[Avodah] Government Shutdown and Chalav Yisrael

[Zev Sero]

On 13/1/19 8:56 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> And so R Moshe comes up with a sevara by which we could hold like the
> CS and yet stil could be meiqil. It strike me as dachuq, as though RMF
> was looking for a way not to overturn a well supported pesaq while still
> holding like the CS. Of course, that's just more guesswork.

If he thought it was dachuk I doubt he would repeatedly say that it's a 
solid heter on which anyone may rely, and that one who has been keeping 
strict CY because he thought it was halachically required doesn't need 
hataras nedarim to stop.  I also doubt he would let his wife and 
children eat something that he thought could be permitted only through a 
sevara dechuka.   It seems more like he was intellectually convinced 
that he had hit upon the true halacha, but didn't think people ought to 
jump on newfangled heterim if they didn't have to, no matter how solid.


> But it means that the CS's taqanah requiring re'iyah means requiring
> more certainty than usual birur, whereas the PC says it *is*  just regular
> birur. So, the nafqa mina lema'aseh boils down to measuring probability --
> in a legal system that isn't that rigorous about probabilities?

He says we need the same degree of "absolute certainty" that we get from 
eidus.  And his proof is from eidei kidushei biah.   This is not birur 
hametzius, it's anan literally sahadi; it's as if we personally saw it.


> Second, as the AhS notes, one only needs to have a Jew attend part of the
> milking. This is his ra'ayah for the CS's position.

Could you please point out where in the AhS you are seeing this?


> But meanwhile, O don't
> see how that fits RMF's position -- CY that was only watch for the first
> 2 out of a 15 min milking session isn't certainly unadulterated. So how
> does RMF take "rei'yah" here for means "or as sure as if it were seen"
> (as it does in other places)?

Are you referring to the fact that the mashgiach can be sitting outside? 
  If so not even 2 minutes of direct viewing are required.  His sitting 
outside, combined with the fact that either there is no tamei animal 
available (and he'd see if someone brought one in) or there is one but 
the nochri will not milk it because he knows the mashgiach is sitting 
just outside, constitutes re'iyah, giving us the necessary certainty.

Basically the difference between the Radvaz and RMF's view of the CS is 
that the Radvaz assumes that in Chazal's time there was a real cheshash, 
so they warned us of it.  If there is no cheshash then there is no 
problem.  RMF assumes that in Chazal's day there was *no* cheshash, or 
at least there wasn't always one, because if there was always one then 
there would be no need for a gezera. Therefore having no cheshash is not 
enough.

Another way to look at it:  The OU tells us we need a hechsher on milk, 
not to assure us that it doesn't contain horse milk but to assure us 
that it doesn't contain shark cartilage.   The Radvaz says the standard 
for the two is the same; we need the same assurance about horse milk 
that we do about shark cartilage, no more.  The normal OU standards, 
which fall far short of re'iyah, suffice for both.   RMF says no; for 
shark cartilage it's sufficient to have the company agree it won't put 
any in and to do bimonthly inspections and audits to make sure they're 
keeping it.  For horse milk we need, *in addition to that*, something 
that counts as re'iyah, *but only for the last nochri*.  For the 
previous nochrim the regular standard is OK.

In any case it follows that when the last nochri is a retailer who 
received it in a tamper-proof bottle, then according to RMF we have our 
re'iyah, and now it's like any other product, needing only the same 
birur that we rely on for everything else.  In the case of milk, as the 
Radvaz points out, we have that birur automatically, so we're good.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 5779 to all
zev at sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper