Siman 115

The sages taught in the Mishnah [35b]: Milk that a star-worshiper milked and an Israelite does not see him is forbidden for consumption. And they said in the Gemara the reason is that we concern ourselves lest he mixed into it impure milk. And even though impure milk is not similar in its appearance to pure milk, for pure is white and impure is green, nevertheless we concern ourselves lest he mixed in a small amount and it is not recognizable in the appearance. However, there is not sixty in the pure against the impure, and since impure milk is a Torah prohibition, they were concerned for this. And even though there is a test for this by curdling a portion of it, and impure milk does not curdle, yet they said in the Gemara that this is no proof, for even in pure milk there is whey that does not curdle. And when we curdle the milk and the whey remains which does not curdle, perhaps the impure milk is there, and how can we eat the remaining milk? And even the portion that was curdled and we made cheese from it, there is also a concern that it will not escape that in all the holes in the cheese there should be a little whey, and perhaps this is the impure.

The Tur maintained that there is no distinction whether he milked it for his own needs or for the needs of an Israelite. Thus far his words. And his intention is because there are those who wish to distinguish that specifically when he milked it for the needs of an Israelite is there a concern that he mixed in impure milk in order to profit, because pure milk is more expensive than impure milk; however, when he milked it for his own needs, we do not fear that perhaps he will mix impure milk into it, because impure milk is much inferior to pure milk, and furthermore, it cannot be curdled. To this, the Tur says that there is no distinction in this, for there is always a concern in this, as who can testify to us that the impure is more inferior? And perhaps he does not need to curdle it, and perhaps the impure is more health-giving, and therefore it is forbidden in all cases [see Beit Yosef and Bach and it is simple].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1: If he was milking in his house and an Israelite was sitting outside, if he knows that he has no impure animal in his flock, it is permitted even if the Israelite cannot see him at the time he is milking. If he had an impure animal in his flock and the Israelite was sitting outside and he is milking for the needs of the Israelite, even if he cannot see him while he is sitting, if he can see him when he stands, it is permitted, for he is afraid lest he stand and see him. And this is provided that he knows that impure milk is forbidden to an Israelite. Thus far their words. For if not so, it is not relevant to say that he is afraid. And therefore they wrote specifically regarding one who milks for the needs of an Israelite, for if he milked for his own needs, it is forbidden until he sees from the beginning to the end of the milking, for in this case it is also not relevant that he is afraid. And since there is an impure animal in the flock, there is a concern at every single moment lest he milk a little from the impure one.

And one should not ask that when there is no impure animal in his flock, why must the Israelite sit outside, for behold there is no concern at all in this; however, the Rishonim wrote that as long as the Israelite did not see the milking at all—meaning that he did not even sit outside—the Sages prohibited it in all cases, for we learned plainly in the Mishnah: Milk that was milked by idolaters and an Israelite does not see it is prohibited. So it is written in the Mordechai and in the Semak. This is the wording of the Shearim [siman 82]: Milk that he milked and an Israelite does not see it, even if there is no impure animal in the pen, is prohibited, so that a ruinous consequence should not emerge from it, and "one who breaches a fence, a snake shall bite him"; so wrote Rashi. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Issur V'Heiter [siman 45], and this is the opinion of the Tur and our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, and the great Acharonim: the Shach, the Taz, the Bach, and the Derisha. They only were lenient regarding the guarding, namely, that sitting outside is sufficient, as has been explained. And similarly, coming and going is sufficient; and it is not necessary to say coming and going to the actual place of milking, but even in his sitting outside, he comes and goes and sits for himself outside [Shach, subsection 4], and this is sufficient.

And behold, in any event, it has been clarified that according to the opinion of all our teachers whom we have cited, even in places where an impure animal is not common at all in the city, in a manner where there is no concern for the mixture of impure milk, nevertheless it is forbidden when the Israelite did not at least stand outside at the time of the milking or that he be "going out and coming in," and even a young boy or girl is sufficient, and more will be explained regarding this. However, in any event, the prohibition applies in every manner, and not like one of the great Acharonim who wrote at length on this to be lenient to drink their milk in a place where there is no impure animal, or where it is a remote possibility that they would milk the impure animal, or where impure milk is expensive. And he brought proof from certain great ones who were lenient in such a case, and for this reason there are many who break through the fence regarding this prohibition in our generation, due to our many sins, as we have seen and heard, and they hang themselves on some Torah scholar who did so. And they did not know and will not understand that the words of the Scribes are more stringent than the words of the Torah, and the Torah scholar who did so shall bear his iniquity. And since it was ruled for prohibition in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and all the great Acharonim, who can be so brazen and fulfill his soul's desire? And one who guards his soul will distance himself from this.

And for greater emphasis, I will clarify for you how all the words of our holy teachers are like coals of fire, based on what was confessed before me with a broken heart while I was sitting on the seat of instruction in a certain city. One of the prominent householders there used to practice leniency in a matter while he was away from his home in a large city in the country, where he sat regularly for his business affairs. He and other guests, when drinking hot beverages every morning, would buy fatty milk called "smant" from a non-Jewish shopkeeper opposite their inn. One time they began to investigate among themselves from where this small shopkeeper obtains so much fatty milk. He went to the shopkeeper and asked him, and the shopkeeper said to him: "I buy many animal brains at the meat butchery and melt them with a lot of milk and cook them together, and this is the fattiness." Then they all fell on their faces over their great sin, for they had eaten treifot and meat with milk. And the householder confessed before me and cried out in a loud voice: "How great are the words of the sages!" And truly, I have received a tradition that regarding every decree of the sages, besides their revealed reason, there are many more hidden reasons that they did not reveal. And one who listens shall bear a blessing from Hashem, and his reward shall be paid in this world and the next. [And specifically I heard that in America there are many among the nations who drink pig milk because they are found there in abundance.]

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And initially the Israelite must be present at the beginning of the milking and see the vessel, that there is nothing impure in the vessel in which they are milking; and they have practiced stringency not to milk into a vessel that is the custom of a Cuthean to milk into, lest there remain in it droplets of their milk; however, post facto, one need not be concerned for all of this. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that when there is no impure animal in his herd, they were lenient that it is permitted when the Israelite sits outside, but initially the Israelite must be present at the beginning of the milking and see the vessel, that there is no impure milk in it, for since they prohibited it due to this concern, automatically one must also be concerned regarding the vessel. And this is according to the law. But they have practiced stringency even in this, that even the Israelite should not milk into the vessel designated for them for milking, even though he sees that there is nothing in it, due to the concern of droplets of impure milk, even though this is a mere minute amount. And therefore, one must rinse it well with water. And according to the law there is no concern in this, for even if there are droplets of milk, they would be nullified in sixty. However, post facto, one need not be concerned for all of this, and it is not only necessary to say regarding that which they practiced as a custom, but even if the Israelite was also not present at the beginning of the milking and did not see the vessel, but rather sat outside, it is permitted since there is no impure animal in his herd. But when there is an impure animal in his herd, it is of no avail at all except when he saw from the beginning of the milking until its end [Ateret Zekenim subsection 4 and Shach subsection 8]. And even regarding this permission the Acharonim hesitate, and they hold that even when there is no impure animal in his herd, he must see the beginning of the milking [ibid.]. And it appears to me that even according to their words, if the matter is difficult to stand at the beginning of the milking, as I have seen that there are those who are particular about this due to the evil eye, they may even initially rely on the Israelite sitting outside since there is no impure animal in his herd, for this is better than a post facto situation since it is impossible otherwise, and according to the essence of the law there is no concern in this.

He further wrote that maidservants who milk animals in the house of an Israelite or in their pen, anywhere that a house of a Cuthean does not intervene and there is no concern of an impure thing, it is permitted even ab initio to allow them to milk even though an Israelite is not there. For since it is in the house of an Israelite or in their neighborhood, there is no concern of an impure thing. But if the house of a Cuthean intervenes, an Israelite must be there just as if they were milking in the house of a Cuthean. And even a small Israelite boy or girl is effective, for the star-worshiper is afraid before them. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: even though it was explained that even when there is no impure thing in his flock it is forbidden without the seeing of an Israelite, this is regarding milk that they milked from their animals. But regarding milk that they milked from our animals in the house of the Israelite or in the stable that is in the courtyard of the Israelite, they did not decree upon this when there is no concern of impure milk, and that is when the house of a Cuthean does not intervene between them. And it appears to me that the same law applies even if the house of a Cuthean intervenes between them, if he knows that there is no impure thing there fit for milking, it is also permitted, for go after the reason. And furthermore it appears to me that it is not specifically when the animal belongs absolutely to the Israelite, but even if the Israelite rented it for milking in the manner that they rent "paktin" for milking, it is called the animal of the Israelite since the milk is his. And so too the opposite, when the Cuthean rented an animal from an Israelite for milking, it is called the animal of a Cuthean. And he further wrote that regarding the matter of guarding, even with their animals, a mature Israelite is not required, but even a small boy or girl, provided they are not less than nine years old, for then they possess some measure of understanding and the Cuthean is afraid, but with less than this it is nothing [Shach subsection 12 in the name of Issur V'Heter and Taz].

He further wrote: If gentiles milked some of the animals and an Israelite was not there, and afterwards an Israelite came to the others, now in this current time when the milk of an impure animal is not common at all, it is permitted. However, if the Israelite did not come there until after they were all milked, it is like milk that a gentile milked, which is forbidden even though there is no impure animal in his herd. Thus far his words. Apparently, his intention implies that this refers even to the animal of the gentile; for since the presence of the Israelite is only due to a mere decree when there is no impure animal in his herd—as indeed there are those who permit it entirely in such a case, as I wrote in section 5—and although we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless we are lenient in this regarding a case where they milked many animals and the Israelite arrived during the last ones, for in any event the enactment of the sages was fulfilled with this milking. But when he arrived after the conclusion of the entire milking, we do not consider his subsequent arrival like his arrival in the middle, and it is forbidden. And there are those who explained his words as referring to the animal of an Israelite that the gentile milked in a stable behind the house of the Israelite [Taz, subsection 6]. And these words are astonishing, for if so, even after the milking it should be permitted, as was written previously [Shach, subsection 13]. And there is one who wrote that there is a printing error here [ibid.]. And in my humble opinion, it appears as I wrote, that it refers to their animals, and our teacher, the Rema, decided this of his own mind: that as long as the enactment of the sages—that the Israelite see the milking—is fulfilled, even if it is in the middle of the milking and there are animals that were already milked, nevertheless, since the milkings from these animals are in one continuous sequence, we are not concerned about it when there is no fear of impure milk. And this is no worse than what has been explained, that even if he cannot see him while he is sitting, nevertheless, since he can see him when he stands, it is permitted in such a case. And here too it is so, since there is the enactment of the sages as I wrote [and so it appears from the Gra, subsection 9, and the Pri Chadash, subsection 10, who explained it thus, see there; and it appears to my humble opinion to rely on this in a time of pressing need].

The author of the Issur VeHeter wrote [Siman 45, Law 7]: In a case where the Israelite saw the milking and there was no impure animal in the house, and afterward he goes away and leaves the milk in the house of the Cuthite for a short time—this was an actual case, and our teacher, Simcha, permitted the milk. Firstly, because there was no impure animal there at all, and furthermore, because he is afraid, saying, "Now the Israelite will come and see me." And thus we are accustomed ab initio to permit it even for eating as is. Thus far his words. This implies that if he left it for a long time, then one must know if there is a concern that he might exchange it for his own milk; for example, if his milk is of poorer quality than the milk of the Israelite and the like, it is forbidden. But if there is no concern of exchange, such as where the Cuthite would not profit from the exchange, it is permitted, for he is not suspected of causing others to stumble. Laws such as these will be explained in Siman 118 with the help of Heaven.

