[Avodah] Pat palter

[Zev Sero]

kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:

> Ditto. It's hard for me to imagine that in a society which was so much less afluent than ours, they had so many kitchen utensils that any random item was probably not used in the past day.

And yet "stam kelim einan benei yoman" is an undisputed din, at least
when applied to householders.  Pottery was cheap.

Ironically, a palter is *more* likely than a baal habayit to use all
of his kelim every day.  In the case of bread, though, it's probably
not even an issue, because bread just never had treife ingredients,
and what kelim that are used in making bread would also be used for
other things?  In addition, the oven would be undergoing constant libun,
so it probably wouldn't become treif.

 

>> why isn't factory bread which has neither of the issues
>> not "pat yisrael" much the same as milk per R' Moshe
>> (and why was R' moshe later say yeshivot should drink
>> chalav yisrael other than for "salute the flag" reasons.)

RMF gave the reason - because the mission of yeshivot is to teach
children to be mehader bemitzvot, and not to rely on every kula
that comes along.   RMF wrote from the beginning that a baal nefesh
should not rely on his heter, and he is reported to have put a shiur
on this hiddur of $100 a year.


> My impression has been that indeed, factory bread is mutar lechatchila,
> and that everyone agrees Pas Yisrael to be only a beyond-what's-required
> sort of chumra, in contrast to Chalav Hacompanies, which is a machlokes
> such that some poskim call it treif. Am I wrong?

But the same is true of all pat palter, even not in a factory setting.
Pat palter was explicitly permitted by the Sanhedrin, so there's no
opinion that it's assur.  But it's still a hiddur to avoid it if one
can.  This makes it unlike chalav akum, which is definitely assur,
and there's no heter for "chalav palter", so the only question is what
exactly counts as "chalav akum" for the purpose of this gezera.

Also note, apropos to the original question, that RMF (in the third,
long teshuva) points out that the entire gezera on chalav akum must
have been only in a case where we aren't really worried about treife
milk being more than 1/60 of the mixture, because if were worried
about that it would be assur as a safek de'oraita.  It's only when
we're *not* worried about that, that Chazal said nevertheless we
must not drink chalav akum.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas