Siman 505

We learn in Shabbat (145b): A person may milk a goat into a pot, but not into a bowl. For in a pot there is food, and the milk that enters it is a liquid that comes into food and is considered like food, and it is found to be like separating food from food. And it is not similar to mefarek, which is a subcategory of dash. But into an empty bowl it is mefarek. And the Tosafot wrote that this is specifically on Yom Tov, for the animal is fit for eating and it is food that is being separated, and not on Shabbat when it is not fit for slaughter. And the Rif likewise wrote that it deals with Yom Tov, and it is a wonder regarding the Rambam that he did not mention this law at all. (And it is impossible to say that he holds like Rabbeinu Chananel, who rejected this from the halacha as the Rif wrote. For the law of squeezing a cluster of grapes he wrote in the laws of Shabbat chapter four, and Rabbeinu Chananel rejected this as well from the halacha. And the Maggid Mishneh already wondered there at his omission of this law in the laws of Yom Tov, see there.)

This is the wording of the Tur: A pot that contains food—it is permitted to milk an animal into it according to the Rif, even though it is forbidden to suckle from the animal on Yom Tov unless one was in pain—nevertheless, it is permitted to milk into the pot. However, if it contains no food—it is forbidden. Thus far his words, and the reason is as I have written: for when one suckles it is "mefarek," just as when milking into a vessel that contains no food. This is not the case when it contains food—it is like separating food from food, and it is permitted. And seemingly, this permission is only when the animal is designated for slaughter. But an animal designated for its milk—granted that there is no prohibition of "mefarek" because of the food in the pot, nevertheless, is there not a prohibition of muktzeh? And the Tur, who did not distinguish in this—it is because he holds like his father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, that even on Yom Tov there is no muktzeh, as I have written in siman 495. But according to the words of the Rif and the Rambam, for we establish that there is muktzeh on Yom Tov—this is only with an animal designated for slaughter.

And so it is clear from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote: An animal that is standing for eating, and one wants to milk it to eat the milk, if into a pot that does not have food in it—it is forbidden. And if there is food in it—it is permitted… Thus far his words, behold it is explicitly as I have written. And one should not ask: let it be forbidden because of nolad, for originally it was food and now it is liquid? For this is not a question, because since it comes to food—it is considered like food. And therefore, without food, aside from the prohibition because of mefarek—it is forbidden because of nolad, even if it was milked on its own or by a non-Jew.

The world is accustomed to milking on Yom Tov into food, and specifically on Shavuot. This is a great wonder: for are our milking animals not designated for milking and not for eating? And it must be said that the world either holds that we do not have muktzeh on Yom Tov, like the opinion of the Rosh, and the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, in siman 495 tends toward this; or they hold like that which the Ran, of blessed memory, wrote in Shabbat there in the name of the Ramban, that even one who holds of muktzeh—it is permitted even with an animal designated for its milk, for there is no muktzeh in a thing that comes on its own such as this, which he did not push away with his hands; since it has departed from the prohibition, it has departed from the muktzeh. That is to say: certainly if the milk were also designated for curdling and to dry the cheeses—they would be muktzeh. But since the milk is designated for drinking, granted that while it is inside the animal it is muktzeh, but when it is separated from the animal, the muktzeh is gone. And it is not similar to all other forms of muktzeh where the person created the muktzeh, such as when he lit a candle, or set it to dry, or for merchandise, or for storage. But here the muktzeh is of its own essence, and when it is separated from the muktzeh—it is permitted. And so appears to be the opinion of the Maor, see there. And even the prohibition of nolad is removed for this reason, even though at the beginning of Beitzah it is explained that an egg laid on Yom Tov is nolad. And even one who does not hold of muktzeh holds of nolad, and if so, it would be nolad. And the same law applies to the milk of an animal: even if muktzeh were permitted—nevertheless it would be nolad in any event. And I saw indeed one who raised this difficulty (the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger). Nevertheless, it appears that the poskim hold that all of this in the Gemara is according to the initial flow of the discussion. But according to the conclusion it is not so, for the Gemara concludes with other reasons regarding the egg, and not because of the reason of nolad. And the reason for an egg laid on Yom Tov is because of preparation, as I wrote below in siman 513. And also above in siman 322 regarding Shabbat they did not write the reason of nolad, see there (and nevertheless it requires further study). And see in section 7.

When it was permitted to milk into food—it is specifically when through this milking the food is improved, according to what is needed for this food. And all the more so if the milk is absorbed into the crumbs of the food. But if one milks a great deal of milk, which is not needed for the food at all, but rather his intention is to pour the milk afterwards into another place—it is a complete prohibition. And it is a kal vachomer that it is forbidden to place a little bread in a vessel and milk onto it, and one is liable for malkot. And the amei ha'aretz who act thus—one must protest against them with all types of coercion. Rather, one should only milk according to what is needed for the food in this pot. (See Taz subsection 2, and his words are not clear to me. And as we have explained, so it appears.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if a non-Jew milks an animal on Yom Tov and an Israelite sees him, one may be lenient. However, they have treated it as prohibited, and one should not change this. Nevertheless, on the Yom Tov of the Diaspora, it is permitted on the second day of Yom Tov. Thus far his words. And the Levush explained that the animal belongs to the non-Jew, and therefore even if it stands for milking there is no muktzeh in it, for that which belongs to a non-Jew does not require preparation, as I wrote in siman 498 in the name of the Yerushalmi, that regarding that which belongs to a non-Jew, muktzeh is not applicable. And they challenged him, for behold, nolad also exists in that which belongs to a non-Jew (Magen Avraham, subsection 3), as I wrote in siman 517 regarding an egg, see there. And it seems to me regarding the intention of the Levush that certainly nolad that was born on its own exists by a non-Jew just as by an Israelite, such as an egg and the like. But milk, which he milked himself and separated from the food, just as the status of nolad does not apply to him at all, so too when he gives it to an Israelite. Since it is the work of his hands and it was permitted for him, since it was permitted, it was permitted, and the status of nolad shall no longer fall upon it.

And there is one who explained that it refers to the animal of an Israelite, which the non-Jew milked. And the reason that there is no muktzeh in this is according to the reasoning of the Ramban that we brought in section 4 (Taz, subsection 3). And even though this is not according to the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and he should have written it with the phrasing "there are those who say" (ibid.), it seems to me because it is possible to say that when the non-Jew milked it – everyone agrees that the muktzeh and the nolad were removed from this through the action of the non-Jew, since there is no aspect of an action by hand in this. And the removal of the muktzeh was not by an Israelite, nor on its own, but rather by a non-Jew. And be that as it may – the world has the custom of prohibition regarding it, and one should not change it, for we do not rely on this reasoning in practice. However, that which was milked on the first day – is permitted on the second, except for the two days of Rosh Hashanah, and except for Shabbat and Yom Tov that are adjacent to one another. And it is a simple matter that if Yom Tov falls on Thursday and Friday, that milk milked on Thursday is permitted on Friday, and certainly on Shabbat. And so too when Yom Tov falls on Sunday and Monday, that milk milked on Shabbat is permitted on Monday. And this is regarding the Yom Tov of the exile, and not on Rosh Hashanah. And such is the halachah in practice. (There are further laws regarding milking, and they were explained in the laws of Shabbat.)