Pas Yisroel

[Chossid]

What is our policy about keeping Pas Yisroel?

I saw printed in Heichal Menachem I think a Yechidus that the Rebbe says that one should make sure that children will stay away from a Chashas d'Chashas Cholov Akum and Chashas d'Chashas Pas Akum.

I personally keep Pas Yisroel on a Bli Neder.

Any thoughts?

[mendelp]

Pas yisroel on a bli neder? if this was communist russia meila but in todays day & age? by chassidishe yidden pas yisroel is a davar hapashut.

[Mahus]

I know many, many people who officially keep pas yisroel but conviniently "forget" regarding certain products whether they are pas yisroel or whether they need to be pas yiroel, like granola bars and breakfast cereals etc.

So it's not really so poshut.

[Groisah Tzaddik]

I know many, many people who officially keep pas yisroel but conviniently "forget" regarding certain products whether they are pas yisroel or whether they need to be pas yiroel, like granola bars and breakfast cereals etc.
So what things besides bread need to be pas yisroel?? :paranoid:

[BaisHamikdashBa]

I know many, many people who officially keep pas yisroel but conviniently "forget" regarding certain products whether they are pas yisroel or whether they need to be pas yiroel, like granola bars and breakfast cereals etc.

So it's not really so poshut.
I think that all post cerals are pas...

Then you have bishul on vegetables...

[Mahus]

That was once true about Post cereals, but it is not anymore. The OK is not so quick to publicize the downgrading of their standards as they are regarding its superiority. I think they fancy it just fine if people go on thinking that all post is pas.

Just another example of burying one's head in the sand and conveniently "not knowing" what the deal is with pas yisroel. Anyone still think that all "OK Parve" is pas yisroel? I know people who do (even though I've told them that's a thing of the past, like ten times). If it mattered to them they'd make sure to know the facts.

And as for keeping pas yisroel "bli neder," I've never heard of such a thing. But the Shulchon Oruch is much stricter regarding pas yisroel than the halocho of chalav yisroel vs. cholov stam. The Shulchon Oruch devides it into two categories: 1) Communities that are not careful to keep pas yisroel, and even there if there is a comperable product that is pas yisroel then using pas palter is forbidden, and 2) Communities that are careful in pas yisroel, like, may I say, Lubavitch (and if that letter from the Rebbe mentioned at the beginning of this thread can be verified or located this would be blatantly the case), in which one must never eat any "pas" that is not pas yisroel save for the sole case that one is feasting at the table of someone that does not keep pas yisroel and the main food product (i.e. the bread) is not pas yisroel, only then can he partake in eating the product, out of courtesy. But not in any other scenario, ever.

Tofutti Cuties anyone? Sorry, not pas yisroel. But do the Mintz's care if anyone pays attention to that? Probably not. Does the summer camp your child attends serve or sell Tofutti Cuties to its campers? Have you cared enough to check?

[Groisah Tzaddik]

So what things besides bread need to be pas yisroel?? :paranoid:
Okay...tofutti cuties...and what else?

[Mahus]

1. And Tofutti Cookie Crunch (the immitation ice-cream with bits of - not pas yisroel - cookies in it). 2. And, as I already mentioned, granola bars. 3. And we just brought up breakfast cereals. 4. And, of course, there's Chow-Mein noodles. 5. Graham cracker brands are sometimes overlooked. 6. And, I'm just asking here, is everything at Manischewitz certified pas yisroel? (It's not marked on the package, but maybe it is. Tam-Tams, Bagel crisps, etc.) 7. And, also that stuff called "flatbread," I can't be more specific (I'm not that much of a connoisseur) but I've seen it around a lot in various brands. 8. Oh! Don't forget pretzels, are we being careful with those brands?

Hmmm, that's about it, as far as common products. Other peripherals show up now and then, though none come to mind.

[Torah613]

.... But the Shulchon Oruch is much stricter regarding pas yisroel than the halocho of chalav yisroel vs. cholov stam.These statements don't make any sense at all (especially considering the fact that AFAIK there is no halachik entity known as "cholov stam" ... at least not in SA).
The issur of cholov akum is stricter than pas palter (which we are discussing here).

[BaisHamikdashBa]

Its not so poshut some Rabbis will allow pretzels... (i think its because they are made in a special way...)

And Rabbi Honaka said about a month ago that post cerals are pas yisroel.

[Mahus]

I don't know Rabbi Hanoka, but he either meant that some Post cereals are pas yisroel, he is a liar, or he is under the false impression that all Post cereals are pas yisroel. It is simply not true.

I'm certain that if you ask him to clarify he would revise that statement or simply lie to you. However, I cannot presume why he would lie to you. Therefore I recommend that you check with your source before spreading rumors that could cause others to violate Judean law.

As far as pretzles, cite your sources. For if they are produced above a certain tempurature and they are mezonos then they have to be pas yisroel. Unless you are counting Conservative or Reform "rabbis."

[Mahus]

The issur of cholov akum is stricter than pas palter (which we are discussing here).
Yes, but the issur of pas palter is greater than the hiddur of avoiding cholov stam, a category that did not exist in the time of the Shulchon Oruch.

Cholov stam is permitted, but there are many reasons to avoid cholov stam even when no alternative cholov is available. However, there is no heter to consume pas palter when a comparable product is available that is pas yisroel. And in a community like Lubavitch that keeps pas yisroel there is no heter for pas palter ever, except for the one instance cited above.

[Torah613]

Still makes no sense. There is no such thing as "cholov stam", either it is chlov akum or cholov yisroel - even according to R' Moshe. For one who does not follow the chiddush of R' Moshe, the milk is assur al pi din - not a hiddur, regardless if you have other milk or not.
Concerning pas palter, OTOH, there are cases where there is room to be meikil (various minhogim etc.), even though it still is pas palter according to everyone.

[BaisHamikdashBa]

I don't know Rabbi Hanoka, but he either meant that some Post cereals are pas yisroel, he is a liar, or he is under the false impression that all Post cereals are pas yisroel. It is simply not true.

I'm certain that if you ask him to clarify he would revise that statement or simply lie to you. However, I cannot presume why he would lie to you. Therefore I recommend that you check with your source before spreading rumors that could cause others to violate Judean law.

As far as pretzles, cite your sources. For if they are produced above a certain tempurature and they are mezonos then they have to be pas yisroel. Unless you are counting Conservative or Reform "rabbis."
Rabbi Hanoka is a relative of the levys and works for the OK.

About the pretzels i cant bring any sources but im sure others can.

[Mahus]

There is no such thing as "cholov stam", either it is chalav akum or cholov yisroel - even according to R' Moshe.
I'm certain that your intent is not to deny that there are countries that have legislated laws, and enforce them, prohibiting the addition of any other form of milk to what is sold as "cow's milk." I also suspect that you do not deny that milk is sold in these countries. The United States is one of these countries.

Perhaps you get some sort of thrill out of making a semantic game out of this. Well, milk-from-countries-that-prohibit-and-enforce-the-prohibition-of adding-any-other-milk-other-than-cow's-milk-to-what-is-sold-as-cow's-milk did not exist when the Shulchon Oruch was written. R' Moshe did not make any "chiddush" in this matter. Whichever country was the first to prohibit and enforce the prohibition of adding foreign milks to cow's milk can be credited with this innovation. If you want to call milk-from-countries-that-prohibit-and-enforce-the-prohibition-of adding-any-other-milk-other-than-cow's-milk-to-what-is-sold-as-cow's-milk "folic acid" you can call it "folic acid." If you want to call it milkenstein you can call it milkenstein. Most people who make reference to such milk have chosen the convention of calling it cholov stam. Whether this tickles your fancy or simply annoys it does not affect whether the milk exists, nor does your personal lexicon affect whether there is a term "cholov stam" that is conventionally used to describe this milk.

In R' Moshe's first letter on this matter he refers to the popular use of such milk, whatever you personally like to call it, and even that it is being used by many gedolei yisroel, and concludes that the practice to assume that this is not covered by the general issur of chalav akum mentioned in Shulchon Oruch is valid, and that this milk is not included in the issur. Nothing novel exists in the letter, as R' Moshe himself mentions that gedolei yisroel are already treating it as not being in the class of chalav akum.

