Chalav Stam? no such a thing
Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Chalav Stam? no such a thing
- This topic has 129 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by Feif Un.
January 18, 2011 4:31 am at 4:31 am #809558
first of all DA is “displaced abomasum” and not “abdomen”. Secondly, shishim is relevant for a certain ta’aroves, here we do not know that any specific cow in this heard has undergone the procedure, we are discussing a stastical probability, a ruba d’lesa kaman. So we follow the rule of kol d’parish m’ruba parish miD’Oraisa, and miDrabannan miut ha’matzui.January 18, 2011 4:39 am at 4:39 am #809559Divorced_GuyMember
I am so impressed by the erudition of the various posters. Yasher Koach!January 18, 2011 4:57 am at 4:57 am #809560oomisParticipant
The Christian censors were offended by this and substituted Aveid Cochavim VeMazolos (AKU”M) every time it says Goi in our printed versions.”
So where did the Christian censors get the expression from? The word goy, which has come to connote non-Jews, really simply means “nation.” Jews are the goy Kadosh.January 18, 2011 1:44 pm at 1:44 pm #809561
ilovetorah: the marvels of modern technology can help you (and us) access the relevant sources rather easily. Just “google’ “DA COWs’ and you will find a relevant article from the OU on this. Incidentally, the Shach is one source for not calling something treife if it lives a year. See article.And hello99 is absolutely right in his understanding. The element of “shishim’ is only relevant if we KNOW that there was treife milk and it is mixed with kosher milk. The situation here is totally different because (as he writes so eruditely) we can assume that every cow we milk is kosher based on what is the “rov” (majority).January 18, 2011 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm #809562
We can only assume that every cow we milk is Kosher based on rov when we milk a single cow then drink that milk. When we combine the milk from hundreds of thousands of cows and we know that more than 1/60 of all cows are Treifos then rov should not work.
The answer given (by Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, and others) is from a Rosh quoting the Raavad that if something is Yavesh Beyavesh Veachar Kach Lach Belach (first it is a non-Lach Taarvoes and then becomes mixed in Lach Belach) then you only need Rov. Since each cow is still milked individually it starts out as a Ta’aroves of Yavesh Beyavesh, at which point it becomes Muttar, and then does not become Assur once all the buckets (or wherever wach cow’s milk goes first) are combined, even though it is now Lach Belach.January 18, 2011 2:49 pm at 2:49 pm #809563
Also, a slight correction of a huge misconception. A Triefah does not mean that it will die within a year. A Treifah is very specifically defined as a creature with one of the specific issues mentioned in the third Perek of Chullin. Someone with cancer with 2 days to live is not a Treifah. Someone with a needle in their lung is a Treifah even if they live with it for 20 years. The modern issue is not “if a Treifah can live for more than a year is not a Treifah?”. Rather, the issue is “if we can cure the Treifah (sew up the hole or give medicine so that the body can do that itself) does the animal no longer remain a Treifah?”.January 18, 2011 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm #809564Josh31Participant
“Chalav Stam? no such a thing”
The thread name is totally dismissive of a Psak that the majority of Orthodox Jews rely upon.January 18, 2011 3:27 pm at 3:27 pm #809565
sam2-your first quote is a misconception. Once you accept that the milk from that cow that is milked is kosher (based on rov) it does not revert to a safek ( or treife)afterwards-hence, once the milk that is milked from one cow is kosher, it is totally irrelevant whether afterwards the milk is mixed with hundreds of thousands of gallons of other milk, amongst which there might be treife’s.
I have no idea what your quotes of Rav Elyahsiv and others mean. where do you have “javsh bejavesh” here? (milk is lach by definition)
On the second quote- obviously the Shach disagrees with you and so to most others. Are you telling me that if you murder a person that has a needle in his lungs and will live twenty more years, you are not ‘chayiv”? Preposterous !
And yes-if you murder someone with terminal cancer -it may come under the heading of “Hahoreg es hatreife” and is pottur.January 18, 2011 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #809566
Josh: The OP is referring to the terminology, not the practice.January 18, 2011 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #809567
Rabbi, you’re just wrong. Look it up. It;s even a Mchlokes in the Gemara whether or not a Traifeh can live for more than a year. These are Mishnayos in Chullin as to what is a Treifah and what is not. It is not at all dependent on length of life. Are you telling me that if I kill a Goseis I am Chayav Misah but if I kill a guy with twelve months to live because of a tiny hole in a lung I am Pattur? That’s how it works. It’s a Din that Horeig es Hatreifah is Pattur and it doesn’t matter how much time they have left to live. If the Treifah is curable but the hole he is still there he is definitely a Treifah. The Mishnayos don’t say that Treifos die, they say what constitutes a Treifah.
