For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)


HALACHA-----cholov yisroel and r moshe

FEIVEL Posted - 05 June 2000 18:43

I have a question about cholov yisroel products.

Why is it that many a times, school canteens will permit the sale of non-CY (Cholov Yisroel) products when the hanholo hold CY and so is the milk they are given each morn..

Additionally, I would like to know the two sides of keeping/not-keeping CY and if it is a real CHUMRAH or just REALLY good advice.

Lastly, if one wishes to keep CY but his household does not, how does he work around it...

thank you

MODERATOR Posted - 08 June 2000 14:11

I can't speak for any particular Hanholos that I do not know of personally. You will have to ask them what their reason is.

The story with Cholov Yisroel is as follows:

Cholov Yisroel is obligatory. It may even be d'oraisa. The thing is, Rav Moshe ZTL holds it is possible that the milk we have in America is all Cholov Yisroel, since the requirement for Cholov Yisroel may simply be that we have to be sure the milk is from a kosher animal, and the government inspectors fulfill that requirement.

If this is true, all milk is Cholov Yisroel in America today.

However, Rav Moshe ZTL throws a wrench into the works because he adds to the above that "nevertheless, a baal nefesh ("spiritual person") should be stringent."

Many have taken this to mean that Rav Moshe ZTL believes cholov yisroel to be only a chumrah, or a "good hanhagah", binding only on extra special people.

But Rav Moshe ZTL himself was asked what this means, and he responded in writing, to Rabbi Weinfeld ZTL of Monsey. The letter has been printed in both Rav Moshe's handwriting and plain text in numerous places. The easiest place for you to see it is probably Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "Hilchos Kashrus", in the back of the sefer.

Rav Moshe writes clearly that it is totally improper for someone who has cholov yisroel available to rely on the milk of the companies, even if the cholov yisroel is somewhat more expensive and more difficult to acquire. The heter was designed, he says, for people with no access to cholov yisroel.

Case closed.

And that's just Rav Moshe's position. Other Rabbonim have disagreed with the entire heter of Rav Moshe altogether (a godol of the previous generation, when asked what he thought of Rav Moshe's heter, replied, "You give me $20 and I'll give you 4 inspectors").

curiousg Posted - 13 June 2000 23:26

Do non-cholov yisroel products have any affect on the utensils in which they are cooked? Meaning, should one who is "makpid" on cholov yisroel, cook cholov yisroel products in pots which are also used for non-cholov yisroel products?

MODERATOR Posted - 28 June 2000 11:27

We have a rule that food cooked in a utensil makes it as if that food is still in the utensil, even if you took it all out. So the status of the pot is the same as the food cooked in it. No difference.

Of course, after 24 hours from the time it was cooked there, the food is "nosen taam lifgam", which means that from then on, we only give the pot the status of the food previously cooked therein l'chatchilah. but b'dieved, if food was cooked there, we don't throw it out. Even if it was pig milk that was originally cooked in the pot.

mt Posted - 05 July 2000 15:49

Does that mean that if someone is Makpid about Cholov Yisroel and they eat in the house of someone who is not (Non-Cholv Yisroel has been cooked in the utensils),they are eating a Non-Cholov Yisroel product?

Secondly we learned in school that according to Reb Moishe's Heter it's better to be Makpid, but if there is a reason you favor Non-Cholov Yisroel products over Cholov Yisroel it is permissible to eat it (such as taste or flavor).

MODERATOR Posted - 20 July 2000 22:31

This means that cholov akum is treated the same way, utensils-wise, as plain non-kosher. Therefore, if you want to eat cholov yisroel only, and you hold that plain non-supervised milk is not cholov yisroel, then you cannot eat from kaylim where plain milk was cooked. However:

After 24 hours from the time of cooking, the non-kosher status of the pot "expires". We do not, l'chatchilah, cook food even in an expired non-kosher pot, but b'dieved, if food was cooked there, it is Kosher. if you are in a situation where it is extremely difficult for you to eat from non-cholov-stam pots (such as you live in the house), you may qualify for a status of "shas had'chak", which we treat the same as b'dieved, which means you would be able to eat the food cooked in the pot after 24 hours. If three is a rav who knows the details of your particular situation, ask him. If not, please describe it here as best you can.

hopeful Posted - 21 July 2000 16:17

Moderator:Firstly:I was under the impression that what we have in the U.S. (but not other countries) was called chalav stam and was different than chalav akum because we do know the milk comes from a kosher animal.

But my real question is this: I was told by my Rav that I did not have to inconvenience my mother by being makpid on cholov yisrael. Please explain your position, are you saying that someone still living in their parents' (kosher) home must be makpid on cholov yisrael even if it will inconvenience parents and other members of the household ?

Remember also- that not everyone lives in Brooklyn. Some people may take what you’re saying to mean that they may demand their parents buy new pots to cook their cholov yisrael food or other things which may be a breach of kibbud av v'aim. There will be plenty of time for anyone who wants to keep cholov yisrael to do so- after they leave their parents' home -Im yirtza Hashem!

MODERATOR Posted - 21 July 2000 16:27

Cholov Stam is an expression. Halachicly, you still have to drink Cholov Yisroel. The question is, that if you KNOW milk is kosher, that may be Cholov Yisroel anyway, so that all our milk in America is actually Cholov Yisroel. This idea was suggested by Rav Moshe.

However, he himself said that you should not rely on this unless you have to. Even if it is somewhat more difficult to get Cholov Yisroel (i.e. supervised by a Jew), and it is somewhat more expensive, it is not proper to drink anything else.

Step 2. If you are only drinking Cholov Yisroel (i.e. supervised by a Jew), you need to make sure that the pots from which you are eating are not used for anything else. It is simple: The pots of any type of food make everything cooked in them like that food. Milchig pots make milchigs, fleishig pots make fleishig, treif pots make trief, and Hershey's chocolate pots (i.e. pots where Hershey's chocolate was cooked) gives the spaghetti that you subsequently cooked in that pot the same status of Hershey's chocolate. Whatever your position on the chocolate will also be your position on the spaghetti.

Of course, this Halachah is subject to all the myriad details of the Halachos of Kashrus of pots, such as nosen taam lifgam, nat bar nat, etc. So like all Kashrus issues, you need to know the specific details of the case before you make a ruling. But these are the general ideas.

hopeful Posted - 24 July 2000 20:16

Moderator: you still have not answered my main question! Are you saying that a teenager living in his/her parent’s household must be makpid on cholov yisrael to the point of inconviencing the rest of the family?

And which Rav poskened this? I think we are all already clear on what the halacha is and what Rav Moshe's tshuva means to a person making their own choices however that is not the same as the situation I am describing.

Since the moderator isn't stating it clearly enough: If you are a kid living in your parents otherwise kosher home and you want to keep chalav yisrael consult your Rav about your specific situation! do not even talk about it to your parents until you speak to your Rav! if you don't have a rav get one. peace and love to all

MODERATOR Posted - 24 July 2000 20:21


I figured that the answer was clear from my last post. The answer is that just like if you are makpid on Kosher you have to have kosher keylim, if you are makpid on cholov yisroel you have to have cholov yisroel kaylim. Cholov Yisroel is a part of Kashrus, with the same laws of kaylim as anything else.

However, just like non-kosher kaylim do not always prohibit the food cooked in them b'dieved (such as aino ben-yomo), the same thing applies to non-cholov yisroel kaylim. Therefore, you may be allowed to eat from your particular circumstances, which I have no way of assessing here.

However, this is a question only if you CANNOT eat from cholov yisroel kaylim no matter what. This is not l'chatchilah. So first you should try as much as you can to make sure you eat from cholov yisroel kaylim. If that will not happen, and only if that will for sure not happen, you should ask a shailah as to how to proceed.

artzanu Posted - 26 July 2000 13:27

A:) wouldn’t it just be better in his case (curiousg) where his family does not eat cholov yisrael - to reply on rav Moshe's heter?

and the same thing to hopeful, u did not exactly answer her question, she asked if she should start holding from CY now or rely on rav Moshe’s opinion that all USA milk is CY while she is living in a house where her parents hold from rav Moshe’s leniency.

It seems to me (and her rav evidently) that it is much better advice to tell the person to rely on rav Moshe and if they want to when they establish their own bayit neaman, that they can buy only special CY milk then. If she was to bother her parents about the pots and pans when they are not doing anything wrong it would likely create tensions, It could almost create a mitzva haba biaveyra, it doesn’t help to be makpid on some things and do those at the expense of others.

Rav Moshe understood that any company advertising MILK must legally make that cows milk unless stated otherwise, I don’t think any respectable company would sell pigs milk in a cows milk bottle, a fly by night company maybe wouldn’t be so concerned with USDA inspectors catching them.

C:) according to what u said that if u have it available you should eat only cholov yisroel, well here’s a question - can this be done on a case by case basis, for example in your grocery you have cholov yisroel milk, but you wish to eat candy bars that are not because there’s not much selection of kosher ones?

also if one lives in an area where CY milk is plentiful, and generally hold CY if he goes out of town, is it like a mingag now that he cant break or can s/he drink regular.

By the way this is another great reason to live in Israel, it’s all cholov yisrael!

MODERATOR Posted - 26 July 2000 13:32

Artz, please refer to my previous posts. Rav Moshe himself said that he did not intend people to rely on his heter if it is possible for them to get cholov yisroel.

In the case of the chocolate bar, you would not be allowed to eat the chocolate. it would not work on a case by case basis. The issue here is that there is a "possible" heter, not a "fur sure" heter - as Rav Moshe himself describes it (his words: there are "tzdadim" to be maikel), and therefore should not be relied upon unless necessary. Eating the candy bar is not necessary.

The people who go out of town, if they are now in a situation where they cannot acquire cholov yisroel and it is a necessity to acquire milk (for whatever theoretical reason) then Rav Moshe would say his heter is applicable.

The point is: (a) Is it a necessity to drink this milk, and (b) Is it not possible for me to get Cholov Yisroel.

If those 2 conditions are met, Rav Moshe would apply his ruling.

Malkah Posted - 26 July 2000 16:43

Does powdered milk need to be CY?
(I have heard of people who do each way)

MODERATOR Posted - 26 July 2000 16:45

It is a disagreement between the Chazon Ish and R. Zvi Pesach Frank. (The Chazon Ish holds it does have to be Cholov Yisroel).

pj Posted - 24 August 2000 14:20

where is the d'oraisa for cholov yisrael? I recently learned these halochos and had concluded it was a chumrah. I’d like to know if I missed anything! as far as I know, only yoshon is a d'oraisa-cum-chumrah. thanks!

MODERATOR Posted - 24 August 2000 15:05

The Chasam Sofer says that it could be a neder that Klall Yisroel accepted upon itself - a voluntary prohibition that is asur m'doriasah to break.

Even Rav Moshe holds it is not a chumrah, see above posts.

I don't know what you mean by "doraisa chumra". Chumra means you don't have to do it. D'oraysa means that the Torah says you do have to do it. Please explain.

atyasgaz Posted - 16 August 2000 15:13

I eat dairy equipment stuff - I mean most ppl do from what I know, and I don’t understand why it would be any different then eating off any plate in my house - which I do and so other people who keep cholov yisrael.

Also I don’t have powdered milk cuz I just don’t - I was only 12 when I decided to become cholov yisrael so I did not know exactly what was with all these different parts such as powdered milk.

I do eat not cholov yisrael butter because my brother told me that even at his yeshiva they don’t serve cholov yisrael butter because it is not possible to make butter out of pig milk.

I am very confused by what u r saying. am I doing things wrong by eating dairy equipment and stuff? also if u havta keep cholov yisrael if it is available how come not everyone does? I am so confused. I don’t even know what I hold by because I am not going by what my father does because he eats cholov stam.

MODERATOR Posted - 27 August 2000 18:39


You are correct. There is no difference between eating from Dairy Equipment stuff and eating from the plates in your house.

However, we have a rule that "stam kli aino ben yomo", which means that even if a pot is not kosher, we assume (unless we know otherwise) that it has not been used for 24 hours, and therefore you are allowed to eat from it b'dieved.

In other words, unless you know that a pot in your house has been used for hot cholov akum products within the past 24 hours, you can eat from that pot.

pj Posted - 25 August 2000 9:04

sorry it wasn't clear: yoshon is actually mentioned in the torah shebichsav as a cyclical issur.

Today we rely on the fact that a) we're not ruling eretz yisroel and

b) the fields aren't Jewish owned to be lax. so, we treat yoshon as a chumra nowadays. where is cholov yisroel in torah shebichsav? the fact that it's a neder of the klal makes it a d'oraisa, true. but is it a d'oraisa on its own merit?

MODERATOR Posted - 27 August 2000 18:41

No, the D'oraisah of Cholov Yisroel is the neder, not the Cholov Yisroel itself. It is not the same as Chodosh.

Josephi Posted - 17 October 2000 4:23

Regarding the letter from R Moshe where he says that relying on the heter for drinking the company’s milk is only for extreme circumstances. WHY didn’t he mention that in his tshuva. It seems as though he tried to be as clear as possible.

We recently went through the tshuva in yeshiva and it seems R Moshe is giving an across the board heter.

While he does say a baal nefesh should be machmir he says there is a Taam Gadol to be lenient and chaas vshashlom to say people who are not makpid are doing the wrong thing.

My question to the Moderator is you said few people know of this letter and today there really is no heter to not be makpid where there is cholov yisroel widely available. Are you saying everyone who eats Hershey's is doing wrong?

MODERATOR Posted - 17 October 2000 4:36

As you point out, Rav Moshe does say a Baal Nefesh should be Machmir, but does not explain what he means by that in the Teshuva you are referring to. In the letter I quoted he explains it.

See also Igros Moshe YD IV:5 where he also states clearly that his heter was only meant b'shas hadchak and not across the board.

So Rav Moshe's position is clear.

And since Rav Moshe himself says that his heter is only operational under difficult circumstances, those who eat Hershey's, or other cholov stam, not under difficult circumstances should change their practice.

atyasgaz Posted - 23 October 2000 17:31

um back 2 the cholov yisrael part. not all my questions got answered. I’m still confused. what is the thing with eating things with powdered milk and butter milk.

Also is butter milk and butter same thing.

And also if it is true like u said that if cholov yisrael is available even if its expensive or hard 2 get u havta keep it then how come not everyone keeps it.

As I said b4 I am extremely confused cuz I cant follow my fathers minhagim cuz he eats cholov stam and I don’t which is already not following his minhag so what exactly am I supposed 2 do!?

MODERATOR Posted - 23 October 2000 17:53

Butter does not have to be Cholov Yisroel because non-Kosher milk cannot attain butter form. All milk does have to be Cholov Yisroel.

The reason people don't drink Cholov Yisroel even though they should is either ignorance - they think it's OK - or they don't care. People speak Loshon Horah, too. Doesn't make it right.

As far as your home situation, you may eat from any utensils that have not been used for hot (110 degrees) Cholov Stam for 24 hours. They are now Nosen Taam Lifgam - and in your situation, since you have no other utensils at home, you may use them.

Unless you know for sure that a utensil was in fact used for hot Cholov Stam in the past 24 hours, you may assume that it is OK.

Note: A utensil that has liquid Cholov Stam (even cold) in it for a period of 24 hours or longer is considered as if that Cholov Stam was cooked in it. To use such a utensil, the Cholov Stam would have to have been removed for a period of another 24 hours.

atyasgaz Posted - 25 October 2000 1:46

thanx a ton!!! also so what’s the thing with powdered milk? and if something sez butter milk in the ingredients is that like it has butter in it which doesn’t have 2 be cholov yisrael?

Also I don’t get it - I know very very frum families that don’t keep cholov yisrael - like big rabbis families - ur saying they r supposed 2 be keeping it!?!?

Also it’s very different then loshon hara, bec if cholov yisrael is how ur saying then not cholov yisrael should be considered not kosher.

MODERATOR Posted - 25 October 2000 1:53

Powdered milk is a Machlokes between the Chazon Ish and Rav Zvi Pesach Frank. The Chazon Ish holds powdered milk needs to be Cholov Yisroel too.

Yes, I am saying - and it's not me, it's Rav Moshe saying - that if there is no shas had'chak (dire circumstances) then they should be using Cholov Yisroel, although I cannot refer to any specific people without knowing their situation.

OCB Posted - 01 November 2000 18:42

Regarding cholov yisroel you wrote:

"See also Igros Moshe YD IV:5 where he also states clearly that his heter was only meant b'shas hadchak and not across the board."

And "those who eat Hershey's, or other cholov stam, not under difficult circumstances should change their practice."

My question is what defines b'shas hadchak because this seems would be different for each person. It can’t be R Moshe only gave his heter where it is very difficult milk because he specifically says in such a case you should not be machmir even individuals.

So the heter must have been somewhere between very difficult to get and readily available. Nowadays I agree you should therefore only buy cholov yisroel milk in most cities.

But why in the world should someone who eats Hershey’s or similar change his practice there is no adequate alternative and in most places for sure not readily available therefore it would seem to fall under R Moshe's heter.

MODERATOR Posted - 01 November 2000 18:47

Rav Moshe ZTL himself was asked what he means, and he responded in writing, to Rabbi Weinfeld ZTL of Monsey. The letter has been printed in both Rav Moshe's handwriting and plain text in numerous places. The easiest place for you to see it is probably Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "Hilchos Kashrus", in the back of the sefer.

Rav Moshe writes clearly that it is totally improper for someone who has cholov yisroel available to rely on the milk of the companies, even if the cholov yisroel is somewhat more expensive and more difficult to acquire. The heter was designed, he says, for people with no access to cholov yisroel.

Not having chocolate bars to snack on does not constitute a shaas hadchak.

OCB Posted - 02 November 2000 17:59

OK. But is there any other posek who says differently and uses the heter more extensively. Also how come candy bars are not bshas hadchak? Can they ever be?

MODERATOR Posted - 02 November 2000 18:04

No. Rav Moshe is the most lenient. There are, however, poskim who ruled not to rely on Rav Moshe's heter at all.

Shaas Hadchak means that there is some dire need. Like if maybe you won't have milk for your kids, or something like that. Not having a Hershey Bar would never qualify in any posek's book as a "shaas hadchak", because it’s no tremendous problem to be deprived of a Hershey Bar.

OCB Posted - 02 November 2000 20:39

Are you saying there is no way to be melamed zechus on what's probably most of religious Jews.

I learned in M.B 164 where he seems to be saying that shas hadchak is dependant on each particular person. Also dire circumstances as you translate it would result in nobody ever having a heter unless maybe their life is in danger because nobody absolutely needs milk. Wouldn't a more accurate definition be difficult or uncomfortable circumstances. Therefore I don’t understand how you can say categorically that Hershey’s is always assur.

Of course milk is more important but it’s also uncomfortable to be w/o Hershey’s.

Also you said earlier that knowing hot milk (not cholov yisroel) was used prohibits use of the dishes for 24 hours. Isn’t this taking it to an extreme. If the milk was real "treif" there would be no heter to rely on period. I don’t see how you’re saying it has din of trief when all you want to do is use the pot which may have taste of non cholov yisroel milk.

I really appreciate your time

MODERATOR Posted - 02 November 2000 20:57

Melamed zechus? Sometimes you can sometimes you can’t. Prevalence of a certain behavior does not make it permitted. Can you be melamed zechus on the prevalence of loshon horah?

Shas hadchak does not mean threat of death. It means some need, such as substantial loss of money, getting into big trouble with your boss at work and running a risk of losing your job, sholom bayis perhaps, or something like that.

But it has to be a real, serious problem. Not because you want a Hershey bar, sorry. Y

ou will not find any example of shas hadchak in all Halachic literature that compares with the “difficulty” of not eating a chocolate bar when you want it. There’s no such thing. Rav Moshe says that there is an obligation to pay more money for Cholov yisroel if it is available. That is certainly “uncomfortable,” especially in the long run. But it’s not shas hadchak.

As far as the dishes go, the 24 hour dish (a “ben yomo”) confers upon anything cooked in it the exact same status as the item that it was used for previously.

So if you cooked milk in a pot and then used that pot 10 hours later to cook water, that water would have the same status of the milk: If the milk was trief, then the water is treif. If the milk was cholov stam, then the water is cholov stam.

Whatever you would do with non cholov yisroel milk you must do with the water. It has the same status. This halcohcoh, called "Taam k'Ikar", is not limited to “treif” but applies to all Halachic entities across the board.

Q1 Posted - 18 December 2000 20:44

Did R. Moshe contradict himself? First he said R. Moshe writes that drinking "milk of
the companies" is not forbidden "midina", "ela rak min haraui lhahmir levaalei nefesh", i.e. is not forbidden at all in point of law, but it is appropriate for pious Jews to be stringent.

In the 8th chelek (written before the previous teshuvah) he says only "bshas hadechak" etc. Also Moderator if it’s wrong to eat not cy why does the OU give hechsherim to chalav stam? Does this make the OU unreliable? And if R Moshe himself said there is a taam gadol to be mekal why can’t this be a melamed zchus?

MODERATOR Posted - 18 December 2000 21:12

You have to understand that when Rav Moshe wrote his teshuvos he was assuming that the reader would consider the fact that the teshuva was written to an individual with individual circumstances, and that instead of just looking at the question and the final psak in the teshuva, the reader would look through the whole thing and apply Rav Moshe's reasoning where appropriate.

Rav Moshe was therefore against these Seforim that merely quote the last, final psak of his teshuvos without the reasoning, since the reasoning and the individual circumstances may affect the psak.

So if Rav Moshe told someone that midina it's OK, that person could have had a shas hadchak and for him indeed it was OK, or Rav Moshe could have known that the person he was writing to wasn't anything close to a Baal nefesh, or whatever his reason was. The point is that Rav Moshe wasn't writing a Shulchan Aruch for the world but teshuvos to individuals and therefore you have such seeming discrepancies.

Example: I once heard the following from Rav Osher Zimmerman ZT"L.

Rav Moshe writes in Igros Moshe that there is no Shabbos prohibition of Sechitah (wringing out) on paper, since paper doesn't really absorb. People have used this teshuva to permit wiping up spills with paper towels on Shabbos. Now this is a problem, since the Rambam writes that there is a prohibition of Sechitah on hair, which absorbs less than paper towels. Yet people said "Rav Moshe knows what he's talking about" and continued their ways.

So Rav Zimmerman called Rav Moshe asking him why paper is better than hair.

Rav Moshe answered that even though he said "paper" generically in the teshuva, he obviously did not mean paper towels, or even plain paper sine they indeed do absorb. He was talking about the brown butcher type paper that is thick and comes in these big rolls. THAT paper doesn't absorb.

Rav Moshe assumed that the reader would apply his reasoning - that paper does not absorb - and understand that only when the reasoning applies is the psak valid.

Rav Moshe himself explained what he meant by his psak of Baal Nefesh Yachmir (see the first few posts above) and if we understand Rav Moshe's methodology in the above light it is not at all contradictory.

As far as the Hechsher goes, I would imagine the OU feels justified in giving a Hechsher to Cholov Stam products because numerous people all over the world are stuck in situations where they have either a Shas Hadchak or they would eat treif without the hechsher. So they are setting the standards of their Hechsher as minimum bare bones. They rely on the fact that they write "OUD" to tell people that it is not Cholov Yisroel (and of course that it is Milchig). We quoted elsewhere from the Teshuvos Divrei Yoel that Hechsherim are not designed to be anything but the bare bones standard.

I do agree, however, that it is misleading, but it is rally the job of the schools to teach the public how to use the hechsherim, just as they teach them which Hechsherim are reliable.

Re Limud Zechus. it could be a Limud Zechus b'dieved, meaning perhaps they did not eat Cholov Akum. However, it is absolutely prohibited to make a B'dieved into a L'chatchilah, and for that indiscretion there is no Limud Zechus (except of course that they do not know better).

