- This topic has 129 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
This has been bothering me for some time now and I would like to hear opinons on this:
why do people call Chalav Akum by the name of Chalav Stam? There is no such a thing anywhere. The torah clearly states that milk is either Chalav Yisroel or Chalav Akum. Why Chalav Stam? What’s wrong with saying Chalav Akum?
Also, why do certain people (you know who you are!) get offended when I or anyone else corrects them? Boy do I get it over my head if I chas vesholom imply that the person is drinking chalav akum! How can I even think to call it chalav akum, it’s chalav stam.
Can someone please clarify this for me?
Yersl; Can you please show me where in Chumash (OK, Chimish) it says you should only drink Cholov Yisroel?! You (probably a Bais Yaakov Grad) may, or may not have learned Talmud. The source of this Halacha is in the Gemara. Namely. That if a Jewish person did not observe (was not present) the milking process, it is called “Chlov Akkum”. But you’re right on the point. There is no such thing as Cholov Stam. It’s either Ch.Y. or Ch. Akkum.
In “The Kosher Kitchen” by Rabbi Binyomin Forst,the whole topic is discussed,and he refers to it as Cholov Akum.pages 308–312.
On page 311,he writes:
“A new term of ‘chalav stam’ was formulated to refer to regular non-chalav-yisroel milk…”
Yersl:
I agree with you 100%.
Why do you care?
Yersl: You are aware that Reb Moshe used the term Cholov Stam, right? He also said its its permissible in times/places of need, but a baal nefesh is machmir, correct?
Did I just fall into your trap?
truth be told,
Does R’ Moshe refer to it as cholov stam? I thought he used the term “cholov hacompanies”.
Anyhow, back to the OP, since there are legitimate opinions that in the US, no direct supervision is necessary for milk to be kosher (i.e Igros Moshe, Pri Chodosh) but in some countries the milk is non-kosher according to all opinions, there needs to be a third category. the three categories would be:
1) Cholov Yisroel; loosely defined as milk which fits the more stringent definition of kosher
2) Cholov Akum; loosely defined as milk which in non-kosher according to all opinions
3) Cholov Stam; loosely defined as milk which is acceptable according to some, but not all, opinions
Even those who consider “cholov stam” as, technically, “cholov yisroel” would (or at least should) agree that if someone would label cholov stam milk (from a source which was not directly supervised) as cholov yisroel, (s)he would be engaged in deception. The terminology used for this third category is unimportant as long as the consumer knows what is being purchased.
As very few people today (in the USA, anyway) are actually “Ovdei Kochavim U’Mazalos,” the term Cholov Akum as applied to milk taht is not supervised by a Yid, might be considered inaccurate. Cholov Stam is therefore an appropriate name to refer to milk not obtained from the cow under the supervision of a Jew.
Daas Yochid: I stand corrected. Reb Moshe does use the term ‘cholov hakompanies”. Other poskim do use the term “stam”
oomis1105- great comment ! I am not even sure whether the original poster is aware that “akum” is a shortened version of “Ovdei chochovim vemazolos” (the first letters, of course)
So, that term is not really applicable either. In case you doubt it, look into virtually every sefer that has ben printed in the past few hundred years, and you will see a disclaimer by the author that -when he mentions ‘akum”- he DOES NOT MEAN THE GENTILES OF TODAY.
actually , cholov akum’ and ‘cholov yisroel” as much as ‘cholov stam” are misnomers. There are basically two kinds of milk- the one you can drink, either because it is directly supervised or assume to be supervised (according to the poskim who allow it)and the one that you cannot assume is kosher.
rabbiofberlin: Those disclaimers were forced upon us by the sensors . Actually, many new prints of those seforim omit the disclaimer
I would be surprised if most of the CR olam accept anything other than owning your own cow as “reliable.” Glad I have a garden. 🙂
As very few people today (in the USA, anyway) are actually “Ovdei Kochavim U’Mazalos,” the term Cholov Akum as applied to milk taht is not supervised by a Yid, might be considered inaccurate. Cholov Stam is therefore an appropriate name to refer to milk not obtained from the cow under the supervision of a Jew.
The laws of milk have nothing to do with whether the non-Jew is an actual “Oved Kochavim U’Mazalos,”. The term is unimportant (in halacha); there are historical reasons for its usage (see rabbiofberlin and truth be told’s posts. But as I mentioned in my previous post, it is important in halacha to distinguish between milk which is unquestionably non-kosher and milk which is subject to machlokes. Therefore, the term “cholov stam” is not interchangeable with the term “cholov akum (as these terms are commonly used).
“there are legitimate opinions that in the US, no direct supervision is necessary for milk to be “
It is not opinion but fact that there is no milk (or any other dairy products) from non-kosher animals that is permitted to be sold in the US. That may change, as there is a serious effort to permit camel milk to be sold.
Yersl,
CHALAV ACHUM: is milk milked by a goy from a non kosher animal
CHALA STAM: is milk milked by a goy in unites states or in a place that has anan sihady which is a circumstance of evidence is equivalent to witnesses
in amercia we have anan sihady which a company states they r a comw milk company they have only milked milk from a cow because if they didnt and they would be fined so many ppl rely on this becausethere would be no point of any one statin that they are a cow milk company and not do as they say and get into trouble
CHALAV YISROEL: is milk milked from a cow with a masgiach watichin
THESE HALACHOS ARE ACCURATE THEY WERE JUST LEARNED FROM A RABBI WHO IS WELL VERSED IN THIS AREA!
IF U HAVE ANY QUESTION DONT BE AFRAID TO ASK!
charlie:
“there are legitimate opinions that in the US, no direct supervision is necessary for milk to be “
It is not opinion but fact that there is no milk (or any other dairy products) from non-kosher animals that is permitted to be sold in the US. That may change, as there is a serious effort to permit camel milk to be sold.
First of all, you cut off my quote too early; I wrote to be kosher.
Second of all, despite the fact that it is extremely unlikely that there is any cholov tomei in our milk, the machlokes is whether the gezeirah still applies.
Even if camel milk becomes legal (interesting fact, btw), most likely, R’ Moshe’s heter would still apply. I would assume that it would still be illegal to mislabel camel’s milk as cow’s milk.
yoyo56,
You’ve got your facts wrong (I have no idea if it was your rabbi’s mistake or yours).
1) If milk comes from a non kosher animal it is cholov tomei, an issur d’oraisa (cholov akum is d’rabbonon).
2) For milk to be c”y the mashgiach does not have to see the actual milking.
I maintain that cholov akum has to be identified with a specified non Jew who owns the cow. The term “akum” cannot be applied to an amorphous cooperative run by machines and a few managers. This would be called chalav stam, just milk. Not the milk of a specific goy, just milk.
this topic is udderly ridicules, can we just mooove on to the next topic, this subject is not the cream of the crop, and it is also very cheesy, dont try and butter me up,ok i wont milk the matter any more ive said enough
It’s only an issue bshas hadchak. And even then a baal nefesh is machmir.
TheGoq,
How dairy you, having a cow in the middle of our discussion! I have a beef with you.
sz: you claim might be reasonable if CY was to avoid intermarriage, as Reb Moshe writes a similar idea for bishul akum. However, CY is a gezeira because of milk from a non-Kosher animal, so the identity of the farmer is irrelevant.
hello99,
As an illustration of your point, in the case of bishul akum, a Yid’s supervision is not sufficient; he must do the cooking. The entire issue of cholov akum, however, is one of supervision; it matters not that the akum did the milking.
CharlieHall; From your own statement you can see the Ruach HaKodesh of Chaza”l and the importance of following every Iota of their instructions. One of the original reasons (There are others.) that Chaza”l required for a Jewish person to supervise the milking process is, because there might be a hypothetical situation where a non-Jewish farmer (who has other, non-Kosher animals on his farm) might introduce milk from those animals into the batch of kosher milk. And those promoters of so-called “Cholov Stam” ballyhooed (Yes. There is such a word. Pls. look it up.) the fact that here in the good old USA it doesn’t apply because it’s impossible to (perhaps inadvertently) mix in milk from other animals. Now, at least we can see the possibility (albeit remote) of such a situation occurring. Hence the need for Jewish supervision of the milking process.
this topic is udderly ridicules, can we just mooove on to the next topic, this subject is not the cream of the crop, and it is also very cheesy, dont try and butter me up,ok i wont milk the matter any more ive said enough”
LOL!!!!!!! Hang in there, folks. Purim is coming… And that is no bull-oney.
This issue has been discussed many times before here (you can find the other threads if you look), so here is what resulted:
R’ Moshe allowed any milk in the US.
The b’shas hadchak wording was in a specific case, in a letter to a yeshiva that was thinking of switching from cholov Yisrael to regular milk. It wasn’t for the general population.
He did say baal nefesh yachmir for everyone.
R’ Yisrael Belsky now has a different heter for any milk. It can be found on the OU website. It differs from R’ Moshe’s heter in many ways.
very good daas but please stop ribbing me
The Goq,
Is there somewhere we can meat ? Because frank ly, I don’t like that you’re roast ing me. I cry “fowl ! (I don’t really want to meat ; I’m too chicken) .
Ok, seriously, these jokes are getting cornier and cornier. Can you please stop it already?
OK, sorry.
Who spiked the milk?
Can anyone define a baal nefesh which R’ Moshe says is machmir?
Regarding the use of the term Chalav Stam you might want to email the OU and ask them why they use the term.
Regarding the addition of other types of milk into the market, please read the following on the OU website.
http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/cholov_stam_an_update_from_the_farm_and_lab/
Cholov Yisroel? There is no such thing. There is a prohobition on Cholov Akum.
The actual term (from ????? ??? ??? ?,?) is: ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????, but “??? ?????” fits better on the milk container.
The OU also has this article:
Feif Un,
Thanks so much for these links; I was going to search for that second one.
Do these two articles contradict each other to some extent? The first one maintains that R’ Moshe’s heter is “stronger than ever” while the second one promotes a different heter (which R’ Moshe would presumably have agreed to) which is “a total reverse” from his actual heter.
“Ok, seriously, these jokes are getting cornier and cornier. Can you please stop it already?”
theres a kernel of truth to what you say
Feif Un, unless I am mistaken Rav Belsky’s article being Mattir all milk is not to say that any milk is Muttar with regards to the Issur of Chalav Akum. Unless it’s a separate article, his article is a respone to Rav Herschel Schachter’s shittah that bizman hazeh all commercial milk is treif (because we mix the milk from dozens of thousands of cows, of which more that 1.6%, or 1/60, are treifos).
Sam2,
These are separate issues.
Can anyone define a baal nefesh which R’ Moshe says is machmir?
I think anyone posting on a blog probably does NOT qualify!!!
The only necessary “qualification” is ones will.
since we’re on the topic of cholov stam i would just like remind everyone that there is another entire problem with drinking non cholov yisroel milk. many cows are surgically repaired from a displaced abdomen (“DA cows”) and the surgery may very well render the cows a treifah thereby causing their milk to be assur. while it is true that there are heteirim for this, many poskim assur, and i was told by one of the leading poskim in america that there is A LOT of room to be machmir. in cholov yisroel companies i believe all of the hashgachos/companies are careful to either not use DA cows at all or to perform the surgery in a way that doesnt render them a treifah.
As mentioned above if you worry about Treifos you probably cannot drink milk at all. DA cows are not common enough that there should be anywhere near a Rov. If you are worried about Shishim then you probably should not drink any milk sold by a company that mass-produces milk. If you are going to really on everyone’s Heter that only Rov would be a problem (because it’s Yavesh Beyavesh Veachar Kach lach Belach) then DA isn’t a problem either.
sam2 i do not understand what you mean its yavesh byaves veachar kach lach blach can you please explain that to me
second- da cows are certainly not rov, the highest estimate ive seen is approx 13% but you should still need shishim bec lach blach min bmino still needs shishim miderabbonon. can you please explain to me your reasoning. thank you.
the question of DA cows has been around for years and most poskim are mattir them…mainly because ‘anan sahadei’ that they live longer than a year after the operation and hence cannot be considered treif.
rabbiofberlin although it is true that your reasoning is one of the svaros to be mattir, it is not so simple- if my recollection serves me correctly that is the shita of the rashba and we do not pasken like him (lchatchila?). please enlighten me who “most poskim” are. thank you.
I don’t recall if it was R’ Reisman or R’ Belsky, but one of them observed the cows that underwent the procedure. Very few of them died within a year (I don’t say none, because they could die from other causes). The death rate was no higher from these cows than the cows that didn’t have the procedure. Because a treifah means it will die within a year, he concluded that the procedure does not make the animal a treifah.
feifun ayin mah shekasavti liel
A historical correction.
If a Tanna, Amora, Gaon, even Rashi or a Baal Tosafos were to come alive today, he would have no idea what Chalav “Akum” means.
If you look at all the Kisvei Yad of the Gemoro from Vatican, Alliance Francais, Munich etc. the term is always Goi. “Chalav ShCholvoi *Goi* V’Ein Yisroel Roeoi”
The Christian censors were offended by this and substituted Aveid Cochavim VeMazolos (AKU”M) every time it says Goi in our printed versions.
That is why I get so upset when someone today says that this was only in the old times when the Goyim worshipped stars and constellations but today you can drink the milk.
What an Am Haaratzus this is!
How foolish this is!
Chazal said “Goy” and Chaza”l really meant “Goy”, even one wearing a tie and having proper manners.
You want to say that government inspection alleviates the problem? Then invoke Rav Feinstein Z”l but please don’t say that Cholov Akum was only in ancient times.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.