And milk with other milk is Lach. If I have 20 buckets of milk from 20 cows those are Yaveish compared to each other until they are mixed. Lach and Yaveish aren’t determined by states of matter, they are determined by how the Ta’aroves interacts with each other. That’s why flour is considered Lach because the Ta’aroves (of two batches of flour) is made up of combined, indistinguishable particles. So separate bottles of water that are indistinguishable but definitely not combined are considered Yaveish.January 18, 2011 5:46 pm at 5:46 pm #809568
For what its worth, the only milk I am makpid not to drink is Chalav Yishmael.January 18, 2011 10:18 pm at 10:18 pm #809569
The bigger problem is that some claim the percentage of treif milk cows is over 50%. Considering that calves are slaughtered for beef only a couple of months old and average 40% treifos, it is completely reasonable to suspect that 15 year old milk cows are much more problematic.January 18, 2011 10:29 pm at 10:29 pm #809570
Beef cows are nowhere near 40% Treifos. Depending on where it is, the percentage of actual Treifos ranged anywhere between 7% (South Africa a few years ago) and 15% (Boston in the 1960s).January 18, 2011 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #809571
Sorry Sam. According to the OU in North America 40% treifos. According to friends of mine who are shu”bim here in EY also.January 18, 2011 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm #809572popa_bar_abbaParticipant
I don’t think it matters what percentage are treifos after schechita.
Chazal say rov beheimos are not treifos.January 18, 2011 10:40 pm at 10:40 pm #809573
That doesn’t sound right. We don’t use up to 40% of them for various Chumros and other reasons. But I don’t think that 40% of them are actual Treifos. Everyone I’ve ever spoken to has said that.January 18, 2011 11:23 pm at 11:23 pm #809574
pba: in Chazal’s days it may be that rov were not treifos, but that metzius is not necessarily relevant todayJanuary 18, 2011 11:41 pm at 11:41 pm #809575
sam: the hechsherim pasken that 40% may not be eaten and are classified as treif, likely many of those are sfeikos and chumros. But if you won’t eat the meat, why would you drink the milk from such a cow???
BTW South America has a much lower % treifos, but also much tougher meat.January 18, 2011 11:57 pm at 11:57 pm #809576Flatbush DudeMember
Why do we call it yayin nesech? Maybe it should be called yayin akum????!!!! chas v’shalom we should be corrected.January 19, 2011 12:31 am at 12:31 am #809577
Eating a Treifah or Neveilah (not-perfect Shechitah adds a lot of animals we don’t eat) is an Issur D’oraisa. Eating milk from a Treifah is only an Issur Aseh of Yotzei Min Ha’assur so we can be much more Meikil and there is the fact that we can’t really verify it without losing the animal so we must rely on Rov and Chazakah.January 19, 2011 1:03 am at 1:03 am #809578
Flatbush Dude: Pask AkumJanuary 19, 2011 1:34 am at 1:34 am #809579
Actually Flatbush, we should be very careful about that one. Yein Nesech is an Issur D’Oraisa against wine that was actually used in an Avodah Zarah service. Stam Yeinam is an Issur D’Rabannan on getting any Hana’ah from wine touched/handled by a non-Jew (whether an idolatrous one or not) which is a two-part Gezeirah-one so that we don’t intermarry (which is why Assur Bishtiyah) and another because it may have been used for Avodah Zarah (which is why Assur Behana’ah).January 19, 2011 1:35 am at 1:35 am #809580
sam2, I know that you are very enthusiastic about your learning but I suggest you check your sources first. Rambam,hilchos “rotzeach ushmiras nefesh” perek 2, mishne 7 and 8(free translation): “one who murders a healthy man or one who murders a sick man that is near death (goises),and even if he murdered a “goises” himself, he is under the penalty of death. And if he is a “goises” by the action of a human being, being that one beat him till near death (and the second one murdered him), he (the second one) is not liable for the death penalty”
Mishne 8: ” the one who murders a ‘treifa”, even thought he (the treifa) goes about town and eats and drinks he is not liable for the death penalty “bidei odom”- by a human bais din”,and every person is assured (bechezkas) that he is a healthy man unless you know for sure that he is a treifa (and therefore anyone who murders a person is liable to the death penalty)
so- yes, if you kill a ‘goises” you are “chaiyv missah’ and if you kill a ‘treifa’ you are not “chayiv missah”. simple fact.