GUESS Posted - 12 December 2001 15:47

what if there is cholov yisroel milk available, but it is all spoiled and yellow.

Also if only cholov yisroel milk is available, but not any other dairy products. which means not only not having a chocolate bar, but not having yogurt, ice cream, waffles, cereal, any type of chocolate, many types of crackers, etc. ect.

MODERATOR Posted - 13 December 2001 18:30

Spoiled milk is --- eeeeeewwwww --- not milk. Avoiding spoiled milk if you need milk, like for kids etc. I would say is a shas hadchak. But not having a chocolate bar is not.

BenZvi Posted - 28 February 2002 3:17

If ordinary milk is ussur d'oraisa, how could Rav Moshe possibly have ruled that American milk is kosher? There is no room for a kula in such matters.

Isn't there an extra-halachic chasidische objection to cholov stam? It has to do with the prohibition on a goyishe wet nurse, since her bad influence will be drunk together with the milk. What this has to do with a "goyishe cow" I don't know, particularly since milk from a non-Jewish woman is unquestionably kosher. Perhaps some people have a "cooties" theory of kashrus.

My source for this is admittedly not chassidic but Lubavitch, but even they sometimes get things right. I remember because of a ridiculous story they told of Rav Moshe throwing up his lunch after having been served cholov stam at his daughter's house (Rebbetzin Tendler).

MODERATOR Posted - 28 February 2002 3:44

Rav Moshe holds that the obligation for Cholov Yisroel - D'Oraisa or D'Rabonon - is that we have strong evidence that the milk is Kosher. This is fulfilled through government enforcement. So the milk we have today, he holds, is Cholov Yisroel. This heter is strong enough to rely on b'shas hadchak, he says.

There is an extra-Halachic concept based on the Zohar of not drinking any milk that was not witnessed by a Jew. This is for Kabbalistic, not Halachic reasons, and would therefore apply to butter as well as milk.

I have no way of knowing if Rav Moshe's interpretation of the Halachic requirements for Cholov Yisroel would also satisfy the Kabbalistic requirements as well.

shteible Posted - 05 May 2002 18:47


Is it a mutar, or even a chiuv to be mazik any cholev-akum/stam in order not to oyver lifnei iver, since the gemoro shtait silence is like agreement?

MODERATOR Posted - 05 May 2002 22:00

Silence can be broken by verbal objection and does not need destruction of property.

To do so would be assur, since the cholov yisroel is not assur b'hanoah, the person has a legitimate right to own it.

Yitzchack Posted - 09 February 2003 20:28

I read in an earlier post that if cholov stam milk was cooked in a pot and the pot was used to cook water that water has the status of cholov stam.

Is it possible to say that since cholov stam is not a real issur even though it's not a real heter that maybe the rule of nat-bar-nat d'heteira would apply and therefore in a case where one's whole family eats chalov stam one can use those pots since bedieved it can be eaten.

MODERATOR Posted - 09 February 2003 20:44

nat bar nat d'hetirah only applies to blios that are permitted - such as kosher meat or dairy. but cholov stam is ASUR. rav Moshe’s heter is that it is possible that American milk is NOT cholov stam but cholov yisroel. if you hold that it is permitted, you don’t need a heter. if you hold it is prohibited, there is no heter.

was2frum Posted - 26 December 2003 11:16
MOD- I know this is not the forum, but what you said here about chalav yisroel, I believe is incorrect, I was told that R' Moshe says that if you kept chalav yisroel cuz you thought there was a choice, and now you find out there is, you don't even have to do hataras nedarim. that sounds like even if your father keeps it you do not have to?

MODERATOR Posted - 26 December 2003 11:32

Rav Moshe says - writes, rather, in a few places, that his heter to drink cholov stam is not meant to be used l'chatchilah, but rather ONLY B'SHAS HADCHAK!. Those are his words, not mine, and, in more detail, is reiterated by him in a second place. The references are all over this forum, above.

The psak that you are quoting in the name of Rav Moshe, which may or may not be true, is clearly based on a different halachah. The Halachah is that if you are accustomed to do a certain thing because you think the halachah is that way, then you find out that the halachah is not that way, you do not have to make hataras nedarim to change your behavior. However, if you knew the halachah permits something, yet you were still stringent, then you do have to make hataras nedarim when you want to change.

So Rav Moshe allegedly said that if you think there is no heter for cholov stam, and then you found out that under certain circumstances there is a hater, you would not have to make hataras nedarim.

Fine. But that doesn’t say anything about where or when the heter applies. Rav Moshe holds, clearly, that his heter only applies bshas hadchak - under dire circumstances. So what you are quoting in his name means, that if someone thought that bshas hadchak he still had to eat cholov yisroel, and now he finds rav Moshe’s heter, he would not have to make hataras nedarim to heretofore eat cholov stam bshas hadchak.

What you are saying in his name is a psak in hilchos nedarim, not in hilchos cholov yisroel.

The issue of cholov yisroel does not have anything to do with minhag. Whether your family does or doesn’t use cholov yisroel, there is still a halachah in shulchan aruch that says you have to keep it. And Rav Moshe says that bshas hadchak, if you must have cholov stam, there is a heter. According to Rav Moshe, that heter (a) applies to all of klall yisroel equally, and (b) is halachic, not minhag-driven, (c) applies ONLY bshas hadchak - not a heter to buy Hershy bars, and (d) is still to be used only by non "baalei nefesh", who he says should not rely on the heter.

Avrohom Posted - 18 August 2004 7:39

You had said that dairy equipment is assur. I know a certain Rov that said that we (I believe he meant the Litvish world) hold of cholov stam more as a chumra and therefore dairy equipment is muter. He said that some people like Lubavitch and others hold it as a chiuv and therefore wouldn't have dairy equipment.

MODERATOR Posted - 18 August 2004 8:09

"We" hold no such thing. Rav Moshe said that bshas hadchak - under dire circumstances - only if necessary - you may rely on the kulah of drinking non-cholov yisroel, but where cholov yisroel is available, it is not proper at all to eat non-cholov yisroel. And that does not represent everyone except Lubavitch. There are those who don’t accept Rav Moshe’s heter even for shas hadechak.

Lubavitch has nothing to do with this.

As far as Utensils are concerned, the rule is, that when you cook something in a utensil, the utensil takes on the status of the item cooked in it. So if you cooked pork, the utensil takes on the status of pork, such that whatever you cook in it has the stats of pork; if you cook cholov akum in a pot, then whatever is cooked in that pot gets the status of cholov akum.

Of course, the rules of Ben Yomo apply across the board as well - for the first 24 hours, the pot retains the status of the item cooked in it even bdieved; afterwards, it is assur lchatchilah to cook in the pot, but bdieved the food may be eaten. That applies whether the food cooked in the pot was pork or cholov akum or whatever.

Lchapes emes Posted - 18 August 2004 11:47

Mod wrote: "Rav Moshe writes clearly that it is totally improper for someone who has cholov yisroel available to rely on the milk of the companies, even if the cholov yisroel is somewhat more expensive and more difficult to acquire. The heter was designed, he says, for people with no access to cholov yisroel."

And he also wrote that it should only be used b'shas hadchak. I'm very confused here, because I know a choshuve rabbi here in Monsey who doesn't keep cholov yisroel.

From what I've gathered, it seems that his father was told by Rav Moshe that he didn't have to keep C"Y (on the Lower East Side!!). Here in Monsey, where you can get Best Moo even in the 7/11, this rabbi does not usually buy cholov yisroel and says that he only would if it was the same quality and taste as non-CY milk, which it's not.

This rabbi is also very close with Rav Reuven Feinstein who apparently doesn't view this as a problem. When I asked this rabbi directly he said in America it's a "chumra" to not rely on OU-D, etc. I already think I can predict your answer but I'm very disappointed because SOMEONE here is misrepresenting Rav Moshe's opinion.

MODERATOR Posted - 18 August 2004 13:52

What I wrote is a direct quote from Igros Moshe (last volume) - "only bshas hadechak"!

No comments: