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.

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..

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)

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?