"Makpid During Aseres Yimei Teshuva"

[S209]

is it considered a sofak if you can find out the number ? Albeit with a lot of effort.

He addresses this in his Sefer, there is room to say if the sofek was nolad at a point in time when it’s impossible to find out where that specific milk was from (which is the metzius) it’s not a problem. Why don’t you take a listen? This is really off topic from the original already OT conversation we were having

[S209]

Rabbi Blumenfrucht told me that his next project is to explain why Rav Moshes heter is relevant now more than ever.

He was one of my friends who I quoted above with the heter from R’ Nota

[EliJelly]

RMF gave his heter in the US but the Chazon Ish gave a very similar line of reasoning in EY and the Pri Chodosh said his psak in Amsterdam. Not all require the government- some of the reasons given (when applicable) are if nonkosher animals aren’t milked in that location, if there is even a bit of supervision, cameras, if nonkosher milk is more expensive, etc.

That's conflating Reb Moshe's heter with the Pri Chodosh's which was never relied upon. Reb Moshe was mechadish that the government's oversight is so strict that makes it to the level of CY. The rest of your reasonings won't suffice for that.

[S209]

Again, it's a regular machlokas h'poskim to say the least. Not a chumra.

Perhaps but if you hold like R’ Nota that Chalav Yisroel is a chumra because it’s easily accessible (and R’ Moshe repeatedly writes for a ba’al nefesh to be machmir) then there is definitely room to include this in what the Aruch Hashulchan says. Sort of what you said earlier, I’m just expanding it from what you claimed to be a minority opinion to (according to R’ Nota) the majority opinion in America.

Also, were you aware the Pri Toar holds like the Pri Chadash? You seem to have felt strongly about that.

[S209]

That's conflating Reb Moshe's heter with the Pri Chodosh's which was never relied upon. Reb Moshe was mechadish that the government's oversight is so strict that makes it to the level of CY. The rest of your reasonings won't suffice for that.

That’s one of his rationales. The other is based on mirsas which only lines up with the Pri Chadash, the Chazon Ish writes similarly.

Furthermore, based solely on his heter of anan sahadi, why would he believe a Ba’al nefesh should be machmir?

[imayid2]

שו״ת רב ידידיה טירה ווייל

[Yehuda57]

For context, I grew up in JNB. Perhaps the Beis Din there isn't relying on R' Moshe, but at the risk of being oiver on ein m'arvin thread b'thread, plenty of people who rely on the heter (whether knowingly or because that's their communal standard) travel to Chabad Houses outside the US where the Shliach is doing without dairy and they are consuming CS.

[AsherO]

שו״ת רב ידידיה טירה ווייל

That’s a totally different discussion about regular (non-dairy) bread from a baker who is also known to bake bread with milk mixed into the dough.

[imayid2]

That’s a totally different discussion about regular (non-dairy) bread from a baker who is also known to bake bread with milk mixed into the dough.

How is that different?

[EliJelly]

Perhaps but if you hold like R’ Nota that Chalav Yisroel is a chumra because it’s easily accessible (and R’ Moshe repeatedly writes for a ba’al nefesh to be machmir) then there is definitely room to include this in what the Aruch Hashulchan says. Sort of what you said earlier, I’m just expanding it from what you claimed to be a minority opinion to (according to R’ Nota) the majority opinion in America.

Also, were you aware the Pri Toar holds like the Pri Chadash? You seem to have felt strongly about that.

I felt strongly about if in fact he writes that he ate, like the P"Ch did, which I never heard before and I should have come that across if he did. I gotta look it up.

[AsherO]

How is that different?

Because there are other concerns and other mitigating factors in that situation, where you cannot highlight the conclusion there and extrapolate straightforwardly that it applies to CS.

Rereading it, it’s quite clear that the author and sages quoted would not have allowed people to buy the dairy bread from that bakery.

[imayid2]

Because there are other concerns and other mitigating factors in that situation, where you cannot highlight the conclusion there and extrapolate straightforwardly that it applies to CS.

I am merely showing the svarah that RMF said is mentioned in the אחרונים. I agree there are other factors there, but they definitely seemed to have liked that sevarah.

[AsherO]

I am merely showing the svarah that RMF said is mentioned in the אחרונים. I agree there are other factors there, but they definitely seemed to have liked that sevarah.

Even if you’re right that “they liked it”, it’s only as a contributing mitigation in combination with others to permit consumption of non-dairy bread baked in the same oven.

[imayid2]

Because there are other concerns and other mitigating factors in that situation, where you cannot highlight the conclusion there and extrapolate straightforwardly that it applies to CS.

I did not highlight the conclusion, only the sevara.

[imayid2]

Even if you’re right that “they liked it”, it’s only as a contributing mitigation in combination with others to permit consumption of non-dairy bread baked in the same oven.

It is still interesting. Also I imagine our government oversight and testing methods are infinitely superior than the 1700s in Prague.

[imayid2]

Rereading it, it’s quite clear that the author and sages quoted would not have allowed people to buy the dairy bread from that bakery.

פת עכו״ם! Also it’s dairy bread. So that isn’t a fair point.

[EliJelly]

I am merely showing the svarah that RMF said is mentioned in the אחרונים. I agree there are other factors there, but they definitely seemed to have liked that sevarah.

Great svara indeed! still not makes it an עיקר הדין

[imayid2]

still not makes it an עיקר הדין

That would depend on if you asked a livish or chasidesh posek for the most part. Interesting, but that’s the way it is.

[imayid2]

the author and sages quoted

It should be noted that the נודע ביהודה was the chief rabbi of Prague from 1755 (this story occurred in 1758) and that the author רב ידידיה טיאה ווייל who was the son of the קרבן נתנאל studied by him in Prague. Just so we know who these people were.

[imayid2]

The fact is that Rav Moshes heter is extremely compelling logically, was shared by many Giants of Halacha, and when augmented by the פרי חדש ודעימי׳ should be rightfully recognized as the עיקר הדין.

And this is why so many people are at least lenient on DE. If מעיקר הדין CS would be assur they would not be able to do so as by all accounts chalav akum assers Keilim.