Kenneth Miller kennethgmiller at juno.com
Thu Jan 17 15:40:08 PST 2013

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> ... the argument against chalav hacompanies (assumedly chalav
> stam really means no supervision at all) is really ...

I have always presumed that the phrase "chalav stam" means exactly the same thing as "chalav hacompanies". It is *NOT* milk which has no supervision at all, but rather it is milk which lacks Jewish supervision but does have government supervision. Milk which has no supervision at all is called "chalav akum" or "chalav nochri". (In fact, when I explain Chalav Yisrael to people, I am careful to say that ALL poskim require the milk to be supervised; the machlokes is whether the supervision must be Jewish, or whether the government is adequate.)

It is unfortunate that many people confuse these concepts, because they incorrectly think that if it is mutar to drink "plain milk" in the USA, then it must be mutar to drink it abroad as well.

Warning: Linguistic digression follows!

It is my opinion/guess that when Rav Moshe zt"l used the phrase "chalav hacompanies" in the Igros Moshe (which was written in Rabbinic Hebrew) the presence of the foreign word "companies" served to show that he was using it as a technical term. Outside of present company, however, I have never heard it used in conversation (except when I try to interject it myself). I suppose this is because "hacompanies" is an English word which has become part of a Rabbinic Hebrew phrase, and would sound bizarre if inserted into an otherwise-English context. My feeling is that this bizarreness is a good thing, serving to help remind people that the heter exists only when the milk is produced by major companies under government supervision. But it is an uphill battle.

Akiva Miller
1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63

More information about the Avodah mailing list