[Avodah] The Last Nochri Who Owned The Milk

[Zev Sero]

On 28/1/19 4:00 pm, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 09:57:46AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : You've forgotten the whole point of the teshuvah, and why he brings up
> : cheese & butter at all. The question he's answering is how the "re'iya"
> : at the company helps, when the company buys its milk from farms, and he
> : explicitly says that there is no "re'iya" at nochri farms and that it's
> : forbidden to buy milk there. So how can we buy from the companies?
> 
> : He uses the examples of cheese & butter to prove (1) that the issur
> : is chal only when it comes leyad yisroel, and (2) that if there is no
> : cheshash about the last nochri, who made the cheese or butter, then
> : we don't care that he bought the milk from a nochri about whom there
> : is a cheshash. We only care about the "akum sheni", not about the
> : "akum rishon".
> 
> Just #1. You don't need #2, if it weren't for gevinas aku"m and straight
> kashrus issues. Not Chasam Sofer's gezeira-of-CY issue.

That is not correct.  You still need #2 to explain why the gezera on the 
milk doesn't snap into existence as soon as you buy the cheese or milk, 
since the cheshash for which the gezera was made still applies.


> To elaborate your #1:
> Once you say the issur is only chal when it becomes a Jew's property,
> and the gezeira was only made about milk,

No!  Here may be your error.   RMF does not believe any such thing.  The 
cheese or butter is made from milk; the gezera can't go away just 
because it isn't milk any more. The reason cheese and (according to 
those who permit it) butter are permitted is because the cheshash 
doesn't exist -- or as RMF would put it, because we have "re'iyah" -- so 
Chazal were not gozer on them.  But when the cheese- or butter-maker 
bought the milk from another nochri the cheshash *does* exist; so how 
can we pretend it doesn't?   RMF's answer is that Chazal were only gozer 
when the cheshash exists with the "akum sheni"; if it doesn't, then we 
don't care that it exists with the "akum rishon'.


> then items that the Jew doesn't
> own until after the milk ceases to be milk aren't under the gezeira.

That's a viable sevara but it's not RMF's.

> That says nothing about which aku"m the gezeira was made about, and yet
> fully justifies his heter. There is no need for #2, which is consistent
> with my belief that it was not intended. The idiom "akum sheini" is
> yours

No, it is not, it's RMF's words, which is why I put it in quotes.  If it 
were my own term I would have used "nochri", not "akum".


> The gezeira, as everyone including the teshuvah in question (YD 2:49,
> 1:49 in Bar Ilan) describes it, is about "chalav sheCHALVO aku"m".

Yes, if chalvo yisrael then we have no issue.  But RMF says when chalvo 
aku"m they were only gozer if there is a cheshash, since when there is 
not then it's called "re'iyah", *and* that the presence or absence of th 
cheshash is determined only at the moment that it comes leyad yisroel, 
and only in relation to the nochri from whom it comes, the "akum sheni" 
as RMF calls him.


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