[Avodah] [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel

[Jay F Shachter]

Someone on the Areivim mailing list wrote:

>
> And still, AFAIK, the LBD approves chalav akum products.
> 

to which Elazar M. Teitz <remt at juno.com> replied:

> 
> Chalila v'chas to say that RMF was mattir chaleiv akum; that is
> hotza'as la'az of the worst kind.  What he said was that the milk
> involved _is_ chaleiv Yisrael.  One may not accept his p'sak, but
> should not ascribe to him what he did not do.  The comment should
> have been that the LBD approves what _some_ consider to be chaleiv
> akum, but obviously they do not so consider it.
> 

This is correct, and well put.  Let me add two more points.

The first point was made implicitly by Rabbi Teitz, but not stated
explicitly.  One does not properly speak of xalav `akum, or of xalav
yisrael.  It is xalev `akum (the milk of an idolater) and xalev
yisrael (the milk of a Jew).  "Xalav" means "milk"; "xalev" means "the
milk of", as in, "lo thvashel gdi baxalev immo", do not cook a kid in
the milk of his mother.

If a Jewish man says "xalav yisrael", it is not just a matter of his
never having been taught to speak Hebrew properly.  That is his
parents' fault, not his.  But the above-cited words appear three times
in the Torah, in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21.
That means that a Jewish man, unless he converted to Judaism in
adulthood, has read those words at least six times a year since he was
13 years old.  If he can read those words six times a year since he
was 13 years old, and still say, "xalav yisrael", it means he is a man
who can read the Torah without paying attention to what he is reading.

Some people on this mailing list are old enough to remember when
George W. Bush was the President of the United States (he was the
President before Barack Obama).  People used to say of him that they
would feel more comfortable with his being in control of nuclear
bombs, if he could pronounce "nuclear" correctly.  Similarly, I feel
more confident in what someone tells me about xalev yisrael, if he
knows how to pronounce it correctly.

It is perhaps possible that a man can not pay attention to the Torah
when he reads it, and still know something about halakha.  But
wouldn't you rather get your halakha from a man who thinks that the
words of the Torah are important enough to pay attention to them?

The second point is that "xalev `akum" is not the correct term.  It is
an incorrect term, which appears in our texts because of non-Jewish
censors.  Our texts contain some disparaging statements about
non-Jews.  Because of those disparaging statements, non-Jewish censors
forced us to change the word "nokhri" (Gentile) in our texts to the
acronym "`akum" (literally, one who worships the stars and planets --
it is a legal term that denotes an idolater).  In this way, the
non-Jewish censors, who did not think of themselves as idolaters,
satisfied themselves that none of the disparaging statements were
about them.

The substitution of "`akum" for "nokhri" was so complete, and
continued for so long, that today there are some people who are truly
confused about whether a law applies to non-Jews in general, or only
to idolaters.  That is why there are some otherwise religious Jews who
will keep extra change mistakenly given to them by a non-Jewish
shopkeeper, because they think they are allowed to.

The law of xalev nokhri, however, is not a law about which any
educated Jew can be confused.  The law obviously has nothing to do
with idolatry.  Rather, it is a law that has to do with whether a
Gentile dairyman, who is not subject to any supervision, can be a
reliable witness regarding the contents of his milk.  There are some
matters regarding which our Sages have told us that a Gentile, who is
a professional, and who stands to lose business if he is caught in a
lie, is a reliable witness.  Our Sages have decreed that a Gentile
dairyman, who is not subject to any supervision, is not to be placed
into this category.  It has nothing to do with whether he is an
idolater.  A Muslim dairyman, or an atheist dairyman, is no different
from a Christian dairyman, or a Hindu dairyman, in this regard.
Therefore, the term "xalev `akum" is clearly wrong, and it is the
worst kind of wrong, the kind of wrong that can lead people to making
incorrect conclusions about halakha, and it must therefore be
corrected, in public, whenever it is heard.  The correct term is
"xalev nokhri" (and, mutatis mutandis, path nokhri, gvinath nokhri).


			Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
			6424 N Whipple St
			Chicago IL  60645-4111
				(1-773)7613784
				jay at m5.chicago.il.us
				http://m5.chicago.il.us

			"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"