- This topic has 129 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
sam: Rav Shachter told me personally 96%, but that’s not important.
“it’s very clear that we have more reasons to add Chumros to a Lav that is Mefurash Bikrah than one which isn’t. I would think that would be Pashut”
Not at all. A drasha is just as much dOraisa as mefurash. Would you be meikil eating Basar bChalav since the Torah only writes cooking and eating is a drasha?
You still haven’t addressed my point that there is NO ta’aruvos on statistical probability alone without vadai issur.
I’m also looking forward to a source for the Rosh an Ra’avad
The source for the Rosh will have to wait about a week until i get back to my notebook. I have no response to your probability thing. I don’t think it’s a probability there. I think we can say, based on statistical percentages worldwide, that Anan Sahadi that there is more than 1.6% Treifos in any large batch of cows. Agree to disagree there I guess. And I am not talking about having Kulos. I am just talking about not having Chumros which in other situations we wouldn’t take (e.g. to be Yotzei one Rishon or to worry about a minority opinion that has already been dismissed by the Poskim, etc.).
And eating Hershey’s chocolate is never a shas hadchak.”
Speak for yourself 😉
Rav Moshe’s psak is in the Igros Moshe and is in general that CS is only to be used bshas hadchak.
sam: “I think we can say, based on statistical percentages worldwide, that Anan Sahadi that there is more than 1.6% Treifos in any large batch of cows”
Statistics is by definition a probabilty and average. As Rav Shachter demonstrated you could have an elderly herd with close to 100% triefos. On the other hand, my friend says when he schechts in Uruguay they could have days where they schect hundreds of cows and not one is treif.
“And I am not talking about having Kulos. I am just talking about not having Chumros which in other situations we wouldn’t take”
Who is talking about chumros? And where do you find any difference at all between a lav and an asei?
Joseph. As has been pointed out you have ripped “shas hadchak” out of context.
My comment was intended to be humorous more than anything else. But someone with blinders and an agenda would never see that.
Regarding chocolate. It would have to be a true shas hadchak to get me to eat some of the CY brands of chocolate.
apy: I’m glad you agree Hershey’s Choclate is NEVER a bshas hadchak. Now that you’ve gotten that far, purchase an Igros Moshe. It says CS in general is only allowed, even for a non-Baal Nefesh, bshas hadchak.
Every teshuva in Igros Moshe is written to someone with specific circumstances. The fact that the teshuva coincidentally was written to a Yeshiva does not limit is applicability to a Yeshiva.
The teshuva which mentions b’shas hadchak is in the last chelek, which was not put together by R’ Moshe. R’ Moshe only published the teshuvos he felt were appropriate for the general public, and there was a reason he left that one out.
I once asked my Rov why he isn’t Makpid on Cholov Yisroel. He (a Talmid of Rav Moshe) answered that Rav Moshe went out of his way to publish several T’shuvos that Cholov Stam in America is Muttar. And B’Sha’as Had’chak is only mentioned in the dubios (at best) eigth Chelek. And Bed-Stuy, haven’t you read any introduction to any SHU”T Sefer that always warns that each Teshuva is only meant for that specific case and that one must be incrdibly careful when changing the context because that always can change the P’sak?
Yersl:
The reason people do not call chalav stam “chalav akum” is because R’ Moshe holds that any milk in America is considered cholov yisroel (since there are laws that prohibit anything besides cow’s milk being in a container marked “milk”). Therefore, it is called cholov stam only to differentiate between cholov yisroel according to everybody and cholov yisroel only according to R’ Moshe.
(I only read the OP of this thread, so I apologize if this comment is repeating things already said.)
Har Tzvi and Rav Elyashiv ybl”c write that nukuvas hakeres is a safek treifa, not vadai
Sam2
Member
The source for the Rosh will have to wait about a week until i get back to my notebook.
Posted 6 days ago
did you find the notebook?
still waiting
The truth is nobody milks a cow anymore
Its all done by a cow milking machine
zahavasdad: what is the relevance?
Chalav Akum means it was milked by a Goy
Probably the Chalav Yisroel was milked by a machine too, the machine milks the cow very fast and easier than the traditional method
BTW this is one the reasons of Rav Moshe Heter, since the cow is not milked by a goy its not Chalav Akum
Zahavasdad; No. the determining factor ( whether it is Cholov Yisroel or Cholov Akku”m (OK Cholov Stam.)) is not whether a human or machine did the actual milking. Rather, under whose auspices it was performed. Whether a Jewish observer was present or not. BTW. The Heter of Reb Moshe Z”L is based on “Yotze V’nichnass” ???? ?????. Namely. That the (Jewish) observer can (Has a right to) be present at any time. Even if he is not physically there at the time.
cholov yisroel= milked by a yid
cholov akkum= milked by a goy
cholov stam=???milked by a gorilla?
seriously, where can one find the actual shayla and answer that was asked to rav moshe? (preferably in english by a well-known trusted translator?
Rav Moshe never mentioned the machines but I always wondered about that. You can’t sneak in Treif milk while milking if you don’t have a person do the milking.
Trak: A trusted translator of R’ Moshe’s Shailos is an inherent contradiction. If I recall correctly, R’ Moshe has a Tshuvah saying it’s Assur to translate his T’shuvos.
Sam: who attaches the machine to the udder? a person. he could attach a horse instead.
can you please source the “no translations”
Wow, Hello, you want everything. I believe the no translations was somewhere in Yoreh Deah Chelek 2, but I’m not positive at the moment.
And the Rosh is quoted by the Rama in YD 109:2
The machine only fits the udder of a cow, No other animal fits the metal tubs
And the “no translations” was YD 3:91 or 92
Sam: regarding translating Igros Moshe, you are correct it is YD 3:91
Zahavasdad: where do you get this information from? Did you ever try hooking a milking machine to other species of animals?
Hello: I would agree with you, but that is the source R’ Schachter gave me (I asked him again). So clearly R’ Elyashiv thought that it was applicable in this case.
trak443: Chalav Yisrael does not mean it was milked by a Jew. It means a Jew observed the process, to ensure that no milk from other animals was added.
R’ Moshe held that due to certain circumstances in the US, there did not need to be a Jew present – it was as if a Jew was there, even without it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.