This milk, conventionally called "cholov stam" (despite the fact that the term personally irks you - you can call it what you want), has no dispute surrounding the fact that it is not included in the class of chalav akum mentioned in Shulchon Oruch. There are many reasons given for not consuming it, but they do not include the contention that it is the prohibited chalav akum of the Shulchon Oruch.

In this thread we are discussing pas yisroel. The Shulchon Oruch is very adamant about the prohibition of pas palter, a) when a comparable product of pas yisroel exists, and b) in a community that keeps pas yisroel even when comparable products to the pas palter do not exist. In the second community, which is the status of the Lubavitch community, the only time pas palter is permitted is when one is a guest by someone who does not keep pas yisroel and the host is "breaking bread" on a loaf that is pas palter. In that situation, and in that situation alone (save for a case of piku'ach nefoshos when pork would also be exempt from prohibition), one is permitted to partake in consuming from that loaf.

According to the Shulchon Oruch pas palter is always prohibited to someone from the community keeping pas yisroel, without exception. This is more severe than milk-from-countries-that-prohibit-and-enforce-the-prohibition-of adding-any-other-milk-other-than-cow's-milk-to-what-is-sold-as-cow's-milk (a.k.a. cholov stam) which is not addressed in Shulchon Oruch. Despite the many reasons for not consuming such milk, the refrain from such consumption falls under the category of hiddur, while pas palter is unequivocally ossur without room for "leniency" at all.

[Torah613]

Sorry. You don't understand R' Moshe's tshuva - according to his opinion, milk in these countries is cholov yisroel (because of these laws). If it wouldn't be in the category of CY R' Moshe wouldn't permit it. Therefore , according to those that do not accept R' Moshe's reasoning, it is cholov akum , with all the laws that entails, like kashering the keilim used by such milk etc (like R' Moshe himself notes).
Therefore, your statement that the Shulchan Aruch is more lenient concerning CA vs pas, is wrong. In SA there are all kind of leniencies concerning pas (including opinions that there is no such issur) that don't exist by milk.
I am not commenting on the custom of some Anash concerning this. Just don't misquote the SA.
[As an aside, see AR's SA OH # 603].

[77D]

I don't understand how someone throwing in a piece of wood makes a difference.

[LION]

Not that Torah613 needs me to back him up but... ;)

just to add to what torah613 said and then maybe you will understand, according to R' moshe the milk produced nowadays, for which he uses the term “cholov companies has the geder of ‘anan shadi’ – we are witness that they did not put anything else into it etc. – therefore it has the geder of cholov yisroel.

[Torah613]

I think he knows that... his point is something else altogether IMO...

[LION]

I think he knows that... his point is something else altogether IMO...

If he did why did he make the statements he made? But yes you can always ask him...

[hubdirenbud]

once on this subject you people should know how many people in the frum world are not careful when it come to bishul yisroel a lot of people of shiksetz or nannies or housekeeper who they tell to cook for them and they do not put on the fire them self making it not bishul yiroel

[Torah613]

Because for "olam golam" who have no idea what R' Moshe holds, it sounds good.

[Mahus]

Sorry. You don't understand R' Moshe's tshuva - according to his opinion, milk in these countries is cholov yisroel (because of these laws).Vos haksdu a tchainik? R' Moshe himself writes in a later letter (printed in the last volume of Igros Moshe) that there are many advantages to not drink cholov stam and to drink davka chalav yisroel and he gives a number of reasons for it.

Rabbi Hanoka is a relative of the levys and works for the OK.Listen, I've personally done a lot of hashgocho, including the OK, and I know for a fact that not all Post is pas yisroel. I told you to check your source but all you do is restate your misinformation.

[Torah613]

I have no idea what you are attempting to prove from that tshuva (YD v4 # 5). Do you?

[LION]

I have no idea what you are attempting to prove from that tshuva (YD v4 # 5). Do you?

Told you... ;)

[BaisHamikdashBa]

Listen, I've personally done a lot of hashgocho, including the OK, and I know for a fact that not all Post is pas yisroel. I told you to check your source but all you do is restate your misinformation.
I didnt check it out with rabbi hanoka but some else just told me that r' bluminkrantz said the same thing! And i spoke to a mashgiach from the Chk and he said its not all but most.

