Bridging the Gap Between The Torah World and MO

I define stam halacha as the unanimous agreed upon concept. It’s not so relevant to this debate. Something becomes a kula when it is not firmly justified in halacha. It becomes a chumra when there are alternate methods that are justified in halacha yet the practitioner only does this one. [Most minhagim are chumros. Some are kulos.] It becomes yehura when there is firm halacha, yet the practitioner insists on a higher standard for his own version of halachic reasoning.

Do not forget that some of the founders of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary were also the founders of the MO Orthodox Union. The idea that those on or between the borderlines of Torah Judaism flirting with the other side of the border eventually go over the border, first tippy-toe but eventually full throttle, has proven itself throughout Jewish history.

Dear Neville,

When there are different opinons that are all firmly justified, there is no stam halacha. That is a machlokes. Neither opinion is objectively a kula or a chumra.

Thanks for so many good reference on cholov. Does this not come to metziyus – how (un)likely is it that a particular goyishe farm will engage in fraud? Surely, this probability decreased from the time we had a Polish peasant v. a modern farm that can lose FDA certification in case of misconduct. How many such cases are recorded by FDA over the years? Surely, you need someone with broad shoulders to put this reasoning into halakha and that is what Rav Feinstein did.

Also, would it help halachically if you mix up 3 bottles of milk from different sources or mix up 3 pieces of cheese, so you would have rov kosher milk?

Dear Ujm,

The USA did not have any Conservative Jews back then. Only Orthodox and Reform. (Or not affiliated = irreligious.) [Or living on their own = slow assimilation.] JTS and OU were both started as Orthodox. There wasn’t a way to make Orthodox Rabbis until a few decades later. It was like trial and error. They didn’t want to make the future Conservative Movement. (The founders in Europe didn’t want to make the eventual Conservative Movement either.)

Dear Neville,

Almost nothing by itself is objectively a kula or chumra. But when we have two differing statements, there will be a subjective chumra and a subjective kula. If the subjective chumra is revealed to be more than required by the law, then it opens the possibility tht the other statement is not a kula. This is all for me as a simple student. But if a qualified rav states xyz is a kula, then the goal is to ascertain his intention and nothing more. If it is a cohesive work such as the Mishna Berurah than we may put some effort in to understanding what his system of terms is.

Chalav Hacompanies from it’s origins was considered to be chalav yisroel. Rav Moshe’s first teshuvos on the topic seem to be affirming it.

Yoshon/chodosh goes way back and is hard to ascertain. Once the Bach/Rema/Others? were not rejected, it has become precedent. And I would be uncomfortable calling that a kula until it could be demonstrated that the earlier sources were of the opinion to be machmir in such a scenario. This last sentence is very hard to verify what was done. But it is easy to theorize what they held. I don’t rely on such theories.

Call what I do chumros or kulos, I don’t care. I’m not changing what I do based on peer pressure.

I would say I’m the lowest on the low here, but that spot is already taken.

I’m surprised he didn’t comment on these threads.

“Almost nothing by itself is objectively a kula or chumra.”

OK, I disagree, but I glad you finally stated this outright. We just define it differently.

“Chalav Hacompanies from it’s origins was considered to be chalav yisroel.”

People like to say this, but I’ve never heard a real rav claim that this is actually what he meant, and in fact I’ve had several specify that this is definitely not what he meant.

“Once the Bach/Rema/Others? were not rejected, it has become precedent.”

Lack of rejection doesn’t mean it’s not a kulah. Any real kulah is, by definition, accepted. Otherwise it would just be considered an isser (eg. the Conservative “kulah” to drive to shul on Shabbos).

“And I would be uncomfortable calling that a kula until it could be demonstrated that the earlier sources were of the opinion to be machmir in such a scenario.”

I’ll try to provide sources when I get the chance, but it’s relatively widely known. The gemara explicitly discusses chodosh in chutz l’aretz. The Rema’s lashon is clearly that of someone reluctantly trying to be matir something. The reason there is somewhat of a yoshon revivalist movement today is due to how shaky the heterim have always been, and people are just now learning that.

Dear Neville,

I don’t know why you assume that the difficulties the acharonim were discussing is the practice of eating chodosh. Perhaps the problem for them was how to understand the sugya correctly. That is what they refer to as a dochek. The pnei yehoshua writes that he understands from the sugya that chodos is a machlokes on shel Torah and we must be machmir.

See his words. Starting with the last paragraph on the page.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14635&st=&pgnum=552

My point is that it is a lot of precedent. For that alone, I’m uncomfortable calling it a kulah. It’s a machlokes. And since it’s shel Torah we go after the machmir. But in the sugya itself, it would not be a kula to learn that way. If you think this is to much pretzel logic, I cede the debate without taking back my opinion.

The Rema is reluctant to reconcile practice with theory in this manner. Is that enough to assume that his opinion is that it assur according to the law? I really don’t know how to ascertain that in a non-biased manner. So I don’t know. And, not knowing is a lacking in Limud HaTorah. Not a kula in Hilchos Chodosh.

I’ll easy take this back. But I’m really uncomfortable saying that people are learning more today and are more aware of how shaky it is. It’s a befeirushe gemara in kiddushin! There is no way the yeshivaliet of old missed this. The difference is that post war we have come in contact with the Sephardim and others that do not eat Yoshon. Now that it is an option, Yidden revisited the topic. And it changed.

@neville-chaim-berlin I have heard b’sheim Rav Reuven and Rav Dovid (YBCLC) Feinstein that Rav Moshe ZT”L’s psak on Chalav HaCompanies (as you put it) is that we can rely on the USDA to make the food Chalav Yisroel and it’s not a heter.

I once asked a Rebbi what the definition of “kula” and “chumra” are in regards to modern halacha. He said that it’s simply a matter of who you hold of. Like in general the klal holds one way, and for whatever reason you choose to go according to a minority opinion. Depending on whether the opinion is more machmir or more meikel that would be a kula or chumra.

Like the Chazan Ish said that the s’chach of a sukkah cannot be held in place by something that itself is pasul for s’chach. He is a very minority opinion on that matter. But if you’re in position to follow it, then kol hakovod to you for making a sukkah that’s kasher according to everyone.

Similarly, if there’s a something that everyone considers assur, but there’s reasonable minority opinions who say that it’s really allowed, then given extenuating circumstances, it may be allowed.

Dear Yserbius,

Welcome back!

That we “rely on the USDA to make the food” isn’t the correct phrase.

You are correct. It is not a heter. It was halachic norm as is clear in Rav Moshe’s first teshuva. And is consistent with the methods for chalav yisroel in Europe.

Yserb, thanks for the explanation, but then it comes down to who you consider the klal: everyone marginally observant, shomer shabbat, those who keep same humros/kulos as you, went to same yeshiva, etc

Some people decrease this circle 🔵 and think it is a chumra. See discussion between r Yannai and a guy who ate his food without knowing birkat hamazon.

coffee, interesting stories.

In the first one, Rav may understand better than the kid how important relationship with mechutonim are long-term, so it might be time for the kulos. All concerns about mechutonim kashrus level shold have been addressed before the shiduch.

In the 2nd story, Rabonim may have relied on hazoka – everything from that mshgiach or around them is always kosher. And maybe, also, any sofek could create a medauraite problem of ruining the simcha.

“The rabbi said obviously you can’t eat the meat, but the cold food shouldn’t be a problem and that includes the salads”

That’s the kind of “rabbi” that would tell someone “obviously don’t eat the pork they serve, since that’s very not kosher, but you can eat the lobster, since that’s less of a problem.”

Dear Ujm,

You can eat salads from most Barely Orthodox homes. Unless in/from Israel because of terumos u’maseros.

The second story comes down to if the mashgiach was just overseeing the food preparation or certifying the caterer.

“You can eat salads from most Barely Orthodox homes.“

Where do you get that from? You know there are bugs in lettuce that three washes can’t take out

coffee, you do realize that you probably ate some treifa from whatever hashgoha. I presume your shochet checked the lungs, but how about all other possible problems that Gemora mentions?

Did your cow went a full physical? did she have heart problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, covid? Did she eat fruits and vegies and exercised daily according to modern recommendations? Likelihood that each particular cow was already treifa is pretty high. And the more different cows you consumed – the higher the chance. If you ate a hot dog – you probably ate pieces of 100 different cows in one bite.

Aaq,

What are you talking about?

Dear Coffee,

True. I was focusing on the prep and not the bugs.

If they clean the bugs off their lettuce it’s the same as any other lettuce.

It’s not like even the frummest kitchens are guaranteed to know how to be bug free.

In the above story, are you sure the restaurant and the boys home are using different lettuce?

“If they clean the bugs off their lettuce it’s the same as any other lettuce.

It’s not like even the frummest kitchens are guaranteed to know how to be bug free.”

N0mesorah,

Not sure where you live but the frummest kitchens are somech on a vaad hakashrus and don’t check their own vegetables

Dear Coffee,

Two points.

1. On your story. If this fellow eats the same lettuce at home as the restaurant serves, it’s all moot.

2. On the frummest. If they use only the clean lettuce. Some are too frum for that.

see Sotah 21, Rambam hilhos teshuva 10:2, Netivos Olam, Netiv Ahavat Hashem perek 2, Alei Shur v. 2 p. 152

Dear Avira,

Rav Moshe’s words on the synopsis of his own teshuva about chalev hacompanies.

מדינה אין להחמיר

Rav Belsky was not a talmid of Rav Moshe. On many kashrus issues Rav Belsky was more machmir. Especially in his personal diet.

The RCA had Gordimer responding to OO.

He wasn’t any good at it, so it is not surprising that they didn’t get in line behind him.

“Larry, Curly and Shemp.”

Don’t you mean Larry, Curly, and Moe? Or, Larry, Shemp, and Moe? Shemp replaced Curly.