזה
    Or to the teshuva of his son, that is printed in Chelkat Yaakov YD 31 (9) where he writes about the same topic:
    ט) מכל הנ”ל מתבאר דלכו”ע אפשר לסמוך להתירא במה שכתוב על הקופסא הן לגבי הדג עצמו והן לגבי השמן שבתוכם, כיון שבתי החרושת שעליהם פיקוח הממשלה, בודאי דין אומן להם דלא מרעי אומנותייהו. ואפילו אם מתגלה פעם איזה זיוף של בית חרושת אחד, אמרינן כה”ג כל דפריש מרובא פריש כמבואר ברמ”א סימן קי”ד סע”י, ובמדינה דרוב בתי חרושת מירתתי מפיקוח הממשלה שפיר איכא למיסמך להתירא
    _____________

    ben

    you wrote:

    I assume that you are talking about what he said in שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ב סימן לא, but it says a lot only to person that didn’t see the tshuva or didn’t understand what he wrote, as in the and of this tshuva he wrote:

    והנה בספרי אגרות משה על יו”ד בארתי טעם גדול שחלב הקאמפאניעס אינם בדין חלב עכו”ם אבל מ”מ ראוי להחמיר עיי”ש ולכן כשרוצים להחמיר יש להם להכשיר כמו מחלב עכו”ם שצריך שתי הגעלות כדלעיל

    He made it clear, that this Psak is only for the people that want to to be “Machmir”, and consider “company milk” as Chalav Akum”.

  • Inkerman says:

    Dovid, In the teshuva you bring, RM says Rouh lehachmir, which means one should be machmir not to drink cholov
    hacompanies(or that the correct thing is to drink only supervised milk) and ch y needs a proper kashering. In another Teshuva (you will know better than me where) he writes that he cannot asser cholov hacompanies because a lot of people are drinking it. That sounds like a heter beshaas hadechak(in other words he had no choice but to allow it).

    Also, I can’t see how oil is relevant here. Milk is a gezeroh. Oil is not.

  • talmid says:

    In the last volume of Igros Moshe he writes that chalav hacompanies hetter is only beshaas hadchak. Which of course would meaqn that in cases of necessity – and NOT for luxuries eg ice cream chocolate bars and milk shakes

  • kalman says:

    hi david segal, I have a question for you or anyone else that cares to comment.

    have you ever seen, or know of anyone who has seen, packaged or bulk pigs milk of any description in any retail outlet or any commercial dairy or any farmers dairy anywhere in the western world? if yes, please provide proof, country of origin and location of pig milk production facility

  • dovid segal says:

    Inkerman

    you wrote:

    “… In another Teshuva (you will know better than me where) he writes that he cannot asser cholov hacompanies because a lot of people are drinking it. That sounds like a heter beshaas hadechak (in other words he had no choice but to allow it)”.

    A heter like this sounds more like a heter of ”מוטב יהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין”, and not as a heter of beshaas hadechak, but the truth is that RMF never wrote this, and it is just another lie that hit the fan.

    In his tshuva in חלק יו”ד א סימן מז he wrote:

    זה הוא גם לכו”ע, דאין טעם לחלוק בזה, ולכן הרוצה לסמוך ולהקל יש לו טעם גדול, ורשאי, וכמו שמקילין בזה הרוב בנ”א שומרי תורה, וגם הרבה רבנים, וח”ו לומר שעושין שלא כדין. אבל מ”מ לבעלי נפש מן הראוי להחמיר, ואין בזה משום יוהרא, וכך אני נוהג להחמיר לעצמי, אבל מי שרוצה להקל הוא עושה כדינא, ואין להחשיבו כמזלזל באיסורין

    I think that this misinformation started by Harav Menashe klein who wrote inשו”ת “משנה הלכות” חלק ד סימן קג

    ובאמת כי גם הגאון ר’ משה שליט”א כנראה דרק ענותנותו שנו כאן, ואהבת ישראל שבו חפש אחר היתר, וכמ”ש בספרו כי א”א שהרבה בני תורה ואפילו מרבנים ששותים סתם חלב, עוברים כולם באיסור ושלא כדין עושים, וגם בעצמו כתב שהוא שותה רק חלב ישראל, וכן אמר לי מפורש שבביתו ח”ו אין נכנס חלב עכו”ם, לא מיניה ולא מקצתו, וכבר אמרו דהלכה שאינו מוסר עצמו עליה, כלומר שאינו עושה כפסקו אינה מתקיימת

    how can he say that his explanation in what r’ moshe wrote is correct, when he tells about a discussion that he had with r’ moishe about his heter, but he didn’t ask him, if his Heter is only a limud zchus.

    How can harav klein be trusted, in what he writes:

    כמ”ש בספרו כי א”א שהרבה בני תורה ואפילו מרבנים ששותים סתם חלב עוברים כולם באיסור ושלא כדין עושים, that his heter was only a limud zchus, when it is clear from his tshuva that r’ moshe brings it as proof, that company milk is kosher milk.

    you wrote:

    “Also, I can’t see how oil is relevant here. Milk is a gezeroh. Oil is not”.

    What is clear to you, is not so clear to many, the gzeiro is not in the gemoro-bavli v’kol shekein not in yerushalmi, not in the rambam or the shulchan aruch.

    we find that in a case where the goy is מרתת even milk that was milked by a goy is kosher. See רמ”א בהגהה יו”ד, סימן קטו, סעיף א:

    ושפחות שחולבות הבהמות בבית ישראל, או בדיר שלהם, כל מקום שאין בית עובד כוכבים מפסיק, ואין לחוש לדבר טמא, מותר, אפילו לכתחלה, להניח אותן לחלוב, אע”פ שאין שם ישראל כלל, דמאחר שהוא בבית ישראל, או בשכונתו, אין לחוש לדבר טמא, … ואפילו ישראל קטן או קטנה מועילים, דהעובד כוכבים מרתת לפניהם

    also see the Ramo in “Torat Hachatat” klalim 81-83 siman 8.

    the ramo’s makor for mirtas by chalav akum is in the gmora עבודה זרה דף לט עמוד ב

    יושב ישראל בצד עדרו של עובד כוכבים, ועובד כוכבים חולב לו ומביא לו, ואינו חושש. היכי דמי? אי דליכא דבר טמא בעדרו, פשיטא! ואי דאיכא דבר טמא בעדרו, אמאי? לעולם דאיכא דבר טמא, וכי קאי חזי ליה, וכי יתיב לא חזי ליה, מהו דתימא: כיון דיתיב לא חזי ליה, ניחוש דלמא מייתי ומערב ביה, קמ”ל: כיון דכי קאי חזי ליה, אירתותי מירתת ולא מיערב ביה

    R’ moishe who said that it was a gzeiro, said that we don’t care why he is mirtas, see שו”ת אגרות משה חלק יו”ד א’ סימן מו:

    ומש”כ כתר”ה לשון לאלה המזדהרים מסתם חלב הבא מנכרים תמוה דהאלו שאין נזהרין מת”ח ויר”ש הוא רק מחלב של הקאמפאניעס מטעם גדול שמירתתי לערב אף משהו מצד השגחת דיני המדינה שעונשין ע”ז ובמירתת לא גזרו כי הא דישראל יושב בצד עדרו של עכו”ם שמותר אף דלא חזי ליה כיון שיכול לראותו כשיעמוד מירתת בע”ז דף ל”ט ועיין ברמב”ם פ”ג ממ”א הי”ז לכן סברי דגם במירתת זה של עונש חוקי המדינה לא הי’ בכלל הגזרה ולע”ד מסתבר שהדין כמותם. אבל ליקח חלב מפארמער נכרי נזהרין כל ישראל בני אשכנז דלא כרדב”ז ופר”ח ועיין בחת”ס סימן ק”ז ועובדא דכתר”ה איירי בפארמער

    wasn’t מרתת the the taam l’heter that was given by the chelkas yaakov why sardines are kosher? And while in his teshuva about company milk he tells a storyוסיפר לי הה”ג … ששמע מאיש מלומד וחרדי הגר בשווייץ במקום ההרים הגבוהים, וראו בכל בפעם שפחה אחת בימות הקיץ שהביאה שני כדים חלב מההרים הגבוהים למטה, ושאלה הלא מהנענוע וטלטול הדרך מגבוה לנמוך ובימות החום הלא החלב מתקלקל, וענתה שהיא נותנת בו בכל פעם מעט חלב חמורה, ואף שמחירו יותר מהטהור, אבל מועיל שלא יתקלקל החלב מהחום וטלטול הדרך, אף שגם בשווייץ יש איסור מהממשלה לערב חלב טמא, בכל זאת לא מרתתא, אי משום אמתלא דלא יתקלקל החלב, אי משום דמעט כזה מחלב טמא א”א להבחין בכימיא שזהו עיקר פיקוחה של הממשלה שיכולה בכל פעם להבחין בכימיא, … כמובן שאינני רוצה להעמיד יסוד על דברי השפחה הלזו, אבל מ”מ רואין אנו שעל ידי איזו סיבה יש אפשרות לערב חלב טמא אף בזה”ז (בפרט כעת שהטכניקא והפיזיקא בעולם צעדו כל כך קדימה, שיכולין לעשות משחור לבן וגם איפכא, שמעתי שכבר יכולים היום להעמיד חלב טמא לגבינה וחמאה ע”י סיוע הכימיא) ואם נתיר כהיום חלב סתמא, למחר או למחרתיים כשיהיה באמת חששא דחלב טמא, לא יצייתו לנו ויאמרו אשתקד מי לא אכלנו וכו’ but when it comes to sardines and oil, everything has changed – the government is checking every sardine and every drop of oil, and there is no way that a chemical test will not be able to find the mixing.

    Will he also tell the story of monsey (http://israel613.com/KASHRUT-monsey-kruka-8-NEWS.htm), and add: “i am not saying that every hashgocho organization that is run by a person that wears a htreimel is questionable, but I am saying that there is a possibility that a shtreimel bearer will give an hechsher to non kosher poultry?

    Why not?

    Because when halacha says, that that something is permmited because the person is Mirtas, it doesn’t say that every person will be Mirtas in the same case, but that as most people will behave that way, we can assume that the person in question behaved in the same condition, even there are people that will behave in another way, and only when we know that there is a “Miut Hmotzuy” that doesn’t behave lieke the rov we have to check every case by itself.

    horror stories are also told by others. harav chaim palagge (izmir, turkey, 1788-1889) tells in his book (גנזי-חיים (מערכת החית אות סב:

    ועתה חדשות אני מגיד, כי בא אלי יהודי כשר והעיד, איך ראה לגוי אחד שערב חלב בהמה טהורה בחלב טמאה. ושאלו לו: על מה ולמה עשית זאת? והשיב, כי לפעמים אינו נמכר החלב באותו יום ומחמיץ, וע”י נתינת חלב טמאה בתוך החלב הטהור מעמידו לבל יתחמץ, וע”י נתינת חלב בהמה טמאה בתוך החלב הטהור מעמידו לבל יתחמץ. על כן צריך כל ירא ה’ להזהר שלא ישתה מחלבשחלבו גוי ואין ישראל רואה. גם יראה שיגער באחרים ששותים, שיגער בהם עד כמה שידו מגעת

    the Oruch Hashulchn writes in YD siman 115:

    ליתר שאת אברר לך איך שכל דברי רבותינו קדושים הם כגחלי אש, מה שהתוודה לפני אחד מבעלי הבתים החשובים בלב נשבר, מה שהיה נוהג מחוץ לביתו בעיר גדולה שנהגו בה היתר שהיו קונים כל בוקר חלב שמן מהנכרי שחלבו גוי. ופעם התחילו לחקור ביניהם מאין לוקח החנוני הקטן כל כך הרבה חלב שמן, ושאלו אותו, ואמר שקונה באטליז של בשר מוח של בהמות וממחה אותו בחלב ומבשלם יחד וכו’. והבעל הבית התודה בפני, וצעק בקול גדול כמה גדולים דברי חכמים. וכך מקובלנו, שכל גזירת חכמים – לבד הטעמים הגלויים לנו, יש עוד טעמים כמוסים שלא גילו לנו חכמים. וביחוד ששמעתי, באמריקה יש רבים מהאומות ששותים חלב חזיר שמצוי הרבה

    those 2 stories are brought by harav Bakshi-Doron (chief sefaradi rabbi of Israel) in Tchumin 23 page 468, but are they proof that r’ moshe was wrong when he wrote that government controls have a din of mirtas?

    Not really.

    harav whitman wrote In tchumin 22 page 460 footnote 21:

    בחלקת-יעקב (יו”ד סי’ לד) הביא הרב ברייש מציריך בשם… ששמע מאיש מלומד וחרדי הגר בשוויץ בהרים הגבוהים, שראה אשה שהורידה כדי חלב מההרים בימות הקיץ. לשאלתו, כיצד החלב לא מתקלקל בטלטולי הדרך והחום, ענתה שהיא מערבת מעט חלב אתון, ואף שמחירו יקר יותר, הוא מסייע שלא יתקלקל. היא גם איננה חוששת מאיסור הממשלה בשוויץ לערב חלב, או שמא יגלו זאת. סיפורים דומים שמעתי גם מרב באיטליה וגם בספרד, אך אני מפקפק מאוד באמיתותם. גם אם חולבים בהמות אסורות, אין שוטים שיערבו חלב זה בחלב פרות – בשל היוקר, ומחשש שהדבר יתגלה ויפסידו פרנסתם, ומחשש שעירוב כזה עלול לפגוע בחלב מבחינה בקטריולוגית, גם אם יש שוטה שיעשה זאת, נראה שאין לחוש למיעוט שאינו מצוי כלל
    _____________

    Talmid

    “In the last volume of Igros Moshe he writes that chalav hacompanies hetter is only beshaas hadchak. Which of course would meaqn that in cases of necessity – and NOT for luxuries eg ice cream chocolate bars and milk shakes”.

    I am not sure that it is so.

    In the this tshuva (שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ד סימן ה) He writes:
    הנה בדבר החלב שזה הרבה שנים שיראי השי”ת אשר בטאראנטא נזדרזו בהסכם הרבנים וכל החרדים למצוות התורה ותקנות חז”ל, וראו שיהיה חברה (קאמפאניא) לחלב שנחלב על פי השגחת ישראל, וכן כל הדברים הנעשים מחלב, כגבינה וחמאה ושמנת (קרים) מחלב זה על פי השגחת ישראל. ועתה נתרשל הדבר מצד שעולה ביוקר מעט, והרבה לוקחים חלב מסתם חברות, אף אנשים מאלו שלקחו כל השנים מהחלב והגבינות וכל המינים מהחלב שתחת השגחה
    איברא דאיכא טעמים להקל בחלב הלקוח מחברות, במדינה אשר מדיני המדינה אסור למכור חלב שיש בו עירוב חלב טמא הוא רק בשעת הדחק. אף אם גם
    בטאראנטא איכא איסור מדיני המדינה, ולא בשביל יוקר מעט

    but to say that this tshuva applies to all places is a big problem, as it contradicts to what he wrote in many other places, that he he wrote there company milk is kosher milk but it is ראוי לבעלי נפש להחמיר בזה, and to what he wrote in שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ב סימן לה that even that CY cost more, principals of “yeshivot ktanot” should buy for their students CY:

    בדבר חלב הקאמפאניעס שבמדינתנו שבארתי בספר אגרות משה סימן מ”ז בחיו”ד שליכא איסור חלב שחלבו עכו”ם ואין ישראל רואהו, אבל מ”מ מן הראוי לבעלי נפש להחמיר, שמטעם זה ודאי ראוי למנהלי ישיבות קטנות שיתנו להתלמידים חלב של אלו הקאמפאניעס שמעמידין ישראל לראות החליבה, ואף שהוא ביוקר מעט שלהישיבות עולה זה סך גדול במשך השנה והמצב של הישיבות דחוק בשנים אלו שבשביל זה מקילים באיזו ישיבות, מ”מ כדאי להחמיר כי גם זה הוא מעניני חינוך ולמוד שידעו שכדאי וראוי לבני תורה להחמיר אף כשיש רק חשש איסור, דמזה יתבוננו לראות איך לירא מאיסורין, וכל הוצאות הישיבה הרי הוא כדי לחנך דור נאמן לה’ ולתורתו, ומעניני חינוך אין לצמצם

    can we say that the tshuva in the last chelek is “mishna acharona” and he changed his mind?

    No way!

    the tshuva in the last chelek (YD chelek 4, was published after his ptira), is dated כ”ח תמוז שנת תשכ”ח while the tshuva in chelek 2 is dated ב מנ”א תש”ל

    I think that his opinion was that company milk is kosher milk, and only a baal nepfesh should be מחמיר, but as this tshuva was written to a place where they were drinking Chalav Israel for many years, but stopped doing so, when “Chalav Israel” got a “bit” expensive, and relied on his psak, he didn’t like it, and wrote the way he did.
    _____________

    kalman

    no. I didn’t, but I know that in Israel, even that you can’t get horse and camel milk in supermarkets, you can get them in health-food stores. see harav whitman in Tchumin vol. 22 page 460:

    בימינו מתבצעת חליבה של בעלי חיים טמאים, בעיקר נאקות וסוסות, וחלבן משווק כחלב בריאות. מאידך גיסא, אין בימינו חשש לעירוב חלב זה בחלב כשר, לא רק בשל האיסור החוקי שיש בכך, אלא מכיון שהחלב הטמא יקר עשרות מונים מהכשר, וקיימא לן שאין לחשוש לעירוב, כאשר האיסור יקר מההיתר

    b’kitzur, as RMF said, it is better to buy CY, but you can’t say that you don’t trust MK because they say that “company milk” is kosher.

  • kalmang says:

    hi dovid segal,

    my challenge to you was to provide proof, not anecdotal evidence. do you have a brand name, a retailer name? a manufacturers name? a pig dairy name?
    anything that shows concrete evidence. for pigs milk. I will deal with horse or camel milk after you supply proof of pig milk production anywhere!

    kalmang

  • kalmang says:

    dovid segal,

    my suspiscion is that none of the corrspondents above have ever been into a commercial dairy anywhere in the developed world and consequently they say things about pigs, camels, horse, or even unicorn milk that make no sense!

  • kalmang says:

    dovid segal,

    in melbourne, in my family, we only purchase and use milk that is Cholov Yisroel. it has rav beck’s hechser on it and is packaged by tempo. we do this cos my wife says so! is it more kosher than non-cholov Yisroel milk, I strongly doubt it.

    kalmang

  • kalmang says:

    hi dovid,

    in the MAGAZINE section of this weeks HAMODIA (which I love) there is an article venerating the good deeds of one dovid schein.in the sub heading, spreading yiddishkeit, he talks about kosher milk. on a visit to a non jewish farm he asks the farmer what he does with the extra milk that he can’t sell. the farmer responds that he sells it to the combine (local co-op)and mr schein then asks the farmer, what do you do with the pig milk? the farmer responds, I spill it into the regular milk.

    what a load of rubbish! who ever wrote this article has never been into a dairy in his life! jewish dairy mavens! ha!

    go and google!

    how many teets does a dairy cow have?
    how many teets does a female pig have?
    does a cow give milk during gestation?
    does a pig give milk during gestation?
    are all farmers paid the same for their cows milk
    are dairy farmers paid a dollar amount per litre?
    who owns the co-op that pays a farmer?

    kalmang

  • mashgiach says:

    A few years ago, Rabbi Gutnick from KosherKalman, if there is no difference, then why did Harav Moshe Feinstein only drink supervised milk?

