Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Asurot-Excerpts

(1) It is a positive commandment to know the signs that distinguish between domesticated animals, beasts, fowl, fish, and locusts that are permitted to be eaten and those which are not permitted to be eaten, as [Leviticus 20:25] states: "And you shall distinguish between a kosher animal and a non-kosher one, between a non-kosher fowl and a kosher one." And [Leviticus 11:47] states: "To distinguish between the kosher and the non-kosher, between a beast which may be eaten and one which may not be eaten."

(2) The signs of a [kosher] domesticated animal and beast are explicitly mentioned in the Torah. There are two signs: a split hoof and chewing the cud. Both are necessary.
Any domesticated animal and beast that chews the cud does not have teeth on its upper jaw-bone. Every animal that chews the cud has split hoofs except a camel. Every animal that has split hoofs chews the cud except a pig.

(3) Therefore if a person finds an animal whose hoofs are cut off in the desert and he cannot identify its species, he should check its mouth. If it does not have teeth on its upper jaw, it can be identified as kosher, provided one can recognize a camel. If a person finds an animal whose mouth is cut off, he should check its hooves, if they are split, it is kosher, provided he can recognize a pig.
When both its mouth and its hoofs are cut off, he should inspect the end of its tail after he slaughters it. If he discovers that [the strings of] its meat extend both lengthwise and widthwise, it is kosher, provided he can recognize a wild donkey. For [the strings of] its meat also extend both lengthwise and widthwise.

(4) When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a non-kosher animal, it is permitted to be eaten even though it does not have split hoofs or chew the cud, but instead, resembles a horse or a donkey in all matters.
When does the above apply? When he sees it give birth. If, however, he left a pregnant cow in his herd and found an animal resembling a pig dependent on it, the matter is doubtful and [the young animal] is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it nurses from [the cow], for perhaps it was born from a non-kosher species, but became dependent on the kosher animal.

(5) When a non-kosher animal gives birth to an offspring resembling a kosher animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it has split hoofs and chews its cud and resembles an ox or a sheep in all matters. [The rationale is that offspring] produced by a non-kosher animal are not kosher and those produced by a kosher animal are kosher.
For this reason, a non-kosher fish found in the belly of a kosher fish is forbidden, and a kosher fish found in the belly of a non-kosher fish is permitted, for they did not produce the fish, but instead, swallowed it.

(6) When a kosher animal gives birth to an offspring that has two backs and two backbones or such a creature is discovered within [an animal that was slaughtered], it is forbidden to be eaten. This is what is meant by the term hashisuah which is forbidden by the Torah, as [Deuteronomy 14:7] states: "These may not be eaten from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs, the shisuah...", i.e., an animal that was born divided into two animals.

(7) Similarly, when [a fetus] resembling a fowl is found within a [slaughtered] animal, it is forbidden to be eaten. [This applies] even if it resembles a kosher fowl. [For when a fetus] is discovered in an animal, only one which has a hoof is permitted.

(8) There are no other domesticated animals or wild beasts in the world that are permitted to be eaten except the ten species mentioned in the Torah. They are three types of domesticated animals: an ox, a sheep, and a goat, and seven types of wild beasts: a gazelle, a deer, an antelope, an ibex, a chamois, a bison, and a giraffe. [This includes the species] itself and its subspecies, e.g., the wild ox and the buffalo are subspecies of the ox.
All of these ten species and their subspecies chew the cud and have split hoofs. Therefore, a person who recognizes these species need not check neither their mouths, nor their feet.

(9) Although all these species are permitted to be eaten, we must make a distinction between a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast. For the fat of a wild beast is permitted to be eaten and its blood must be covered. With regard to a kosher domesticated animal, by contrast, one is liable for kerais for partaking of its fat and its blood need not be covered.

(10) According to the Oral Tradition, these are the distinguishing signs of a [kosher] wild beast: Any species that has split hoofs, chews its cud, and has horns which branch off like those of a gazelle are certainly kosher wild beasts. [The following laws apply with regard to] all those whose horns do not branch off: If they are curved, like the horns of an ox, notched, like the horns of a goat, but the notch should be embedded within them, and spiraled, like the horns of a goat, it is a kosher wild beast. Its horns, however, must have these three signs: They must be curved, notched, and spiraled.

(11) When does the above apply? With regard to a species that he does not recognize. [Different rules apply with regard to] the seven species mentioned in the Torah. If he recognizes this species, he may partake of its fat and is obligated to cover its blood, even one does not find any horns on it at all.

(12) A wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. A unicorn is considered a wild beast even though it has only one horn.
Whenever we have a doubt whether an animal is a domesticated animal or a wild beast, its fat is forbidden, but lashes are not given for partaking of it, and we must cover its blood.

(13) A mixed species that comes from the mating of a kosher domesticated animal and a kosher wild beast is called a koi. Its fat is forbidden, but lashes are not given for partaking of it, and we must cover its blood. A non-kosher species will never be impregnated by a kosher species.

(14) The distinguishing signs of a kosher [species of] fowl are not mentioned explicitly by the Torah. Instead, the Torah mentions only the non-kosher species. The remainder of the species of fowl are kosher. There are 24 forbidden species. They are:




a) the eagle,
b) the ossifrage,
c) the osprey;
d) the kite, this is identical with the rayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
e) the vulture, this is identical with the dayah mentioned in Deuteronomy,
f) members of the vulture family; for the Torah states "according to its family," implying that two species [are forbidden],
g) the raven,


h) the starling; since the Torah states "according to its family" with regard to the raven, the starling is included,
i) the ostrich,
j) the owl,
k) the gull,
l) the hawk,
m) the gosshawk, for this is among the hawk family; and the verse says "according to its family,"
n) the falcon,


o) the cormorant,
p) the ibis,
q) the swan,
r) the pelican,
s) the magpie,
t) the stork,
u) the heron,
v) members of the heron family; for the Torah states "according to its family,"
w) the hoopie, and
x) the bat.

(15) Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names may partake of any fowl from other species. A kosher species of fowl may be eaten based on tradition, i.e., that it is accepted simply in that place that the species of fowl is kosher. A hunter's word is accepted if he says: "The hunter who taught me told me that this fowl is permitted," provided that [teacher] has an established reputation as being knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names.

(16) Whoever does not recognize these species and does not know their names must check according to the following signs given by our Sages: Any fowl that attacks with its claws and eats is known to be among these species and is unkosher. If [a fowl] does not attack with its claws and eat, it is kosher if it possesses one of the following signs: a) it has an extra claw, b) a crop; this is also referred to as a mur'ah, c) [the membrane of] its craw can be peeled by hand.

(17) [The rationale is that] there are none of the forbidden species that do not attack with its claws and eat and possesses one of these three signs with the exception of the ossifrage and the osprey. And the ossifrage and the osprey are not found in settled areas, but rather in the deserts of the distant islands that are very far removed to the extent that are located at the ends of the settled portions of the world.

(18) If its craw can be peeled with a knife, but cannot be peeled by hand and it does not possess any other sign even though it is not a bird of prey, there is an unresolved doubt regarding the matter. If the membrane was firm and tightly attached, but [the craw] was left in the sun and it became looser [to the extent that] it could be peeled by hand, [the species] is permitted.

(19) The Geonim said that they have an existing tradition that one should not rule to permit a fowl that possesses only one of these signs unless that sign is that its craw can be peeled by hand. If, however, it cannot be peeled by hand, it was never permitted [to be eaten] even if it possesses a crop or an extra claw.

(20) Whenever a bird divides its claws when a line is extended for it, placing two on one side and two on the other or it seizes an object in the air and eats while in the air, it is a bird of prey and non-kosher. Any species that lives together with non-kosher species and resembles them, is itself non-kosher.

(21) There are eight species of locusts which the Torah permitted:
a) a white locust, b) a member of the white locust family, the razbenit, c) the spotted grey locust, d) a member of the spotted grey locust family, the artzubiya, e) the red locust, d) a member of the red locust family, the bird of the vineyards, f) the yellow locust, g) a member of the yellow locust family, the yochanah of Jerusalem.

(22) Whoever is knowledgeable with regard to these species and their names may partake of them. A hunter's word is accepted as [stated with regard] to a fowl. A person who is not familiar with them should check their identifying signs. [The kosher species] have three signs. Whenever a species has four legs, four wings that cover the majority of the length and the majority of the width of its body, and it has two longer legs to hop, it is a kosher species. Even if its head is elongated and it has a tail, if it is referred to as a locust, it is a kosher species.

(23) When [a locust] does not have wings or extended legs at present, or its wings do not cover the majority [of its body], but it will grow them later when it grows larger, it is permitted [to be eaten] at present.

(24) There are two signs of [kosher] fish: fins and scales. Fins are used by the fish to swim and scales are those which cling to its entire body. Any fish that possesses scales will have fins. If it does not have them at present, but when it grows, it will have them or if it has scales while in the sea, but when it emerges it sheds its scales, it is permitted.
When a fish does not have scales that cover its entire body, it is permitted. Even if it has only one fin and one scale, it is permitted.

(1) Since it is written [Deuteronomy 14:6]: "Any animal that has split hooves, [whose foot] is divided into two hoofs and chews the cud, [this may you eat]," one may derive that any animal that does not chew its cud and have split hoofs is forbidden. A negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.
With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4] states: "These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs." From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut. The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from "This may you eat."

(2) Therefore anyone who eats an olive sized portion of the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beasts is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he partook of the meat or the fat. For the Torah did not distinguish between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.

(3) With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: "And the man became a beast with a soul," he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition. Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man - whether alive or deceased - is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above]. For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: "These are the beasts of which you may partake." Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.

(4) When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fowl, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: "These shall you detest from the fowl. You shall not partake of them." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: "You may partake of all kosher fowl." Implied is that the non-kosher may not be eaten.
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: "They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: "All that possess fins and scales, you may eat." Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.

(5) A non-kosher locust is included among [the category of] flying teeming animals. One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of flying teeming animals is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: "All flying teeming animals are non-kosher for you. They may not be eaten."
What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.

(6) When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a teeming animal of the land, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: "Any teeming animal that swarms on the ground is detestable to you. It should not be eaten."
What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.

(7) The eight teeming animals that are mentioned in the Torah are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. A person who eats a lentil-sized portion of their meat is liable for lashes. The minimum measure that one is prohibited to partake of their meat is the same as the minimum measure that conveys ritual impurity. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of a lentil.

(8) When does the above apply? When one partakes of them after they have died. If, however, one cuts off a limb from a living creature from one of these species and eats it, he does not receive lashes unless he [partakes of] an olive-sized portion of meat. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of an olive.
One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.

(9) The blood of these eight teeming animals and their flesh can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil, provided the blood is still attached to their flesh. Similarly, the blood of a snake is combined with its flesh to reach the measure of an olive and one receives lashes for it. The rationale is that its flesh is not separate from its blood, even though it does not impart ritual impurity. Similar concepts apply with regard to other teeming animals that do not convey ritual impurity.

(10) When a person collects the blood of teeming animals that has been separated [from their bodies] and partakes of it, he receives lashes if he partakes of a portion the size of an olive. [This applies] provided he was warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] a teeming animal. If, however, he is warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] blood, he is not liable. For we are liable only for the blood of domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl.

(11) All these measures - and the distinctions between them - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].

(12) One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of an aquatic teeming animal is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: "Do not make your souls detestable [by partaking] of any teeming animal that swarms... and do not become impure because of them." Included in this prohibition are teeming animals of the land, that fly, and of the water.
What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.

(13) The species that come into existence in garbage heaps and the carcasses of dead animals, e.g., maggots, worms, and the like which are not brought into being from male-female [relations], but from filth that decays and the like are called "those which creep on the earth." A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion [of these creations] is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:44] states: "Do not make your souls impure with any teeming animal that creeps on the earth," even thought they do not reproduce. Teeming animals that swarm on the earth, by contrast, are those that reproduce from male-female [relations].

(14) [The following laws apply with regard to] species that come into being from fruits and other foods. Should they depart from [the source from where they came into being] and go to the earth, a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:42] states: "With regard to any teeming animal that swarms on the earth, [do not eat them]." This forbids those that departed to the earth, even though they returned to the food. If, however, they did not depart, it is permitted to eat the fruit together with the worm in it.

(15) When does the above apply? When the food became worm-ridden after it was uprooted from the earth. If, however, it became worm-ridden while it was connected [to its source of nurture], that worm is forbidden as if it became departed to the earth. For it was created on the earth. One is liable for lashes [for partaking of it]. If there is a doubt, it is forbidden.
Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside, for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.

(16) If [the worm] departed to the atmosphere, but did not reach the earth, or only a portion of it reached the earth, it departed after it died, the worm was found on the seed on the inside, or it departed from one food to another, [in] all these [situations, the worm] is forbidden because of the doubt, but lashes are not administered [if one partakes of it].

(17) A worm found in the stomach of a fish, in the brain within the head of an animal, and one found in meat are forbidden. When, however, salted fish becomes worm-ridden, the worms in it are permitted. This is comparable to fruit which has become worm-ridden after it has been separated from the earth. It is permitted to eat them together with the worm that is in them.
Similarly, if water in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunk together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: "All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat." Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.

(18) [Since the water found] in cisterns, trenches and caves is not flowing water, but instead is collected there, it is comparable to water found in containers. [Hence], aquatic teeming animals that are created [in these places] are permitted. A person may bend down and drink without holding back even though he swallows these flimsy teeming animals when drinking.

(19) When does the above apply? When the teeming animals did not depart from the place where they came into being. If they did, even though they later return to the container or the cistern, they are forbidden. If they went out to the walls of the barrel and then fell back into the water or the beer, they are permitted. Similarly, if they went out to the walls of the cistern and the cave and returned to the water, they are permitted.

(20) When a person strains wine, vinegar, or beer and eats the insects, bugs, and worms that he strains, he is liable for lashes for partaking of an aquatic teeming animal or [for partaking of] a flying teeming animal and an aquatic teeming animal. [This applies] even if they returned to the container after they were strained, for they departed from the place where they came into existence. If, however, they did not depart, one may drink without holding back, as we explained.

(21) When, in this chapter, we have spoken about partaking of an olive-sized portion, [the intent is that] one ate an olive-sized portion of a large creature or one collected some from one species and some from another similar species until one partakes of an olive sized portion. If, however, one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.
[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form, one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.

(22) When an ant has lost even one of its legs, one is not liable for lashes for partaking of it unless one eats an olive-sized portion. For this reason, one who eats an entire fly or an entire mosquito whether alive or dead is worthy of lashes for partaking of a flying teeming animal.

(23) [The following laws apply if] a particular creature is [included in the categories of] a flying teeming animal, an aquatic teeming animal, and a teeming animal of the earth, e.g., it has wings, it walks on the earth like other [earthbound] teeming animals, and it reproduces in the water. If one partakes of it, he is liable for three [sets of] lashes.
If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce, he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.
[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.

(24) When one crushed ants, added another complete ant to those that were crushed so that the entire quantity was equal to an olive-sized portion, and partook of it, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: five [for partaking of] the one ant and an additional one, because he partook of an olive-sized portion of dead non-kosher animals.

(1) Any food that is produced from forbidden species for which lashes are given for partaking of is forbidden to be eaten according to Scriptural Law, e.g., milk from a forbidden species of domesticated animal or wild beast or the eggs of a forbidden species of birds or fish. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:16 which mentions]: "the bat of the ostrich." [Our Sages commented:] "This refers to its egg." The same law applies to all species that are forbidden like an ostrich and all entities [that are produce] like eggs.

(2) Human milk is permitted to be eaten, although the meat of a human is forbidden to be eaten. We have already explained that it is forbidden by virtue of a positive commandment.

(3) Honey produced by bees and hornets is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is not a product of their bodies. Instead, it is collected in their mouths from herbs and then expelled in their hive so that they will be able to partake of it in the rainy season.

(4) Although human milk is permitted, our Sages prohibited an adult to nurse from [a woman's] breasts. Instead, the woman should express it into a container and the adult should partake of it. An adult who nurses from [a woman's] breast is like one who nurses from a teeming animal. He is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

(5) An infant may continue to nurse for even four or five years. If, however, he was weaned for three days or more in a state of health and not because of sickness, he should not be allowed to nurse again. [The above applies] provided he was weaned after 24 months. If he was weaned within that time, even if he was weaned for a month or two, it is permitted to have him nurse again until the conclusion of 24 months.

