Siman 81

The milk of an impure domestic animal or wild beast and their brine are forbidden by the Torah, as it is written: "These are the impure to you among all the swarming things" etc., and it was taught: "The impure" is to forbid their brine, their broth, and their sediment [Bekhorot 6a]. And the primary derivation is regarding their brine, for regarding broth and sediment, which is the crushed meat at the bottom of the pot, a verse was not necessary, as "taste is like the substance itself" is from the Torah, and this we learn from another place [Tosafot]. And regarding the milk of an impure animal, we learn from "camel, camel," as it is written two times, one to forbid the camel and one to forbid its milk [ibid.].

And they asked in the Gemara there: why do we need a verse for milk specifically? For behold, we derive it from the unclean animals, for is milk any worse than juice? And they answered that because the milk of a clean animal is also a novelty that the Torah permitted it, as it is a limb from a living animal, and I would have said that even that of an unclean animal is permitted; therefore, it requires a specific derivation. And we derive that the milk of a clean animal is permitted from that which is written, "flowing with milk and honey," and other verses, see there [and it requires further study why he does not derive it from Abraham, who gave the guests butter and milk, and a limb from a living animal is one of the seven Noahide laws].

The milk of a terefah is forbidden like the milk of an unclean animal, as the Rif, of blessed memory, wrote [in the chapter Elu Terefot] from that which we learned in a Mishnah: If a kosher animal nursed from a terefah, its abomasum is forbidden; we learn from this that the milk of a terefah is forbidden, see there. And I have a question regarding this: from where do we know that the milk of a terefah is forbidden? For even the milk of an unclean animal, were it not for the verse regarding the camel, it would not be forbidden, as has been written; if so, regarding a terefah where there is no verse, from where do we know to forbid it? And it appears to me that behold, in Torat Kohanim at the end of Shemini it is taught: "To distinguish between the unclean animal and the clean"—it is not necessary to say between a cow and a donkey, for it has already been stated etc., but rather between one where the majority of the organ was slaughtered and one where half was slaughtered, see there. It follows that the Torah called a nevelah "unclean," and nevelah and terefah are one and the same. And since there is a verse for the milk of an unclean animal, it automatically applies to a terefah [and this is derived explicitly in Chullin 112b: Rav Mari bar Rachel had meat of a slaughtered animal salted with meat of a terefah, and Rava forbade it based on the verse "from the unclean," see there; it follows that a terefah is like an unclean animal, and with this the difficulty of Tosafot in Bekhorot ibid. starting with the words "to forbid" is answered; and examine it carefully].

This is the wording of the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 3: Any food that comes from one of the forbidden species for which one is lashed for eating, that food is forbidden for consumption by the Torah, such as the milk of impure domestic and wild animals, and the eggs of fowl, etc. Thus far his words. And I wonder why he did not also mention their brine, their broth, and their sediment, which are forbidden by the Torah as is explained in the Gemara, for it is a complete derivation, since the Shas asks why a verse is needed for the prohibition of impure milk, as I have written. And it appears to me that the Rambam, of blessed memory, rejected this halacha according to what he ruled at the beginning of chapter 15, that "taste is like the substance" is forbidden by rabbinic law, for by the Torah it is not forbidden unless there is a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, and it will be explained in siman 98. If so, perforce the prohibition of broth and sediment is not by the Torah, and the same applies to brine, as is proven from the Tosafot that we cited in section 1, that brine is not superior to broth, see there. Therefore, that which he wrote at the end of chapter 15 regarding the brine of a nevela that it forbids the meat, his intention was for a rabbinic prohibition.

He further wrote there in law 6, and this is his wording: Even though the milk of an impure animal and the eggs of an impure bird are forbidden by the Torah, one does not receive lashes for them, as it is said, "of their flesh you shall not eat"—for the flesh one receives lashes, but one does not receive lashes for the egg nor for the milk; and behold, one who eats them is like one who eats a half-measure, which is forbidden by the Torah but one does not receive lashes, etc. Thus far his words. And behold, this derivation is found neither in the Gemara nor in the Torat Kohanim, and there are those for whom it is implied from his words that the intention of the Rambam is regarding the end of the verse, "and their carcass you shall not touch," and these do not impart impurity as a carcass, as is explained in the Rambam in the laws of the Fathers of Impurity; but it does not appear so from his words [see Maggid Mishneh]. And I have a further difficulty from that which is taught in the Torat Kohanim [chapter 4] Parshat Shemini: "Impure"—teaching that they combine with one another, flesh with flesh, milk with milk, flesh with milk, etc. Thus far its words. And according to the Rambam, that there are no lashes for this, what relevance is there to combining? For even without combining, a half-measure is forbidden by the Torah, and there are no lashes here even with a full measure. And this requires great study. And also the Semag in negative commandment 132 wrote like the Rambam; see there.

Even though everything that emerges from the impure is impure, and according to this we should have forbidden bee honey since the honey emerges from the body of the bees, nevertheless it is permitted. Regarding the reason for the permission, there is a dispute in the Gemara [ibid. Bekhorot], as Rabbi Yaakov holds that there is an exposition from the verse, "But this you may eat from among all winged swarming things," etc., that the Torah permitted it, see there. And the sages hold that a verse is not needed for this, and it is permitted by logic, because the honey is not from the essence of the body of the bees; rather, they bring it into their body by eating from the flowers of trees, and from them the honey is made in their intestines, and they do not produce the honey from their own body.

And there is a practical halachic difference between the two reasons; for according to the reason based on logic, it is permitted, and if so, it is not specifically bee honey, for the same applies to the honey of gazin and tsira’in, which are types of locusts that also produce honey from their bodies, and they are permitted like bee honey. But according to the reason that it is a scriptural decree, it only permitted ordinary honey, which is bee honey, and not that of other species [Gemara]. And there is a dispute among the poskim, for the Rambam in chapter 3, law 3, ruled that they are permitted because it is not from the essence of their bodies, and so ruled Rabbeinu Chananel. But the Ramban, the Rosh, and the Tur ruled that they are forbidden. And in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of this siman, both opinions were brought, and they wrote that we do not need to be concerned with this because it is not found among us at all; see there.

The urine of an unclean animal: the Tur wrote that there is no difference between the urine of a donkey and the urine of other unclean domestic or wild animals; they are forbidden like their flesh. Thus far his words. And the explanation of his words is that in the Gemara it is stated that the urine of a donkey is more stringent than other urine, such as that of horses and camels, because those are merely water, and the water they drank is exactly the urine they excreted; however, the urine of a donkey is turbid and resembles milk, and perhaps this is from the essence of the body. Since in the Gemara it remained in doubt, it is a doubt regarding a Torah law and is forbidden. So too ruled all the poskim, and such is the primary halachic ruling.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, at the end of chapter 4 ruled that all urine of impure animals is permitted, and all the sages of the generations wondered at him, for in the Gemara it remained in doubt. However, his words are correct, for the entire discussion of the Shas there follows the one who holds that the Torah permitted bee honey, and were it not that it permitted it, I would have forbidden it, and therefore the honey of hornets and wasps is forbidden because it does not avail that they bring it into their bodies from another place. But for the one who holds that honey is permitted by reason of logic because they bring it from another place, if so, consequently urine is also permitted, even that of a donkey; and if because it has changed, behold you have no greater change than honey, for they bring in flowers and produce honey. And so it is explicitly explained from the discussion of the Shas there. And according to this, the Rambam follows his own reasoning, as he ruled that the honey of hornets and wasps is permitted because in a case of an individual and the many, the halacha follows the many, and therefore he also ruled regarding urine to permit it. And the Tur, who ruled regarding honey to forbid it, therefore also ruled regarding urine to forbid it [and so wrote the Bach, see there].

Human urine is permitted, and even more so the urine of pure animals; there is only a concern of bal teshaktsu because it is loathsome. Therefore, when it is mixed into a cooked dish, there is no concern at all. Similarly, if one does this for some medicinal purpose, even if there is no concern of danger, it is permitted, for in such a case bal teshaktsu does not apply.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid. 7b]: The "yali" of a female donkey are permitted, meaning the appearance of male testicles that a female donkey casts from her womb, for this is merely waste, as it is congealed seed, even though it has the form of eggs. Likewise, the placenta in which a donkey is formed is permitted, for it is merely waste, and the same applies to the placenta of other impure domestic and wild animals. It is not similar to urine, and therefore even one who forbids urine admits regarding these [see Beit Yosef and Bach]. And there are some of the great authorities who forbade the placenta of other impure animals, and only that of a donkey is permitted because it is repulsive. This is also explicitly clear from the words of the Rambam in chapter 4, law 18, who wrote: One who eats from a nevelah or a terefah, or from impure domestic or wild animals, from the skin etc. and from their placenta, even though it is forbidden, he is exempt; see there [Pri Chadash and Shevut Yaakov]. And even the placenta of a pure animal, if it emerged during its lifetime, is forbidden because of eiver min hachai, unless it was found in its innards after shechitah, for the shechitah permitted it [Kereti U'Peleti]. And so we establish, for such is the primary ruling in halachah.

It has already been explained that bee honey is permitted, and even though the bodies of the bees are mixed into it, and when the honey is separated from them they are heated and boiled with them, it is permitted because it is a "giver of flavor for the worse" (noten ta'am lifgam); that is to say, the bees themselves impair the honey. And even though a creeping creature is also impaired and is forbidden in its own right, nevertheless, the legs of bees are merely bones [Tosafot HaSokher 69b]. Nevertheless, one must be careful not to eat honey before straining because of the mixture of bees and ants that are common in honey, and so is the widespread custom and one should not deviate [Pri Chadash, subsection 27].

It has already been explained that the Torah permitted the milk of a pure animal even though it is similar to ever min hachai. The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: Rabbi Eliezer wrote that specifically milk was permitted by the verse, but whey is forbidden; however, Rabbi Simcha permits it, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5: The urine of pure domestic and wild animals, and their milk and whey, are permitted; and the same applies to their milk-water. There is one who forbids this, but the custom is according to the first opinion. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matter is that after the cheese is made, the waste remains and is called nesyuvei de-chalva. Afterward, they cook the nesyuvei and the remaining food matter gathers and floats to the top, and there remains only what is like mere water, and this is what is called meimei chalav, while the nesyuvei is called mei chalav. The intention of the Tur is also regarding meimei chalav, as is proven from his words later in siman 87, where he wrote there that nesyuvei is exactly like milk even regarding the matter of cooking meat in milk; therefore, he was not precise here in this matter and relied on what is later [and the words of the Beit Yosef require further study, and examine it closely]. And behold, regarding nesyuvei there is no one who disagrees, and it is certainly permitted like milk itself; it is only regarding meimei chalav that the Ra'ah holds it is forbidden due to ever min ha-chai, and it is not similar to urine which comes from the outside, whereas meimei chalav is extracted from her body.

And the Ra'ah holds that the Torah permitted only milk and not the whey of milk, and even though when they are together everything is permitted, nevertheless, when it has separated it is forbidden, just like the blood of the limbs which is permitted when it has not separated and forbidden when it has separated. And one should not ask from where do we truly know that the Torah permitted in such a case, perhaps it only permitted when one separates the whey from it, for this is no question at all, for if we were to say so, it did not permit milk but only cheese, and the Torah explicitly permitted milk as it is written, "flowing with milk and honey." [And the Pelati labored over this and went a distant way, and it is simple as I have written, and his words are forced and distant, and there is no difficulty at all, for according to the conclusion, also the verse "and goats' milk for your food" is according to its plain meaning, see there and examine carefully].

And Rabbeinu Simcha is of the opinion that even milk-water is permitted, for even though regarding the cooking of meat in milk it is not like milk, as is written in siman 87, this is because it is written "you shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk," implying specifically when they are mixed as they are when emerging from the mother; however, for other matters they are like milk. And we explicitly learned regarding the enabling of ritual impurity that milk-water is like milk [Machshirin chapter 6]. And this is the opinion of most of the poskim, and so is the widespread custom to permit, and such is the consensus of the later authorities [and on the Mishnah in Machshirin I have a great difficulty, for even if it is not like milk but like water, the primary enabling of impurity is written regarding water, and is this worse than urine and saliva of the mouth and nose, which we learned there enable impurity, see there; and this requires great study]:

A kosher animal that nursed from a terefah, the milk found in its abomasum is permitted, whether it is curdled milk or liquid, for even the liquid is considered as mere waste according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, as will be explained in siman 87. And all the more so regarding a terefah that nursed from a kosher animal, for even if we were to say that the milk found in its abomasum is not as mere waste, the milk surely came from a kosher animal. However, there are some of our teachers who distinguish between liquid and curdled, and they hold that only curdled is like mere waste, but the liquid is like complete milk. According to this, in a kosher animal that nursed from a terefah and liquid milk was found in its abomasum, it is forbidden, for it came from the terefah. And in siman 87 this will be explained further with the help of Heaven; see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6 that this is the custom, according to the opinion of those who distinguish between liquid and congealed; and all this is when it is known that it suckled from a terefah or from an impure animal, but in an ordinary case one need not be concerned for this, and everything is permitted as long as we do not know for certain that it suckled from them. However, a terefah that certainly suckled from a kosher animal is permitted in all manners even according to this opinion. Nevertheless, some forbid it ab initio due to marit ayin to curdle with the abomasum of a terefah that suckled from a kosher animal, even if it is congealed; and this is not because of the law, but because it appears as if one is eating terefot. And such is the custom ab initio, but ex post facto, if one already curdled with it, it is permitted. Similarly, if it was mixed with other abomasums, it is permitted to curdle with it even ab initio, since there is no prohibition here at all according to the law. And it has already been explained in siman 60 that some forbid the animal when it suckled all its days from a terefah, see there. [And the Levush, who wrote regarding a kosher animal that suckled from a terefah that it is forbidden because it appears as if one is eating terefot—his words are very astonishing, and the Chavat Yair already challenged him].

It has already been explained that the milk of a terefah is forbidden by the Torah. Therefore, when an animal is slaughtered and found to be a terefah, and there is milk and cheeses from it, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 2 wrote, and this is their wording: Cheeses that were made from the milk of an animal that was found to be a terefah—if it is a terefah-condition that it is possible it did not occur to it until now, such as the membrane of the brain being perforated and the like, it is permitted, for we say it only now became a terefah. But if it is known that it became a terefah before it was milked, such as an extra limb by which it became a terefah, or the opening of the wound formed a crust such that it is known that it was three days prior to the slaughter, all the cheeses that were made from its milk are forbidden. Thus far their words.

The explanation of the matter is that there are some of our teachers who ruled that any type of terefot found renders the cheeses forbidden [Tosafot Chullin 11a]. For even though a chazakah is from the Torah, and this animal has a chazakah of kashrut since it has already lived twelve months, and a terefah does not live more than twelve months, if so, why do we not establish it upon the chazakah that it was kosher until just before the shechitah? And if it is because its chazakah was weakened, since it is now found to be a terefah—behold, in all the chazakot in the Shas we follow a chazakah that was weakened and we say "it is only now that it was weakened." And it is not similar to what was explained in siman 3, where many hold that we do not say "once slaughtered it is permitted" except regarding something of which we can say it occurred after shechitah, as is written there. There it is different, for regarding the permissibility of the meat, an animal in its lifetime stands in a chazakah of prohibition, and only when it is slaughtered is it permitted; and this is in a shechitah that has no terefot in one of its organs, for when there are terefot it has not completely left the chazakah of prohibition. But regarding the milk, where we do not require the permission of shechitah, it should certainly be established upon the chazakah.

However, the reason is that any chazakah that was not clarified at its time is not a chazakah; meaning to say, for she has no chazakah while she is alive, as at this hour she is kosher, but now it has been clarified that twelve months prior she was certainly kosher, and so it is every day—when the clarification occurred, it was regarding the prior time. And it is not similar to other chazakot in the Shas, such as chazakat chayim, chazakat betulah, and the like, for at the hour she was born she certainly had this chazakah. This is not the case with this chazakah of chazakat kashrut, for even at the hour she was born it was not clarified to us, rather only after twelve months from when she was born was it clarified that she was not a terefah at the hour she was born, and so too at every time, as wrote [Tosafot ibid.]:

But there are several of our teachers who disagree on this and hold that although one may not permit it based on the rationale of a chazakah, nevertheless, one should permit it based on the rationale of the majority, for the majority of animals are kosher even within their first year, and a majority is superior to a chazakah [the Rosh, chapter 1, section 16]. And even though the majority has been weakened, for now it is certainly a terefah, nevertheless, just as with a chazakah even when it is weakened it remains a chazakah, so too with a majority [Bach]. Furthermore, here it is properly a chazakah even though it was not clarified at its time, because it is a chazakah that comes by virtue of a majority, for the majority of animals are kosher [the Rashba, the Ran, the Semag, the Semak, and the Ri in the name of our teacher Shimshon; see the Beit Yosef]. That is to say, a chazakah that exists by virtue of the majority possesses a chazakah at every moment, and we say that at the time it was born it had a chazakah of kashrut by virtue of the majority, and so too at every hour, and we say that it is only now, adjacent to its shechitah, that it became a terefah. This is the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.

Therefore, regarding any terefot where it is possible to say that it became a terefah adjacent to its slaughter, the meat, the milk, and the cheeses are permitted. However, regarding terefot that cannot be attributed to the time of slaughter, in these cases they are certainly forbidden, for it is impossible to say regarding it "establish it upon its status of fitness," since it has certainly departed from its status of fitness and you do not know when it became a terefah and when it departed from its status. Since it has certainly departed from its status and you are unable to clarify when, nor to attribute it to a known time, we forbid it retroactively [Torat HaBayit, Bayit 3, Sha'ar 5].

Therefore, it is not only in the case of a redundant limb that we declare it treifah even regarding what occurred before twelve months—for in a case of a certain treifah we do not pay heed to twelve months, as was written in siman 57—but even where the opening of the wound has scabbed over, such that it was certainly rendered a treifah three days prior, it is impossible to declare a doubt as treifah regarding what occurred before twelve months. However, up to twelve months retroactively we declare it treifah, and we do not say that we should validate what occurred before the three days and say that until three days prior it maintained its status of kashrut and was only rendered a treifah three days prior, as is the case with other treifot where we say it was rendered a treifah close to its slaughter. For it is not comparable, as there we say that all the days of its life when they milked it, it was kosher; but where the opening of the wound has scabbed over, the milk within the three days is certainly treifah, and since it necessarily contains treifah milk, it has therefore completely lost its status of kashrut.

And there are some of the early authorities who said that when the opening of the wound has scabbed over, we do not forbid the cheeses from before three days, and we establish it upon its presumption that it was kosher until three days prior to its slaughter; for whenever there is a doubt, we follow the majority, and the majority of animals are kosher. This is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote, and this is his wording: However, when the opening of the wound has scabbed over, one should only forbid what was made from it within three days, but what was made from its milk prior to this is permitted; but in the case of an extra limb or other treifot that come from the womb, what was made from it ever is forbidden. Thus far his words. [And he disagrees with the previous opinion, and nevertheless he did not write it in the language of a dispute because previously it was not explicitly explained that it forbids even what was before three days, even though that is the intention, and such is his way in every place; and this is the opinion of the Semak, the Hagahot Maimoniot, and Sha'arei Dura].

It is a simple matter that only in a case of great loss may one rely on this opinion to permit, when the opening of the wound has scabbed over, that which was done before three days; for the majority of opinions tend toward forbidding even what is before three days. And know that there is one who wishes to say that these three days require twenty-four hour periods from hour to hour [according to the Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 5, in the name of the Beit Ephraim], but this is not compelling. Why should we change this law from all other matters that do not require twenty-four hour periods? [And so it appears explicitly in the Sma, siman 224, subsection 7, and so it appears in Bava Batra 96, see there, and his proof is puzzling, and examine it closely].

And if it was rendered treifah by means of a sirkha, the Tur wrote in the name of the Rashba to forbid the milk and the cheese, for it is impossible to say that it became treifah adjacent to its shechitah and departed from life from the status of the majority, and its law is like a scabbed wound and we forbid it until twelve months. And in the name of the Rosh, he wrote to permit it for another reason, because regarding a sirkha there is a double doubt: perhaps it is not a treifah, and if you say it is a treifah, perhaps it became a treifah afterwards; meaning, that every sirkha is a doubtful treifah because we are not experts in examination, and perhaps if we were experts it would be kosher. And one should not ask that we hold that a doubt resulting from a lack of knowledge is not considered a doubt, for here it is different, since the sages agreed not to examine and it is hidden from the whole world, it is properly a complete doubt [Bach]. And ostensibly it appears that he only validates what was prior to three days, for in the three days prior to its shechitah there is only one doubt, perhaps it is not a treifah, for it certainly occurred prior to three days, and such is the opinion of the commentators [Beit Yosef, Shach subsection 9, and Taz].

But from the words of our teacher, the Rema, it does not appear so, for behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that if it was rendered treifa by way of a sircha, we do not forbid the cheeses made from its milk because it is a double doubt. Thus far his words. And he wrote regarding this: And there are those who forbid even in a sircha that which was milked within three days, and so one should act if there is no great loss. Thus far his words. And it is explicitly explained that in a case of great loss, even within three days it is permitted in a sircha. And it is a wondrous thing, for certainly the sircha was not made in a single moment, and it is no worse than if the opening of the wound had scabbed over. And it is true that from the plain meaning of the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch it implies more so that they permit even within three days, for if it were not so, they should have specified and not placed a stumbling block by the ambiguity of the words, which implies that even what is within three days is permitted; but the reasoning is difficult.

Therefore, it appears that he truly holds so, that according to the Rosh, all the chelev is permitted in the case of a sircha. And granted that according to the system of Rashi in siman 39, that there is no sircha without a perforation, it would be well compared to a wound that has scabbed over; but according to the system of the Tosafot, that there is a sircha without a perforation, only that it is destined to become perforated, and according to this there is no wound here at all—rather, we forbid it because the state of such a sircha is that it is destined to become perforated. And who knows its state previously? Perhaps before the shechitah it was not strong and was merely a secretion, and the moment before the shechitah it strengthened to the point that in this manner it is destined to become perforated. Thus, this is similar to a perforation of the membrane of the brain, which is also permitted there; for the membrane does not perforate in a single moment, but rather the membrane weakens and softens until it perforates, and we say that in the moment before the shechitah the perforation was completed, and here too it is so. One of the great Acharonim [Pleiti, subsection 5] wrote in this vein. Therefore, the Rosh and the Tur left their words unspecified, for even though regarding the primary matter of the sircha they were concerned for the opinion of Rashi, nevertheless regarding the chelev they were not concerned to be so stringent. And even according to the words of Rashi, there is no necessity to say that it was formed before three days, for it is so explained from the words of the Rashba [in Torat HaBayit there] that even in one day a sircha can be formed. Therefore, one who relies on the words of our teacher, the Rema, in a case of great loss has not lost out. However, it is certainly so that if in the eyes of the shochet and the bodek it appears to be an old sircha, one should not be lenient regarding the chelev within three days, for behold, many great authorities forbid any sircha within three days, as I have written.

And if this animal that became treifah was with other animals in one pen, and its milk became mixed with the milk of the other animals, and the milk of this one is treifah according to the laws that have been explained, we follow the measure of sixty as with all prohibitions; that if there is up to sixty times of the kosher ones against the milk of this one, it is kosher, and if not, all the milk is treifah. And this is when we knew how much milk was from it. But if we did not know, such as if they milked them into one vessel, if there are sixty animals in the herd, as long as we do not know clearly that the treifah has more milk than the kosher ones, we say presumably there is sixty and it is permitted, because this is only a rabbinic doubt, for from the Torah "kind in its own kind" is nullified by a majority, and therefore we follow the lenient path in its doubt. And the same law applies if we know that there are other animals superior to this one in a manner that it is possible there was sixty against it, even if there are not sixty animals, one should be lenient [Taz, subsection 4]. And similarly the opposite: if we knew clearly that the treifah is superior in milk compared to some animals in the pen, even though it is possible that there are those superior to it, since this we did not know and that we did know, it is forbidden even when there are sixty animals [Shach, subsection 7]. And know that sixty animals are not required besides the treifah, for it also joins to the sixty, and it is not similar to the egg in siman 86, see there [ibid.], because with eggs everyone sees that there are large and small ones, but with milk we say that they all give milk equally.

This fact that sixty is effective applies to milk when it was mixed, and even if they made cheeses from them after the mixing, it is of no concern because it was already nullified. However, if they previously made cheeses from each one and afterwards the cheeses were mixed, this has no nullification, for cheeses are a "piece fit to be honored" and are not nullified even in a thousand. And some say that cheeses are not called "fit to be honored," and it will be explained in siman 101. But if they made butter or curdled the milk, it is nullified in sixty like the milk itself. And if from some of them they made cheeses and from the rest there remained milk or butter, the cheeses are not nullified and the milk and the butter are nullified. And if they curdled from all the animals a great quantity of milk or made cheeses, and they already ate or drank some of them and it is not known if that of the terefah was already eaten and those that remain are from the kosher ones or the opposite, we hang the matter to be lenient and the remaining ones are permitted even though there is not sixty here, for regarding a rabbinic prohibition we hang the matter to be lenient as will be explained in siman 110. And it is a simple matter that after the terefah became known, it is forbidden to mix the milk with other milk in order to nullify them, for one may not nullify a prohibition lechatchilah. And if he nullified it intentionally, we fine him and the entire mixture is forbidden to him even if there is enough for nullification, as I wrote in siman 99. And there are many detailed laws in this, as will be explained there with the help of Heaven.

The milk of a woman is permitted for consumption, and even according to the opinion of the Rambam that human flesh is forbidden by the Torah, as I wrote in siman 79, section 8, nevertheless, the Torah permitted the milk. And thus did our sages, of blessed memory, receive by tradition [Ketubot 60a], as it is written: "The camel, because it brings up its cud... it is impure," and the milk of those who walk on two is not impure, but rather pure. However, by rabbinic decree they forbade nursing directly from the breasts of the woman. And it is not only necessary to say that a man is forbidden to nurse from her breasts, as there is in this a proximity to forbidden relations, but even a woman is forbidden to nurse. And thus said our sages, of blessed memory, [ibid.]: One who nurses from the breasts of a woman is like one who nurses from a creeping thing, and they strike him with a lash of rebellion. For since it is not the way to eat human flesh even according to the opinion of those who permit it by the Torah, and most of the world thinks that he is nursing from something impure, he may come to exchange it for an impure animal [Levush]. And even if he does not place his mouth against the breast, but stands at a distance and she milks the breast into his mouth, it is forbidden. And it is not permitted unless she milked from her breasts into a vessel, and then it is permitted to drink them. [And regarding human blood it is the opposite: when it has not separated it is permitted, and when it has separated it is forbidden, as I wrote in siman 66. And the reason is that regarding blood, when it has separated, one may come to exchange it for other blood; but regarding milk, behold there is pure milk, as the Shach wrote in subsection 18].

The time for nursing an infant is twenty-four months, which are two years, and if the year was intercalated, he nurses also during the intercalated month. Within this time, even if they weaned him and he already ceased from nursing, they may return him to nurse even if he is completely healthy. And there is permission to allow the infant to nurse for several years, specifically four years if he is healthy and five years if he is weak. And this is specifically when he did not cease from nursing, such that they did not separate him from the breast after two years had passed. But if they separated him after two years—meaning he did not nurse for three full twenty-four hour days—they shall not return him further. For since there is a rabbinic prohibition to nurse from the breast, as has been written, one may not give to him with one's hands after he ceased from it for three full twenty-four hour days after two years, which is the time of nursing. And this is specifically when they separated him in order to wean him, where he was healthy and they separated him to wean him from the breast; but if they did not separate him to be weaned, but rather due to a cause of illness such that he cannot nurse, they may return him when he recovers and he may nurse until four or five years. For since he separated due to some cause, it is not yet considered as having separated. And it is a simple matter that if there is danger in the thing, they return him even after several days in any case, and when the danger is removed, they shall separate him. And all this is after two years, but within this time it is permitted in any case, as has been written.

By the letter of the law, one may give an infant to an Egyptian wet nurse, for her milk is kosher. Nevertheless, our teachers wrote that they should not allow it to suckle from her if it is possible with an Israelite woman, for her milk dulls the heart and engenders an evil nature. Similarly, an Israelite wet nurse should not eat forbidden things, even when she is permitted—such as when there is a danger if she does not eat—nevertheless, they should separate the infant from her for the time that she eats forbidden things. Likewise, the infant himself should not be allowed to eat forbidden things, for all of this dulls the heart and harms him in his adulthood, such that he will turn from the path of the Torah, Heaven forbid. And it is not only if he eats something forbidden by the Torah, for then by the letter of the law his father is obligated to separate him, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 343; rather, even if he eats rabbinic prohibitions, where his father is not obligated to separate him by the letter of the law as is written there, nevertheless, for the reason of dulling the heart, he should separate him. All of this is tested and proven. And in the Yerushalmi Chagigah it is explained that this was the reason Acher went out to an evil culture. One of the great authorities wrote that because in our times they are not careful with all of this, most children go out to an evil culture, and they are the brazen-faced ones of the generation, and the fear of Hashem does not touch their hearts, and when they are rebuked they do not accept discipline [Pri Chadash]. Therefore, they should be very, very careful with everything that has been explained in this section.