  • kalmang says:

    I am not questioning MF reasons! I am asking if it is possible to milk a pig manually or by machine and has anybody ever seen this or even heard of anyone seeing this! I can hardly wait for the response! any takers! mashgiach!

    kalmang

  • kalmang says:

    pigs milk exists as a food source for PIGLETS!

    no one has ever milked a pig! period! not now! not ever!

    jews are terrified of pigs milk, followed closely by UNICORN milk!

    kalmang

  • mashgiach says:

    Yes. A farm in Katherine that milks a few pigs. There was an article about it in the papers about 2 years ago. It was also on the internet, but I can’t find it now.

  • kalmang says:

    the farm in katherine (is that in W.A).

    did they also milk a few unicorns?

    I believe there names were fliksen and blixen.

    no anecdotal evidence is acceptable, dairy addresses or brand names of product only! get real!

    are you really a mashgiach?

    kalmang

  • mashgiach says:

    That one definitely existed. I am trying to find out about it and if they are still milking them. You can laugh at me as much as you like. I know it existed with a dairy farm address.

  • kalmang says:

    dear mashgiach,

    some 2,000,000 dairy cows are milked, twice daily, 365 days per year in australia. thats enough milk to fill up lake titicaca (somewhere in canada or USA I think)

    should we be that concerned with 2 ficticious pigs/unicorns from katherine (W.A.)that are likely to produce a glass and a half of fresh full cream pigs/unicorns milk between them.

    then this goyisher farmer from W.A. with the pigs/unicorns will take the glass and a half and find out where Cholov Yisroel milk is being produced just outside melbourne and then pour the glass and a half into our kosher Cholov Yisroel milk supply! there by making it treif! oy! vey!

    quick! get a mashgiach! he’ll save us!

    for this we pay $35,00 a kilogram of Cholov Yisroel cheddar cheese? when the non jewish community pays $4.50 per kilogram!

    Harav MF would turn in his grave!

    yidden tzen gervorrin meshugah!

  • kalmang says:

    dear mashgiach,

    there are genuine, perfectly legitimate times when a mashgiachs services are needed and are irreplaceable.

    the supervised milking of cows is questionable.

    kalmang

  • Anonymous says:

    “we only purchase and use milk that is Cholov Yisroel. it has rav beck’s hechser on it and is packaged by tempo. we do this cos my wife says so! is it more kosher than non-cholov Yisroel milk”

    jews are allways better, even the cows!

  • kalmang says:

    I am shocked to see that my rantings about Cholov Yisroel have been taken so calmly!

    are there any jews out there!

    kalmang

  • kalmang says:

    anonymous

    I did not understand your comment!

    explain?

    kalmang

  • kalmang says:

    hi dovid,

    your link proves that there may be someone thinking of producing pigs milk somewhere in america. i read the same notice a few days ago.

    anecdotal, would be a generous explanation for thsi proof

    kalmang

  • dovid segal says:

    when i was in new Zealand i was asked by the farm lady: “rabbi, what blessing are you making on my cows? whan i did ask her: how did you know that i say a blessing? her answer was: you are doing nothing else!

  • mashgiach says:

    Kalman, you asked if there ever was any milking of pigs. And I answered that there was. I never said it was commercial or any more than a few litres.

    Gedoileh Yisroel were makpid to drink CH Y, and even R MF who permitted cholov hacompanies, took Ch Y very seriously and only drank it himself. Just because Kalman doesn’t understand the reason for drinking it, doesn’t mean it is not important to have it. I don’t make my own halachos, i rely on Daas Torah.

    Cheese which is gevinas akum is forbidden according to halacha and everyone.

  • kalmang says:

    hi dovid and mashgiach,

    if pig milk or any other non kosher species of milk is so difficult to even identify, let alone find, my question is this!

    why do we need supervision from the non-existance of other milks?

    what is there to supervise?

    it is irrelevent which famous rabbi followed a particular habit!

    jews do not follow rabbonim blindly? all rabbonim are open to rigorous debate as I’m sure they themselves did.

    I am familar with the rullings regarding cheese, both fresh and hard, however, this is a issue about supervision not cheese making

    kalman

  • kalmang says:

    mashgiach,

    I do not accept your assurtion that you have identified pig milk anywhere in the world. this is just nonsense!

    including katherine! what a load of rubbish

    provide proof, that is, brand name, producer, processor, name of dairy, name of pig owner, something or admit your evidence is just anecdotal, more like a fairytale than a truth!

    get real, stop perpetuating this jewish lie!.

    you have never seen pig milk! what colour is it! what is the fat content, does it seperate when rennet is added to it, to produce cheese and whey! admit you know nothing about pig milk, do not be deceptive and deceitful any longer! mashgiach you know nothing about pig milk! and neither do most jews! how can you supervise something that you could not recognise?

    have you heard of pig cheese?

    kalmang

  • mashgiach says:

    You can rave and rant all you like. I am not senile and I know that what I said is true. I saw the article in the papers and checked it on the internet. It may not be in operation any more and thats why I mabe can’t find it. If you don’t want to believe me then don’t. I really don’t care.
    And when did I say anyt
    hing about pigs cheese???

    And why are you going on just about pigs milk? All non Kosher animal’s milk is not Kosher

  • kalmang says:

    mashgiach,

    this discussion is about supervision, not pig milk.

    if non kosher milks are so difficult to identify let alone find (notwithstanding their existance in outer mongolia or katherine)

    why do we need supervison and the status, cholov yisroel in melbourne?

    or are you now claiming pig milk also exists here?

    kalmang

  • mashgiach says:

    Well first of all the Shulchon Aruch says that any milk that has been milked and a Jew did not watch the milking, is forbiden. This is because they used to add milk from a non Kosher animal. So even though today it is not likely we still need it. Even if there is no non Kosher animal, you still need supervision.

  • kalmang says:

    mashgiach,

    I do not need you to quote the shulchan orech to me.

    if there are no threats of contamination due to non-kosher milks during cow milking.

    the ruling is reduntant.

    why is cholov yisroel milk still relevent

    kalman

  • mashgiach says:

    It is not redundant, because it says that even if there are no non Kosher animals in the country, there still needs to be a shomer. It is a gezerah that does not go away.

  • kalmang says:

    your assurtion that they used to add milk from non-kosher animals in the past is a further perpuation of a lie!

    you have no evidence that anyone in history has ever added non-kosher milk to kosher milk and hence the need for supervision during milking.

    this is just nonsense.

    even moshe rabbenue never made the assutions you do about non-kosher milk.

    for the record!

    no one in the history of humankind has ever added non-kosher milk to kosher milk! period!

    kalman

  • kalmang says:

    gezerah, geshemra!

    you will notice that no-one has come to agree with you! guess why?

    kalman

  • mashgiach says:

    If the Shulchan Aruch says that there is a chashash, then there is a chashash. Also The Aruch Hashulchan writes about a case where pigs milk was mixed into cows milk.

  • kalmang says:

    enough!

    thanks for your imput.

    kalmang

  • mashgiach says:

    I just hope you realise that the Shulchan Aruch is part of the Torah.

  • <<<<<>>>>

    Kalman, Just because no one posts answers to your assertions on this blog does not mean they agree or that you are correct. It is ridiculous to believe that posting comments on this blog proves anything to anyone.

    Some people suspect, but cannot be certain, you may be Meir Rabi’s business partner. If so that makes you totally biased. Regardless if this is so or not, I am surely not the only one posting here who may have some kind of a connection to a kashrus organisation, the only difference is that I admit it.

  • Benjy says:

    What arrogance!! Along comes this guy and declares
    that unkosher milk has never been mixed with Kosher. And to add to the insults, he asserts that the Sh A, and other Rabbis are liars Ch”V, R”L. I myself have heard from people from the pre war generation who remembered farmers adding pigs milk to make it creamier. There are plenty of such happenings in those days. Was everyone lying??

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi benjy,

    glad you could join the mishegarz,

    ‘myself have heard from people from the pre war generation,’

    this is not proof, this is a fairy tale. please provide documented evidence!

    kalman gradman

  • Klaman Gradman, business partner of KVY.

  • kalmang says:

    shoshanan try to stick wiht the issue i havew raised.

    cholov israel milk and pig milk

    kalman gradman husband of frances gradman

  • Gamliel says:

    Documented evidence from the Sh A and AH not enough?? Who else do you want, lehavdil the pope???

  • kalmangradman says:

    Gamliel,

    I am sure that there has been contamination of kosher milk by some farmer just outside of lodz, poland somewhere over the last 1,000.

    Fact: goyim do not milk pigs or drink pigs milk! Sows (female pigs) have 14 teets! Which one produces milk for human consumption?

    the only beneficiary of pigs milk are PIGLETS! why are jews so obsessed with the dangers of pig milk.

    For all intensive and practical purposes, pig milk does not exist anymore than unicorn milk.

    It is obvious that most jews have never been into a working commercial dairy, in australia that’s where our kosher milk comes from.

    If you told a dairy farmer in australia that you are worried that pigs milk may get into the kosher milk supply he would laugh at you

    It is simply idiotic!

    Kalman gradman

    Current member of ohel devorah (chabad shule) for 15 years

  • Gamliel says:

    Can you make up your mind. You rave and rant that it never happened. Never ever in all of mankind and now you say that you are sure it did happen. You are strange

  • kalmangradman says:

    gamliel,

    whether it happened or not, once in history, is not relevent.

    stop clutching at straws!

    contamination of kosher milk by pigs milk is not a threat to our jewish community or any other jewish community in the western world.

    however, we cling to CY milk as if it is!

    that is the issue!

    kalmangradman

  • Gamliel says:

    As someone responded to you before. When the Shulchan Oruch says that even if there is no tomei animal in the whole country you still need supervision, then that is what goes. Do you only do the Mitzvos that you understand?? The Sh O says the order of how to put your shoes on. Do I understand why? If one is a Shomer Torah UMitzvos he follows the Torah whether he understands or not!

  • kalmangradman says:

    gamliel,

    as you can see,

    my rantings are not based on halacha,they are based on my information about dairy procedures

    CY milk is not any more kosher than non-CY milk

    its just more expensive!

    kalmangardaman

  • Gamliel says:

    Halocho decides w
    hat is more Kosher than something else, not kalman. You are obviously trying to avoid Halocho so that you can drink(or sell) something and call it the highest standard Kosher. Been done before e.g. By the reform movement.

  • kalmangradman says:

    fair enough

    kalmangradman

  • dovid segal says:

    mashgiach

    you wrote:

    “A few years ago, Rabbi Gutnick from KosherKalman, if there is no difference, then why did Harav Moshe Feinstein only drink supervised milk?”.

    Do you think that the fact, that harav beck runs around with his bread rolls, tells us that Heimishe rolls are not kosher?

    Why can’t it be because he wrote in many t’shuvt that a baal nefesh yachmir?

    Didn’t rm write b’feirush in שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ב סימן לה that even that company milk is kosher milk it is rouy for a baal nefesh l’hachmir and that it is rouy for schools to supply Chalav Israel for educational reasons and not because it is not kosher?

    בדבר חלב הקאמפאניעס שבמדינתנו שבארתי בספר אגרות משה סימן מ”ז בחיו”ד שליכא איסור חלב שחלבו עכו”ם ואין ישראל רואהו, אבל מ”מ מן הראוי לבעלי נפש להחמיר, שמטעם זה ודאי ראוי למנהלי ישיבות קטנות שיתנו להתלמידים חלב של אלו הקאמפאניעס שמעמידין ישראל לראות החליבה, ואף שהוא ביוקר מעט שלהישיבות עולה זה סך גדול במשך השנה והמצב של הישיבות דחוק בשנים אלו שבשביל זה מקילים באיזו ישיבות, מ”מ כדאי להחמיר כי גם זה הוא מעניני חינוך ולמוד שידעו שכדאי וראוי לבני תורה להחמיר אף כשיש רק חשש איסור, דמזה יתבוננו לראות איך לירא מאיסורין, וכל הוצאות הישיבה הרי הוא כדי לחנך דור נאמן לה’ ולתורתו, ומעניני חינוך אין לצמצם

    proof like his only show how the Kashrut organizations manipulate the lack of knowledge of the public.
    ____________

    kalman

    you don’t have to convince me that CY is not more than a money printing machine, I still remember my trip to NZ, those who know what I am talking about, don’t need even a hint, and those that don’t know, will never believe the stories. Stories of milking pigs, or mixing their milk with the cows milk, are maybe good for the readers of hamodia, but not for people with minimum intelligance

    you are going around in circles, to proof that they are not milking pigs commercially and are not selling them in the supermarkets, but could be that the real problem with the kashrut of milk, isn’t the milking of pigs, horses or camels, or mixing them in the cows milk, but the milking cows that are Treirot according to halacha. See rabbi Whitman’s article that I mentioned in previous postings.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi dovid,

    thank you for your sanity!

    kalman gradman

  • dovid segal says:

    Kalman

    thanks

    it was hard work.

    hang on to your horses.

    there may not be written evidence, but it is logical to me, and proof as written evidence.

    In the days when farms were small, and there were no government laws that control milk production, don’t you think that they milked anything that produced milk, and mix their milk?

    I am sure they did

    for them, a cow and her milk, were not a kosher animal and kosher milk, but an animal and her milk. And in cases were he had reasons (whatever they nay be) to mix the cow milk with other milk, he mixed.

    Even when they were milking for Jews, and knew that it is not permitted to drink milk from animals that are not kosher, if he benefited from the mixing he would mix the cow milk with non kosher milk, in small quantities, so that it will not be noticed. See :עבודה זרה דף לה עמוד ב

    חלב למאי ניחוש לה? אי משום איחלופי, טהור – חיור, טמא – ירוק! ואי משום איערובי, ניקום, דאמר מר: חלב טהור עומד, חלב טמא אינו עומד!

    What if there are not milking any non kosher animals in the country?

    There those who say that in such a case we don’t have to be worried, for example, the radvaz, writes in his teshuvot (ח”ד סימן ע”ה):

    עוד שאלת חלב שחלבו נכרי ואין ישראל רואהו ואין במקום דבר טמא… תשובה: הדבר ברור כי הגבינה נאסרה במנין; אבל לא כן בחלב שחלבו גוי, שאסרו אותו משום חשש דבר טמא… וכן נראה מדברי כל הפוסקים… כללא דמלתא, דאם אין לחוש כלל לדבר טמא, אפי’ שאינו בצד העדר, מותר”.

    And so wrote others (see פרי-חדש סימן קטו סעיף ו, כפתור-ופרח פ”ה בסופו (מנהגים שנהגו מטעם קים לן) תשב”ץ ח”ד ט”א – חוט המשולש – סי’ לב

    however their opinion was not excepted l’halacha, and was decided that even in places that in places that there aren’t any non kosher animels you still have to check, just in case, but it seems that where there are “no kosher animals” it is enough if the checking is minimal.

    The Ramo writes in שלחן ערוך יורה דעה הלכות תערובות סימן קט סעיף א

    ואפילו ישראל קטן או קטנה מועילים, דהעובד כוכבים מרתת לפניהם, ואם חלבו עובד כוכבים מקצת בהמות ולא היה שם ישראל, ואחר כך בא ישראל אל האחרים, עכשיו בזמן הזה שאין חלב דבר טמא מצוי כלל, מותר, מיהו אם לא בא שם הישראל עד אחר שנחלבו כולם, הוי כחלב שחלבו עובד כוכבים דאסור אע”פ שאין דבר טמא בעדר

    how much supervision is there when it is done by a minor or by an adult who comes in the end of the milking?

    Even the Ramo wrote: ובזמן הזה שאין חלב דבר טמא מצוי כלל” It is clear to me that what he is saying that it wasn’t common to milk non kosher animals,but there were some that milked them

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi dovid,

    I doubt anyone ever milked a pig.

    have you ever seen a pigs teet, its quite small and very hard to grab let alone milk like a cow.

    and anyway, which one of the 14 (count them) TEETS would you milk first.

    its just stupid, yes possible, but stupid.

    also their temperament is such that they would not stand still long enough for milking!

    I accept that in theory its possible, but generally it is not done!

    kalman

  • Baruch says:

    There are countries where there’s camel and horse milk available. Google camel milk and horse milk

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi baruch,

    you wrote,

    There are countries where there’s camel and horse milk available!

    I know. did you forgot to mention the unicorn milk!

    and those damn horses wont stand still for a minute ( zey oben shpilkas in toches) and the camels, you know they spit at you with that foul breath! fooyah! thank g_d we’re kosher yidden!

    oy baruch! baruch chashem!

    kalmangradman

  • Baruch says:

    With all that diatribe, I have no idea what you are saying.

  • kalmangradman says:

    camel and horse milk exit, the same as human breast milk exists. have you seen any breast milk at coles or safeways lately? try the dairy department!

    horse and camel milk is not packaged, it’s not branded.
    it’s designed for babies, foals and baby camels (what ever there called!)

    everything thing else is fairy tale

  • Baruch says:

    There are countries where camel and h
    orse milk do exist. It is well documented also on the internet. Middle East,China etc. In those places there is no Heter whatsoever to drink unsupervised milk. You can see photos of horses attached to milking machines.

  • kalmangradman says:

    baruch,

    this is nonsense!

    there are no horse, pig or unicorn milking machines! not even on mars or venus let alone china or the INTERNET!

    how many teets does a horse have?

    have you looked.

    kalman

  • I was beaten up on GA for being biased due to being married to a KA salaried employee. If I am correct, Mr. Gradman and/or his wife is a business partner to KVY. Where is the criticism of his biases? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander, but here on GA it seems not to be the case. Moreover, being a business partner would indicate a far more serious bias than being a mere salaried employee. The silence on this is deafening. This site is an appendage of KVY.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi shoshana,

    you are correct, I am a business partner with rabbi rabi

    kalman

  • Shoshanna,

    I can’t find any comments by Kalman on this thread about KVY’s practices – it all seems to be about chalav yisrael and the risk of non-cow milk in commercial farms. Of course he is conflicted regarding KVY, but does this automatically extend to anything else he says on the broader topic of kashrut?

  • Yes, David, of course it does.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi shoshana,

    I am not authorised to comment on any kosher practices other than what my wife frances (I call her the rebbetzen) will allow.

    kalman

  • I understand your predicament however and can relate to it, however, that is not my point. I was raked over the coals here on GA for my ‘connections’ to KA, as you seem to get a free pass. Just pointing out the obvious, that GA is a very loyal friend to KVY, therefore, this blog cannot be dependend on as an objective or reliable source of information on the KVY vs. RCV and/or KA issues.

  • kalmangradman says:

    thats easy for you to say!

    but what about the pig milk?

    kalman

  • No, KA does not certify anythig with pig milk ;^)

  • dovid segal says:

    in tibet it will be allowed to drink only chalav Israel as they milk yaks.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi dovid,

    there are no jews or yaks milk in tibet.

    I do not want to see photos/videos of yaks being milked or the milking of any other non-kosher animal.

    show me packaged yak, pig, horse, camel or unicorn milk on a supermarket shelf anywhere in the developed world,

    this is the issue!

    kalman

  • These are some of my general thoughts on the subject of cholov yisroel:

    Chabad theology emphasizes the internalization of holiness and refinement within one’s personality. The goal is to be what is called a pnimi, or someone who works very deeply on internalizing Chassidic concepts to the point where they constatnly attempt to refine their character traits. Because of this Chabadniks value something like keeping to the level of only eating cholov yisroel, which it is taught enhances a Yid’s emunah, therefore effecting the soul on a deep mystical level. Why take a chance that there could G-d forbid be problems with something that has such a deep affect on one’s soul?

    My understanding is that Reb Moshe Feinstein’s psak on allowing chalav stam was a kula (leniency) and not meant to be encouraged (b’dievid) as the first choice. In fact, I learned that he encouraged cholov yisroel.

  • kalmangradman says:

    the CY chabad theory is fine!

    the problem is it leads to $25.00 chickens

    kalman

  • Kalman, that may not be the only reason we have $25 chickens. We do, I agree, pay more for not only chickens, but also many other kosher products. I look at this as the sacrifices we make for keeping kosher–it may be a bit more costly and inconvenient so maybe there is a bigger mitzvah attached to it (although that should not be the sole motivation).

    Also, sometimes we need to take responsiblity and manage our own food bills a bit more economically. Not every family needs to eat meat every night etc. Household money managment by many frum families may need improvement.

    One reason why KA does a great service for the community is because it is making many more local products kosher \and they are often cheaper than buying imports.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi shoshanan,

    I have a piece of packaged cheese in my fridge manufactured by tempo, in mordialloc victoria, that has a flavour profile similar to the original danish harvati cheese.

    the price per kilogram as shown on the tempo the pack is $34.00 per kilogram

    the original fully imported cheese from denmark is about $15.00 per kilogram

    whats wrong with this example?

  • There are always going to be exceptions but it is obvious to everyone that overall a vast majority of local kosher products are cheaper. I won’t have a hold to and fro’ on this, it is clear to mostly everyone. Just ask the Adassnik balabustas who have been stuck for years feeding their families on mostly imports.

  • kalmangradman says:

    locally manufactured kosher products are not cheaper than kosher imported products!

    can you give me an example to prove your point?

    kalman

  • If I give you 10 that do, you’ll give me 10 that don’t. I don’t have patience for a nit picky tit for tat game. It ‘proves’ nothing and bores everyone. I made my point.

  • kalmangradman says:

    try me!

  • kalmangradman says:

    touché

  • kalmangradman says:

    the kosher jewish community is held to ransom by most of the kosher manufacturers, processors, retailers and importers!

    $26.00 for a chicken!
    $34.00 for a kilo of cheese!

  • Baruch says:

    An Aussie expat from the UK, while on a visit here commented that chalav yisrael cheese,yogurt and milk in London is cheaper than Coles brand cheese yogurt and milk here
    E.g. In UK, 2 litres cy milk is £1.50 = aus 2.60. In coles the cheapest 2 litre milk is about aus3

  • Samuel says:

    We have monopolies in locally manufactured Chalav Yisroel (products) as well as poultry.
    Theoretically no one is excluded from entering this market.
    However, in the interim, for the peace of mind of the kosher consumer, an independent enquiry into the fairness of pricing should be commissioned.
    This has been done recently in South Africa which has a community similair in size to that of Australia.

  • kalmangradman says:

    who would run the inquiry?

    the report I spent 30 minutes reading from south africa came to some very stupid conclusions.

    mainly, that is was fair for the chicken processor to get a return of 30% on investment, which the report concluded was similar in the non-kosher sector!

    the status quo was maintained.

    chickens in south africa are still $24.00 or what ever they were before the enquiry!

    wel done south africa!

  • Do you take into account the huge expense involved in making meat kosher for the companies?

  • kalmangradman says:

    the cost of making the meat kosher adds between $3-$5 to a $10.00 chicken!

    how does it get to $24.00 from there?

    the kosher makers aren’t getting it.

    now I’m in big trouble!

  • Kalman, neither you nor I know the exact financial burden of making kosher meat, so it could very well cost more than you assume it does. Are not the companies allowed to make profit or should they be charities?
    And what about all the free meat/food these companies give away so Jewish families can have nice Shabbos and Yom Tov meals?
    And the huge amount of credit some of these stores offer to their customers, knowing in many cases they will never see the end of the bill? Some of these companies have to simply write the cost of this credit off as a loss each year. Very few, if any, non-Jewish stores offer such extended credit so freely.

    There are definitely inconveniences, difficulties, and challenges in keeping kosher, but where in the Torah is there a commandment stating it has to be easy?

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi shoshana,

    try this on for size!

    if melbourne had 2 other non-aligned kosher chicken processors/retailers, I’m willing to bet, that you would now be paying $12-$15 per 2kg kosher chicken. about 50% more than a non-kosher chicken

    you currently pay $24 per chicken because a single processor has a monopoly on kosher chicken availability.

  • You have not addressed any of my points. You seem to be obsessed with monopolies. It seems a bit paranoid to think we have some sort of ‘chicken cartel’. You also seem to think we have a KA monopoly too. Reading too many conspiracy novels lately? Or do you suffer from te Tall Poppy syndrome.

  • And I suppose Kalman that you and your wife are in the KVY business to lose money, right? To give out free hechsherim? You are motivated by pure altruism while the rest of these nasty monopolies are greedy parasites?

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi shoshana
    I do not comment on kosher certifying agencies. personally, I believe, that they all do a great job and I’m pleased they exist.

    I do not believe that the supply of chickens is a monopoly, I know it is.

    processing for all kosher chickens in melbourne is completed at the baida processing facility in laverton!(formerly, eatmore)

    your welcome to amend the numbers below to suit your beliefs. the only numbers that are accurate, are the retail sales figures

    kosher non kosher
    chicken rearing costs $3.00 $3.00
    chicken processing costs $2.00 $2.00

    kosher services(shecht, salt, etc) $5.00
    Retailer costs $8.00 $3.00
    Retailer profit $6.00 $2.00

    Retail price $24.00 $10.00

  • kalmangradman says:

    hope this loads a bit better

    kosher non kosher

    chicken rearing costs $3.00 $3.00
    chicken processing costs $2.00 $2.00

    kosher services (shecht, etc $5.00
    retailer costs $8.00 $3.00
    retailer profit $6.00 $2.00

    retail price $24.00 $10.00

  • You did not address any of the issues I raised regarding the costs to the companies for processing/making/producing KOSHER meat. And the kosher meat market is much, much smaller than the non-kosher. This makes it imperative they charge higher prices in order to make a profit. Without knowing all these figures, without all the evidence, your assertions are all conjecture, you cannot accusse them of price gouging or taking advantage through their monoply. Maybe they are just making a normal profit after all their costs. We will never know unless they showed us their books so, this is really all innuendo.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi shoshana,

    I accept your proposition that the costs for producing kosher chickens in a specialty market(kosher consumers) is by definition, going to cost more than a non kosher product.

    as you say, there are only a small number of kosher consumers in melbourne.

    the ability of the kosher chicken processors/retailers to charge $24.00 or $44.00 (should they choose to), is directly effected by the lack of competition. the costs of production are a factor, but they do not tell the whole story!

    you will notice that in the non kosher chicken world, pricing between the wholesalers/retailers is very similar and competitive.

    kalman

  • Baruch says:

    It’s ridiculous conjecturing price of Kosher, when the general market can bulk slaughter many millions of chickens at a fraction of the cost. They also don’t have to pay shochtim, mashgichim, salting, washing etc. To say $2 for this, $5 costs this is just airy fairy conjecture. You may as well include your unicorn that you love talking about.

  • Baruch, Your points are well taken. It is pure conjecture and the only people who know the actual figures are the business owners and their accountants.

  • kalmangradman says:

    its not conjecture,

    let me explain and I would appreciate it, if you could contain your wrath!

    there are many costs associated with the processing of a whole fresh chicken which are unrelated to kosher processing

    the live chicken
    the processing facility
    the de-feathering process
    automated evisceration (disembowling)
    rinsing
    packaging
    freight
    retailing

    the kosher costs are as you say shochet, mashgiach,salting, etc.

    my point is, that the kosher costs atributable to the final retail price is fraction of the cost of production.

    not the reason for its high price.

    kosher chicken should be more expensive, of course, there are aditional processes involved, 50% extra would should cover it, this would make a kosher chicken around $12-$15

    ($5-$6 more than non-kosher) not $24.00.

    thats the issue

  • kalmangradman says:

    baruch,

    don’t make fun of the unicorn!

    he has a low tolerance to ridicule!

    kalman

  • kalmangradman says:

    sorry baruch,

    I made a mistake. I meant to say she!

    she! has a low tolerance to ridicule

    kalman

  • baruch says:

    Your chesboinos still don’t make sense to me.

    1) The costs which are unrelated to Kashrus are relatively small as when the facilities and work set up for them produces many millions o
    f chickens, a few cents would pay for all this(few cents x millions of chickens).

    2) I can’t see how $5 would pay for all the overheads from such a small production. Remember, that on top of the shochtim and mashgichim and workers at Pipe Rd, the butcher also has a shop and needs to cover wages for mashgichim there, workers, refrigeration, rent and there is plenty more. For such a small production, he would need to add a lot more than $5.

    3)And without knowing how many Kosher chickens, it is just conjecture.

    4) And speaking of containing my wrath, please have a look back at some of your previous posts, unicorns and never evers etc.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi baruch,

    1. the baiada processing facility laverton(kosher and non kosher)::

    the kosher building at laverton is on the same site as the baiada non-kosher facility.

    shared costs include, cost of land and buildings, electricity, maintenance,insurances, plant and equipment,legals, accounting, operational staff, telephony, banking fees,computer services, freight,etc.

    the kosher facility benefits from the rearing and supply of live birds at non kosher pricing: around $5.00 per bird live! (key industry issue)

    koshering services: mashgiach, shochets, salting, etc is in addition to the shared costs.

    2. the retail facility-elsternwick

    due to its monopoly status, the retail outlet is a high volume shop even by non kosher standards.look at the number of serving staff. there are not many non-kosher butcher shops that have queues of people waiting to be served!

    many people would argue that kosher prices are high due to the kashering required or low volume of sales!

    I do not agree.

    statement:
    high pricing is due to the absence of competition and the persistance of monopoly!

  • Samuel says:

    Kalman has obviously given this matter some serious thought, and what he says make a lot of sense.

  • Sam says:

    I would like to just divert the argument a little but it is still more or less on topic.
    It is a fact that kosher meat is much more expensive, the reasons, be they as they may and are possibibly quite justified.
    What is peoples view on the situation of a very poor family that requires regular charity of foodstuffs if they desire to keep kosher? Is it considered reasonable that they insist that their meat is kosher (being part of their beliefs), when the cost is at least double in most instances, and they do not have their own money to pay. I realiize that they could save by becoming vegetarian but for the point of this question let us ignore that.

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom and Gutt Voch.

    I would like to share the perspective that I have gained over the past few years in my Kashrus work and my discussions with a variety of people both locally and abroad.

    Cost is a consideration that many people mention as a discomfort that they encounter when considering Kosher foods and Kosher services. I distinctly recall a very uncomfortable conversation which was a defense put to me of why a non-K caterer was being used for a Bar-Mitzvah celebration; “Rabbi, why is it that a vegetarian Kosher function provided by an uncertified caterer is so much cheaper than the identical menu provided by a Kosher certified caterer?”

    I did not have an answer and I dont believe ANYONE has an answer to that question, because the cost difference was ENORMOUS. And they had tried a number of Kosher caterers. I saw the quotations.

    However, that is not the main point I wish to make. The main point is that many people resist making a commitment to Kosher or even a partial commitment (I know that sounds weird but that is the fact, people will eat various things but never THAT stuff.) for a different reason. Their main objection is – they feel violated by a system that appears to extort and abuse them. In short they feel they are being treated like idiots. When there is no transparency regarding prices and processes and no real competition, they feel abused. They pay for quality, they pay for service and they are prepared to pay for Kosher that in their minds is justified. They pay for their children’s and grand-children’s Jewish education and they pay a lot. So why dont they pay for Kashrus? The answer, the painful answer is that we cant show them how the system is fair and not abusive and an extortion. And they hear stories; they are probably not true, we know that, but nevertheless those stories circulate and we suffer the consequences.

    Kalman’s questions and observations are the questions that all reasonable people ask and observe, there is no doubt about that. And although we give answers here and we feel comfortable, or pretend we do, the fact is we have failed miserably to convince those who are asking the questions. And we appear not to care. I assure you that those observations hurt and cut deeply. The dismissive answers posted on this blog are probably not said to the face of people who ask such questions. But that does not mean that the vibes of those perspectives are not communicated. They are communicated loud and clear and divide our community.

    Furthermore, they feel like they are being sucked in to a system that has no end. No matter how hard they try, no matter what they do, they know that there are some who will never eat at their home or trust them in matters of Kashrus. And they can not even understand what the concerns of their family and friends are.

    What does an ordinary person feel when they know that the products on the Kosher list are not Kosher enough for the rabbi who endorses the list?

    Just consider how many Jews in Australia keep Kosher. How many send their children to Jewish schools. How many have Mezuzos on their front door. How many ensure their children have a Beris. How many wish to see their children marry Jewish, under a Chuppah. How many wish to have a Jewish burial. What proportion of these people keep Kosher? Only a tiny proportion.

    We need to re-appraise the way we are projecting orthodoxy and Kashrus in particular.

  • zalmanovich says:

    Shoshanna Silcove says:
    Chabad theology emphasizes the internalization of holiness and refinement within one’s personality. The goal is to be what is called a pnimi, or someone who works very deeply on internalizing Chassidic concepts to the point where they constatnly attempt to refine their character traits. Because of this Chabadniks value something like keeping to the level of only eating cholov yisroel, which it is taught enhances a Yid’s emunah, therefore effecting the soul on a deep mystical level. Why take a chance that there could G-d forbid be problems with something that has such a deep affect on one’s soul?
    >>

    What a load of nonsense. Chabad theology indeed! Stop perpetuating the concept that Chabad is a totally different religion to Judaism.
    Well, maybe your version of Chabad is like that. Mine isn’t. We have a Shulchan Aruch that paskens that Chalav shecholbo Akum ve’ein yisroel roehu – is not kosher – or in the vernacular isTREIF! Even if there isn’t a non-kosher animal around. This ruling was standard for Jews worldwide for thousands of years – until the mass immigration to the USA – where 97% of the immigrants sooner or later tossed out the Torah from their lives. They didn’t care for far greater matters than milk.
    The rabbonim who were meikil of Cholov Akum – did not themselves invent the kula. That was done by the hamon am themselves. They held that that halevai I should eat kosher meat!
    (as we know that the meat industry there was totally corrupt and unreliable.) They weren’t gonna be fussed about cows milk – even if it wasn’t supervised . In their eyes it was good enough – as it is for kalman and dovid and a few others here. The rabbis at the time had enough on their plates with shechit, Shabbos, mikvaos etc and were not going to go into battle about milk. So they (not all mind you – actually only a few which included Rabbi Feinstein – who in one of his many letters writes it is only beshaas hadechak) did their best to be melamed zechus of Jews drinking this milk. Now that CY milk is generally available and keeping Torah and mitzvos is widespread no self respecting fully observant Jew should allow chalav akum into his home. (And the halacha is that if you boiled up this milk – you MUST kasher the pot.

    Repeat, while there were a small number of poskim who disagreed, the Shulchana Aruch demands supervsion by a Jew. Nothing to do with Chabad theology

  • brett says:

    Kalman – not only are you an am haaretz and one that is sliding towards Reform with the way your write again steh Shulchan Aruch – but you don’t even have a clue about the true situation of the various non-kosher milks around.

    Health-conscious turn to horse milk By Clare Chapman THE AGE
    Trochtelfingen-Haid, Germany
    November 27, 2004

    Horse milk could soon be coming to a doorstep near you after demand for the nutritionally rich product has surged across mainland Europe.

    Although almost unknown in parts of the world, the milk used to be so popular in Germany that during the First World War it was delivered door to door.

    It is now back in favour with health-conscious consumers because it is rich in vitamins and minerals, is easily digested and has just 1.5 per cent fat, compared with 3.7 per cent for cow’s milk. It is also priced as a delicacy, with a litre costing as much as $A16.60.

    A decade ago, the milk was produced only in isolated German smallholdings. Now there are dozens of large-scale operations in France, Belgium and Holland, in addition to Germany and Austria.

    Nadine de Brabander, who runs a horse farm with her husband, Frans, near Lier in Belgium, said: “You milk a horse in exactly the same way as you milk a cow – you just have to be a bit more careful about being kicked.”

    Advertisement
    AdvertisementThe de Brabanders started out with four mares but now have 57. They export more than 75,000 litres of milk a year in Europe and to America, bringing in about $A1.4 million.

    And from Wilipedia on Milk

    In addition to cattle, the following livestock animals provide milk used by humans for dairy products:

    Camel
    Donkey
    Goat
    Horse
    Reindeer
    Sheep
    Water buffalo
    Yak

  • Chosen Nation says:

    Kalman, a typical dreykop. First he says never, ever been milked. Then he is sure there was. Then no packaged. Someone already told him to look up Google, where there is plenty. No, he wants to see a packet of such milk. Even if I brought him this from Egypt or somewhere else(or Yak milk from Tibet) he would always find another excuse. He seems to be like those who have never been wrong. Ditto the chicken prices. I would need a lot more than his accounting.

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi brett,

    welcome to the misheguim hoise,

    what kept ya!

    I understand that nadine de brabander the famous horse milk supplier from Trochtelfingen-Haid, Deutchland, is planning to open her first australian outlet in carlisle street, st kilda.

    in a recent interview for Der Spiegel the world reknown german magazine, she said, and I quote, ” we would be very pleased if we could find a suitable location somewhere near glicks”

    when asked if she believed she would have any trouble sourcing horse milk in melbourne, she repied, “not at all.”

    The Goldbergs (moishe and his lovely wife pupa) from Waiora Road North Caulfield have two shetland ponies (fela and bela) that are longer time milkers and would be able to provide the carlisle street outlet on a regular basis!

    good luck nadine!

  • Chosen Nation says:

    Kalman’s last post just proves my point. Full of drey. That’s all

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom Zalmanovitch,

    Perhaps it will help to keep in mind that Reb Moshe was not alone in his approach towards Chalav Yisroel. The Chazzon Ish expresses the same Halachic opinion. There were great Halachic authorities who preceded both Reb Moshe and the ChIsh who permitted regular milk, I believe it was in Holland, since the decree of Chazal, as they understood it, did not apply in such situations. They were appraisng situations where it was not common to milk beasts other than cows and sheep. So even where the risk was much greater than what we have today, where there was no Govt surveillance, they felt that Chazal’s decree did not apply.

    In fact this is an intrinsic aspect of Chazal’s decree: it was not designed to guarantee that the milk is free of non-K milk. Therefore the Shulchan Aruch that paskens that Chalav shecholbo Akum ve’ein yisroel roehu, means that we have required a Jew to be in the vicinity although the entire miling has not been supervised. We rely upon this since most farmers will be reluctant to add non-K milk when they know the Yid may just pop in and catch him in the act. But it is clear in the Halacha that there are some farmers who are not too troubled by this risk and will try to supplement the sale with non-K milk. We nevertheless know that Chazal accepted this as Cholov Yisroel.

    So this discussion is firstly, only of Rabbinic nature; by Torah Law it is Kosher VeYosher.

    The reason Chazal promulgated the decree was primarily to promote a social isolation policy. It took the form and became persuasive and was accepted, by dint of alluding to a risk of Kashrus.

    Some Takanos of Chazal were nade to be forever binding and some were made only for application in particular circumstances. Some Poskim maintained that it was not an everlasting decree others disagree. Generally speaking the Chassidim tend to be a little more particular about this matter.

    I do not think you can support your argument that, “The rabbonim who were meikil of Cholov Akum – did not themselves invent the kula. That was done by the hamon am themselves. They held that that halevai I should eat kosher meat! (as we know that the meat industry there was totally corrupt and unreliable. AND STILL REMAINS SO, UNFORTUNATELY) They weren’t gonna be fussed about cows milk – even if it wasn’t supervised. In their eyes it was good enough” Well of course it was good enough; it is the Halacha.

    And the Halacha is that utensils need not be koshered if they have been used with regular milk. Chabad theology or imagery emphasises use of Chalav Yisrael and it is important that those who see themselves as part of that tradition maintain their customs. However, it is unfair and misrepresentative of Halacha and destructive to Yiddishkeit, to demand that all maintain this custom and build barriers against those who do not.

  • dovid segal says:

    Mashgiach

    you wrote:

    here is your documented “evidence” of the AH as published inערוך השולחן יורה דעה הלכות תערובות סימן קטו, סעיף ו

    וליתר שאת אברר לך איך שכל דברי רבותינו הקדושים הם כגחלי אש מה שהתוודה לפני בלב נשבר בהיותי יושב על כסא הוראה בעיר פלונית שאחד מהבע”ב החשובים דשם היה נוהג היתר בדבר בהיותו חוץ לביתו בעיר הגדולה במדינה וישב תדיר בשם לעסקיו והוא ועוד אורחים בשתותם חמים בבוקר בבוקר היו קונים חלב שמן שקורין סמאנ”ט אצל חנוני אינו יהודי שכנגד אכסניא שלהם ופעם אחת התחילו לחקור ביניהם מאין לוקח החנוני הקטן זה כל כך חלב שמן והלך הוא להחנוני ושאלו וא”ל החנוני אני קונה באיטליז של בשר הרבה מוח של הבהמות וממחה אותם עם הרבה חלב ומבשלם ביחד וזה הוא השמנונית אז נפלו כולם על פניהם על חטאם הגדול שאכלו טרפות ובשר בחלב והבעה”ב התודה לפני וצעק בקול כמה גדולים דברי חכמים ובאמת כך מקובלני שכל גזירת חכמים לבד טעמם הנגלה יש עוד הרבה טעמים כמוסים שלא גילו אותם והשומע ישא ברכה מאת ד’ וישולם גמולו בזה ובבא [וביחוד שמעתי שבאמעריקא יש רבים מהאומות ששותים חלב חזיר מפני שמצויים שם הרבה]

    What I saw there are stories that he heard about cooking Treifa bones with cows milk, and that in America are many people who drink pigs milk, but I didn’t see a story about mixing pig milk with cow milk.

    where did you see the AH writing about evidence pigs milk that was mixed into cows milk?

    ____________

    shoshanna

    where did you learn your definition for a pnimi?

    You wrote:

    In earlier posts I quoted Reb Moshe Feinstein as writing:

    ולכן הרוצה לסמוך ולהקל יש לו טעם גדול, ורשאי, וכמו שמקילין בזה הרוב בנ”א שומרי תורה, וגם הרבה רבנים, וח”ו לומר שעושין שלא כדין. אבל מ”מ לבעלי נפש מן הראוי להחמיר, ואין בזה משום יוהרא, וכך אני נוהג להחמיר לעצמי, אבל מי שרוצה להקל הוא עושה כדינא, ואין להחשיבו כמזלזל באיסורים

    you understanding is not of what Reb Moshe Feinstein said, but of what those that want to make r’ moshes opinion politically correct to fit what people in our days are being told what is the Halocho.

    Do you read and understand Hebrew?

    I will try to explain to you what he said in simple words:

    in Halacha like in everything else, there is a standard, below standard and above standard, In Halacha a “din” is the standard, a “kula” is below standard, and a “chumra” is above standard, what rmf wrote is, as company milk is within the standard, and you can’t say that “company milk” is bellow standard, but it is “rouy”- appropriate for a “baal nefesh” to be stricter than the
    norm.

    even that it is not clear who is a baal nefesh, it is clear that drinking company milk is not a kula.

    The word, the word is “bdiovad”, which is made up from 2 aramaic words, b’di-when or if, ovad-done= if it was done. And not b’dievid as you wrote The word that should be used is “B’shas Hadchak”- in time of hardship, a word that was used by rmf regarding the kashrut of company milk only once, see my post dated the 8th of August, in my answer to talmid.

    You look at the high prices as the sacrifices you make for keeping kosher, but there are others who see them as a ripoff.

    You may think that your explanation for the high prices of meat and poultry is logical, but it may not be so, in the eyes of the rest of of the world

    we hear that explanation any time that a charedi is being charged with fraud, here is news fresh from the press:

    http://www.google.com.au/search?q=weinstein+eli%2Bfraud&rls=com.microsoft:he:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8

    http://www.bhol.co.il/news_read.asp?id=19038&cat_id=7

    to give Tzdoko and credit is very nice, but it is even nicer if you give money that is yours.
    ____________

    Samuel

    your idea to set up an inquiry into the prices of kosher foods is brilliant but did you also think which organization will set up this inquiry? Do you think that the RCV is the right organization to head the inquiry?

    zalmanovitsh


    • Not only were Reb Moshe’s wasn’t the only one that his words regarding “company milk” were manipulated, so were the words of the the Chazon Ish that wrote as Reb Moshe but as a “maybe”, not a maybe b’shas hadchak, but a maybe for every day, and the “Hungarians” did to his opinion what they did to Reb Moshe’s, the holy man were telling stories-he told me this and he told me that, but there were others who were honest

    you ever hear about harav Zibershtein? Well, he is the rov of Ramat Elchanan neighbourhood in bnei brak and was married to harav Elyoshiv’s daughter z”l, בהערות לספרו, פ”ח and when he wrote his book Torat Hayoledet, and before printing he did send the manuscripts to Harav weis who was at that time the raavd of the eida hacharedit for comments.

    On what harav zilbershtein iwrote that even that the gemoro said inעבודה זרה דף כו עמוד א, and brought l’halocho in shulchan aruchיורה דעה סימן קנד סעיף א:

    לא תיילד את בת ישראל – מפני שחשודין על שפיכות דמים, דברי רבי מאיר; וחכמים אומרים: עובדת כוכבים מילדת את בת ישראל בזמן שאחרות עומדות על גבה, אבל לא בינה לבינה”, wrote in (מהדרה שניה עמ’ פא הערה ה), “וייתכן שבימינו שהלידה בבית חולים וקיים פיקוח ממשלתי, דומה הדבר לבית ישראל שאחרים עומדים על גבה, שמותר לילד אצל מלמדת נכרית, וצ”ע, וכעין זה דעת ה”חזון איש” לגבי חלב עכו”ם, שפקוח ממשלתי נחשב כישראל עומד על גביו”, in his comment wrote harav weis ( published inשו”ת מנחת יצחק חלק י סימן לא אות טו

    לדעתי לא הי’ צריך להביא דבר זה בספרו כאלו היא הלכה פסוקה, שידוע שרוב החרדים לדבר ד’ הזהירים בכשרות המאכלים נזהרים עד מאוד בחלב עכו”ם, אפי’ בזה”ז, אפי’ לקטנים

    no bdi ovad, no b’shas hadchak, no kulot, no hamon haam, and no lies.

  • Samuel says:

    Dovid – I do not believe that the RCV is the organization to conduct the enquiry into the price of certain kosher products – especially those where there is no competition e.g. Poultry .
    However, they would be the appropriate organization to appoint an independent body. This would probably be a firm of accountants who do this type of work all the time. Please see the COSV website for the exercise done in South Africa and this should be a template for the same exercise to be done here.

  • Gamliel says:

    Rabbonin who asked The Chazon Ish, were told by him that his Heter was not Lehaloche. It was Beshaas hadechak. One of the Rabbonim who he told this to was Harav Yisroel Veltz. He was a Godol, although Dovid will dismiss him as Hungarian.

    Rav Moshe writes that by Chalav Hacompanies which is he matir, there is still a chashash Isur.
    And he still says Beshas Hadechak. I am not sure but I think he says there is taam godol lehokel, which to me sounds like a kula, not standard din.

    The excuse for stealing must have already come up in the days of Chaza”L, when they made all those Gezeros. The same Chazal said “Rov Ganveh Yisroel”. I am not for one minute saying it is not a Chillul Hashem. Just quoting Chaza”L.

    As one of the Gedoile Hakashrus said “I have never met a Yid who is not a Baal Nefesh.

  • meir rabi says:

    Samuel, Shalom.

    Now that we have decided what needs to be done to fix up Kashrus and its pricing, all we need do is find the right person to do it and persuade the relevant parties to co-operate. Sounds like a great plan. Can you imagine anyone objecting?

    Gamliel, why would the Chzn Ish SAY something that he did not write? Perhaps he did not quite say what is suggested he said? Or perhaps he just wanted to be agreeable. Whichever or whatever, we can not accept what is said in the name of the Ch Ish when we see with our eyes what he actually wrote with his own hand.

    Please if you are quoting R Moshe, help us with sources.

    “TaAm Gadol LeHakel” very likely means that the Halacha is to be ruled leniently. “Leniently” here is a relative term; when compared to what the Halacha is said to require we can see there is very good reason to be lenient. Sounds like regular Din as Dovid said.

    Who is this Gadol who said, “As one of the Gedoile Hakashrus said “I have never met a Yid who is not a Baal Nefesh.”? Where did he say this? To whom did he say this? Was he perhaps making a joke when he said this?

  • gamliel says:

    From what I understand, the Chazon Ish was only writing a svoro. Maybe I am wrong. But when a Godol BeYisroel says “this is what the Chazon Ish told me” I believe it. Can you first show the exact words of what the Chazon Ish wrote and we can see. I don’t have it.

    As you say “Taam godol lehokel” is a relative term. I did say “to me” it sounds like a kuleh. Especially when Rav Mpshe says there is a chashash Isur. And he also warns yeshivas no to serve it, even if it is hard financially. And the heter for people where ch”y is not available. And he is always saying “I don’t drink it”. And you need proper Kashering after it. For me this shows enough that it is a kuleh.

    I definitely heard that comment from a top Kashrus Rav and he was not joking. I will not divulge who because he may not want me to. Anyway, it’s your decision if want to rely on the kula and drink such milk.

  • gamliel says:

    Which of the quotes I wrote re RM do you want sources for?

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom,
    The Sevara of the Ch Ish is more than what you give it credit for. Again, had he any reasons to doubt it he would have penned those ideas. And had he confided that he actually held to the contrary you can be sure he would have ensured that it was clearly and unequivocably recorded for posterity.
    Pay no heed to those who say or print, “that I heard in the name of”; if it contradicts that which is written by the Gadol himself.

    And who is the Gadol in Kashrus who said he has not seen Yidden who are not BaAley Nefesh? I am sure it was said tongue in cheek. In Kashrus everyone is Makpid about what goes in, but not in what comes out of the mouth. Can releasing such a benign statement of a Gadol be a problem? You say because he may not want you to? Is there something that suggests that it should not be said in his name even though it SHOULD be said – as I must gather from the fact that you ARE saying it. Is this some great secret? Why on earth should he not want his name disclosed in this regard? Most Curious.

    Whether one does or does not use regular milk is unfortunately, mostly determined by emotional considerations – emotional Kashrus, which is almost identical to Political Kashrus; a great distance from being an Oved HaShem. Halacha is a process of engaging with HKBH through an intellectual programme. The decision to investigate and learn and then follow Halacha, is not a question of fashion or of being in the right group or even of being a loyal obedient servant of GD. Loyalty to Gd is engagement with His Torah; to study, analyse and debate.

    I already said Keilim do NOT require Kashering following use by regular milk of our first world countries.

    For all quotes see Reb Dovids posts and for all erudite Halachic considerations read Reb Dovids posts at least three times.

  • Gamliel says:

    I say again that I heard it from a Goldol Bekashrus. We all have our reasons for not divulging certain things, including yourself.

    In Krayne D’Agroso 2:123, The Steipler writes that the heter from the Ch”Ish was only for frail Yeshiva students and only to drink powdered milk in difficult war times years when milk was not readily available in israel. Something written by the Steipler is very credible, especially as he was the Ch”I’s brother in law and yad yeminoi. It’s quite possible that the Ch”I thought this was a matter of pekuach nefesh, because if those bochurim saw something negative about that milk, they may not drink it, when their bodies needed it. If the Chazon Ish had lived into the 1980’s then of course we would not doubt what he wrote. But it was the Steipler who lived into our times and he is the explanation of the Chazon Ish. If this is what the Steipler said and wrote, then the Chazon Ish did make sure it clearly recorded.

    Re Kashering, do you disagree with Harav Moshe?

  • meir rabi says:

    Gamliel Shalom,
    My concern with secrecy in Kashrus is that secrecy and its twin, rumour, seem to be the very lifeblood of kashrus all over the world.

    We have lost sight of important things. Like the things I mentioned earlier which you have not commented on. I repeat: it seems that we are mostly driven by emotional considerations – emotional Kashrus, which is almost identical to Political Kashrus; a great distance from being an Oved HaShem. Halacha is a process of engaging with HKBH through an intellectual programme. The decision to investigate and learn and then follow Halacha, is not a question of fashion or of being in the right group or even of being a loyal obedient servant of GD. Loyalty to Gd is engagement with His Torah; to study, analyse and debate.

    There can not be such engagement when a name of a Gadol is withheld and when his statements are beyond analysis and challenge. When I do not divulge certain pieces of information, it is either due to commercial restrictions or it is information that does not reduce the ability to discuss or debate the Halachic isues.

    I am sure you are correctly quoting but I think it was said tongue in cheek.

    I will look at the Kerayna De’Igressa, but I must say, that it is not a Halacha Sefer.

    I do not think it possible that the Ch Ish was discussing P Nefesh. There is nothing to discuss in such a case. I don’t follow why you relate the years in which the Ch Ish lived. You say “live in our times” but we learn from the Poskim and Sages of the Gemara who did not live in our times.

    Which Reb Mosher do you refer to?

  • Gamliel says:

    I don’t see where you get it from that drinking ch y or other Kashrus things are emotional considerations. The people I know, are either those whose parents and all generations previous, all drank exclusivley supervised milk, and would not dream of doing otherwise. Or others that have become religious, and have taken on themselves to keep a mehadrin lifestyle, which includes Ch Y. I don’t know if that is an emotional consideration, unless their initial decision to keep Shabbos and Kashrus was also an emotional consideration.

    I can’t say I know why the Chazon Ish wrote differently than he explained later, but surely if the Steipler says “this is what he meant”, then there is no reason not to believe that, especially when other Gedolim said they heard the same from his mouth. The pekuach nefesh theory was my own, possibly what may have been in his mind.

    Yes we learn from Poskim and Sages from another time. However, we pasken according to the poskim and Sages of today. Many things are different to what it was in the olden days and new situations arise and today’s Gedoilim are the ones who decide how halocha is to be implemented in such situations.

    You write that in Kashrus everyone is makpid what goes into the mouth, but not what goes out. Everyone?? Are you sure. I know many people who are makpid on both.

    Re Kashering, which Rav Moshe: Where he writes-in at least 2 Teshuvos-that before production of ChY, the machinery needs to be kashered after cholov hacompanies.

    You have written reasons for not divulging things you have been asked. If I say there are reasons for not saying anymore about it, I think you should respect that. However, I just realised that I inadvertantly “slightly” misquoted him. When he was asked about R Moshe on Cholov Hacompanies, he responded “I do not know a Yid who doesn’t have a nefesh”.

  • Gamliel says:

    Oh, and Dovid S. I almost forgot to mention that the Steipler was, of course, hungarian.

  • dovid segal says:

    Samuel

    you are a dreamer.

    No organization will be able to set up an independent body to look into the prices of certain kosher products, as they them self are not independent, and don’t represent the public or the public’s interest.

    Did you think who will pay for the the accountants, and who will enforce their recommendations.

    Do you think that the inquiry will be able to tell Adass to force their butcher or milkmen that unless they lower their price, the Hechsher will be taken away from them, and given to another butcher, and the same goes for Mizrachi or the Yeshivah.

    Do you think they will bite the Hand that feeds them?

    I will try to see the COSV website, but unless you have a body that has got the power to enforce their recommendations, it is a waste of time and money.

    Do you have such a body?

    _____________

    Gamliel you wrote:

    <rabbonin who asked The Chazon Ish, were told by him that his Heter was not Lehaloche. It was Beshaas hadechak. One of the Rabbonim who he told this to was Harav Yisroel Veltz. He was a Godol.

    for a start, why didn’t harav Wosner answer rabbi zilbershtein, that what the chazon Ish wrote wasn’t l’hacha.

    I am convinced there were no rabbonim that did ask the chazon ish, what he wrote was l’halacha, may be there were rabbonim who dreamed a vivid dream that they did ask him.

    I understood it from the letter of the steipler, (who was the brother in law of the Chazon Ish ) ,publised inקריינא דאיגרתא ח”ב- אגרת קכג, מיום ד פרשת צו תשכז, which is a collection of his letters.
    In this letter this that was writen to an Av beit din whose name was deleted, writes the steipler:

    בדבר החלב איני מבין לפום ריהטא למה אין שום הנאה מחליפין הלא כשיוסיף מעט חלב טמא יתרבה הכמות ובודאי הוא מוכר לפי מדה, ואם כי בזמננו גם הנכרים אין חולבים סוסים וחזירים, מ”מ הרבה פוסקים מחמירים, ועיין בזה באריכות בדרכי תשובה סימן קט”ו בשם כמה וכמה פוסקים, אכן אם יש פיקוח הממשלה, באופן שזה המוכר בחזקת חלב בהמה טהורה, אם יתברר שעירב שם חלב טמא, יתחייב עונש גדול, יש צדדין לדון בזה להתירא, ועובדא ידענא, שבזמן המלחמה שלא היה מצוי חלב, והיו משתמשים באבקת חלב, והקיל מרן החזו”א לחלושים מבני הישיבה להשתמש בזה מחמת פיקוח הממשלה והוא ע”פ שיטת הפרי חדש, והדברים נדפסו כעת בהחזו”א יו”ד מ”א והוא מחזו”א ע”ז סימן ד, ובצירוף דברי מעכ”ת שבזמנינו במקומו אין שום הנאה לחליפין ובצירוף הממשלה (אם יש) כמדומה שרבנים היו מתירים בכזה [אם אין פיקוח ממשלתי אולי ייתכן שבעל המחלבה יתן התחייבות בכתב שלא יערב שום חלב … ואז ע”פ התחייבות זו ודאי יהיה צפוי לעונש גדול אם ירמה ויערב ויהא זה… דומה להיתר השפחות שבש”ס

    it is clear to me from this letter that the steipler understood that what the chazon ish wrote was more than ”only” l’halacha.

    By the way, Harav Sternbuch mentioned what harav Weltz told about his conversation with the Cazon Ish in to places:

    in תשובות והנהגות” חלק א סימן תמא he wrote

    יש סומכין על רבינו החזו”א זצ”ל … אבל שמעתי מהר”י ועלץ, ששאל את פי החזו”א זצ”ל, והשיב שאין דבריו למעשה כלל, אלא לילדים קטנים או יולדות תוך שלושים

    And Inתשובות והנהגות חלק ב סימן שעג he wrote:

    ובמק”א הבאתי עדות אנשים נאמנים, שהחזו”א זצ”ל לא התיר למעשה כלל אפילו בפיקוח ממשלתי והמנהג בכל ישראל לאסור, והחזו”א גופא לא התיר, רק בדבריו יש להקל בחולה דוקא, ומצא בזה טעם של פיקוח ממשלתי, ויש אומרים שגם לחולה לא התיר למעשה, וכל דבריו היו רק ביש מקום לומר.
    It is interesting to see how the single trusted person turned to many trusted people, and what the trusted people said, and what the steipler said.

    You also wrote:

    Is that the reason?

    See what the steipler wrote in קריינא דאיגרתא ח”ב אגרת ע”ח
    ובדבר מה ששמע ממגידי בעלטה שהחזו”א זצללה”ה חזר בו, בענין הצדיקים ההפוכים, אל ישמע להם, שכך דרכם של כמה בלתי אחראים, להגיד בשם מרן זצללה”ה מה שהם רוצים

    who was the person that he is talking about, and who was spreading see:

    דברי ישראל, ח”ב, עמוד לו בסוה”ס

    and who was the person that spread in his book חק לישראל” דיני ע”פ שחל להיות בשבת ותעניות שובבים ת”ת , and in his article בעניין שיניים תותבות”, שיחות תלמידי חכמים, גליון ניסן תשלו, rumors about the rebbe rashab and his dentures, and wrote:

    וזה לי ח”י שנה שמעתי, שהגאון הקדוש מלובאוויטש יצ”ו [ז”ל] היה אז [בוויען], אצל רופא מומחה אודות עשיית שיניים, ועשה לו הרופא שינים של זהב, לבשר בפ”ע, ולחלב בפ”ע, ולפסח בפ”ע

    see שו”ת ציץ אליעזר חלק ט’ סימן כה ד”ה והכי ראיתי, יביע אומר ח”ד או”ח סימן לא אות ב, when the rebbe rashab didn’t have dentures. See אוצר מנהגי חב”ד, חלק ניסן אייר סיון, עמ’ סה אות כב

    I dismiss not only stories

    ר”מ סולובייטשיק, נכד הר”ח, שאל להחזו”א, שאומרים עליו שהתיר חלב עכו”ם, והשיב בזה הלשון “מה עוד יאמרו עלי, שאני מתיר ח”ו גם א”א”,

    did you see the tsuvah inside and didn’t understand what he said, or you are “parrot talking” what somebody said in שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ב סימן לה

    מ”מ כדאי להחמיר כי גם זה הוא מעניני חינוך ולמוד שידעו שכדאי וראוי לבני תורה להחמיר אף כשיש רק חשש איסור, דמזה יתבוננו לראות איך לירא מאיסורין, וכל הוצאות הישיבה הרי הוא כדי לחנך דור נאמן לה’ ולתורתו, ומעניני חינוך אין לצמצם. אבל במקומות הרחוקות שאין שם קאמפאניעס מחלב שישראל רואהו, והוא דבר קשה מאד להשיג חלב שישראל רואה בשעת החליבה אף ליחידים אין להם להחמיר

    r’ moishe is not talking here about the kashrut of the milk but about the effect it will have on the students, if they will see the school is purchasing kosher milk that cost more even that they can purchase kosher milk that costs less.

    If the explanation is as you said, how can you explain what he said:אבל במקומות הרחוקות שאין שם קאמפאניעס מחלב שישראל רואהו, והוא דבר קשה מאד להשיג חלב שישראל רואה בשעת החליבה אף ליחידים אין להם להחמיר

    if there is a chshash isur why should a יחיד be machmir?

    the “lehokel” here is not in relation to the din but in relation to the chumra.

    I don’t which chazal you are quoting, but the chazal who said it, (עבודה זרה דף ע עמוד א)
    didn’t say what you were saying, what they said is some thing else.

    See: רמב”ם מאכלות אסורות יב, הלכה כט; שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכט, סעיף יא
    _____________

    r’ meir rabi

    you wrote:

    see:

    harav binyomin zilber in ברית עולם, הלכות תפילת שבת אות ו), and inשו”ת אז נדברו” חלק י”א, עמוד קל”ב, השמטות לסימן קע”ב
    מה שכ”ת מביא בשם ברית עולם בשם החזון איש לענין אמירת ויכלו ביחיד, וכתבתי שהם דברים של טעם, מזה מוכיח דלא כמי שאומר שהחזו”א חזר בו. דבריו נכונים שאין דרכו של החזו”א לחזור ממה שכתב בספר

    he also writes in the hakdama to his book בית ברוך” על החיי אדם חלק
    א’ עמ’ י’ בד”ה והשקעתי

    ואציין בזה כי כל המובא /בספר זה/ שם החזו”א, הוא אך ורק, ממה שנדפס בחיבוריו הקדושים, ולא ממה שמוסרים בשמו כתורה שבע”פ, שאכן שכפי שכבר הקדמתי, היתה שיטתי לכנס, רק דברים מוסמכים, ודברי רבנו שבכתב, הם מה שסמך ידו עליהם, להוראת שעה ודורות

    and inשו”ת אז נדברו, חלק ג עמ’ קנו בד”ה ובדידי

    שאין אני מביא ממה שאומרים, בשם החזו”א, או מה שמדפיסים בשמו, שאין לסמוך ע”ז כלל, ודבר זה מפורסם, ששמעו (!) זאת מפיו, ויש מפריזים עוד, שאמר, שאם אומרים בשמו איזה דבר, הוא בדיוק ההיפך

  • Gamliel says:

    Dovid, I have no problem responding. However, your writing of English is not the best and it is quite hard to follow your ranting. I would need too much time working out what you are saying. I can’t see how dentures and other things you’ve brought up are relevant here. It would need to be explained in proper English, the way Rabbi Rabi does it. I imagine that a Rabbi who was constantly studying all this, could put together 2 and 2 of your posts. For me it’s to hard.

  • Gamliel says:

    Although, Dovid, I have managed to work out from your posts that the Rabbonim who disagree with you are Hungarian anti zionists, jihadists, anti Agudists, dirty politicians, misinformers and liars R”L.

    You see Rabbi Rabi, it is not only those who drink ch y, who only watch what is coming into their mouth. There seems to be those who are not makpid either way.

  • ‘Although, Dovid, I have managed to work out from your posts that the Rabbonim who disagree with you are Hungarian anti zionists, jihadists, anti Agudists, dirty politicians, misinformers and liars R”L.’

    LOL!!

  • dovid segal says:

    Gamliel
    you have no problems responding to my posting. you did it before, your problem is not my bad English but your lack of knowledge.
    You wrote:
    in Krayne D’Agroto 2:123, The Steipler writes that the heter from the Ch”Ish was only for frail Yeshiva students>
    if your explanation in the karyano d’igarto (and not Krayne D’Agroso as you wrote) is as you wrote, how can you explain what he writes: ובצירוף דברי מעכ”ת שבזמנינו במקומו אין שום הנאה לחליפין ובצירוף הממשלה (אם יש) כמדומה שרבנים היו מתירים בכזה [אם אין פיקוח ממשלתי אולי ייתכן שבעל המחלבה יתן התחייבות בכתב שלא יערב שום חלב … ואז ע”פ התחייבות זו ודאי יהיה צפוי לעונש גדול אם ירמה ויערב ויהא זה… דומה להיתר השפחות שבש”ס
    the heter hashfochois is not a heter for frail Yeshiva students, but a heter l’chatchila as you can see in the ramo yd 115,1

    here again you added an “only” as if the “heter” was only for powdered milk and not for pure milk, but this can be said only by somebody that didn’t see what the chazon ish wrote, as his “heter” was written in a siman where he writes against those that say that powdered milk is in the geder of chalav akum (as was said by harav tzvi pesach frank inשו”ת הר צבי יו”ד סימנים קג- קד
    ע”ד אבקת חלב תוצרת אמריקא … אפילו להגאונים האוסרים יש לדון דבאבקת חלב כו”ע מודים דמותרת היא לאכילה” but the opinion of the chazon ish was that there is no difference in din between milk and powdered milk, and in his words:
    אבקת חלב אינו ענין לגבינה וחמאה… ויש כאן חשש של חלב טמא לגמרי או בתערובתו ואין הבדל בין חלב עכו”מ לאבקת חלב

    an explanation as yours I found in ,קנין תורה בהלכה חלק א, that was written by הרב אברהם דוד הורוביץ, and if I am not mistaken was a member of the badatz where in סימן לח, עמוד צח טור ב he wrote: ודגם דהחזו”א לא התיר רק באבקת חלב there I saw also what you wrote:

    “It’s quite possible that the Ch”I thought this was a matter of pekuach nefesh”, and in his words:
    “ולכן הקיל באבקה המעורב בהחלב, להחלושים דמהם שיגיעו לכלל סכנה ח”ו”.

    from where did you get the “pekuach nefesh” story?

    Why do you need pikuach befesh as a reason for heter, if you believe r’ isroel weltz that according harav shternbuch, that the chazon ish told him, that his heter was only for litlle children and women within 30 days of giving birth, if the shulchan aruch in orach chaim 330,4 writes that small children and women within 30 days 0f giving birth are considered cholim sh’ein bahem saka

    __________

    shoshnna

    halway!

  • Gamliel says:

    First of all, what you quote from the Steipler, I cannot see him quoting the Chazon Ish whatsoever. Secondly, he is just repeating what the writer of the letter to him is saying and then saying some sevoros according to those Rabbonim in the U.S., who allow Cholov hacompanies. Not davka that he holds it personally

    Also, those Rabbonim saying in the name of the Chazon Ish, e.g. R Horrowitz, R Weltz and especially The Steipler have alot more credibility than yourself. They knew and spoke to the Chazon Ish and knew the circumstances of what he said. Not someone 50 years later, trying to bring proof from here or there.

    If the Chazon Ish told one that it is for frail bochurim and to another a heter for babies, that is not a contradiction.

    I only responded once when you wrote that the Chazon Ish agreed with Rav Moshe’s heter, as this was written in clear English, as opposed to most other things you wrote, which were hard to decipher.

    However, your last post is a great improvement. I trust the interpreter did not put you out of pocket too much :-)

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom,

    I will try to address various issues without being confusing.

    Shoshana Silcove said about the costs of Kosher meat, “Maybe they are just making a normal profit after all their costs. We will never know unless they showed us their books so, this is really all innuendo.”

    How much profit is made is part of the story. However, a more important consideration is that without competition a monopoly does not provide (as has been shown time and again) the most efficient service. The butchers and rabbis maybe making a very modest profit but the consumers are still paying far too much.

    —-
    I am disappointed not to have received responses to the thoughts I posted regarding the disturbingly low ratios of Jewish people who do not embrace Kosher foods but nevertheless insist on Beris, Mezuza, Jewish education and Jewish burial.

    And the question, “Rabbi, why is it that a vegetarian Kosher function provided by an uncertified caterer is so much cheaper than the identical menu provided by a Kosher certified caterer?”

    My observation: the major objection is – people feel violated by a system that appears to extort and abuse them. In short they feel they are being treated like idiots. When there is no transparency regarding prices and processes and no real competition, they feel abused. Why dont they observe Kashrus? The answer, the painful answer is that we cant show them how the system is fair and not abusive and an extortion. And they hear stories; they are probably not true, we know that, but nevertheless those stories circulate and we suffer the consequences.

    Furthermore, they feel like they are being sucked in to a system that has no end. No matter how hard they try, no matter what they do, they know that there are some who will never eat at their home or trust them in matters of Kashrus. And they can not even understand what the concerns of their family and friends are.

    What does an ordinary person feel when they know that the products on the Kosher list are not Kosher enough for the rabbi who endorses the list?

    —-
    The Chalav Yisrael discussion is too emotionally charged to be dicussed sensibly. Shoshana’s impassioned post makes that clear. Its reliance upon aspects that transcend Halacha means that she has shut the door and there is nothing to discuss; period. So I will only add that both HaRav Wosner, and HaRav Elyashiv have ruled that remote surveillance is perfectly suited for providing Ch Yisrael. Such a programme would make Ch Yisrael easier and cheaper and also more reliable.

    As for Horse Milk, let us know when it gets anywhere near the price of regular milk. Until then there is no risk that it may used to fortify or increase the yield of our regular milk. And I will not bother discussing the Halachic perspectives of the sophisticated testing that all batches of milk are subjected to.

    Consider – http://paardenmelk.be/pages/hofframee.html

    1 litre fresh milk: 8,00 EUR
     Frozen milk for one course of treatment (7 litres): 54,00 EUR
     Frozen buttermilk (raspberry) for one course of treatment (7 litres): 65,00 EUR
     Freeze-dried powdered milk (588 gr): 100,00 EUR
     Capsules for one course of treatment (90×600 mg): 30,00 EUR
    Prices do not include transport.

    Makes Ch Yisrael look dirt cheap

    —–
    Gamliel, why would the Chzn Ish contradict something that he wrote and not bother to make a written printed correction? Perhaps he did not quite say what is suggested he said? Or perhaps he just wanted to be agreeable to those who approached him about his “controversial” ruling? Whichever or whatever, without written confirmation, we can not accept what is said in the name of the Ch Ish. True, there is a suggestion of a contradiction, and it is certainly possible that the Ch Ish either changed his mind or wrote something that did not truly reflect his opinion – but in such cases we must demand to SEE the retraction or the clarification.

    Pay no heed to those who say or print, “that I heard in the name of”; if it contradicts that which is written by the Gadol himself.

    I cant understand you. On the one hand you say that you “can’t say why the Ch Ish wrote differently than what he explained later” but in the same breath you are absolutely sure that, “there is no reason not to believe what was said by the Steipler” What power enables you to say that this is any more likely or reasonable that that? Perhaps it might just be your emotional will to see Ch Yisrael champion Ch Stam.

    ——
    Emotional Judaism
    When someone points to things done by his parents and grandparents, and makes no mention of Halacha, then we have a classic illustration of Emotional Judaism, even if it does happen to coincide with Halacha, it is still emotionally driven.

    You mentioned those who “have become religious, and have taken on themselves to keep a mehadrin lifestyle, which includes Ch Y. I don’t know if that is an emotional consideration, unless their initial decision to keep Shabbos and Kashrus was also an emotional consideration.” I respect deeply those who have made such a significant step and lifestyle change, however, we must differentiate between their acceptance of Halacha and their embracing the “Mehadrin lifestyle”. Embracing a “Mehadrin Lifestyle” is generally speaking an emotional leap.

    —-
    There can not be such engagement when a name of a Gadol is withheld and when his statements are beyond analysis and challenge. When I do not divulge certain pieces of information, it is either due to commercial restrictions or it is information that does not reduce the ability to discuss or debate the Halachic issues.

  • Gamliel says:

    You write “Pay no heed to those who say or print, “that I heard in the name of”; if it contradicts that which is written by the Gadol himself””.

    From where did you get this rule? Why shoudn’t I believe all those Gedolim who say they heard it from the great man’s mouth? The Torah is full of these, where the Mishna says something and the Gemoro explains it that it is not the way we understood the Mishna. The same is with Rashi on the Gemorah, and all the way down to our times. A poisek writes something and a later Posek, explains that he means something different. Even you write “it is certainly possible that the Ch Ish either changed his mind or wrote something that did not truly reflect his opinion”.

    There could be many reasons why the Chazon Ish wrote something which he later explained, is only in certain circumstances. As the Steipler wrote, it was tough times with food not available and he allowed it for frail bochurim. I really cannot know exactly what his thoughts were, but it is a lot more logical to believe what those Gedoilim wrote in his name. Otherwise you are saying that all these Rabbonim are lying CH”V. How else can you explain it. As I wrote, these Rabbonim knew the Chazon Ish and lived in those days situation. Not like someone, fifty years later, without having any idea of what went on at that time.

    Just one scenario that could have happened. The Chazon Ish may have decided that because of the hardships of those times, he needed to allow it, so that frail bochurim should drink it. Further down the track, when things get better, he would change and explain his psak. However, he was niftar in 1953, and did not live to better times, so he told his brother in law and the other Rabbonim, the real reason for his heter. Please do not hold me to this. It is just one of many possibilities where it would be impossible to demand to SEE the retraction or the clarification.

    No, it is not my will to see Ch Yisrael champion Ch Stam. I would love to be able to drink milk anywhere, and also all those soft cheeses, yogurts etc., available in Coles. I could say the same(=opposite) about you. That you’re just looking for heterim to drink it. Well gezunte heit. Don’t let me stop you.

    You write
    “When someone points to things done by his parents and grandparents, and makes no mention of Halacha, then we have a classic illustration of Emotional Judaism, even if it does happen to coincide with Halacha, it is still emotionally driven”.

    Who said anything about not looking at halocho. I looked up my dictionary for the word emotional. It says “a person easily affected by joy, anger, grief etc. Please explain why someone following their parents are being emotional. Of course they are doing it because that is the halocho, so please don’t lecture me on that. The first time you put on Tefillin, did you do it because that was the custom in your family,and they told you it’s a Mitzvah or did you actually look through the Shulchan Oruch and all poskim to make sure it was the correct thing to do?

    “The butchers and rabbis maybe making a very modest profit but the consumers are still paying far too much”. So, if you make it cheaper, there will be no profit. If they are making a modest profit, how is it possible to make it cheaper?

    Re your piece about horsemilk, methinks you have had a tad too many business meetings with Kalman(although he will disagree with you re the existence of such milk).

  • kalmangradman says:

    hi gamliel,

    no horsemilk! are you kidding!

    the VRC (victoria racing club) the pre-eminent organisation of all things horse racing in this state, are planning to begin milking all those (female/mares) horses that will now become redundant as a result of the ban on jumps-racing which is due to begin later this year!

    the chairman of the VRC, Mr P Shetland, a long time supporter of horse milk and horse milking, has advised, that last years odds-on melbourne cup winner, the 5 year old mare, “like a milkshake” will be starring in a new series of television commercials supported by magazine and radio placements.

    “Groisse M,” as this new product is to be known, will be available at all good coles and woollies outlets throughout australia from october onwoods.

    enjoy!

  • dovid segal says:

    gamliel

    gamliel

    I wrote:

    והקיל מרן החזו”א לחלושים מבני הישיבה להשתמש בזה מחמת פיקוח הממשלה והוא ע”פ שיטת הפרי חדש, הדברים נדפסו כעת בהחזו”א יו”ד מ”א והוא מחזו”א ע”ז סימן ד

    now you can see it?

    why don’t you cut my quotation from karyano d’igarto and paste it into “google translator”, and see how Mr. Google translates it.

    you mentioned 3 rabbonim, one who writes that the chazon ish told him an explation in what he wrote, a second that didn’t say that he even knew the chazon ish or spoke to him, but tells that he wrote to the steipler his explanation in what the chazon ish wrote, and what were the circumstances in Israel at that time, and that the steipler agreed with him that in normal conditions it is not allowed to drink company milk, and then we have the letter of the steipler that in a letter dated יום ד פרשת צו תשכ”ז” – 29/3/1967 tells the story of the yeshiva bacurim that he knows, that the chazon ish allowed the weak to drink powdered milk produced by non Jews, based on the the “shita” of the pri chadash.

    Do you want to suggest that what he wrote in chazon ish, was limited to weak people?

    I that there those who claim the chazon didn’t write it in an halocho book, and only as a svoro in a lomdus book, but the truth is that the chazon ish didn’t write any halacha books, and as he writes in kovetz igrot part 2, igeret 164 אם כי קשה עלי להכנס בהוראה לרבים למעשה, וכפי הרגלי אני כותב דרך לימוד

    could be that he spoke to the chazon didn’t say what harav weltz is claiming that he told him, as we find in tzitz elazar volume 6 tshuva 5: ולכן אין להאמין גם למי שיאמר בשמו של החזו”א זצ”ל, ששמע כך ממנו בע”פ. ובודאי טעה השומע או לא הבין

    that is possible when people are reporting about the answer they got from the chazon ish to their specific question, but not when a person writes ובמק”א הבאתי עדות אנשים נאמנים שהחזו”א זצ”ל לא התיר למעשה כלל אפילו בפיקוח ממשלתי והמנהג בכל ישראל לאסור,

    to write והחזו”א גופא לא התיר, רק בדבריו יש להקל בחולה דוקא, ומצא בזה טעם של פיקוח ממשלתי

    ויש אומרים שגם לחולה לא התיר למעשה, וכל דבריו היו רק ב”יש מקום לומר

    it looks to me like a person that is throwing something at a rotating fan, in hope that it will hit somebody.

    I never said the chazon ish agreed with Rav Moshe’s heter, as rav moishe wrote his first tshuva regarding the heter of “company milk” in ט”ו סיון תשי”ד and it was many years after the chazon ish wrote his “heter” and מלחמת העצמאות, what I wrote was, that they both agreed to the same principle, that govermant control is not worse than שפחות המרתתות and if you know the way he wrote his opinions “l’maase”, you can assume that it was למעשה, and not just a svoro.

    I said enough and I am not planning to comment on this issue any more.

    Have a good shabbat

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom Gamliel, and thank you for your thoughts

    May I firstly suggest that your silence (and that of others on thos blog) on the other issues that I raised suggests that you agree with what I posted.


    Regarding the “rule” of – Pay no heed to those who say or print, “that I heard in the name of”; if it contradicts that which is written by the Gadol himself; it is an ancient rule in the Gemara – Lama Li KeRa Sevara Hu – we need no Biblical support for matters that are self evident.


    When you ask “Why shoudn’t I believe all those Gedolim who say they heard it from the great man’s mouth?” you are presenting an emotional argument because it suggests that those who argue the other side are accusing these Gedolim of being economical with the truth. No one wishes to be seen making such allusions. Consequently the discussion becomes stifled. I understand the emotions but you must accept that against such a backdrop it becomes impossible to have a rational discussion. It becomes an emotional battle which has no place in the development of Halacha and in fact only serves to stifle Halachic discussion. In fact you later on reflect this exact sentiment, “Otherwise you are saying that all these Rabbonim are lying CH”V. How else can you explain it.”


    You also say, “The Torah is full of instances of the Mishna saying something that the Gemoro explains differently. The same is with Rashi on the Gemorah, and all the way down to our times.”

    I don’t know such Gemaras. I know of Gemaras that struggle to find in the Beraissa a source for changes or asks a contradiction from a Beraisa and resolves the contradiction by suggesting a variation between the Mishnah and the Beraissa. Sometimes we also find that a Mishnah may be qualified due to something which appears to be just a sensible analysis, again – Lama Li KeRa Sevara Hu.


    Gamliel you also say, “A poisek writes something and a later Posek, explains that he means something different.” Exactly he MUST EXPLAIN it, he does not just say I had a chat with him and he told me that he has changed his mind, or that he did not really mean what he said.


    Gamliel regarding your next point, you must have been in a hurry. You say that, “Even you write “it is certainly possible that the Ch Ish either changed his mind or wrote something that did not truly reflect his opinion”” but in truth I said the opposite. Have a look, here is the complete quotation: “True, there is a suggestion of a contradiction, and it is certainly possible that the Ch Ish either changed his mind or wrote something that did not truly reflect his opinion – but in such cases we must demand to SEE the retraction or the clarification.”

    So your next point is also misdirected. You say, “There could be many reasons why the Chazon Ish wrote something which he later explained, is only in certain circumstances”. I agree. It is a great testament to the honour of the Torah that Poskim can and do change their minds. The issue is though that we MUST SEE that the Sage has changed his mind. It must be written and written in a form that clearly indicates that the Sage is retracting from his previous position.


    If you were trying to explain circumstances in which it would be impossible for the Ch Ish to write a retraction, I did not follow your argument. Please try to explain again.


    I do apologise for “lecturing you” that was not my intention.
    Regarding your observations, “Please explain why someone following their parents are being emotional. Of course they are doing it because that is the halocho, so please don’t lecture me on that. The first time you put on Tefillin, did you do it because that was the custom in your family,and they told you it’s a Mitzvah or did you actually look through the Shulchan Oruch and all poskim to make sure it was the correct thing to do?”

    You are of course quite right. The first time I put on Tefillin it was a most emotional experience. I was not fully aware of the Halchic implications or details. I would imagine this is true for most youngsters. What is your point? You are proving MY point. I say that when a person matures his/her relationship with HKBH must also mature. It can only do this with respect to pursuing the Halacha and diminishing the emotional energy that drives us when we are young and impressionable.


    I posted, “The butchers and rabbis maybe making a very modest profit but the consumers are still paying far too much”.

    You responded, “So, if you make it cheaper, there will be no profit. If they are making a modest profit, how is it possible to make it cheaper?”

    I am sorry I thought my point was quite clear. Without competition there is absolutely no need for efficiency. An inefficient business must sell expensive products and services. Competition means that the businessmen or women are trying to make their business more efficient. Greater efficiency provides MORE profit to the business and ALSO CHEAPER products for consumers.

    Have a Gutt Shabbos

  • dovid segal says:

    r’ m. rabi

    from a tesuva that was send by the sun of the noda b’yehuda that is printed in שו”ת נודע ביהודה מהדורה תנינא – יורה דעה סימן כט:

    ויקבל רצוף פה העתק מתשובת אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל אשר דרש ממני מעלתו אשר העתקתי מספר נודע ביהודה מהדורא תנינא אשר הניח אחריו ברכה כבוד אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל והוא מחזיק כל התשובות שהשיב לשואלים אחר הדפסת נודע ביהודה מהדורא קמא. ומתוכו יראה מעלתו שאאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל התיר הדג הזה ששאל עליו הרב מטו”ו להלכה שכל דג שקשקשיו נקלפים מן העור ע”י שריה במי אפר שקורין לויג או ע”י פעולה אחרת שפיר נקראים קשקשים והוא טהור. ותמה אני שכתב מעלתו שאאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל הדר בו מהוראה זאת וצוה על מעלתו לשלוח אגרת ההדרנא להרב מט”ו. ימחול לי מעלתו שדבר זה הוא שקר מוחלט וידוע לכל גודל צדקתו של אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל והיה מהיר וזריז במלאכת הכתיבה ולמה לא כתב בעצמו להרב מטו”ו שהיה מכירו והיה מאוכלי שולחנו של אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל כמה שנים להודיע לו שחוזר מהוראתו ולא היה סומך על מעלתו להיות שלוחו להודיע הדבר להרב ההוא ולא היה נח ושקט מלשלוח אגרות ע”י גמלא פרחא לפרסם הדבר לאיסור שלא יכשלו באיסור שרץ דאורייתא. ומה גם למה לא נמצא גם העתק מאגרת הזה שכתב למעלתו וחזקה לחבר שאינו מניח דבר שאינו מתוקן ואיך הניח התשובה להיתר בספרו ולא חש לתקלה למוחקו או לכתוב בצדו שחזר בו. ופשיטא שאין מעלתו נאמן בזה מאחר שאין בידו גוף האגרת ומרחיק עדותו לומר ששלחו להרב מטו”ו ונאבד. גם למה לא הודיע הרב מטו”ו ברבים לאסור הדג הזה. כל זה הוא למופת שכבוד מעלתו שקר ענה בשם אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל.

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom to you Reb Dovid and thank you for sharing your erudition.

    Reb D Segal quotes a Teshuvah printed in the famous Sefer Noda BiYeHudah, where the NBiYeHudah’s son vigorously protests those who suggest that his father changed his mind about a certain Halachic ruling he was known to have permitted.

    The son argues that it is inconceivable that his father would not have broadcast his changed opinion in writing had he in fact changed is opinion on that matter. If it is not written then it did NOT happen no matter who is saying that the author DID change his opinion.

    It is troubling that such obvious matters need to be “proven”.

    And of course the same applies in our discussion regarding the opinion of the Ch Ish. He knew how to write and he knew how inportant it is to write.

  • Gamliel says:

    Absolutely no proof whatsoever from the son(not sun) of the Noda Beyehuda. First of all there he is talking about a fish, which is either Kosher or not. It is the same today, the same yesterday and the same tomorrow. The circumstances of the times do not change it even one iota. Nothing does. The Chazon Ish’s comment is for the hard times that he lived in and once the food situation improves, and Cholov Yisroel is readily availabe, frail bochurim can have supervised milk. It is about the same as other “proofs” that DS has brought, comparing apples to choc chips sundaes.

    Also, by the fish, it is his own son, the closest person to him, that is saying it. By milk, it is his b.i.l. , who was his closest confidante, so in both we know who to believe

    And unlike what this Rov said about the NB, the Ch”I did not retract. He said it for his times.

    I can tell you that most of what you and Dovid have said, have to me only confirmed what I thought was correct, especially the teshuvos he brought up, in which he himself said these Rabbonim agree with me, some of which I did not know.

  • meir rabi says:

    Gamliel, Shalom.

    It is true, the N BiYeHudah is discussing fish, but it is not as simple as you make it sound – there is plenty of discussion and vigorous debate, as there ought to be, regarding which fish scales qualify to identify a fish as Kosher. And there is every reason to consider that opinions may change, as is the nature of true Halachic discussion. Changes can occur as you say, due to changes in circumstances but they can also occur in ones mind when determining the nature of scales that identify fish as Kosher fish.

    Just recently here in Melbourne there was such a discussion and one rabbi changed his mind.

    This Rov insisted that the N BiYehudah, who had written that such and such a fish is Kosher, had changed his mind and told him that it was not Kosher. The son was furious that such a claim be made and rejects it in the strongest possible terms. And he did not claim authority because he was his son, he claimed authority because his father did not write any response and would most certainly have written a response had he changed his mind.

    The Ch Ish needs to be learned and analysed for what he said. Are you surprised that some see absolutely no foundation in the words of the Ch Ish for the interpretation that you are offering? Does the Ch Ish mention frail students? Or that his ruling is only for those times?

    Reb Dovid Segal like all humans has an opinion and a point of view. His position needs to be evaluated by the sources he provides. He is a Talmid Chacham of significant status and his comments are well worth rereading. This discussion has been edified and elevated through his contributions.

  • Gamliel says:

    Dovid Segal has an agenda, which he doesn’t hide. “Hungarians, anti zionists, liars” and plenty more. “His comments are well worth rereading” only because he agrees with you.

  • meir rabi says:

    Gamliel, Shalom.
    I presume that you have addressed all the issues that you disagree with and you concede all the matters you have not responded to.

    So you agree that we see from the son of the N BiYehudah that we are not to accept verbal retractions; that we must accept a Posek’s opinion by what he writes, not by what people say they heard him say.

    I understand your frustrations with some of Reb Dovid’s comments. I do not defend him, he is quite capable of doing that himself.

    But I certainly prefer and I would assume you also prefer, to talk to people who make their agenda and opinion clear from the outset.

    My observations about Reb Dovid’s contribution, reflect upon the Halachic persprectives that he has brought to this discussion. He happens to support me on this issue but my words apply to anyone who brings Halachic facts to a Halachic discussion. Halachic facts are worth re-reading.

  • Gamliel says:

    No, I do not concede. I have responded previously to all this and you’re just going over old ground. Fish is either Kosher or treif, no heter available if not Kosher. It is a different kettle of fish. If someone changed there mind, it is just that. In our case it is not changing of the mind.

    This was all said before and now it’s just going around in circles.

  • Kol Yisroel Chaverim says:

    Rabbi, “Halachik facts” from someone who dismisses Gedolim he disagrees with as “jihadists, liars, dreamers etc.? I would go with Gamliel’s “apples and sundeas” theory.

  • dovid segal says:

    Gamliel

    even that I don’t know who you are, but after reading your postings I am sure that your knowledge in Hebrew or Halocho is closer to nothing than to something,
    what difference does it make if he is talking about a fish? the issue that was discussed is, if somebody that is a holy men is telling that a person that wrote in a book told him, that since the book was published he changed his mind, or that he told him that his Heter without limiting conditions that he wrote in the book, was only in certain conditions, and there is no proof that he said it, do we have to believe him or not, the answer is a simple: no! We don’t have to believe him.
    The Tshuvah from the son of the Noda Beyehuda was used by harav menashe klein when he was answering a question, if you can believe a person that is claiming that there was “change of mind”.

    I copied the whole teshuva from שו”ת משנה הלכות חלק ח סימן קלא
    בענין אם יש לסמוך שמהרש”ם חזר בו
    ב’ שופטים התש”מ בנ”י יצו”א
    מחיי חיים יכתב ויחתם לחיים טובים ארוכים ושלום את מע”כ הרה”ג כו’ כו’ וו”ח נו”נ כש”ת מוה”ר מנחם ז. באש שליט”א, ירושלים עיה”ק. אחדשכ”ת בידידות והוקרה
    מכתבו היקר היום קבלתי ותודה רבה על הצילום מהתשובה של מרן הגר”א קאטלער ז”ל ואי”ה לכשאפנה אולי אעיר על דבריו הקדושים ז”ל.

    ובדבר אשר ביקש הגרמ”מ שליט”א להעיר בפסקו של הגרש”ם שפקפקו בו ומי שהוא אמר שחזר בו ודאי צדקו בזה דברי הגרמ”מ שליט”א שהם רק פטפוטי דברים וכל מי שרוצה להכחיש את האמת יעשה כן ויאמר שחזר בו גם אנו נאמר שהמשכנות יעקב לאחר שאסר עירובין חזר בו והתיר ולמה לא נאמר שהמשכנות יעקב חזר בו והסכים להתיר כפי ההלכה משנאמר שהגמהרש”ם חזר בו לאיסור שהוא שלא כהלכה שהרי הביא ראיות לפסקו ולא בדה הדברים מלבו היום אומר כך ומחר אומר כך והרי אם נאמר שחזר בו צריך קודם לדחות הראיות הראשונות ולהביא ראיות אחרות אבל אלו רק דברי הבל הם וצדק בזה הגרמ”מ וגם אני שכתבתי במקום אחד שחזר בו הגרש”ם כלומר שחזר בו והתיר יותר דבמכתבו הראשון לא התיר רק בשעה”ד ואמר שבע”נ יחמירו על עצמן ואח”כ חזר בו והתיר בהיתר גמור ומרווח לכ”ע וזה היתה חזרתו אבל דבר זה ג”כ לא היינו יכולין לומר מעצמינו אם לא שראינו שוב מכתבו השני עם ראיותיו וז”פ וברור מאד
    עכ”פ כלל גדול בידינו שאין להשתמש בחזרות כאלו ועיין שו”ת נוב”י ת’ סי’ כ”ט שכתב מרן הגאון ר’ שמואל בנו של הנב”י הגדול להגאון מפאקש שכתב שהנוב”י ז”ל חזר בו מהוראתו בענין דג שקשקשיו נקלפים ע”י לויג או ע”י פעולה אחרת וז”ל ותמה אני שכתב מעלתו שאאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל הדר בו מהוראה זאת וצוה על מעלתו לשלוח אגרת ההדרנא להרב מט”ו ימחול לי מעלתו שדבר זה הוא שקר מוחלט וידוע לכל גודל צדקתו של אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל והי’ מהיר וזריז במלאכת הכתיבה ולמה לא כתב בעצמו להרב מט”ו שהיה מכירו והיה מאוכלי שלחנו נשל אאמ”ו כמה שנים להודיע לו שחוזר מהוראתו ולא הי’ סומך על מעלתו להיות שלוחו להודיע הדבר להרב ההוא ולא הי’ נח ושקט מלשלוח אגרות ע”י גמלא פרחא לפרסם הדבר לאיסור שלא יכשלו באיסור שרץ דאורייתא ומה גם לא נמצא גם העתק מאגרת שכתב למעלתו וחזקה לחבר שאינו מניח דבר שאינו מתוקן ואיך הניח התשובה להיתר בספרו ולא חש לתקלה למוחקו או לכתוב בצדו שחזר בו, ופשיטא שאין מעלתו נאמן בזה מאחר שאין בידו גוף האגרת ומרחיק עדותו לומר ששלחו להרב מט”ו ונאבד. גם למה לא הודיע הרב מט”ו ברבים לאסור הדג הזה כל זה הוא למופת שכמ”ע שקר ענה בשם אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל
    ובסי’ ל’ השיב שנית להגאון הנ”ל וז”ל ועל מה שהתלונן עלי שכתבתי שמעלתו אינו נאמן שאאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל חזר מדבריו, האמת אגיד שמעלתו הוחזק כפרן בעסק זה כי הדבר אלי יגונב וכו’ ואני מזהירו שלא ילמד לשונו שקר ומרה תהי’ באחרונה אם יתגלה קלונו ברבים ויפורסם תשובת אאמ”ו הגאון ז”ל בדפוס ואף אם היה מעלתו במוחזק לאיש אמיתי אעפ”כ אם לדין יש תשובה ולא מצינו בפוסקים בדין ע”א שאינו נאמן לאסור שמחלקים אם העד הוא מוחזק בנאמנות ואדם כשר או לא וכו’ ולכן גם מעלתו לא ירע בעיניו אם אין אנו מאמינים לו בדבר שאין להאמין ונראה לעינים שהוא שקר מוחלט כמ”ש במכתבי הראשון וכו’ ע”ש והכ”נ כל אלו דברים פשוטים הם ג”כ לענין טענת שהמהרש”ם חזר בו. ועוד אני אומר שאפילו חזר בו אנן לא חזרינן שהרי ראיתו חזקה להתיר ואנן אראיותיו שהם מבוארים בתורה סמכינן ועיני בשר לנו בעזה”י להבין ולהשכיל בתורתינו הקדושה עכ”פ פשוט שאין לסמוך על זה כלל וכלל. ועיין א”ז הגדול אלפא ביתא אות ל’ מ’ נ’ למד מאמר נאמן שלא תאמר מימרא בשם אדם גדול אם לא ששמעת מפי אדם גדול אחר שהי’ מכירו שאמרה משמו דומיא דמשה רבינו שראה שכינה ואמר מפי הגבורה ובידוע שמאמר נאמן הוא וכדאי לסמוך על אותה הקבלה כי תורה שבקבלה שקבל מרבותיו הוא עיקר.
    דושכת”ר בלב ונפש, מנשה הקטן
    It is a basic rule in halocho that you don’t “believe” a person that is telling you that a person that wrote something in a book told him that he changed his mind, and in the words of the Noda Byehuda’s son:
    ואף אם היה מעלתו במוחזק לאיש אמיתי אעפ”כ אם לדין יש תשובה ולא מצינו בפוסקים בדין ע”א שאינו נאמן לאסור שמחלקים אם העד הוא מוחזק בנאמנות ואדם כשר או לא וכו’ ולכן גם מעלתו לא ירע בעיניו אם אין אנו מאמינים לו בדבר שאין להאמין ונראה לעינים שהוא שקר מוחלט כמ”ש במכתבי הראשון וכו’ ע”ש

    you are talking about hard times, but where where did you see the chazon ish saying that his heter is for hard times? The steipler wrote that the chazon ish’s heter was based on the reasons that he wrote in “Chazon Ish” on avoido Zoro, where he wrote that his Heter was based on the din of Shfochois Hamratsois, which is a Heter l’chatcila, and not a Heter of Bishas Hadchak.

    You are coming up with all those reasons, that have nothing to do with the issue, didn’t he write enough tshuvot on that issue? where do you get your reasons? what difference does it make, if it was his son who said it or his b.i.l.? Did the son of the NB mention this fact as a reason how he knows that his father didn’t change his mind, or it was based on facts?

    he didn’t say anything, not for his times, not for before his times, and not for after his times, all that he said was, that fear from the government, is not worse than the fear of a Shikse from her Jewish boss.
    For milk to be kosher there is no need for a rov with a shtrimel to supervise the milking, and it is clear to any bar daas that the fear from breaking the government laws is not less than the fear of “Shfochois Hamratsois” (“fearing maids”) or the supervision of a minor, that it is enough to make it CY.
    Harav Shternbuch wrote in תשובות והנהגות חלק ב סימן שעג
    ולדעתי, הסברא להתיר חלב עכו”ם משום פיקוח ממשלתי, אין בו ממש בזמננו, והיינו דאף למה שצידד החזו”א להיתר, שבררתי העונשים בחוק, ואמרו לי, שאם יצאו חלב עם משהו חלב טמא, יצטרכו לשלם קנס חמש מאות ראנד… ודברי הפוסקים להתיר, היינו, כשיקבל מאסר לתקופה ממושכת כדין מורד במלכות

    and so wrote harav weltz in דברי ישראל סימן טו, which is not more then a dream.

    When r’ Moshe Feinshtein discussed the same issue he wrote in שו”ת אגרות משה חלק יו”ד א’ סימן מח

    מעשרים וחמשה עד מאה דאלאר וגם הם מקבלי שוחדא, לא נתבטלה בזה הידיעה, משום דאין להם בשביל מה לעבור ולהענש וליתן שוחד, דאין להיות מזה ריוח שימסרו נפשייהו ע”ז דכיון שאסור מדיני הממשלה לערב, ודאי כשירצו ליקח פועלים לחלוב סוסים וגמלים וחזירים יצטרכו לשלם להם הון רב וגם לשחד כל הפועלים שיש להקאמפאניע שישתקו וגם לשחד למשגיחי הממשלה, שאף ששחד הוא דבר המצוי, מ”מ בדבר פרסום כאצל הקאמפאניע שאין עושין בעצמן אלא ע”י פועלים, הוא דבר קשה שייראו מליקח שחד, ואם יעלה בידו ליתן להם שחד, צריך להון רב ונמצא שאין שייך שיהיה לו ריוח מזה, ובלא ריוח הא מפורש בגמ’ שאין לחוש לערובי בע”ז דף ל”ד קיסתא דמורייס בלומא קיסתא דחמרא בד’ לומי וכן הוא בתוס’ /ע”ז/ דף ל”ב. ורק שיש לחוש שמא יש לו מעט חלב טמא שא”צ לפועלים ויערב באופן שלא יבינו העוסקים, שהוא רק ריוח משהו, ובפרט לגבי מסחר של אלפים, שודאי בשביל מירתת מדיני הממשלה, אף בשביל עונש קטן לא יערב, ובפרט שאם יעבור איזה פעמים ודאי יקחו ממנו הלאייסענס, שיהיה מוכרח לסגור העסק כמו שנוהגין בהרבה דברים, שאם אין מועיל עונש ממון עונשין בלקיחת הלאייסענס שהוא סגירת העסק. ולכן אף שאנן לא נימא דברים ואומדנות מעצמנו, אבל אומדנא זו דמירתת, וכן שאין לחוש לעירוב כשאין ריוח הוא מפורש בגמ’, והחשבון שאין ריוח זה ודאי יכולין גם אנחנו לחשוב

    who sounds more honest and logical, rmf or the rabbonim shternbuch and weltz?

    correct in what? I didn’t see you saying even one thing that was right, all that you did is repeat boba mayses that had nothing to do with halocha or with reality.

    which are the rabbonim who agree with you?

  • Gamliel says:

    Dovid, you posted this long Teshuve from Harav Menashe Klein. However, you obviously did not read it through yourself. Yes, it says in very strong language not to quote from an odom godol. But, there is an exception, as he quotes from the(I think it is) the Ohr Zaruah Hagodol. And that exception is when you heard from a Godol that he heard from that godol, and they both knew each other. So in addition to the reasons I have brought, that the case of the fish is blatantly obviously different than the story here, this tshuva that you posted, only proves my point. Here we not only have one odom godol, saying they heard from the Chazon Ish, but quite a few, including RYV, the Chelkas Yakov and others. And then there is the Steipeler, who was a Bene bayis and said that the Ch”I allowed it for frail bochurim, when ch”y milk was not available.

    You can continue to heap insults about my lack of knowledge and halocho, but this further proves that your proofs are apples to sundaes. From what I can see, by the fish, this Rav did not even know the N”B.

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom Gamliel,

    I hear you, you do not concede. But I do not know why.
    There is a Halachic debate about fish scales. Only easily removed fish scales are a sign of Kosher fish. The N BiYehudah permitted a test that uses a chemical or mechanical means to remove the scales and others do not permit this as a test to identify a Kosher fish. The Q is – did the NB change his Pesak? His son is adamant that we dare not suggest such a thing if he did not write it. BTW, he feels no need to prove this rule, as I said earlier it is self evident, Lama Li Kera Sevara Hu.

    Regarding the Ch Ish and milk, we must determine if he qualifies in writing that his Pesak applies only to difficult circumstances. You appear to be proving that he did qualify his Pesak but you are not basing yourself on the writings of the Ch Ish but on what other people said they heard from the Ch Ish. In fact, even they are not suggesting that the Ch Ish wrote this or suggested this in his writings. Or are they?

    Is it not correct to deduce that as the son of the NB insisted not to alter the written Pesak of his father so too would he insist that we not alter the written Pesak of the Ch Ish

    Please be patient with me and explain why this is not a parallel case.

    You mention that you re-read the Halachic substance of Reb D Segal’s postings, and discovered that HaRav M Klien himself says that we should believe a Gadol, who says he heard in the name of another Gadol. That is partially true, but if I have correctly discovered what you refer to, HaRav Klien is not saying this about a comment which seeks to alter the written Pesak of the Gadol. In fact he is saying something even more fantastic (and applicable in our times). “Do not believe ANYTHING you hear in the name of a Gadol UNLESS that statement can be verified from another Gadol of impeccable credibility.” But he is not saying that from such a source we should alter a written Pesak.

    As I said earlier, if you wish to offer advice to Reb Dovid for his apparently intemperate comments I encourage you to do that. But I also encourage you to be honest in apprainsing his quoted Halachic sources. You may consider the message a little rough but that does not mean it is untrue and has no substance.

  • dovid segal says:

    Kol Yisroel Chaverim

    are you able to think or just to copy and paste?

    It all started with a post of gamliel on August 17, 2010 at 9:51 pm , followed by a post of shoshanna on August 18, 2010 at 10:38 am and gamliel again on August 23, 2010 at 6:37 pm. And now you on August 23, 2010 at 8:30 pm.

    Did any of you bother to check if I dismissed Gedolim that I disagreed with them as “jihadists, liars, dreamers etc.

    on July 27, 2010 at 9:10 pm I wrote:

    “the anti Zionist Hungarian rabbonim that declared a jihad on r’ moshe, who was the head of Agudas Iarael in America, started a smear campaign full of lies, against many of his “problematic” teshuvot”.

    I didb’t dismiss Gedolim that I disagreed with as “jihadists, liars, dreamers, as a “real” gadol has got respect for truth, the meaning of the word “jihad” is a “holy war”, but the jihadists were those who wrote articles against RMF, assaulted him, burned his books, called ambulances and fire trucks at midnight to his home, (see igrot moshe chelek 8, page 26, and the same for liars, liars tell lies, but a person that tells lies is not all ways a liar or had the kavono to tell lies, may be he saw the story in a book of a person that he was told, that the writer is a “godol”.

    I was going to suggest to you, that instead of repeating what others wrote, that you should try to think, if what they wrote was rhght, but I decided not to do so, as there is an opinion that Tzaar Baalei Chaim is D’oraita. (see baba metzia 32,b and 33,1.

  • Gamliel says:

    Rabbi Rabi, Harav Menashe Klein is giving a long Teshuva and specifically quoting the son of the N”B,
    and then he brings the (I think it is)Ohr Zarua Hagodol to prove his point. Now, if he brings the O”Z as proof that something written by a godol cannot be overridden, then the exception, quoted in the same paragraph, is also about exactly the same inyan. Therefore, RMK is effectively saying that to compare the milk issue-where many Gedolim who knew the Chazon Ish and heard from his mouth-to the fish-where apparently this Rav hardly knew him, is comparing apples to sundaes. He brings proof from the O”Z even though the latter is not talking about something written in a sefer. However RMK obviously holds that this is also included in the O”Z’s comment. So, it seems obvious that according to RMK one can’t bring proof from the N”B’s tshuve to our issue.

    Also, apparently by the story of the fish, the N.B. hardly knew the Rav of Paksh. Here we have a variety of Gedolim, and the Steipler who actually saw almost everything the Chazon Ish said and did and he said that he allowed it for frail bochurim in hard times. To these Gedoilim it is “Nireh le’enayim” “Sevoroh hu”.

    You have also never addressed, or apparently seen any need to address why there are all these Rabbonim, being witness to what the Ch”I told them?

  • meir rabi says:

    Gamliel Shalom.
    I think I understand what you are trying to say. But I believe that there is a slight misreading of this quotation from the Ohr Zaruah. In the introduction of the Sefer he has a section named Alpha Beta. On page 9 column on the right at the bottom he speaks of the Lamed Mem Nun which refers to Lamed MaAmar NeEman – learn (only) from a trustworthy source. He is describing the importance of understanding how important it is to ensure a reliable and accurate transmition of our Laws. One should see the person they are quoting before their eyes (Yerushalmi) meaning even a very subtle variation can alter the meaning of a Halacha and one should understand therefore that by seeing one’s teacher before them they will be very particular to accurately communicate their teachings. And he provides the paradigm of this from the words of Moshe Rabbenu being trusted to accurately communicate the words of HKBH.

    When Rabbi Klien quotes this he is not suggesting an “exception” as I think you understand it. He is saying that the only single instance of being able to accept an oral teaching is as the Ohr Zaruah is saying, with absolute clarity and confidence. But Rabbi Klien is without question not in any manner shape or form backing away from his stated position that the written Pesak can not be reversed without written confirmation by that Posek.

    I will offer a simple translation of that section of Rabbi Klien’s Teshuvah.
    Someone said that he changed his Pesak.
    There is no doubt that this is just nonsense. All those who wish to deny truth just use this ploy. The same tactic will be used by the other side of an argument to dismiss their opponents!
    We are not evaluating a Halachic opinnion based on nothing but the personal whim of the Posek. He has given sound arguments to suppoert his position. Si if anyone is to suggest that the Posek changed his mind, we must first see the reasons that this Posek now dismisses his first arguments.
    We see nothing of this here so I must conclude that this suggestion that he changed his Pesak is just plain nonsense.
    Even where I suggested that a Posek had changed his mind it was to suggest that his lenient ruling was even more lenient and thus I was expanding the Pesak in the same direction. But even this I could not do of my own accord but only with support from the Posek’s own words in a second letter.
    So the guideline is that we can not sugest changes without written confirmation from the Posek himself. As we see from the Noda BiYehudah and his son regarding the scales on Kosher fish. In that discussion he writes, “Regarding your complaint that I said that you are not to be trusted on this matter, I will say clearly that you are already established as a liar in this matter. I warn you to expend more energy to train your tongue to speak truth. You will come to a bitter end when it will be known that you are contradicting my father’s written Teshuvah. Even if you had an impeccable reputation for honesty it is nevertheless Halachically impossible to accept your word as acceptable testimony and such a rejection is not an insult it is the Halacha.”
    In this case the truth and facts are obvious. In fact it is so obvious that even if the Posek himself writes that he changed his mind, we will only be persuaded by the arguments, which in this case are so clear that we would retain the Pesak to be lenient in spite of the Posek saying that he changed his mind to be strict.
    You can see this very idea from the Ohr Zaruah, where he learns this important guideline; one must not say something in the name of a Gadol unless it has been heard from an impeccably trusted source as much as we trust the word of Moshe Rabbenu who taught from the mouth of HKBH

    I can not address the reason of why other Torah great leaders have said various things in the name of the Ch Ish, that leads back to my point, made in an earlier post, about becoming a very emotive and non-rational discussion.

    Besides, the point of this discussion is that we need not pay heed to such considerations since they contradict what the Ch Ish wrote and did not amend. In fact the question should really be asked in reverse; why did the Ch Ish NOT write a clarification if he knew of how he was misunderstood and misrepresented and especially as his BIL, the Steipler Gaon was suggesting that he spoke with him about the issue?

    May I presume that you do concede that there is a parallel between the fish scales and the Ch Ish milk issue?

  • Gamliel says:

    “unless it has been heard from an impeccably trusted source”

    In fact it has been heard from numerous impeccably, trusted sources, as I have already written a few times.

    I cannot see what is unrational about asking why other Gedolim have said certain things in the name of the Chazon Ish.

    I have already given reasons of why I think there is this discrepancy. That is, of course, my thoughts on the matter, but it seems logical to me, and fits in with what the Steipler writes.

    As I said before, RMK bringing the quote from the Ohr Zaruah proves there is no parallel. But even before seeing his tshuve, as I wrote previously, there are other reasons why the letter from the N”B is not current here.

  • meir rabi says:

    It helps to read my entire piece rather than a small snippet, so let’s take a look at what RMK writes. “In this case the truth and facts are obvious. In fact it is so obvious that EVEN IF THE POSEK HIMSELF WRITES THAT HE CHANGED HIS MIND, WE WILL ONLY BE PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENTS, which in this case are so clear that we would retain the Pesak to be lenient in spite of the Posek saying that he changed his mind to be strict.
    You can see this very idea from the Ohr Zaruah, where he learns this important guideline; one must not say something in the name of a Gadol unless it has been heard from an impeccably trusted source as much as we trust the word of Moshe Rabbenu who taught from the mouth of HKBH”

    Not only is he saying not to trust others who say in the name of this Posek but even the Posek himself is not to be trusted if he just says “I changed my mind.” He must bring proofs and we must evaluate those proofs.

    Thus you Gamliel, if you wish, are entitled to say that you disagree with the Ch Ish. However, you are not entitled to say that others have said the Ch Ish changed his mind.

    Your question of why others have said this in the name of the Ch Ish, falls back to your earlier comment, the emotive, non–Halachic argument – “you are saying that all these Rabbonim are lying CH”V. How else can you explain it?”

    But my question which remains unanswered is not an emotive but a Halachic question, is a very legitimate question. I will ask it again. Why did the Ch Ish NOT write a clarification if he knew of how he was misunderstood and misrepresented and especially as his BIL, the Steipler Gaon was suggesting that he spoke with the Ch Ish about the issue? If you did answer it I am sorry but I cant find it, please repost and perhaps elaborate.

    Gamliel, you say, “As I said before, RMK bringing the quote from the Ohr Zaruah proves there is no parallel.”

    I do not understand what you mean. Please elaborate.

    Am I wrong to presume that you do concede that there is a parallel between the fish scales and the Ch Ish milk issue as per my earlier post?

  • Gamliel says:

    You write that I am “not entitled to say that others said that the Chazon Ish changed his mind”. I do not think it is right that you should put words in my mouth that I never said or wrote.

    As I wrote earlier, one of the reasons why the fish letter is completelely dissimilar to this milk isssue, is because the former is a psak halocha from the Noda BYehuda, whereas here the Chazon Ish did not give a Psak Halocha, by any means-in his Sefer. I think he wrote “Yesh Mokom Lomer” is far from a psak of halocha lema’ase. And it certainly leaves the issue open. Hence it is quite legitimate for other Gedolim of impeccable trustworthiness, to quote what he had passed on to them.

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom Gamliel

    I agree that it is not right to put words in people’s mouths. I appreciate your desire to issue Tochacha, but I did not think when I was posting (and I still don’t think now) that I was putting words in your mouth.

    I wrote, “Thus you Gamliel, if you wish, are entitled to say that you disagree with the Ch Ish. However, you are not entitled to say that others have said the Ch Ish changed his mind.” I dont follow your concern. Please elaborate.

    Have you not been saying that there are many reliable people who have indicated that the Ch Ish has changed his mind, or never in the first place intended to say etc.?
    You wrote, “I can’t say I know why the Chazon Ish wrote differently than he explained later, but surely if the Steipler says “this is what he meant”, then there is no reason not to believe that, especially when other Gedolim said they heard the same from his mouth.”

    Our reference to RMK states that it is not correct to believe matters that are said in the name of when there is no indication in writing that the Pesak was altered. And even more famously states that even if the Posek DOES reverse his ruling, he must A) provide explanation of why his original arguments are not valid and B) we are not to accept that reversal but to assess the reasons offered for the reversal.

    The question I asked you has not been answered. Why did the Ch Ish not issue a written clarification, seeing he knew that his writings were being taken out of context?

    I don’t think the difference you suggest, that the NB issues a Pesak whereas the Ch Ish is suggesting a Sevara, has any bearing on the question we are addressing – Why did the Ch Ish NOT write a clarification if he knew of how he was misunderstood and misrepresented and especially as his BIL, the Steipler Gaon was suggesting that he spoke with the Ch Ish about the issue?

    Gamliel, you say, “As I said before, RMK bringing the quote from the Ohr Zaruah proves there is no parallel.”
    I do not understand what you mean. Please elaborate.

  • Emes says:

    Rabbi Rabi,

    Thank you for your insights on the discussions among the poskim, but back to more pragmatic issues:

    1. Are there any other contemporary rabbonim of stature worldwide who support your stance on soft matza? Is it being produced in any other place for use by Ashkenazim?

    2. Why did you feel a need to introduce soft matza given its controversial status? After all, it’s not like people were turning away from regular matza and no longer keeping Pesach…

    2. Does not the argument in favour of reintroducing soft matza also lend credence to the abolishment of the halachos against kitniyos? After all, both hard matza and kitniyos are chumras.

    3. Does your kashrus authority have any separation between its kashrus functions and its finances (noting that the NSW KA and K-Oz have strict oversight by a board of management)?

    4. Why did you set up KvY? Surely if you have legitimate issues with kashrus in Victoria you could endeavour to work constructively with K-Oz, rather than setting up a competing organisation that would inevitably create machlokes?

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom to Emes, may we all merit to have the determination to pursue Emes with all our energy.

    Thank you for your questions. I urge you to have a close look at our website wher eyou will find much of this information and more.

    There are 3 world recognised Halachic authorities who clearly indicate that soft Matza is acceptable in the first instance for all Jews, even Ashkenasim who have been eating hard Matza for the past 200 years. Rav Bluth (a noted student of HaRav Moshe Feinstein), Rav Aviner (a respected Rav and leader in the International Zionist Yeshivot) and Rav Schachter (one of the two senior authorities to provide Halachic guidance to the OU, the Orthodox Union of Synagogues) have all stated that Ashkenazim may eat soft matza.See here, http://kosherveyosher.com.au/modx/index.php?id=288

    The Most Mehudar Matza
    This Matza, is very likely the most Mehudar Matza in the world today.

    Firstly, speed is critical to prevent ANY opportunity for the dough to rise. From the time the dough of our Matza begins to be rolled until baking ends, requires far less than one minute. This is an improvement by a factor of 5 or 6 when compared to the best hand Matza and by a factor of 7 or 8 when compared to the best machine Matza.

    Secondly, Matza dough should not be left idle, meaning un-worked, for even one moment during its processing. LSSM is idle for no more than 5 seconds which is at least 10 times less than the best hand made Matza and many times better than that compared to the best machine Matza.

    Thirdly, according to Halacha, thin dough is at less risk of becoming Chametz when compared to an identical thick dough. Our Matza is less than 1mm thick and of all Matza, spends about two seconds, the least time of all Matza, as a thick dough.
    These are achievements that every Matza baker and every Rav HaMachshir can only dream about.

    There is nothing controversial about soft Matza. Soft Matza is the true authentic Matza. Hard Matza is not Lechem according to the Halacha. It is a biscuit. Its Beracha is Mezonot. It is not the stuff one uses for a meal. See ShO OCh 168:7

    Sefardim have always been eating Soft Matza exclusively on Pesach. Ashkenazim however, from the early 1800’s, drifted towards baking harder Matza. See http://kosherveyosher.com.au/modx/assets/files/Documents/LSSM%20PDF%202%20CLMNS.pdf

    Soft Matza is easier to eat. There are more people eating Matza now that soft Matza is available, this is true in EY and USA.

    There is no similarity between Kitinyot and Soft Matza. Kitniyot are banned by a decree of the GaOnim. It is a Halacha that is listed in the Shulchan Aruch. On the other hand to the best of my knowledge, there is no source at all, I do not just mean the Shulchan Aruch, no, I refer to all the authorities and commentators including the modern Poskim, there is not one who says that there is a Halacha to avoid eating Soft Matza. There is not even a recorded custom of avoiding Soft Matza. To the best of my knowledge, there is no informed person and certainly not any authority who suggests that Hard Matza is a Chumrah.

    Yes we do have separation between the Kashrus functions and finances. However, see http://kosherveyosher.com.au/modx/index.php?id=163. where in IGM YD 4 1:8, Rabbi Feinstein says that the smaller Kashrus orgs are preferable and more trustworthy. “I well remember the great Gaon Rabbi Rosenberg. He stood at the helm of the organisation of rabbis providing Kosher supervision, and he declared that communal agencies providing kosher certification must be fully financially independent before being able to legitimately claim any advantage over individual kosher agencies.

    If a communal agency receives any payments whatsoever from the establishments they are servicing, even if only to defray the costs of the Mashgichim, then they offer no advantage over the individual Rabbonim who are providing similar services.

    In fact, it is quite likely that the Hashgocha of the communal agency is inferior simply because there is no one single individual in whom the final responsibility rests. There is no one “at the top” who feels personally responsible. Whereas an individual Rov is far more likely to feel the responsibility and the repercussions of any errors and he is far more likely to be fearful of having erred, having caused others to sin and lose the respect of his supporters.

    Besides it is the way of the world that people tend to automatically trust the larger agencies without really checking their operations unlike the individual Rov who is queried and investigated.

    I must also add, that those who provide a Hashgocha without actually supervising the processing at the factory, are guilty of misleading people and other inter-personal sins. Even though the food is Kosher, those consuming the product understand that the product has been monitored by the agency and not just “investigated” to determine that the ingredients and processes are acceptably Kosher.”

    I did not set up KVY. I was compelled by a very insistent and unrelenting Rabbi Rudski, to continue his Kashrut authority. I renamed it as Kosher VeYosher and also, “its Kosher!”

    The nature of competition is well established and its success is well established. Unfortunately, so are the consequences of not having adequate competition. Rabbi Rudski knew this, and he knew more than this from his own experiences in the Melbourne Jewish community and in particular he was aware of how the provision of Kashrus worked in the community.

    Machlokes is not created by varying communities, customs and traditions. It is a symptom of those who lack Ahavas HaShem. Denying people the opportunity to overtly express their propensity to engage in Machlokes is not the way to heal the problem. Just like spraying a topical anesthetic on an injured football player’s leg does not heal the leg. It just permits the player to continue playing and exacerbate the injury.

    Surely you wish to teach your children to share and have affection for one another. This is not achieved by providing each with their own bike, computer, shower, TV (Ch VeShalom), radio etc.

    It is achieved by patiently explaining that people are different and that we are able to respect others in spite of these differences. Even more importantly, we show our admiration and loyalty to HaShem and our fellow Jews by being able to meet them without barriers and devices that imply superior and inferior status.

  • Gamliel says:

    R”R, maybe I did not explain it clearly, althought I thought I had. So I will try again slower and clearer.

    It was not me who was issuing tochacha. If anyone, it was you. You told me that I am not permitted to say that someone said that the Ch”I changed his mind. So effectively you are saying that I said that they said that the Ch”I changed his mind. But with this you are putting words into my mouth, because I never said such a thing. Now lets do it slowly: I- never- said- or-wrote-that-the-Chazon Ish-changed-his-psak. I have already written before on this thread that the Chazon Ish “did not retract”. So I say again, it is not correct to mussar me about something I did not say. While I am not issuing any tochacha to anyone, just defending myself against quotes in my name which I didn’t say.

    Re RMK bringing the Ohr Zarua proves it is not parallel. Because as I have said before the Ohr Zarua says there is one exception, where you hear it from another Godol who knew him, as is the case here. Nothing you have written to date, changes this. And of course, when one teshuve is a psak haloche and the second is not, then there are at least two very good reasons why there is no parallel between them.

    And why should the Ch”I write a clarification if he only wrote a sevoro?

  • merkaz says:

    Emes seems to forget (or maybe he is too young to remember) that Rabbi M Gutnick operated his own Kashrut service for many years in direct competition with (KA’s ‘grandfather’) Mizrachi Kashrut. So too did Rabbi Yanky Barber. As someone here has already mentioned, it was it some ways even worse than just competition – but rather a slap in the face. I refer to when MK removed thair supervision from an establishment (for well known and justified reasons) and RMG filled the void within minutes!

    In addition to Rabbi Rudzki, Rabbi Chaim Gutnick also had his own kashrut service. And so too for many years did rabbi Sholem Gutnick (despite using the name of the BD – it was or all purposes his private operation.)

    It seems a bit hypocritical of those who now attack RMGR for behaving in exactly the same manner as did all those prominent members of the RCV.

  • meir rabi says:

    Shalom Gamliel,

    I appreciate your patience and your Tochacha. I use that word not in the common manner but in its true sense and meaning; it means to “clarify”. The word “rebuke” carries a very different connotation which I am not employing here.

    Re my “effectively saying that Gamliel said that the Ch”I changed his mind” and Gamlilel’s insistence that he “never said such a thing.”

    My understanding has always been that, if the Ch Ish writes expressing a view on a Halachic matter and this is adjusted by a verbal communication, i.e. we are told that the Ch Ish told various people that he meant something different to what he wrote, then we have for all intents and purposes, a change. The plain reading of the Ch Ish’s writings indicate one thing and you are quoting various Rabbanim who say they were told by the Ch Ish that he has changed his mind or he meant to say something else.

    Yes I am effectively saying that Gamlilel maintains that the Ch Ish changed his mind. I do not understand and can not accept the claim that this is a distortion of what Gamliel said and continues to say.

    I say that such verbal communications may not be repeated. That is self evident since the written word carries more credibility than a repeated verbal communication, and additionally, as the Ch Ish was queried about his written and published writings and realised that his opinion was misunderstood, why did the Ch Ish NOT write a clarification? Especially as his BIL, the Steipler Gaon was suggesting that he spoke with the Ch Ish about the issue of his words being misrepresented?

    If anything, this silence in the writings of the Ch Ish suggests that he did NOT change in any way or see any need to clarify his position even though he knew from trusted sources that his opinion was being (as is suggested in this discussion) “misrepresented”. This means he felt that his opinion was correctly understood. He Paskened or observed that such milk is permitted in all circumstances.

    Re RMK quoting the Ohr Zarua and that this means there is an exception to the principle of not accepting an oral communication that a Halachid Pesak has changed:

    I think I understand what you are trying to say Gamliel. But I believe that there is a slight misreading of this quotation from the Ohr Zaruah. The Ohr Zarua is not speaking about making exceptions. In the introduction of the Sefer he has a section named Alpha Beta. On page 9 column on the right at the bottom he speaks of the Lamed Mem Nun which refers to Lamed MaAmar NeEman – learn (only) from a trustworthy source. It is this that permits us to accept what Moshe Rabbenu told us.

    The O Zarua is describing the importance of understanding how important it is to ensure a reliable and accurate transmition of our Laws. One should see the person they are quoting before their eyes (Yerushalmi) meaning even a very subtle variation can alter the meaning of a Halacha and one should understand therefore that by seeing one’s teacher before them they will be very particular to accurately communicate their teachings. And he provides the paradigm of this from the words of Moshe Rabbenu being trusted to accurately communicate the words of HKBH. This is all in the context of working on a blank canvas. We can accept Halacha from such a source when it DOES NOT CONFLICT with anything else already on the canvas.

    When Rabbi Klien quotes this O Zarua, he is not suggesting an “exception” as I think you understand it. He is saying that the only single instance of being able to accept an oral teaching is as the Ohr Zaruah is saying, when we have absolute clarity and confidence. But Rabbi Klien is without question not in any manner shape or form backing away from his stated position that the written Pesak can not be reversed without written confirmation by that Posek.

    RMK writes. “In this case the truth and facts are obvious. In fact it is so obvious that EVEN IF THE POSEK HIMSELF WRITES THAT HE CHANGED HIS MIND, WE WILL ONLY BE PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENTS, which in this case are so clear that we would retain the Pesak to be lenient in spite of the Posek saying that he changed his mind to be strict.

    You can see this very idea from the Ohr Zaruah, where he learns this important guideline; one must not say something in the name of a Gadol unless it has been heard from an impeccably trusted source as much as we trust the word of Moshe Rabbenu who taught from the mouth of HKBH”

    Not only is he saying not to trust others who say in the name of this Posek but even the Posek himself is not to be trusted if he just says “I changed my mind.” He must bring proofs and we must evaluate those proofs.

    Thus you Gamliel, if you wish, are entitled to say that you disagree with the Ch Ish. However, you are not entitled to say that others have said the Ch Ish changed his mind.

    Re the N BiYehudah being a written Teshuve unlike the writings of the Ch Ish which you say is not:

    There is a Halachic debate about fish scales. Only easily removed fish scales are a sign of Kosher fish. The N BiYehudah permitted a test that uses a chemical or mechanical means to remove the scales and others do not permit this as a test to identify a Kosher fish. The Q is – did the NB change his Pesak? His son is adamant that we dare not suggest such a thing if he did not write it. BTW, he feels no need to prove this rule, as I said earlier it is self evident, Lama Li Kera Sevara Hu.

    Regarding the Ch Ish and milk, we must determine if he qualifies in writing that his Pesak applies only to difficult circumstances. You appear to be proving that he did qualify his Pesak but you are not basing yourself on the writings of the Ch Ish but on what other people said they heard from the Ch Ish. In fact, even they are not suggesting that the Ch Ish wrote this or suggested this in his writings. Or are they?

    Is it not correct to deduce that just as the son of the NB insisted not to alter the written Pesak of his father so too would he insist that we not alter the written Pesak of the Ch Ish?

    Please be patient with me and explain why this is not a parallel case.

    I will offer a basic translation of the relevant Ch Ish.
    YD 41:4 (p 56)

    Powdered milk can not be equated to cheese and butter. [These two products can only be manufactured from the milk of K beasts. Accordingly the Halacha accepts that the decree of Chalav Akkum was never applied to them. It appears that the Ch Ish understood that there were suggestions that powdered milk is identical to butter and cheese and should not be subject to the decree of ChA. The Ch Ish could not understand or accept such a suggestion.]

    Cheese is mande by separating the solids from the liquid which is accomplished with acids. Butter is made by flocculating the fats through agitation and or heat. These processes are effective only with milk from Kosher beasts.

    Production of powder can be achieved with any milk by spraying and drying it so we remain with the risk of the powdered milk being made from milk of non-K beasts.

    However, where the government is vigilant and ensures the milk production is restricted to cow’s milk and they punish violators, there is a valid consideration [Yesh Makom LoMar] that it is identical to the Halacha’s acceptance of the non-Jewish maids who milk the beasts and who are reluctant to substitute or supplement the milking with non-K milk. It is also similar to the situation where a Jew, although seated outside the milking shed, can easily view what is happening inside the shed, which is also Kosher.

    The Peri Chadash writes that where non-K milk is expensive, the regular milk is Kosher without supervision since Chazal permitted unsupervised milk when we can be sure that it is unadulterated Kosher milk. The Ch Ish goes on to prove this point.

    Similarly, when there are only Kosher milking beasts in the herd, Chazal made no decree if there is supervision that non-K beasts have not been brought into the herd. Even the prohibition that applies when there is no such supervision, is not because we have a problem with the milking itself. It is a problem due to the non-J who is in control of the milk after the milking. [i.e. if we were to collect the milk immediately at the conclusion of the milking, it would be Kosher.]

    And if there are no non-K milking beasts in the vicinity, then we do not require supervision to ensure that non-K beasts were not brought into the milking herd; as is explained in the Peri Chadash.

    The words of the Ch Sofer in this regard are not understood. (Temuhim MeOd)

  • meir rabi says:

    This might be of interest re the meaning of various Gedolim said to be supportive of or opposed to various issues.

    http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2010/08/rav-amnon-yitzchak-sits-with-rav.html

    Remember a short while back there was a video released of an askan who went to discuss tzniyus issues, specifically sheitel styles, with Rav ELyashiv. The video showed how the askan pestered Rav Elyashiv for a long time until he got the answer he was looking for, and he refused to accept anything else Rav Elyashiv had said, until he successfully directed Rav Elyashiv’s response the way he wanted…

    It was a watershed video, and it went viral in the frum community on the internet. It showed how the askanim manipulate the rabbonim, and what really happens behind closed doors when the askanim are then quoted with the latest chumra in the name of rav this or rav that.

    After that, another video was released in which a very well-known and powerful askan was sitting by Rav Shteinman and asking about a child the school did not want to accept, because the child was not appropriate for the school. Rav Shteinman said the school must accept the kid and if they don’t it is simply gaivah. He repeated it a number of times, yet the askan still sat there rewording his question a few different times in attempts to get Rav Shteinman to say what he wanted him to say.

    And now here is the latest video – Rav Amnon Yitzchak sitting by Rav Shteinman and looks for support for his attack on Shwekey and other performers. Watch the video and you will see that Rav Shteinman hardly says what Rav Yitzchak is trying to get him to say. Most of the time he says nothing in response. Rav Amnon Yitzchak says he has people destroying disks by the thousands in Florida, and Rav Shteinman simply asks if that is really true. At the end he asks for a bracha and if he is doing the righ tthing. Rav Shteinman doesn’t respond. He asks a few times, repeating his question. he pesters Rav Shteinman until he says something good enough for Rav Yitzchak – he basically says the same bracha he gives to every Tom Dick and Harry who walks in for a bracha, but now Rav Amnon Yitzchak can take that and tell people that Rav Shteinman supports him.

    The best, I think, is when Rav Amnon Yitzchak uses another argument. Rav Shteinman is not responding the way expected, so Rav Yitzchak says that Rav Shteinman supported banning the Internet, yet Shwekey makes a lot of money form the Internet – people can watch all of his music on the internet. So Rav Shteinman should join him against Shwekey because he uses the internet regularly to promote himself. I think this is the best part of the video because Rav Amnon Yitzchak himself has a website in which he promotes himself and his hashkafa, and makes video clips from his various sessions and drashos widely available. Yet he tries to get Shwekey banned for doing the same thing.

    Rav Shteinman doesn’t seem to understand a lot of what Rav Amnon Yitzchak is saying. He doesnt seem to understand who Shwekey is and what he does. He doesnt understand what music albums are and what disks are. He doesnt understand what the internet is and how Shwekey uses it. Yet Rav Amnon Yitzchak persists until he can get Rav Shteinman to approve.

    Here is the video. Watch it and let me know what you think of it..

  • dovid segal says:

    R’ meir rabi

    I understand that you are trying to explain to Gamliel why a person that is telling that the chazon ish told him that he changed his mind about “milk under government control” can’t be believed. do you know if there was such a person?

    I remember that Gamliel wrote that there there were gedolim who told that chazon ish told them … do you know who they are?

    I know what harav shternbuch wrote and I know that harav breish wrote in Chelkat Yaakov yd siman 35: והנה סיפר לי הרב הה”ג ר”מ סולובייטשיק, נכד הר”ח, שהוא שאל להחזו”א, שאומרים עליו שהתיר חלב עכו”ם, והשיב בזה הלשון “מה עוד יאמרו עלי, שאני מתיר ח”ו גם א”א”, והעיד לפני איש מהימן ביותר, ששאל לחזון איש, על השמנת (סמעטענע) של עכו”ם, ואסר לו בפירוש, וגם העיד לפני עוד איש אחר מהימן ביותר, שאסר בהוראתו חלב עכו”ם אף לקטן בן ה’ שנים, וכנראה מה שכתב בספרו הנ”ל, הוא רק בדרך שקלא וטריא, וכלשונו יש מקום לומר but does every nameless person that is trusted by the chelkas yaakov that told him that that the chazon ish told him, becomes an instant godol?

    By the way, from what that rms told him, you can see how manipulative their stories and psokim are, harav breish/rms want us to believe that the chazon ish thought that government controlled milk is osur as an eishes ish, why couldn’t it be that what the chazon ish was saying (if we believe him that the chazon ish said it) that “why should I care what people say, what will be if people will say that I was matir an eishes ish, will I have to defend my self? Let them say what they want !

    Any person with a minimal knowledge, knows that once you say that something is permitted, you are not matir an isur.

    See Harav Kalman Kahana in “Ha’ish V’chazono”, second edition page 132 note 3x.

Leave a comment!

You must be logged in to post a comment.