(6) Although the milk of a non-kosher animal and the egg of a non-kosher fowl are forbidden according to Scriptural Law, [one is] not [liable for] lashes [for partaking of them. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:8] which states: "You may not eat from their flesh." [Implied is that] one is liable for lashes for [partaking of] their flesh, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] their eggs and milk. One who partakes [of these substances] is like one who eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden substance]. This is forbidden according to Scriptural Law, but one is not liable for lashes. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conduct.

(7) It appears to me that eating the eggs of non-kosher species of fish that are found in their bellies is comparable to eating the insides of the forbidden fish themselves and one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, when a person partakes of the eggs of a non-kosher fowl that are hanging in a cluster without being separated from the mother's body or completed, he is liable for lashes as if he ate the insides of [the fowl itself].

(8) When one partakes of the egg of a non-kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for eating a flying teeming animal. If, however, one partakes of the egg of a kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.

(9) [The following laws apply if] a blood spot is found on an egg. If it is found on the white, one should discard the blood and eat the remainder of the egg. If it is found on the yolk, the entire egg is forbidden. Unfertilized eggs - a refined person partakes of them.

(10) When a chick is hatched, even if its eyes have not opened, it is permitted [to slaughter it and] eat it.
When a kosher animal became trefe, its milk is forbidden like the milk of a non-kosher animal. Similarly, the egg of a kosher fowl that became trefe is comparable to the egg of a non-kosher fowl and is forbidden.

(11) When a chick is hatched from an egg from a trefe fowl, it is permitted, for it is not from a non-kosher species. When there is an unresolved question whether a fowl is trefe or not, we retain all the eggs it lays in its first batch. If it grows another batch and begins laying them, the first ones are permitted. For if it was trefe, it would no longer lay eggs. If it does not lay eggs, [the first batch] are forbidden.

(12) The milk of a non-kosher animal will not congeal and solidify as the milk of a kosher animal does. If the milk of a non-kosher animal is mixed together with the milk of a kosher animal, when the mixture is [set aside for cheese to be made], the kosher milk will solidify and the non-kosher milk will be expelled together with the whey of the cheese.

(13) Accordingly, logic would dictate that any milk found in the possession of a gentile is forbidden, lest the gentile have mixed the milk of a non-kosher animal with it. And the cheese of the gentiles should be permitted, for the milk of a non-kosher animal will not form cheese. Nevertheless, during the age of the Sages of the Mishnah, they issued a decree against gentile cheese and forbade it, lest they use the skin of the stomach of an animal they slaughtered - which is forbidden as a nevelah - to cause it to solidify.
If one would say: The stomach skin is a very small entity when compared to the milk that it is used to solidify. Why is it not nullified because of its insignificant size? Because it is used as the catalyst to cause the cheese to curdle. Since the catalyst which causes it to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden, as will be explained.

(14) [The following laws apply when] cheese is left to solidify with herbs or fruit juice, e.g., fig syrup, and it is apparent [that these substances were used for] the cheese. There are some of the Geonim who have ruled that it is forbidden, for [our Sages] already decreed that all the cheeses of gentiles are forbidden, whether they caused them to solidify with a forbidden entity or with a permitted entity. This is a decree, [instituted] because they cause them to solidify using forbidden entities.

(15) When a person partakes of cheese from gentiles or milk that was milked by a gentile without a Jew observing him, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. With regard to butter produced by gentiles, some of the Geonim permit it, for [our Sages] did not decree against butter and some of the Geonim forbid it, because of the drops of milk that remain in it. For the whey in the butter is not mixed with the butter so that it will be nullified because of its minimal quantity. And we suspect that any milk [from gentiles] is mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal.

(16) It appears to me that if one purchased butter from gentiles and cooked it until the drops of milk in it disappeared, it is permitted. For if one will say that [drops of non-kosher milk] were mixed with the butter and it was all cooked together, they became insignificant because of the small quantity [involved]. When, however, the butter is cooked by gentiles themselves, it is forbidden because of the effusion of gentile [foods], as will be explained.

(17) When a Jew sits near a herd belonging to a gentile and the gentile brings him milk from the herd, it is permitted [for him to partake of it] even though there are non-kosher animals in the herd. [This applies] even though he did not see him milk the animal, provided he could have seen him were he to stand. [The rationale is that] the gentile is afraid to milk the non-kosher animal lest [the Jew] stand and see him.