I’ll answer your other points in the next post.January 19, 2011 1:50 am at 1:50 am #809581
I’m not sure what you mean about checking my sources. Your source just said exactly what I did. If you kill a terminal cancer patient you are Chayav Misah and it’s not Horeg es Hatreifah. If the reason he was a Goseis in the first place is because of something someone else did then (according to the Rambam at least) both are Pattur because neither did an entire act of murder.January 19, 2011 1:51 am at 1:51 am #809582
sam2- as far as treifa and length of life is concerned, i refer you to Rambam, hilchos ‘shechita”, perek 11 ,mishne 1 (free translation):”Every animal that is possibly subject (sofek) to one of these ‘treifos” (enumerated in the preceding chapters) if it was a male animal and it lived for twelve months it is assured to be healthy (bechezkas shleima) as all the other animals, if it was a female animal, it is until she gives birth” See also mishneh 3 that affirms that all animals are ‘bechezkas beri’im” -healthy animals and we do not question whether they may be “treifa”.January 19, 2011 2:00 am at 2:00 am #809583
Now to your last point about “lach belach’ and ‘yovsh beyovesh”. “bemechilas kevod toroscho”, you are comparing apples and tangerines-ok,oranges.
I said originally that ,as the milk from each individual animal is considered kosher (because we do not assume treifas in a normal animal), it cannot become “treif milk’ unless i know for sure that that animal is treifa. Hence, all those thousands of gallons of milk that were produced by many ,many cows enter the factory where they are bottled as kosher milk and there is absolutely no need to use “bittul” in any way. Your example of bottles is not a good one because if you pour out all the milk from these bottles in one container , say you have one bottle of treifa milk and sixty of kosher milk, it is LACH BELACH and bittul would apply. if they remain in their bottles,bittul would still apply, if the issur is not apparent.January 19, 2011 3:20 am at 3:20 am #809584oomisParticipant
Why do we call it yayin nesech”
Yayin nesech literally means wine that is poured (by non-Jews onto the altars of their particular avoda zara). As there is little in the way of true A”Z these days (though there are arguments that can be made for the existence of A”Z in many cultures), the wine touched by non-Jews is referred to as Stam Yeinam (simply their wine), and it i still assur to drink, even if never involved in A”Z ritual, because drinking wine with non-Jews leads to socialization with them in such a way as can lead to possible intermarriage.January 19, 2011 3:30 am at 3:30 am #809585
You are not disagreeing with me; you are just missing one step. When I milk a cow, that milk is Kosher because of Chazakah and Rov. When I am looking at a container full of milk mixed from separate cows and I know for a fact that more than 1.6% of those cows are Treifos, then if I am going to use Lach Belach the milk would all be Treif because Lach Belach Min Bemino needs Shishim. Since we know for a fact that more than 1/60 are Treifos we cannot apply our early use of Chazakah and Rov is no longer relevant.
The argument you are making is correct. You are just ignoring the Halachik reasoning behind it. We cannot assume the milk is all Kosher just because when we milked each cow individually we said it was. Now that I can’t point to the individual cow that this milk came from I can’t use its Rov and Chazakah anymore. Rov is no longer relevant and a whole herd does not have a Chezkas Chayim because Anan Sahadi that more than 1/60 of these animals are Treifos. That is where the Rosh comes in. We treat this Ta’aroves as a Yaveish Beyaveish Veachar Kach Lach Belach (because each container that the cows were milked into is a Yaveish Beyaveish Ta’aroves) which the Rosh quoting the Ra’avad says you only need Rov, which we still have.January 19, 2011 3:35 am at 3:35 am #809586
I am not sure what your other quote from the Rambam here was doing. Since he Paskens (based on several reasons from the Gemara) that a Treifah won’t live and a Treifah can’t have kids, we can use that to verify whether or not that animal is a Treifah. However, he explicitly states that we only do this if an animal is a Safek if it will be a Treifah. If we know for sure that it is a Treifah (we saw the needle go through and come out the other side) then of course these signs won’t help.January 19, 2011 4:56 am at 4:56 am #809587chayav inish livisumayParticipant
if everybody calls it cholov stam dont be ocd and u should also call it cholov stam
i know somebody who pronounces sh’kiah as shikiah because thats the correct way
THATS NOT HEALTHYJanuary 19, 2011 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #809588
sam2- thanks for engaging in this stimulating dialogue.As far as your last post,concerning milk, I must disagree with you. Once the milk is considered kosher ,it remains kosher forever. Hence, as most cows asre considered healthy, the milk we get from them is kosher and nothing can make them ‘treifa” (you cannot even apply “chozer veniur”, as the milk is considered kosher).