Milk of idolaters prohibits the vessels in which it was cooked, or if it remained within the vessel for a twenty-four hour period, as this is considered pickled. Even though it is a light prohibition, being only a concern lest he mixed unclean milk into it, and in most instances this is not common at all, nevertheless, since the sages decreed upon this, it prohibits like all other prohibitions. Likewise, their cheeses prohibit like all other prohibitions. However, their butter, even in a place where they practice a prohibition regarding it, does not prohibit the vessels in which it was cooked, nor its mixture; for if it was mixed with permitted matter, everything is permitted, just as with their bread in siman 112, where if there is only a majority of permitted matter, it is permitted. But regarding cheese, a majority of permitted matter is not effective. There is one who wishes to be lenient even regarding cheese with a majority of permitted matter, but it is not the primary view [see Shach, subsection 17].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: Milk of idolaters that was forbidden—it does not avail if they subsequently make cheese or butter from it; rather, it remains in its forbidden state and everything made from it is forbidden. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is because it will be explained below regarding the law of their cheeses that even if an Israelite did not see the milking, nevertheless, since he was present at the time of the making of the cheeses, it is permitted, for there is no concern of impure milk in this; since the gentile milked it for the purpose of cheese, he would not mix impure milk into it, as it does not curdle. According to this, I would have said that regarding their ordinary milk, it should avail when cheese is made from it. Indeed, some say that the Rambam holds accordingly [the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 3, halacha 16], but it is not so, for we explicitly say in the Gemara there that in the crevices there can be impure milk, as I wrote in section 1, and they only permitted it when the milking was for the purpose of cheese [and the Rambam was not concerned for this, as I wrote in section 14].

Regarding their cheeses, the sages forbade them. This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 3 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 12: The milk of an impure animal does not curdle and stand like the milk of a pure animal. If the milk of an impure animal was mixed with the milk of a pure animal, when you curdle it, the milk of the pure animal will stand, and the milk of the impure animal will go out with the whey of the cheese. Because of this, the law dictates that all milk found in the possession of an idolater is forbidden, lest he mixed into it the milk of an impure animal, but their cheese is permitted, for the milk of an impure animal does not curdle. However, in the days of the sages of the Mishnah, they decreed against their cheese and forbade it because they curdle it with the skin of the stomach of their slaughtering, which is nevelah. And if you say, is the skin of the stomach not an exceedingly small thing in the milk that stood through it, and why should it not be nullified in its minority? Because it is the curdling agent of the cheese, and since it is a forbidden thing that curdled it, everything is forbidden. And regarding cheeses that the idolaters curdle with herbs or fruit juice, such as the sap of figs, and they are recognizable in the cheese, some of the Geonim ruled that it is forbidden, for they already decreed against all of their cheeses, whether they curdled it with a forbidden thing or whether they curdled it with a permitted thing, as a decree because they curdle it with a forbidden thing. Thus far the words of the Rambam.

And behold, in the Gemara several reasons were stated for the prohibition of cheese: one is the reason that was explained regarding the skin of the stomach; and another reason because of non-kosher milk that remains between the crevices; and another reason because they smooth its surface with pig fat; and another reason due to "nikkur," which is because of exposure, as they are not careful regarding the "nikkur" of snakes and there is danger in this; and another reason because they curdle it with wine-vinegar of idolatry; and another reason because they curdle it with the sap of orlah [Gemara 35]. The Rif and the Rambam took as the primary reason only the reason of the skin of the stomach, because this reason is explicit in the Mishnah. And regarding some of the reasons there are great questions, such as the reason of non-kosher milk between the crevices and the reason of smoothing the surface with pig fat, for it is merely a minute amount and should be nullified in sixty. It is understandable regarding the reason of the skin of the stomach, for it is a curdling agent, as the Rambam wrote. And a proof for this is: why did they need to say the skin of the stomach of a nevelah? For even the skin of the stomach of a slaughtered animal involves the prohibition of meat and milk! Rather, it is because in meat and milk the prohibition is only in the imparting of flavor, for the Torah prohibited it in the manner of cooking. And regarding the reason of exposure, they challenged in the Gemara that there is a remedy for this: let it sit until it dries, for the venom of a snake does not allow it to dry. And regarding the reasons of wine-vinegar and the sap of orlah, they challenged that if so, it should be prohibited for benefit as well, and the sages explicitly stated that it is only prohibited for eating and not for benefit. Therefore, they took only the reason of curdling with the skin of the stomach of a nevelah.

But the Ra'avad, the Ramban, and the Rashba, of blessed memory, said that one must also be concerned for the taste of impure milk that is between the pits and for the smoothing of the surface with pig fat. And even though there is sixty to nullify it, this is because regarding these prohibitions the Sages did not follow the imparting of taste specifically, because they wanted to distance Israel from their foods [the Maggid Mishneh there]. And one should not ask that if so, why did they need to say the skin of the stomach of a nevelah, since even in a slaughtered animal there is a prohibition of meat and milk; for it can be said that regarding meat and milk, cold with cold there is no Torah prohibition, for the Torah only prohibited it by way of cooking, and even soaking is permitted by the Torah regarding meat and milk, as was written in siman 87 [and this answer was written by the Tosafot 35a, starting with the word "Mipnei," see there].

However, for the practical halacha, there is no difference at all, for even if it is clear that they curdle it with a permitted substance, it is forbidden, as the Rambam wrote, for thus some of the Geonim instructed due to the concern of curdling with a forbidden substance. And even if in the entire country they curdle it with a permitted substance, it is also forbidden, because cheese was forbidden by a formal assembly, and anything forbidden by a formal assembly remains forbidden forever, even when the reason is nullified, and it requires those greater in wisdom and in number than those who decreed the prohibition if they wish to permit it, and this is impossible to occur. In this regard, cheese is more stringent than milk, for the prohibition of milk is because of impure milk and it was not decreed by a formal assembly as a general prohibition, but cheeses were forbidden by a formal assembly and nothing is of avail. Thus wrote the early authorities [the Maggid Mishneh there]. According to this, for us, even though they curdle it with the skin of a stomach that has been dried like wood, which is like mere dust and has no prohibition at all as written in siman 87, or our simple cheese which has no curdling agent at all, nevertheless, the prohibition remains in its place for the reason that has been explained.

And it is true that one of our early teachers took the reason of exposure as the primary factor, and according to this, for us where snakes are not common—as will be explained in siman 116—there would be grounds to permit it. Similarly, the great scholars of Narbonne permitted cheeses that were curdled with flowers, and they did not hold at all that cheese was forbidden by a formal decree, but rather it is like the prohibition of milk where the concern exists only when there is a prohibited substance; however, if there is no concern of a prohibited substance, it is permitted. According to this, for us, where the curdling is done with the skin of a stomach that is dry as wood, there would be grounds to permit it. Nevertheless, since the Rambam, the Ra'avad, the Ramban, the Rashba, the Rosh, the Tur, and our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch ruled for a prohibition, so we establish the law. And the Rambam and the Tur wrote that one who eats it is given a disciplinary beating in ancient times.

And according to what we have explained, the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 2 are understood, as they wrote, and this is their wording: Their cheeses were forbidden because they curdle them with the skin of the stomach of their slaughtering, which is nevela; and even if they curdled it with herbs it is forbidden, and such is the custom, and one should not break the fence unless in a place where they practiced permissiveness from the early ones. Thus far their words. And it must be understood why they dependent this on custom, for is it not forbidden by the law? Rather, it is because according to the opinion of one of our teachers and the greats of Narbonne, there is no prohibition when they curdled it with a permitted substance; for this they said that the custom spread according to the opinion of the Rambam and all our teachers who forbid, and therefore one should not break the fence except in a place where they practiced permissiveness according to the opinions of the greats of Narbonne and one of our teachers, but in all places it is forbidden [and it requires further study regarding those who permit, for is there not a concern for impure milk between the cavities? And behold, Rabbeinu Chananel only held the reason of exposure, and the greats of Narbonne must be said to also not have been concerned for this reason on account of the concept of a minute amount like the reasoning of the Rif and the Rambam; but according to the Ra'avad, the Ramban, and the Rashba it is forbidden, and examine this closely].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And if the Israelite sees the making of the cheeses and the milking, it is permitted; such is the simple custom in all these lands. And if he saw the making of the cheeses but did not see the milking, it is to be permitted post facto, for there is no concern that perhaps he mixed a non-kosher substance into it since he made cheeses from the milk, for a non-kosher substance does not curdle, and certainly the gentile did not mix it in since his intention was to make cheeses. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to eat the milk as is. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that if the Israelite saw the making of the cheeses and the milking, the simple custom is to permit it, and we do not say that it is specifically required that the Israelite assist in the making of the cheeses as with bread and cooked foods, for we do not find this in the Gemara. And some of the great later authorities challenged him, that regarding cheeses there is no permission except with the assistance of the Israelite in the making of the cheese [Shach, subsection 20]. And likewise, they rejected his words regarding what he permitted when he did not see the milking, for since we hold like the Rambam that even if they curdled it with herbs it is forbidden because of "we do not distinguish," so too it is here [Taz, subsection 11]. But already many of the great ones rejected their words and upheld the words of our teacher, the Rema, in these two laws, and so we hold [Noda BiYehuda, second edition, Orach Chaim, siman 37, and Minchat Yaakov, and Pri Chadash]. And according to his words it is explicitly stated in the commentary on the Mishnah by the Rambam, and this is his wording: And likewise, when we see that the gentile curdled the milk with the rennet itself, it is permitted for us to eat, for it is merely waste, etc. And that which he brought, that the cheese should not be forbidden because of milk that a gentile milked and an Israelite did not see it, is because the reason for this prohibition is so that non-kosher milk should not be mixed with that milk, and non-kosher milk does not curdle, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, the Rambam himself permitted this, and it is not comparable to curdling with herbs which they forbade because of "we do not distinguish," for certainly that is so; but all this is without the seeing of the Israelite, but when he saw, they did not decree in this. And the assistance of the Israelite is not required except for bread and cooked foods whose preparation is by means of fire, but in this we do not find in the Gemara that there should be a need for the making of an Israelite, but rather the seeing of the eye. [And that which was taught regarding milk, "and an Israelite does not see him," and regarding cheese it was taught without qualification, this is because regarding cheese one must ab initio see the milking as well, and the inference of the Shach there is answered; and besides this, this is not an inference according to the flow of the language of the Mishnah, see there. And the proof that he brought from Teshuvot Maimoni, siman 8, who wrote: "And I have never seen anyone take cheeses even if he saw the milk from the time it was milked until he made, etc.," there the reason is because of the prohibition of the rennet and the intestines, for the main question there was because of this, see there. And although in Teshuvot Maharam of Rothenburg, siman 374, he ruled that one must perform an action, we hold like the Rambam, for we do not find this in all the poskim, and it implies explicitly to the contrary. And in the Tosefta, chapter 5, there is a change in the wording from the version before us to the version brought by the Maharam of Rothenburg there. And the Gra, subsection 4, ruled like the Shach. And one should be stringent ab initio in practice that the Israelite should put the milk into the rennet or into the vat, but post facto one should not forbid it since most of the great ones agreed to permit it, and it is explicitly so in the Rambam, and look closely.]

