Mishnah
Mishnah

Halakhah for Avodah Zarah 2:6

אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין אִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה. חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ גוֹי וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ, וְהַפַּת, וְהַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ הִתִּירוּ בַשֶּׁמֶן. וּשְׁלָקוֹת, וּכְבָשִׁין שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכָן יַיִן וָחֹמֶץ, וְטָרִית טְרוּפָה, וְצִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דָּגָה כִלְבִּית שׁוֹטֶטֶת בּוֹ, וְהַחִלָּק, וְקֹרֶט שֶׁל חִלְתִּית, וּמֶלַח סַלְקוֹנְטִית, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין אִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה:

These things of gentiles are forbidden (to eat), but their issur is not one of (derivation of) benefit: milk (from an animal) milked by a gentile without being observed by a Jew, and their loaf and their oil [All of these are forbidden for fear that they will lead to fraternization (and intermarriage). They permitted a baker's loaf, but a householder's loaf was permitted only to wayfarers and in situations of stress. And when they saw that the issur of oil did not "take," they convened and permitted it, as stated in the Mishnah]. (Rabbi and his beth-din permitted oil.), and shelakoth [Anything cooked by gentiles even in the utensils of a Jew and even in his presence, where there is no apprehension of the intermixture of anything that is forbidden or of the pollutions of idolatry is forbidden because of "the cooked things of gentiles." ([bishulei nachrim]. This, if he were not assisted by a Jew neither in the beginning nor in the end of the cooking.) And they forbade because of bishulei nachrim only something which is not eaten raw and which is placed upon the royal table to complement the loaf; but if one of these is lacking, bishulei nachrim does not obtain.], and preserves, to which wine and vinegar are customarily added [Derivation of benefit is not forbidden in such an instance because the taste of wine is not perceptible in them, but it is forbidden to eat them], and a hash of tarith [clean fish, whose identity is not recognizable. It is forbidden when taken from gentiles because of the possibility that an unclean fish is intermixed with them.], and a brine in which dagah kilbith is not found. [This is a small fish called kilbith, which grows in clean fish. If the brine of an unclean fish is intermixed with it, kilbith will not grow there.], and chilak [a kind of small clean fish, which have no fins and scales (as yet) but which will grow them later. Small unclean fish similar to them become intermixed with them and are not discernible, even when they are not hashed. But in the instance of tarith (above) the unclean fish are not similar to it, for which reason it is permitted when unhashed.], and a piece of chiltith [(a plant, so called in Arabic), which is cut into pieces with a knife. It is forbidden because of the fattiness of the knife, whose (forbidden) taste the chiltith absorbs by reason of its "sharpness."], and salkontith salt, [which was used by all the Roman nobles. They used to smear it with pig fat and with the fats of unclean fish. It is rough and very white.] (All of these are forbidden to eat, but their issur is not one of (derivation of) benefit.)

Gray Matter III

The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6) records that Chazal forbade the consumption of milk from a kosher animal that was milked by a non-Jew1For a discussion of whether a non-observant Jew is included in this category, see Teshuvot Igrot Moshe (Y.D. 1:46), the views of Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv and Rav Shmuel Wosner cited in Bin’tiv Hechalav (p. 32 and p. 35), and Encyclopedia Talmudit (15:174). without Jewish supervision (chalav akum, as opposed to chalav yisrael, milk that was supervised). The Gemara explains that this was enacted out of concern that the non-Jew may have mixed non-kosher milk with the kosher milk. In recent times, the limited likelihood of this risk has sparked much debate within the Orthodox community as to how applicable this restriction is today. We shall present both sides of the question, starting with the view of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Gray Matter III

The Shach offers a textual proof to his ruling from the language of the Mishnayot that present the prohibitions of chalav akum and gevinat akum. The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6) that presents the former prohibition states explicitly that the milk is prohibited only if a Jew does not watch the milking, whereas the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5) that presents the prohibition of gevinat akum states simply that the cheese is prohibited, making no distinction as to whether a Jew must watch the cheese-making process or not. The Shach, accordingly, concludes that Jewish ownership or active participation is indeed required to permit us to eat the cheese.6See, however, the comments of Rav Yonatan Eybeshitz (Mateh Yonatan Y.D. 115:2), who seeks to refute this proof.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse