Siman 97

The sages forbade kneading dough with milk (Pesachim 36a) without a distinguishing mark, so that one does not come to eat it with meat. Since bread is the primary part of the meal—as both the eating of meat and the eating of milk are not done without bread—they feared that one would come to eat it with meat. They enacted a great fence in this matter, to the point that they said if one baked this bread that was kneaded with milk, it is forbidden to eat it at all, even by itself, even with milk, as a decree lest one eat it with meat. For since this is very common, if they had not enacted this with a great fence, it would not have been maintained.

Therefore, one should not ask why we ruled in the previous siman regarding a radish that was cut with a meat knife that it is forbidden to eat it with milk, and similarly regarding spices that were crushed in a meat mortar that it is forbidden to eat them with milk, yet with meat it is permitted, and we do not decree lest one come to eat them with milk—for bread is different, as man lives by bread, but regarding other things we do not decree. And there is one who says the reason regarding a mortar is because it is designated for meat and one will not come to err; but a mortar in which one crushes spices and uses them for both meat and milk, where the mortar is neither of meat nor of milk, and it happened that one crushed garlic there with goose fat, it is forbidden to use that mortar further even for meat, as a decree lest one use it for milk, and one is obligated to perform hagalah on it and return it to its original state [Taz, subsection 1]. But all the great authorities disagreed with him, for the sages only decreed regarding bread alone [Pri Chadash, and Minchat Yaakov, and Chavot Daat], and such is the primary ruling.

The matter is simple that just as it is forbidden to knead with milk, so too it is forbidden to knead with meat; however, regarding meat this is not applicable, for if they fill the dough with meat, it is certainly recognizable, and they will not come to eat it with milk, and it is permitted to do so. However, to knead it with goose fat is certainly forbidden, unless there is a great deal of fat such that it is recognizable to all that it is of fat, but with a small amount of fat it is forbidden [Pri Megadim, subsection 1]. And one should not permit it on the grounds that poultry meat is a rabbinic prohibition, since the reason for the decree is because it is close to error, what difference is there to me if it is a Torah prohibition or a rabbinic one [ibid.]. Furthermore, the essence of the decree is only regarding a rabbinic prohibition, for even if one eats bread kneaded with milk together with meat, this is not the manner of cooking, and if so, what difference is there to me between this rabbinic prohibition or that rabbinic prohibition. But in this regard, it is possible to say that they were concerned lest one place the bread in a pot of boiling meat and it would be the manner of cooking; nevertheless, for the law there is no distinction, as I have written. [And know that this entire prohibition is specifically when there is not sixty in the bread against the fat, for when there is sixty it is permitted]:

It is stated in the Gemara there that if one made them like the eye of an ox, it is well for one who kneads it with milk. Rashi explained that if one baked a small amount of bread like the eye of an ox so that he will eat it immediately and not keep it for long, it is permitted, for in a short time we are not concerned that they will stumble by eating it with meat. And how much is a small amount? Enough for one day's eating [Beit Yosef, and Havat Da'at]. According to this, if his household members are many, he may knead with milk what he and his household members require for one day's eating, which is a twenty-four hour period [so it is implied in the Beit Yosef from what he wrote in the name of the Hagahot Sha'arei Dura regarding the breads that they make for Shabbat, see there].

But the Rambam in chapter 9 wrote, and this is his wording: And if he changed the form of the bread until it is recognizable so that one will not eat meat with it, behold, this is permitted. And so wrote the Rashba, of blessed memory. And it appears that they interpret what the Sages, of blessed memory, said "like the eye of an ox" as the expression "the head of a corner" in shaatnez, that a different form is recognizable through this, and they will not come to err by eating them with meat. And perhaps because of this, the custom in all the dispersions of Israel when they bake with butter and milk and it is called "butter kuchen," they make them with a different design than ordinary bread, for they twist the dough and it is recognizable to all, and the custom of Israel is Torah. And there are those who have recently come who do not do so, and one should rebuke them, unless they are filled with cheese, for in that case they will not come to err by eating them with meat, or if there is much butter in them such that it is recognizable that it is of milk.

And behold, in our time, the bakers make toasted bread that they call sukharkes, and some of them are of milk and they call these milchika sukharkes, and there is no difference in their form between them and those that are neither of meat nor of milk, and ostensibly they are forbidden for consumption. And I asked bakers who are Bnei Torah, and they said to me that those of milk are very recognizable in their appearance because of their fat, for they do not resemble the others at all. And furthermore, it is possible to say that since they do not purchase them for more than one day, and for a short time we are not concerned, as I wrote in section 4 [for we establish the law to be lenient like the explanation of Rashi and like the Rambam, as he wrote in the Beit Yosef, see there].

The Gaon, the Maharit, of blessed memory, was asked regarding types of fine breads that were baked with tail-fat and sold as such in a shop [Responsa Maharit siman 18], and he replied that for the residents of the city there is no concern in the matter, for since they have accustomed themselves so and the matter has become publicized, they will not come to eat them with milk. And even though at the beginning of the custom it was with a prohibition, nevertheless now that it has already become publicized there is no prohibition, and this is no worse than a change which is permitted. However, there is only a concern for passersby from another city who might buy them and eat them with milk, and it is obvious that we must also be concerned for guests to remove a stumbling block from before them. Nevertheless, if they do not place tail-fat except for a small amount in a manner that there is sixty of the flour against the fat, there is no concern in the matter, see there. He further wrote that fine breads called "alhashu," even though they have fat in them sufficient to provide flavor, are permitted, for they are filled with types of sweets and it is not the way to eat them with milk, see there [and the Peri Chadash brought it in subsection 1].

From his words it is to be learned that regarding a matter which has become publicized that it is of milk or of meat, there is no concern. According to this, also regarding our dairy foods that the bakers make, since it has become publicized to the whole world that these are dairy foods, it is permitted to buy them and eat them if they are baked even without a change. And if so, also regarding the sukharkes that we wrote about in section 6, if it has become publicized to everyone that these are of milk, there is no prohibition in the matter. And also in a matter that is not typically eaten with milk, it is permitted to make it with fat, and likewise the reverse. This requires further study for the halacha, and one should deliberate on this. [See Pitchei Teshuva in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek who investigated one who puts milk into wine, and according to what I wrote that they only decreed regarding bread, this is not a question at all. And see the Pri Megadim who investigated one who kneads unintentionally if it is permitted, and there is no doubt here, for the sages did not distinguish in this, and in any case it is prohibited, and so he, of blessed memory, concludes. And if this loaf was mixed with other loaves, it appears that it should be permitted according to the law of dry in dry, and the principle of "a piece worthy of honoring" is not applicable here, for its prohibition is not due to itself. And if the prohibited bread fell into vegetables, see what the Havat Da'at wrote in subsection 2, not like the Tzemach Tzedek, see there, and see what I wrote in siman 87, section 18]:

If fat from meat or milk dripped under the bread in an oven, the great authorities ruled that they should divide the bread among many householders in a manner that it will be consumed on that day [Paleti, subsection 2]. And there are those who permitted it by means of making a sign on every loaf; for example, if milk dripped, to place a bit of cheese on every loaf in a hole, and if meat fat dripped, to place meat on every loaf [Chachmat Adam]. In my humble opinion, it seems that one should not be stringent in this at all, for since this is a decree of the sages, they only decreed against one who makes bread in this manner—whether he did so unintentionally or whether he did so intentionally—nevertheless, the bread was baked not according to the enactment of the sages. But in a case that occurred by chance where the bread was baked completely according to the law, from where do we have the authority to forbid it? Nevertheless, since this is how they instructed in the generations before us, it is difficult to transgress their words. However, in any event, one should not be very stringent in this, [and it is not similar to the ruling of the Rema as I wrote in section 11].

Based on the permission that was explained, that with a small amount of bread it is permitted, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that therefore it is the custom to knead bread with milk on the holiday of Shavuot, and also with fat in honor of Shabbat, because all of this is considered a small matter, and also because their shape is different from other bread, and certainly fladen or pastida are permitted. And one should not bake any bread with fladen or pastida in an oven, for we fear perhaps the fat will flow to the bread, and if it flowed beneath it, its law is as if it were kneaded with it, and it is the custom to place the dough at the mouth of the oven, and even if it is in a pan, it is the custom to be stringent ab initio. Thus far his words.

And that which he wrote that one should not bake bread with fladen or pashtida, this is when the fladen or pashtida is not in a pan but is baked on the floor of the oven, and in this it is certainly like kneading ab initio, and even when they are far from one another and the oven is wide it is forbidden ab initio [Shach subsection 2]. Nevertheless, when we did not see that it flowed in the oven we do not presume a prohibition, but when we saw that it flowed under the bread itself, for it is a single doubt, perhaps it flowed under the bread and perhaps it did not flow, and in a single doubt one should forbid. Furthermore, it is a double doubt toward a prohibition: perhaps it flowed under the bread, and if you say it did not flow, perhaps the fat spreads through the entire oven [see there and examine closely]. And that which he wrote that they are accustomed to place the tapila at the mouth of the oven, his intention is to the pashtida, meaning that they do not place the pashtida inside the oven but rather at the mouth of the oven, for from there the smell does not enter so much and also there is no concern that it will flow under the bread. And afterwards he wrote that even when the pashtida is in a vessel like in a pan and the like, they are accustomed to be stringent ab initio because of the concern of flowing and because of the concern of smell, and the primary law of smell will be explained in siman 108 with the help of Heaven. And now we are not exacting in this, because with us the pashtida is in a vessel, and it is also covered with a vessel, and therefore there is no concern in this at all as will be explained there. [It appears to me that regarding the flowing of milk under bread one should permit it by removing the place, but regarding fat one should not permit it for it spreads through all of it as written in siman 105, but milk is not fatty as written in siman 92]:

And so the sages forbade smearing the oven with fat tail, and it is forbidden to bake bread there, and if one baked it, its law is like dough that was kneaded with milk, and we do not rely on wiping because it is impossible for an oven to be wiped well, and therefore one may not bake bread in it until he heats it from the inside until it glows such that sparks fly from it, and even if the oven is a bukhya, meaning a clay vessel that is heated from beneath and cakes are baked upon it, it has no remedy through heating from the outside, and so too if he smeared it with butter, and it is a great principle that a clay oven made of layers cannot be wiped well, [and all this is when the fat imparts flavor to the bread, for without the imparting of flavor there is no concern as is proven from Rashi, Pesachim 30a, see there]:

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: Bread that one baked with roasted meat, and fish that one roasted in one oven with meat, it is forbidden to eat them with milk. And these words apply to a small oven, but in a large oven that holds twelve esronim and its opening is open, it is permitted. And if the roasted meat is covered, and similarly a pashtida whose hole is covered, it is permitted even in a narrow oven. Thus far his words. And twelve esronim are twelve measures of challah, and according to what we calculate as three quarts for a measure of challah, the oven must hold thirty-six log of flour. And one should not ask, since the bread is forbidden to be eaten with milk, if so it should be forbidden even with meat like bread that was kneaded with milk, for this is no question; for in truth, from the essential law it would have been permitted to eat it even with milk, for later in siman 108 regarding meat of a slaughtered animal that one roasted with meat of a carcass, we do not forbid the meat, as we establish that "aroma is nothing." Rather, because here it is possible to eat it without milk, it is treated as "lekhatchila" (Shach, subsection 4), and the essentials of these laws will be explained there. And know that regarding the matter of meat with fish due to the concern of danger, we do not deal with it in this siman, and similarly in siman 95 regarding what was explained there concerning fish that were cooked in a pot of meat, we do not deal there with the matter of the danger of meat with fish, and these laws will be explained in siman 116 with the help of Heaven.