Cholov Yisrael

MISHNA: This mishna lists items belonging to gentiles which it is prohibited to consume, but from which it is permitted to derive benefit. And these are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see him performing this action,.... GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Concerning milk, with regard to what need we be concerned? Why is the milk prohibited? If it is due to the concern that a gentile might exchange the milk of a kosher animal with the milk of a non-kosher animal, this concern is unfounded, as kosher milk is white whereas non-kosher milk has a green tinge to it, and therefore they are easily distinguishable. And if it is prohibited due to the concern that it might be mixed with non-kosher milk, let the Jew curdle the milk obtained from the gentile, as the Master said: Milk from a kosher animal curdles, but milk from a non-kosher animal does not curdle. The Gemara answers: If one desires to eat it as cheese, indeed, one can simply curdle it, as the milk of non-kosher animals does not curdle. What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one desires to use the milk in kamkha, also known as kutaḥ, a food item that contains milk. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in that case, let him take a bit of milk and curdle it, to test whether or not it has been mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal: If it curdles completely, it is kosher; if some milk is left over, it is not. The Gemara explains: Since there is also whey in kosher milk, which does not curdle, there is no way to establish the halakhic matter with regard to it. Even kosher milk will not curdle completely, and therefore this is not a reliable method to determine the halakhic status of the milk. The Gemara presents an alternative suggestion: And if you wish, say instead that you may even say that the concern applies where he intends to use the milk to make cheese, as there is milk that remains between the crevices of curdled cheese, and therefore there is a concern that drops of non-kosher milk might be mixed with it.

MISHNA: And these are permitted for consumption: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew watched him doing so;..... GEMARA: We learn from the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: A Jew may sit beside a gentile’s flock and wait while the gentile milks his animals and brings the milk to the Jew, and he not need be concerned, even if he cannot see the milking process from his seated position. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is known that there is no non-kosher animal in the gentile’s flock, isn’t it obvious that the milk is permitted? Why would the baraita teach an obvious halakha? And if there is a non-kosher animal in his flock, then why is the milk permitted, considering the fact that the Jew could not see the gentile from where he sat? The Gemara explains: Actually, this is referring to a case where there is a non-kosher animal in the flock, and when the Jew is standing he can see the gentile, but when he is sitting he cannot see the gentile. Lest you say: Since when the Jew is sitting, he cannot see the gentile, we should be concerned that perhaps the gentile will bring non-kosher milk and mix it with the kosher milk, the baraita therefore teaches us that since when the Jew is standing, he can see him, the gentile is fearful of being caught and does not mix anything into the milk. § The mishna teaches: And the honey of gentiles is permitted. The Gemara explains: For what need we be concerned with regard to honey? If it is due to the concern that a gentile might mix wine with it, honey spoils when it is mixed with wine, and therefore a gentile would not do so. If it is due to the cooking of gentiles, this too does not apply, because it is eaten as it is, i.e., raw. If it is due to the concern that the honey might have absorbed prohibited taste from vessels of gentiles that require purging, this does not apply either, as it is a prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture, and such a case is permitted. Since none of these concerns are relevant, the honey is permitted.

(1) Milk that was milked by non-Jews and no Jew saw them do so, it is forbidden as perhaps non-kosher milk was mixed in. If it was milked in his house and a Jew was sitting outside, if it is known that there is no non-kosher animal in his herd, it is permitted, even if no Jew is able to see him at the time that he milks the animal. If he has a non-kosher animal in his heard, and the Jew sits outside, and the non-Jew is milking only for the sake of the Jew, even if the Jew is unable to see him when he is sitting, if he is able to see him when he stands, this is permitted, because the non-Jew fears that perhaps he will stand and be seen, and he knows that non-kosher milk is forbidden the to Jew. Rema: Initially, it is necessary for the Jew to be there are the beginning of the milking and check to make sure that the bucket is empty and does not contain non-kosher milk. And it is our custom to be stringent and not milk with vessels which are usually used for milking by non-Jews, lest some of their [non-Kosher] milk remain in the vessel. In any case, after the fact there is no need to be concerned for this. And regarding maidservants that milk domestic animals in the Jew's house or in his [animal] pen, any instance in which it is not a house of a non-Jew, that is enough and there is no need to be concerned about a non-kosher matter, and it is permitted even initially to leave them to milk even there is not a Jew around, because the non-Jewish milker is in his house or neighborhood, they are not suspected of milking non-kosher animals. But if a non-Jew takes a break, the Jew needs to be there, because it is like the case of the non-Jew's house. And even a Jewish child will suffice, because the non-Jew appears before him. In any case, if a Jew is not present until after he has finished milking, this milk is considered the milk of non-Jews that is forbidden, even thought no non-kosher animal exists in his herd. Milk of a non-Jew makes vessels non-kosher when they are cooked in them, just as any prohibited food, even though this is only an uncertainty whether he has mixed in something non-kosher. And so too with non-Jewish cheese, but not non-Jewish butter, even in a place where it is considered prohibited it does not prohibit vessels when cooked, and it is not a problem if it becomes mixed; if it is mixed in that which is permitted, everything is permitted, like above regarding the bread of non-Jews. See above in chapter 112. Milk of non-Jews that is forbidden, it will not work to make it into cheese or butter afterwards, rather it remains forbidden, and everything that is made from it is forbidden.

The Gemara details the circumstances of Rav Asi’s ruling: There was a certain man whom people would call: Son of the Aramean woman, as they cast aspersions on the validity of his mother’s conversion. With regard to that case, Rav Asi said: Didn’t she immerse for the sake of purifying herself from her menstruation? A similar incident is recounted: There was a certain man whom people would call: Son of an Aramean man, as they cast aspersions on the validity of his father’s conversion. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Didn’t he immerse for the sake of purifying himself from his seminal emission? That intention is sufficient to consider the immersion an immersion for the sake of conversion.

As Shmuel says: With regard to adulterers, the witnesses must observe from when they appear as behaving in the manner of adulterers, and they do not need to directly observe the actual moment of the act of intercourse. But with regard to one who crossbreeds two animals of diverse kinds, he is liable only if witnesses attest that he inserted the male organ into the female like a brush into a tube. This clearly shows that crossbreeding is punishable only if performed manually, not if the animals were merely enclosed together.