Halakhah к Авода Зара 2:11

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.

Rav Willig presents another potential distinction that may solve this problem. In a wide variety of halachic areas, we do not attach any significance to that which is not visible to the naked eye. The Chochmat Adam (Binat Adam 38:49), Rav Shlomo Kluger (Teshuvot Tuv Ta’am Vada’at 2 Kuntress Acharon 53), the Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 84:36), and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at 6:47) rule that we need not be concerned about consuming bugs that can be seen only with the aid of a magnifying glass. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 3:120:5) rules that we need not determine that tefillin are square using a microscope.⁹The Gemara (Menachot 35a) states that we have a tradition from Sinai that tefillin must be square. The Tiferet Yisrael (Avodah Zarah 2:3 in Boaz) rules that a fish whose scales are visible only when viewed with a magnifying glass is not kosher. He similarly rules that an animal with a hole in its lung that can be seen only with a magnifying glass is not a treifah. The Teshuvot Even Yekarah (2:33) rules that a Tanach whose tiny letters are visible only if viewed with a magnifying glass is not considered “written.” Rav Yosef Messas (Teshuvot Mayim Chaim 1:259) permits using an etrog whose blemishes can be detected only when examined with a magnifying glass. As such, we need not be concerned with the microscopic strands of DNA that suggest that a child is a mamzeir.

The Rambam (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 3:12-13) notes that there should be more reason to allow cheese produced by a non-Jew than milk produced by a non-Jew, because milk from a non-kosher animal cannot be made into cheese. Nevertheless, Chazal prohibited consuming cheese produced by a non-Jew. Although the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5; see Avodah Zarah 35a) indicates that Chazal at first concealed the reason for this prohibition, the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 35a-b), searching for the correct explanation, cites a plethora of reasons. It suggests that the non-Jews curdled the milk with the stomach lining from niveilot (animals that were not properly slaughtered); that the non-Jews did not take adequate care to cover the milk that would be used to make cheese, leading Chazal to worry that snakes would release their venom into the uncovered liquids;¹This explanation assumes that the decree on cheese is basically an extension of the decree against mayim megulim (water that was left uncovered), which Chazal also forbade out of concern for snake venom. that the non-Jews smoothed over the cheese with pig fat; that there might be leftover drops of milk in the cheese that did not curdle, and these drops might have been from a non-kosher animal; and that the non-Jews made the cheese using non-kosher vinegar.

Nonetheless, Rav Weitman (Bin’tiv Hechalav p. 40) contends that since the price of non-kosher milk is tens of times greater than that of kosher milk, we need not be concerned that the former was introduced into the latter. He argues for extending the Pri Chadash’s interpretation of ein b’edro tamei to allow chalav akum even where non-kosher animals are milked as long as a large price difference discourages mixing the milks. The basis for this approach is the Gemara’s assertion (Avodah Zarah 34b) that although the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:4) prohibits non-Jews’ muryas (oil from pickled fish, which sometimes contained wine) due to concern that non-kosher wine was added, the prohibition does not apply when wine is far more expensive than pure muryas.

There are two unresolved debates concerning the production of kosher cheese. The Rama (Y.D. 115:2) rules (and notes that this is the common custom) that it is sufficient for a Jew to monitor the cheese-making process to render the cheese kosher. According to the Rama, the prohibition of gevinat akum parallels the prohibition of chalav akum, for which supervision likewise suffices to permit the product. The Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 115:19) cites the Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5 s.v. Amar Lo), who writes explicitly in accordance with the view of the Rama. The Shach (Y.D. 115:20), on the other hand, requires either Jewish ownership of the cheese or active participation of a Jew in the cheese-making. According to the Shach, then, the rules of gevinat akum parallel those of pat akum (bread baked by a non-Jew) in that Jewish participation is required to render the product permissible.

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.

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.