Regarding butter, the Sages did not issue a decree, as they did not mention this in the Gemara. The reason is simple: when one milks to make butter, he will not mix impure milk into it, for it does not curdle. And here there is none of the concern that exists regarding cheeses, for in this there is no curdling at all that necessitates the skin of a stomach or the smoothing of the surface with pig fat. Similarly, there is no concern for impure milk between the crevices, for there are no crevices in butter and it is entirely cohesive. Aside from this, since the intention of the gentile was to make butter, why would he mix impure milk into it? This concern only exists if we wish to make butter from their milk, but the butter that they made, they would not mix impure milk into it. Thus it appears from the essential law.

And nevertheless, the Rambam wrote there, and this is his wording: Their butter—some of the Geonim permitted it, for they did not decree against butter, and the milk of an impure animal does not stand; and some of the Geonim forbade it because of the droplets of milk that remain in it, for the whey in the butter is not mixed with the butter such that it would be nullified by its minority, and regarding all of their milk, we are concerned lest they mixed into it the milk of an impure animal. And it appears to me that if one took butter from the gentile and cooked it until the droplets of milk were gone, behold, this is permitted; for if you say they were mixed with it and all were cooked, they were nullified in their minority. But the butter that they cooked is forbidden because of their forbidden absorptions. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that the Geonim who forbid it hold that we do not say this reasoning—that since the intention of the Cuthean was to make butter, he would not mix impure milk into it—for perhaps he previously milked the animal in order to sell the milk, and afterward decided to make butter, and prior to this he had mixed impure milk into it. And in all butter there is some whey, which is what is poured from it like water, and the whey stands on its own; therefore, it is not nullified in the butter, and we are concerned for this whey, that it is impure milk, for nullification only applies when a forbidden substance is mixed into a permitted one, and not when the forbidden substance stands on its own. And if it is difficult, for behold, it is possible to pour out the whey entirely so that only the butter remains, one must say that they hold it is impossible to pour it out entirely, for however we pour, something will remain. And to this the Rambam says that even according to their words, if we cook the butter, the whey will exit entirely, for the power of the fire removes it entirely. And if you say that through the fire the whey will be absorbed into the butter, to this he says that in this it is simple that there is no concern at all, for since it is absorbed into it, it will be nullified, for it is simple that there is sixty in the butter against the whey; for the entire primary concern is because it stands on its own, and now that it is absorbed into it, it will be nullified. And know that this which the Rambam wrote, that if they cooked the butter it is forbidden because of their absorptions—meaning, because of their vessels—we do not rule accordingly, for he follows his reasoning which we wrote in siman 112, that he does not hold that ordinary vessels are not "of their day," but we do rule accordingly, and therefore even the butter that they cooked is permitted for eating [Kesef Mishneh].

