- This topic has 27 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yes, i know you just closed the threat- but i can i just have an answer and then you can close this?
What is the exact translation of chalav Akum
and what is the translation of chalav stam?
I DO NOT care for the whole halachic political discussion.
I just want to know what the theoretical difference is = what it means – not what makes one okay or another not.
does that make sense?
cause alot of times words are thrown around and i don’t have the slightest clue what the meaning is.
I always thought that Akum meant mamash treif (ex: containing pig milk, lard etc) while Stam just meant not Cholov Yisroel but has a reliable hechsher and is kosher. Those who hold only cholov yisroel wouldn’t eat it but that doesn’t make it treif. At least that’s how i understand it.
????? is the ??? of ????? ?????? ??????.
??? ????? is the milk from a non-kosher animal. This is treif.
??? ??? is milk w/o hashgacha that one assumes had come from a cow (in the US, there’s a law that it must come from cows, so some people rely on the law but revert to strictly adhering to ??? ?????? when traveling abroad)
chalav Akum is milk produced by an idolater(‘s amimal) and presumed to be adulterated with non kosher ingredients. This is not a common case /in certain places and times/ and so where there is not such a phenom, the milk in the general market is called chalav stam, meaning “plain milk” with no Jewish owner/supervision. With that supervision, it is chalav yisrael.
Akum means gentile. Any milk milked by a non-Jew with no Jewish supervision, is Cholov Akum.
pacman
not necessarily, as explained above
There is no such thing in halacha as Cholov Stam. It is either Cholov Yisroel or Cholov Akum. The milk that Rav Moshe was matir, according to his shitta, has the same status (in a sense) as CY.
“The milk that Rav Moshe was matir, according to his shitta, has the same status (in a sense) as CY.”
You make a very good point.
(There are some who refer to the milk that Rav Moshe was matir as chalav akum, & that is very wrong.)
Cholov Stam is a relatively new term, whereas cholov akum is a term thousands of years old. Chazal said cholov akum (milk from a non-jew) is assur because there is no way to verify which ingredients are mixed in. Reb Moshe said that non-jewish milk in America takes on a new status of cholov stam b/c of government supervision.
Pac Man – very interesting. So does that mean that milk here in the U.S. is in essence all cholov yisroel? Or am i also confused now?
whatelseisleft – i’m with you – CONFUSED
ayc: According to those that disagree with Rav Moshe, the milk he was matir is Cholov Akum (and effectively treif).
What is the exact translation of chalav Akum
and what is the translation of chalav stam?
If you want literal translations, that would be milk of one who worships stars and constellations, and plain milk.
If you’d like an explanation, here goes:
Milk from a non kosher species of animal is forbidden. If a non-Jew sells milk as cow milk (or goat milk, etc.) one should be able to rely on it, but chaza”l made a gezeira to prohibit such milk unless a Jew was present at the milking, lest the non-Jew mix in milk from a non kosher species. Milk prohibited under this gezeira is referred to as chalav aku”m, although the non-Jew’s worship habits are not a factor.
Milk at which a Jew was present at the milking is referred to as chalav Yisrael.
Milk at which a Jew was not present at the milking may still be permitted according to some authorities (most notably, Rav Moshe Feistein) under certain conditions, which apply to mass produced milk in the U.S. This milk is commonly referred to as chalav stam.
This milk is commonly referred to as chalav stam.
Can someone quote a Solid Moreh Horoah who used the term Cholov Stam?
IMHO the term is a denigration of R” Moshe ZT”L. It makes it seem as if he ?”? fabricated something which did not exist.
Gefen If we apply the principle of ??? ???? YES see Pacman’s post
just to add to daas yochids explanation: There is an “old” machlokes between the Pri Chodosh and the Chsam Sofer regarding chalav akum (milk milked by a non jew without the supervison of a jew) in a situation where we know for sure that the milk is from a kosher species. the example given is if a goy milks milk and it is known that there are no non kosher animals in the city. the pri chodosh holds that the milk is permitted bec we know for certain that it is kosher, the chsam sofer disagrees and says that chazal decreed (gozer b’minyan) that chalav akum is assur therefore it is assur in all circumstances. R Moshe writes that EVEN ACCORDING TO THE CHSAM SOFER the milk produced in USA by a company that the milking is not being watched by a jew (what is commonly refered to as cholov stam) is still permitted. R Moshe goes into great detail explainig this but the crux is that since there is a fear of being caught by the government it is “Anan Sahady” (as if there are witnesses testifying) that the milk is from a kosher species therefore has the same status as cholov yisroel and is mutar. many other rabbonim question the extent of the fear that companies have and therefore disagree with R Moshe.
It is interesting to note that the Chazon Ish is very much ‘mashma’ that he paskens like the pri chodosh, and therefore it is possible that the chazon ish would also allow the drinking of what we call cholov stam.
on a side note there may be a didderent problem with cholov stam- they may be consired cholov TREIFAH, this issue was discussed previosly on the coffee room.
IMHO the term is a denigration of R” Moshe ZT”L. It makes it seem as if he ?”? fabricated something which did not exist.
In Rav Binyomin Forst’s “The Kosher Kitchen” (page 311), the author points out that the term “chalav stam” is used. He makes no mention of it being in any way degrading to R’ Moshe ZT”L.
It is interesting to note that the Chazon Ish is very much ‘mashma’ that he paskens like the pri chodosh, and therefore it is possible that the chazon ish would also allow the drinking of what we call cholov stam.
In the sefer I just mentioned, on page 310, footnote 14, the author contends that the Chazon Ish would not be matir today.
“the author contends that the Chazon Ish would not be matir today”
basically that’s something only the Chazon Ish could say
basically that’s something only the Chazon Ish could say
The author says that a talmid chochom related to him that the Chazon Ish was only matir powdered milk for children, at a time that milk was scarce, at the beginning of Israel’s statehood.
The author says that a talmid chochom related to him that the Chazon Ish was only matir powdered milk for children, at a time that milk was scarce, at the beginning of Israel’s statehood.
Goes back into L’chatchila vs. B’dieved. If B’dieved it is Mutar, then that is what it is (for those who are willing to go B’dieved). I don’t think (though I may be wrong) the Chazon Ish would have said children can drink camel’s milk.
Rav Moshe did not use the term “Chalav Stam” – regular milk;
He used the term “Chalav Companies” – milk from companies. He transliterated “companies” from English to Hebrew. I’m not sure when/how we got the term “Chalav Stam”
IMHO, Rav Moshe was matir “chalav companies” because of the policies and procedures that we have in place in the USA. But if you were to buy milk in a different country or buy directly from a farmer who normally does not sell milk, you can’t assume the same level of kashrut.
Rav Moshe’s heter was specific to the United States of America, based on its government policies.
(for those who are willing to go B’dieved)
L’chatchila, you’re not supposed to go b’dieved.
L’chatchila, you’re not supposed to go b’dieved.
😉
Yes, but L’chatchila doesn’t change the actual halachic status of the chefetz.
daas yochid- i also heard such a thing in the name of the chazon ish, however look in chazon ish Y”D siman 41 at the end of the siman. i think it is even more than just ‘mashma’, i think its almost explicit that the chazon ish paskens like the pri chodosh.and i dont believe when they say that the chazon ish was only talking about a specific scenario, if he only meant to be matir in such a case he wouldnt have printed in his sefer ‘stama’.
Yes, but L’chatchila doesn’t change the actual halachic status of the chefetz.
Whe it comes to halacha l’meisa, I’m not concerned with the status of the cheftza, I want to know what the gavra should do. 😉
look in chazon ish Y”D siman 41
I’m familiar with it; I always wondered about the application halacha l’meisa, since the accepted practice was always like the Chasam Sofer to be machmir.
This makes sense now; the Chazon Ish personally held like the Pri Chodosh, (as written in the sefer) but because of the commonly accepted practice, would only rely on his opinion b’sha’as had’chak (with the tziruf of avkas cholov).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.