And about the toffuti cutie... It used to be not pas yisroel then they did change - But im not sure of the status now.

[Mahus]

If we are talking about the same letter, where R' Moshe mentions how al pi kabolo keeping chalav yisroel is conducive to yir'as shomayim, and that everyone should strive to keep chalav yisroel even if it costs more, and this will even broaden the market for chalav yisroel, which will in turn lower the cover-fee of chalav yisroel, which will be more prevelant etc.

Then the point is that he draws a clear distinction between cholov stam, which is mutor (in contrast to chalav akum), and chalav yisroel, which is preferable. I also heard from R' Leibel Schapiro in Miami, who heard first hand from someone who was in R' Moshe's home at the time that he consumed cholov stam that his daughter had purchased for him and placed in the fridge, and when he found out he induced vomiting, even though cholov stam is mutor mei'ikkar ha-din.

He clearly did not hold that milk-from-countries-that-prohibit-and-enforce-the-prohibition-of adding-any-other-milk-other-than-cow's-milk-to-what-is-sold-as-cow's-milk is chalav yisroel, he clearly writes that it is permitted (and that gedolei yisroel were using it before he ever wrote his first teshuvo on the matter), but that chalav yisroel, which is not the same as cholov stam, is preferable for a number of reasons.

[77D]

aha two snags at work... (LION and Torah613)

[Mahus]

I didnt check it out with rabbi hanoka but some else just told me that r' bluminkrantz said the same thing! And i spoke to a mashgiach from the Chk and he said its not all...And the truth begins to trickle out...

And about the toffuti cutie... im not sure of the status now. Thank you for this useful insight.

[Torah613]

aha two snags at work... (LION and Torah613)Care to elaborate and/or reveal to us the depth contained in this sagacious comment?

[77D]

Care to elaborate and/or reveal to us the depth contained in this sagacious comment?

Nope. Theres nothing more then first thought.

[Torah613]

If we are talking about the same letter, where R' Moshe mentions how al pi kabolo keeping chalav yisroel is conducive to yir'as shomayim, and that everyone should strive to keep chalav yisroel even if it costs more, and this will even broaden the market for chalav yisroel, which will in turn lower the cover-fee of chalav yisroel, which will be more prevelant etc.

Then the point is that he draws a clear distinction between cholov stam, which is mutor (in contrast to chalav akum), and chalav yisroel, which is preferable. I also heard from R' Leibel Schapiro in Miami, who heard first hand from someone who was in R' Moshe's home at the time that he consumed cholov stam that his daughter had purchased for him and placed in the fridge, and when he found out he induced vomiting, even though cholov stam is mutor mei'ikkar ha-din.

He clearly did not hold that milk-from-countries-that-prohibit-and-enforce-the-prohibition-of adding-any-other-milk-other-than-cow's-milk-to-what-is-sold-as-cow's-milk is chalav yisroel, he clearly writes that it is permitted (and that gedolei yisroel were using it before he ever wrote his first teshuvo on the matter), but that chalav yisroel, which is not the same as cholov stam, is preferable for a number of reasons.You cited the last volume of IM, in that volume he says nothing about "al pi kabolo" etc., I highly doubt he says that anywhere else either, though if you provide a precise quote (or reference) I will stand corrected (on this particular point).
In any case, learn his tshuvos on this subject (again?), as you have no idea what you are talking about concerning his opinion. The story you mention proves nothing.

[BaisHamikdashBa]

Wow! Your good! When i said check it out i was refering to your comment were you said i should double check - so i said i didnt double check it with Rabbi Hanoka but i did hear it from rabbi blumenkrantz. (not directly.)

Rabbi hanoka said this when he gave a shiur to the kollel guys. Any one in kollel?

[Torah613]

Nope. Theres nothing more then first thought.Then why make meaningless statements?

[Mahus]

You cited the last volume of IM, in that volume he says nothing about "al pi kabolo" etc.,Okay, if he mentions buying chalav yisroel to drive down the cover price (and whatever other reasons he mentioned there) then that's the letter I'm talking about. If not, then you're not looking at his last published letter on the subject. From there it is clear that chalav yisroel has an advantage over cholov stam, even though cholov stam is mutor (unlike chalav akum, which is osur), and they are clearly not the same thing.

Keeping chalav yisroel over cholov stam is a hiddur, while keeping pas yisroel over pas palter (in a community where pas yisroel is kept) is a chiyuv with no room for kulos (and the single exception is an exception, not a kulo).

[LION]

Mahus,

please cite page number.

[Torah613]

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't change the facts. I know the letter you think you are talking about (about Toronto), he doesn't go into his reasoning there at all, therefore to be medayik anything from there is silly. In addition, of course they are not the same thing: One has a yid seeing the milking in actuality, the other is CY based on a lomdus etc., therefore R' Moshe himself admits that it is better to have "real" CY (for reasons that he gives in various tshuvos, as footnoted in the aforementioned tshuvo in YD v4), even though he mantains that lehalocho the other is "also" CY.
For those that do not accept R' Moshe's reasoning (and there are many that do not), CY is no hiddur, rather ikkur hadin (like R' Moshe himself points out in his tshuvos).

[Mahus]

Mahus,

please cite page number.I don't have access to it now. If someone has it on disk, they can do a simple search for chalav yisroel, and they will find the letter where R' Moshe advocates keeping chalav yisroel, the one where he mentions the market price issue. Whether I cite you the page number or not is irrelevant, as the letter does exist, so it is futile to make presumptive and foolish statements that contradict it. It does not become "true" when you see it, it is true because it is there. This isn't a case of Schroedinger's cat...

[Torah613]

I don't have access to it now. I thought so...

[LION]

I don't have access to it now. If someone has it on disk, they can do a simple search for chalav yisroel, and they will find the letter where R' Moshe advocates keeping chalav yisroel, the one where he mentions the market price issue. Whether I cite you the page number or not is irrelevant, as the letter does exist, so it is futile to make presumptive and foolish statements that contradict it. It does not become "true" when you see it, it is true because it is there. This isn't a case of Schroedinger's cat...

I have here a tesuva in chelek 8 that mentions the prices opened in front of me...[do you honestly think I commented without seeing the iggro moshe!?] and yes the page number is relevant being that it seems we are not talking about the same tesuva...mine says basically what Torah613 say....

[Torah613]

Surprise! What did you think? That I quote things without knowing what I am quoting?!

[Mahus]

I have here a tesuva in chelek 8 that mentions the prices opened in front of me...[do you honestly think I commented without seeing the iggro moshe!?] and yes the page number is relevant being that it seems we are not talking about the same tesuva...mine says basically what Torah613 say....Ah, good. Then that's the one. There you see he distinguishes between cholov stam, which is mutor, and cholov yisroel, which is preferable. Unlike chalav akum, which we all agree is ossur. Point being that keeping cholov yisroel over chalav stam is a hiddur, while pas palter (where pas yisroel is kept) is completely ossur with no room for kulos.

[LION]

Surprise! What did you think? That I quote things without knowing what I am quoting?!

You think I just checked\saw the tesuva now!? it is just that if someone is arguing so vehemently you have to give them the benefit of the doubt, after all with memory like mine you never now...and surprise...

[LION]

Ah, good. Then that's the one. There you see he distinguishes between cholov stam, which is mutor, and cholov yisroel, which is preferable. Unlike chalav akum, which we all agree is ossur. Point being that keeping cholov yisroel over chalav stam is a hiddur, while pas palter (where pas yisroel is kept) is completely ossur with no room for kulos.

No I do not see...he says what has been said before.

[Mahus]

A kop ken men nisht arufshtelen.

[LION]

A kop ken men nisht arufshtelen.

There is no point in discussing this until you get to an iggros moshe...

[Mahus]

R' Moshe himself admits that it is better to have "real" CY (for reasons that he gives in various tshuvos, as footnoted in the aforementioned tshuvo in YD v4), even though he mantains that lehalocho the other is "also" CY.
For those that do not accept R' Moshe's reasoning (and there are many that do not), CY is no hiddur, rather ikkur hadin (like R' Moshe himself points out in his tshuvos).No. In this letter he calls milk that is not cholov stam "chalav yisroel," clearly contrasting the fact that the other milk is not chalav yisroel. That is something you made up completely.

And who disagrees with R' Moshe? Those that "keep chalav yisroel" are simply adhering to what he writes in the letter, that it's better to keep chalav yisroel. And I've seen many different teshuvos on this and they all give reasons for keeping chalav yisroel (like what it says in kabolo, etc.), but they do not dispute that cholov stam is not prohibited as the chalav akum of the Shulchon Oruch.

End of the story, keeping davka chalav yisroel like R' Moshe advocates is a hiddur, while pas palter (in our community) is absolutely osur with no room for leniency.

[Torah613]

Mahus -
I will not keep on going in circles, as your agenda is clear and blatant; therefore why get confused with facts?
I will make 2 points, then I am done with this issue (until you start being honest):
1) Until you learn through the tshuvos in IM where he gives his reasoning at length, any understanding you try to derive from this particular tshuva is an understanding that is just there to further your agenda. If you would bother to look at the tshuva you reference inside fully, you would see that the editors were kind enough to cross reference this tshuva with the other tshuvos where he deals with the issue at length, with a brief synopsis of his opinion, making it easy for those who really want to know to know what the IM really holds (even if they have difficulty going through the tshuvos themselves...). In this tshuva however, he doesn't deal with the halachik issues and reasoning at all, rather it is more a question of "policy" (which is probably why he didn't print it in the earlier volumes). Therefore all the dikdukim of hevel you will make to derive and understand the shito of the IM from a letter where he doesn't explain and elaborate his shita - is misleading and wrong - but rather to further an agenda for which (I suppose) everything and anything goes.
2) Without getting into what the standards of our community is regarding pas palter - based on past posts of yours (see:http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/search.php?searchid=39698) (did they all survive?), I assume your agenda is clear: You want to point out what in your eyes is hypocrisy, therefore your mantra like repetition of "CY being a hiddur", and pas palter being an absolute issur etc etc. Why you want to do this I have no idea, but my opinion is the exact opposite: CA is a severe issur according to everyone, including RM, there is no leniency in the actual issur of CA, the question is the definition of CA and CY, according to the psak of RM in IM those who do not follow the definition of RM would have to kasher their keilim if they used "milk of the companies".
Even the most severe definition of pas palter would not - according to my recollection - demand kashering the keilim. In addition to there being many ways to be lenient in pas palter, therefore, I assume there are answers to your questions that a real Rov can resolve. But even accepting the worst case scenario, it is still not comparable to CA. [To make clear: This is not meant to justify any kulos on pas palter not permitted by a real Rov!].
IOW: The zehiros in pas palter, relative to cholov akum/cholov stam/cholov hacompanies (in RM's language), is a hiddur, while not drinking the milk is ikkur hadin (since we don't accept RM's ruling). Uposhut.
Therefore, if you want to keep distorting halochos and tshuvos to further your agenda, fine, I am just letting everyone else out there know that you are a fraud...

[Mahus]

CA is a severe issur according to everyone, including RM, there is no leniency in the actual issur of CAThat has never been debated, and you iunclude it only to obfuscate the issue and make it seem as though I deny that fact. I do not deny it.

Even the most severe definition of pas palter would not - according to my recollection - demand kashering the keilim. Whether the keilim need to be kashered (which they don't by pas palter to keep pas yisroel, and they do by cholov stam to keep chalav yisroel) does not speak one iota towards the possibility of leniency.

In addition to there being many ways to be lenient in pas palter,That is pure fiction that you have fabricated. There is no place given in Shulchon Oruch for leniency even when pas yisroel is not available.

IOW: The zehiros in pas palter, relative to cholov akum/cholov stam/cholov hacompanies (in RM's language), is a hiddur,Your fabrication, which is completely refuted by the clear halocho in Shulchan Oruch...

while not drinking the milk is ikkur hadin (since we don't accept RM's ruling). Uposhut.Keeping chalav yisroel does not mean the rejection of R' Moshe's ruling, as he makes quite clear in the letter you just cited.

What is your agenda exactly if not to reverse the severety of pas palter vs. chalav stam and be matir what is clearly forbidden in Shulchon Oruch? Megaleh ponim batoro shelo kehalocho, u'poshut!

[Torah613]

Keeping chalav yisroel does not mean the rejection of R' Moshe's ruling, as he makes quite clear in the letter you just cited.
Obviously, there are those that hold of R' Moshe's ruling, and therefore their keeping of literal CV is a hiddur - but then one would not kasher keilim after using "milk of companies", as one would not kasher for a hiddur.
Then there are those that do not hold of his ruling, and then they would kasher the keilim (as per the psak of R' Moshe for those people). Lubavitch (and many others) fall into this category.
As to my "agenda", simple: You want to be me'orer about a perceived laxity in pas palter - gezunterheit. Don't minimize the issue of CY/CA (and distort the IM) to make your point. [And no, I did not minimize pas palter (as I went out of my way to point out), I just pointed out that they are different...].

[Mahus]

Obviously, there are those that hold of R' Moshe's ruling, and therefore their keeping of literal CV is a hiddur - but then one would not kasher keilim after using "milk of companies", as one would not kasher for a hiddur.When Reb Moshe is talking about keeping what you call "real" chalav yisroel, he's talking about chalav yisroel where they are kashering between cholov stam and chalav yisroel.

Don't minimize the issue of CY/CA (and distort the IM) to make your point.That's exactly what I'm asking from you.

[Mahus]

[And no, I did not minimize pas palter (as I went out of my way to point out), I just pointed out that they are different...].And, oh yeah, you totally did. You repeatedly mentioned that, in contrast to milk, there is room for kulos by pas palter, which is false and corrupt.

[LION]

I have no comment other than that who ever is interested should check the sources and see for themselves...

[Torah613]

Ah, that nasty word again..."sources"....

[Torah613]

And, oh yeah, you totally did. You repeatedly mentioned that, in contrast to milk, there is room for kulos by pas palter, which is false and corrupt.See AR's SA 168:6.

[Chossid]

Lehoir, there's a famous Yechidus with R' Don Yoel Levy, of OK, where he asked the Rebbe whether he can put a Hechsher on Milchik products that are Cholov Stam(according to the Teshuva of R' Moshe), and the Rebbe answered him that the Heter is a Heter and it's better than Real Cholov Okum[kemuvon that was not for us Lubavitchers, but for those who otherwise would have eaten real CA]. This is how I heard it from a Lubavitcher OK Mashgiach at a Yarchei Kalloh according to my memory, please correct me if I was wrong on specific details.

[Yankel Nosson]

I suppose that flour tortillas would have to be pas yisroel since they are baked
1049

What about corn tortillas? No wheat flour, no problem--correct?

[hishtatchus]

Yes, there is a problem... they have a VERY strong taste. You can have mine if you want. (No pas prob, of course)

[Groisah Tzaddik]

I suppose that flour tortillas would have to be pas yisroel since they are baked
What if you cook them (fry them or steam them)? IS it still PasAkum? After all I"m Yisroel :biggrin:

[Torah613]

I recently had occasion to reread this thread (don't ask me why...). Now is not the time to revisit old issues (tough it is possible that some of what I wrote above has to be revisited a bit).

But I see one thing which is apparantly clearly an error (which is why I feel the need to correct it, as it is a halachik issue): I am pretty sure, that breakfast cereals (for the most part, if not all of them), is a bishul akum issue, not a pas issue (as mentioned many times above by various posters), as they are neither bread not pas habo bekisnin (פת הבא בכסנין). Therefore, the main issue would be oleh al shulchan mlochim and other details/heterim that pertain to bishul.

[ASHREI]

A bakery in my neighborhood is Kashrut.Org certified and they say that they are Pas, however, throughout the bakery there are pictures of Xmas man and the symbols associated with Xmas man. What would be the considered opinion or ruling for such a bakery?

[Kookoo Kabalist]

You'd have to take this up with the kashrus agency that certifies them...

[Torah613]

I don't see the problem.

[ChilinInCali]

Re: Breakfast cereals.

They obviously go under the geder of bishul and not pas, as one of the conditions for pas is 'toiar lechem' shach YD 112:18. (to the best of my knowledge and research on this topic there is no choilek on this point).

and because they are not oileh al shulchan melochim* they probably do not need to be bishul yisroel according to those who go bosar tzurah, for those who go bosar min, corn based cereals and oat based cereals seem to be fine, according to most rabbonim, for wheat based cereals yesh lachkoir if bran is different.

*accepted modern application of this term seems to be; would it be served at a continental breakfast?

[Mahus]

I recently had occasion to reread this thread (don't ask me why...). Now is not the time to revisit old issues (tough it is possible that some of what I wrote above has to be revisited a bit).

But I see one thing which is apparantly clearly an error (which is why I feel the need to correct it, as it is a halachik issue): I am pretty sure, that breakfast cereals (for the most part, if not all of them), is a bishul akum issue, not a pas issue (as mentioned many times above by various posters), as they are neither bread not pas habo bekisnin (פת הבא בכסנין). Therefore, the main issue would be oleh al shulchan mlochim and other details/heterim that pertain to bishul.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bishul vs. pas is a matter of the food and the form of preparation: e.g. Chicken, no matter how it is made, is in the category of bishul while the 5 grains if cooked are bishul (for matters of bishul yisroel) and if baked in heat are pas (for matters of pas yisroel). So wouldn't each cereal be a different story depending on the material it is made from and how it is prepared (is it cooked and then dried or is it baked - or is it pressure baked at a temperature lower than yad soledes and not halachically afiya or bishul)?

[Mahus]

A bakery in my neighborhood is Kashrut.Org certified and they say that they are Pas, however, throughout the bakery there are pictures of Xmas man and the symbols associated with Xmas man. What would be the considered opinion or ruling for such a bakery?

I have seen both Xmas cookies and Xmas chocolates in pas yisroel and cholov yisroel respectively. I assume the hechsher implies a halachic endorsement. But I'm wondering: What is an "Xmas man" and is it in any way more Xistian than a gingerbread man?

[Mahus]

Re: Breakfast cereals.

They obviously go under the geder of bishul and not pas, as one of the conditions for pas is 'toiar lechem' shach YD 112:18. (to the best of my knowledge and research on this topic there is no choilek on this point).

and because they are not oileh al shulchan melochim* they probably do not need to be bishul yisroel according to those who go bosar tzurah, for those who go bosar min, corn based cereals and oat based cereals seem to be fine, according to most rabbonim, for wheat based cereals yesh lachkoir if bran is different.

*accepted modern application of this term seems to be; would it be served at a continental breakfast?

[Oats, like wheat, are part of the five grains that make bread and mezonos i.e. pas - if baked - and bishul if cooked. Am I mistaken?]

I was under the strict impression that oleh al shulchan melochim is in regard to the food item not the way it is prepared. Can you cite a source to the contrary? (Is this what you mean by bosar tzurah?) This information would be very useful.

[Torah613]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bishul vs. pas is a matter of the food and the form of preparation: e.g. Chicken, no matter how it is made, is in the category of bishul while the 5 grains if cooked are bishul (for matters of bishul yisroel) and if baked in heat are pas (for matters of pas yisroel). So wouldn't each cereal be a different story depending on the material it is made from and how it is prepared (is it cooked and then dried or is it baked - or is it pressure baked at a temperature lower than yad soledes and not halachically afiya or bishul)?If it is not pas concerning ברכת הנהנין - or a pas that would be pas with קביעת סעודה, than it is not pas concerning these halochos. Nothing to do with baked or cooked. That is clear in the halochos of pas akum seee YD 112:6 and the nosei keilim there.
[Oats, like wheat, are part of the five grains that make bread and mezonos i.e. pas - if baked - and bishul if cooked. Am I mistaken?]
Would depend on the type of dough, and other issues. Just because the brocho is mezonos doesn't make it pas, even if baked.

Actually, there are cases when actual bread would also be treated like bishul (without the leniencies of bishul), as explained in poskim etc.

[Torah613]

I was under the strict impression that oleh al shulchan melochim is in regard to the food item not the way it is prepared. Can you cite a source to the contrary? (Is this what you mean by bosar tzurah?) This information would be very useful.
"Strict impression"? I would think that the pashtus would be the opposite, though there are opinions either way. For sources, any recent sefer on these issues will bring all the (earlier) sources. VAKML.

[Mahus]

Thanks!