The Tur, after bringing the words of the Rambam, wrote, and this is his wording: And the Rashba forbade it even after cooking, and Rabbenu Peretz permitted it explicitly without cooking, and my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, used to say that he did not know a clear reason to forbid it, except that they treated it as a prohibition; therefore, he would not protest against the people of a place who treat it as permitted, but if the majority of the place treats it as a prohibition, a person should not change. Thus far the words of the Tur.

Behold, the reasoning of our teacher Peretz is simple, for in truth there is no concern here, as has been written; since the intention of the Kuthi was to make butter, why would he mix impure milk into it? And he did not concern himself with the possibility that initially he intended to sell the milk, for from where do we have the authority to fear such distant concerns in a rabbinic prohibition such as this? And it is not even a rabbinic prohibition, for in truth they did not decree against butter. And although the Semag cited in the name of the Yerushalmi, first chapter of Shabbat, that within the decrees of the eighteen matters they also decreed against their butter, he himself wrote that there is a Yerushalmi where butter is not written there [see Beit Yosef], and before us in the entire Yerushalmi, butter is not found at all in any place. And in our Shas, there is also no mention found that they decreed against butter. And the reasoning of the Rosh, who said that he does not know a reason to prohibit, was also because of this, as is explained. However, the Rashba follows his own reasoning that they did not follow the measure of sixty in these prohibitions, as has been written in section 15, and he also holds that there is a concern that perhaps he milked initially to sell. According to this, when he cooked it, it is possible that the whey was absorbed into the butter, and it is prohibited since it is not nullified in sixty. And it appears to me that even according to the Rashba, this is only regarding a Kuthi who sells a little butter from his animal, where it is possible that previously his intention was not for butter; but in the courtyards of the ministers where they make much butter, and all the animals they keep for milking are for butter, no concern of a mixture of impure milk is relevant there. [And in the Hagahot Maimoniyot, chapter 3 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, he brought a response of Rabbeinu Tam, and this is his wording: That where there is reason to fear a mixture of milk whey, in four days it dries out and then it is permitted, and in butter there are no cavities; and where they do not mix, it is permitted immediately, and when there is a doubt, we follow the lenient view, etc. Thus far his words, and it was brought in the Beit Yosef]:

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 3, wrote, and this is their wording: Regarding the butter of idolaters, one does not protest against the people of a place who practice according to the permissive view. If the majority of the people of the place practice according to the prohibitive view, one should not change. In a place where there is no established custom, if he boiled it until the traces of milk were gone, it is permitted; it is also permitted to boil it initially so that the traces of milk will go away. If a gentile boiled it, it is permitted, for their vessels are generally not "of the day." Thus far their words. And this fact that it is permitted to boil it is not like one who nullifies a prohibited substance initially, for perhaps there is no prohibition here at all; furthermore, his intention is not to nullify it, but rather that the traces of milk should go away [Shach, subsection 28, in the name of the Beit Yosef]. That is to say, the intention is not to nullify the prohibited substance within the permitted substance, but on the contrary, to eliminate the prohibited substance by means of the fire, so that the prohibited substance will be completely burned away, and it is possible that not even a minute amount of the prohibited substance will remain [and with this, the difficulty raised by the Taz, subsection 12, is answered; see there and examine carefully].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if one goes from a place where they do not eat it to a place where they do eat it, he may eat there with them; however, it is forbidden to bring it with him and eat it in a place where they practice a prohibition, unless it is in a case where there is a recognizable sign that it is from the permitted places. And one who goes from a place where they practiced permission to a place where they practiced a prohibition, it is forbidden for him to eat it there. And some say that the same law applies if it was brought from a place of permission to a place of prohibition—it is also forbidden even if there is a recognizable sign, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And regarding that which it is permitted to eat with them even though his intention is to return, and we do not impose upon him the stringencies of the place from which he departed, some say it is because it is a light prohibition and is not similar to other prohibitions [Levush, and so it appears in the Shach, subsection 29]. But it is impossible to say so, for if so, why is it forbidden to bring it with him? [Taz, subsection 13]. Furthermore, it is not understood what relevance a recognizable sign that it is from the permitted places has. However, the intention is as follows: that the places that practiced permission do so because there they produce it with proper supervision without any concern in the world, and the places that practiced a prohibition do so because among them there is a concern, and were there no concern there, they would also eat it. Therefore, there is no dispute here, and the stringencies of the place do not apply to this. Therefore, one who goes from a place of prohibition to a place of permission eats there with them, for even in his own place they would eat such butter. But to bring it with him is forbidden if there is no recognizable sign in this butter and a difference in appearance between this butter and the butter here, because of the stringencies of the place to which he went regarding the appearance of the eye; but when this butter is recognizable, there is no issue of the appearance of the eye. And one who goes from a place of permission to a place of prohibition is forbidden to eat their butter there even if his intention is to return, because even in his own place they would not eat such butter. And some are stringent to say that when it was brought from a place of permission to a place of prohibition it is forbidden even with a recognizable sign, like the law of all prohibitions, and such is the custom [so it appears to me to explain, and so it appears from the Taz there].

And behold, in our time, in most places they do not eat their butter, and there are places where they do eat it. And it is obvious that in distant places, or in a place where Jews are few, they may eat butter without any hesitation at all. And even in places where they practiced a prohibition, it does not prohibit the vessels in which the butter was cooked, nor mixtures, and it is nullified by a majority. And know that the rabbi, the author of Chachmat Adam, wrote [end of Klal 67], and this is his wording: However, in this time, we have heard clearly that they adulterate the butter with lard in inns, and therefore it is proper for every conscientious person not to eat except from the butter sold in large places in the market, but not what they sell in houses piece by piece. Thus far his words. And in the Tashbetz, brought in the Bach at the end of this siman, and this is his wording: Regarding their butter, in the Responsa of the Geonim they wrote to permit it, and so too Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbeinu Ri permit it. However, in the Responsa of Rabbi Natan it is written: Until now they practiced permission, but since they began to adulterate it with fats, they would rebuke with a reprimand anyone who eats them, etc., and it is a widespread custom in all the land of Ashkenaz not to eat it. Thus far his words. Behold, even in ancient times there was butter in which an adulteration of fats was mixed. And also in our time, for many years we have heard that even now there are places where they mix fats into the butter. And some years ago I was in a large city and I heard that the adulterated butter is not intended for eating at all, only for greasing in factories; and Blessed is He who knows the truth. Therefore, it is certainly so that those who practice permission regarding butter must, in any case, know clearly that there is no adulteration or mixture of a prohibited substance in it. [The Beit Yosef wrote at the end of this siman: One who transgressed and curdled milk with their sour milk, and took this milk and curdled another with it, and from the other another, it is permitted to take this third milk and curdle milk with it and eat it, for after three times the first has already been exhausted. Thus far his words. And the proof is from Tosefta Pesachim chapter 2, that the leaven of Cutheans is permitted after three weeks, which means after three bakings; see there.]

And there is a doubt in a place where they follow the practice of permitting butter, what is the law regarding milk that was set for a day or two until it became thick, where the upper part is fat and is called "smetana" and the lower part is sour and is called "sour milk," whether this is similar to milk and forbidden, or similar to butter and permitted. And it appears that it is similar to butter, for behold, impure milk does not curdle; and if it is because of the whey, behold, in butter there is also whey. And if so, the whey that is visible can be poured out, and what is absorbed in the curdled milk is nullified. And behold, in the sour milk there is much whey which is called "serwatka" and one must pour it out entirely, and in the smetana there is no whey on its own. And it appears to me in my humble opinion that in distant places where the Israelite has nothing to eat, he may eat smetana and sour milk like butter, and he should only pour out the serwatka [see Pri Chadash subsection 21 who permitted the "kaymak" in the land of Turkey, which is also similar to this and also for these reasons, see there, for according to most poskekim butter is completely permitted, and the same applies to this].