SO,all of your many bottles are kosher regardless whether there may be more than 1.6% of milk from a treifa animal. A chazokoh doesn’t disappear. As a matter of fact, you don’t even know whether the milk comes from a herd that does not have any treifas.I am saying that you don’t need the ta’am of bittul ,unless you know for sure that there is some milk from treifas.
The problem with cows with DA is that we KNOW that in this herd there are some cows who have it and therefore we may not be able to say that there is a rov or a chazokoh.
Anyway- i still don’t see how you this escapes lach belach. I’ll try to answer your other comments in another post.January 19, 2011 6:44 pm at 6:44 pm #809589metrodriverMember
Chayav inish L’…; Whether calling Cholov Akkum, cholov “Stam” is OCD or not, it doesn’t change the fact that people are mislabeling it and are deceiving themselves. Just like someone who asks for bananas when he really wants to buy oranges. After all the deliberations (on this thread and others) and discussions, it still boils down to one simple fact. Whether a Jewish person person was present at the milking process or not.January 19, 2011 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #809590
“it still boils down to one simple fact. Whether a Jewish person person was present at the milking process or not.”
Chalav Stam is easier to say than Chalav Shel Hakampanies. It doesnt matter what it is called. Call it ivnuidnutituoid if you wish. Whether one drinks it or not is not dependent on its name, but on the Psak of R’ Moshe Z’l.January 19, 2011 7:42 pm at 7:42 pm #809591☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
Whether calling Cholov Akkum, cholov “Stam” is OCD or not, it doesn’t change the fact that people are mislabeling it and are deceiving themselves.
Are you denying that there are legitimate opinions (i.e. Igros Moshe, Pri Chodosh) which differentiate between “cholov stam” and “cholov akum”?January 19, 2011 10:50 pm at 10:50 pm #809592January 19, 2011 11:53 pm at 11:53 pm #809593
I never claimed that it wasn’t D’Oraisa. However, an Issur Aseh has a lot more reasons not to be Machmir than a Lav. Your third point is a big problem for Rav Elyashiv’s Heter to drink milk. I will try and find that Rosh. He doesn’t say it is Assur. He says that it is still okay with Rov even though there isn’t Shishim. It is against what is brought down in Shulchan Aruch. Your analogy to the meat doesn’t work because there is no Kol D’Parish Miruba Parish. Since it is all milked together nothing is Parush. It’s all together. It would be like a soup that we find that we know is mixed together from all 10 stores. We know that if we found a soup Stam it would be Muttar because of Rov. But we also know that this soup has 10% not-Kosher soup mixed in. Any individual pot of soup would be okay (just like any individual bucket or glass of milk from a single cow). But once all the soup is combined together and we know for a fact that 10% of it isn’t Kosher (even if we don’t know for whatever reason which of the stores wasn’t Kosher) then the Issur isn’t Bateil and you wouldn’t be allowed to eat it.January 19, 2011 11:55 pm at 11:55 pm #809594
And to answer the % of Treifos, I only know what I have been told. I find it very hard to believe though that one area had 8 times as many Treifos as another without one place having many more Chumros or other reason not to eat a lot of the animals than others. Unless they feed the cows nails in Cholon or don’t properly take care of them (though to be fair I doubt they take care of dairy cows very well either) those numbers just don’t make sense. They could still be right; they just aren’t logical.January 20, 2011 1:15 am at 1:15 am #809595ilovetorahParticipant
sam2 and rabbiofberlin i would justike to thank you for the shakla vtarya regarding the da cows. while i was involved earlier in this dialouge and i would love to continue , i am just so busy and dont make it to the computer enough. i do have alot to comment as i am currently learning these inyanim, i will have to settle by sporadically reading your posts. thank you again.
(And i do realize my original error for saying “displaced abdomen” and not “displaced abomasum”, it was just a slip of mind.)January 20, 2011 2:01 am at 2:01 am #809596
Even when Rav Moshe said you can use CS, he wrote that a Baal Nefesh is machmir. Who doesn’t want to be a baal nefesh? (Rav Moshe also wrote to that even a non-Baal Nefesh should only use CS bshas hadchak.)January 20, 2011 4:45 am at 4:45 am #809597
sam: you are making a mistake comparing milk to a ta’aruvos of vadai issur. There is NO certainty that ANY milk from a treifa was mixed in, just a staistical probability. For ruba d’lesa kaman we apply kol d’parish.
What is your source for R’ Elyashiv’s heter?
The cows are different breeds and grow in different climates.January 20, 2011 5:02 am at 5:02 am #809598
I was told by one of Rav Schachter’s sons that this was the answer given to him by Rav Elyashiv as to why milk should be Muttar.January 20, 2011 5:30 am at 5:30 am #809599mddMember
Bed Stuy, who does not want to be a big chossid?January 20, 2011 11:34 am at 11:34 am #809600
sam: surprising because Rav Shachter told me himself that his research found 96% treifos in milk cows and his son says he stopped eating dairy products 5 years ago. Also, Reb Yudel Shain claims HaRav Elyashiv told him all milk is assur.
First of all why is milk an Aseh, the Gemorra in Bechoros learns it out from “gamal” which is a lav? Also, can you quote any source or example in Issur vHeter where we are more lenient on an Aseh dOraisa than a Lav?January 20, 2011 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm #809603☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
Also, Reb Yudel Shain claims HaRav Elyashiv told him all milk is assur.
All milk, or the “displaced abomasum” cows’ milk? (in other words non-c”y, for practical purposes)January 20, 2011 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #809604
“(Rav Moshe also wrote to that even a non-Baal Nefesh should only use CS bshas hadchak.)”
When it costs twice as much and spoils twice as fast, I consider it a shas hadchak.January 20, 2011 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #809605
Rav Schachter claims that even if you don’t believe the research (where I heard he found 98% Treifos) then you should hold all milk is Assur because of the Shishim issue. And I think everyone would know it by now if Rav Elyashiv Assured all milk.
The principle is that Yotzei Min Ha’assur is Assur. I haven’t gone over this in a while and now that I think it over I may be confusing two things. I may be thinking that it doesn’t apply to something that is only Assur because of an Aseh. I have to look at this again. But either way, it’s very clear that we have more reasons to add Chumros to a Lav that is Mefurash Bikrah than one which isn’t. That’s an issue in Hanhagah, not Halachah. I would think that would be Pashut.January 20, 2011 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #809606metrodriverMember
apushatayid; Kindly read Bed-stuy’s post about the P’sakim of R. Moshe ZTz”L regarding “Cholov Hacompanies/Cholov Stam”. A Baal Nefesh should refrain from using milk with this type of “Heter”. Furthermore. It’s only “Bshaas Ha D’chak”. Meaning where there’s no other type of milk available. You can not take a dispensation that was meant to be used under extenuating circumstances and use it regularly.January 20, 2011 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #809607
“When it costs twice as much and spoils twice as fast, I consider it a shas hadchak.”
What a shad hadchak is, is not a matter of personal opinion. And eating Hershey’s chocolate is never a shas hadchak.January 20, 2011 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #809608Feif UnParticipant
As I’ve written before, R’ Moshe’s statement of b’shaas hadchak was only for one specific case – a yeshiva which was thinking of switching from buying CY to buying CS. The Rosh Yeshiva wrote to R’ Moshe asking his opinion, and R” Moshe said only b’shaas hadchak. This was a reply to a yeshiva which was buying milk for many yeshiva students, and had only been using CY milk for years. It was not a teshuva intended for the general public.
As usual, Joseph likes to take teshuvos out of context to fit his agenda.January 20, 2011 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm #809614
dy: all milk. sirchos are much more common in the older milk cows than DA
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.