(18) When both of the ends of an egg are rounded, both are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the white is on the inside, it is certainly from a non-kosher species. If one end is pointed, the other rounded, and the white is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, it is possible that it is the egg of a non-kosher species and it is possible that it is the egg of a kosher species. Accordingly, the Jew should inquire of the Jewish hunter who sells them. If he tells him that they are from such-and-such a fowl and that this fowl is kosher, he may rely on him. If, however, he tells him that they are from a kosher fowl, but does not mention its name, he may not rely on him.

(19) For this reason, we do not purchase eggs from gentiles unless one recognizes the eggs and can identify them as being from a particular kosher species of fowl. We do not suspect that they came from a fowl that was trefe or nevelah. And we do not purchase an [unshelled and] stirred egg from a gentile at all.

(20) The distinguishing signs of fish eggs are the same as those for fowl. When both of the ends of an egg are rounded or both are pointed, it is non-kosher. If one end is pointed and the other rounded, he should inquire of the Jew who sells them. If he tells him that he salted them and removed them from a kosher species, he may partake of them on the basis of his statements. If he tells him that they are kosher, he may not rely on him unless he is a person who has an established reputation for observance.

(21) Similarly, we may not purchase cheese and pieces of fish that do not have distinguishing signs except from a Jew who has an established reputation for observance. In Eretz Yisrael, at the time it was populated primarily by [observant] Jews, one could purchase these items from any Jew located there. And it is permitted to purchase milk from any Jew, anywhere.

(22) When a person pickles non-kosher fish, the brine produced is forbidden. The brine produced by non-kosher locusts, by contrast, is permitted, because they do not possess any moisture. Accordingly, we do not purchase brine from gentiles unless there is a kosher fish floating in it. Even one fish is sufficient.

(23) When a gentile brings a trough filled with open barrels of brine and there is a kosher fish in one of them, they are all permitted. If they are closed, one opens one and finds a kosher fish and one opens a second and finds a kosher fish, they are all permitted. [This applies] provided the head of the fish and its backbone are present so that it is recognizable that they are from a kosher species of fish.
For this reason, we do not purchased crushed, salted fish from gentiles which are called terit terufah. If, however, the head and the backbone of a fish is recognizable, even though it is crushed, it is permitted to purchase it from a gentile.

(24) When a gentile brings a keg of pieces of evenly cut up fish and it is obvious that they are from one fish, they are all permitted if he finds scales on one of the pieces.

(1) It is forbidden to cook meat and milk together and to partake of them according to Scriptural Law. It is forbidden to benefit from [such a mixture]. It must be buried. Its ashes are forbidden like the ashes of all substances that must be buried.
Whenever a person cooks an olive-sized portion of the two substances together, he is worthy of lashes, as [Exodus 23:19] states: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." Similarly, a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of the meat and milk that were cooked together is worthy of lashes even though he was not the one who cooked them.

(2) The Torah remained silent concerning the prohibition against partaking [of meat and milk] only because it forbade cooking them. This is as if to say: Even cooking it is forbidden, how much more so partaking of it. [To cite a parallel:] The Torah did not mention the prohibition against relations with one's daughter, because it forbade those with the daughter of one's daughter.

(3) According to Scriptural Law, the prohibition involves only [a mixture of] meat from a kosher domesticated animal and milk from a kosher domesticated animal, as implied by the verse: "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." The term "a kid" includes the offspring of an ox, the offspring of a sheep, and the offspring of a goat unless the verse states explicitly, a goat-kid. The term "a kid in its mother's milk" [does not exclude all other situations]. Instead, the Torah is speaking regarding the commonplace circumstance.
With regard to the meat of a kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a non-kosher animal or the meat of a non-kosher animal which was cooked in the milk of a kosher animal, by contrast, cooking is permitted, and deriving benefit is permitted. One is not liable for [transgressing the prohibition against partaking of] meat and milk if one partakes of it.

(4) Similarly, the meat of a wild beast and the meat of a fowl together with the milk of a wild beast or the milk of a domesticated animal is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. Therefore it is permitted to cook it and it is permitted to benefit from it. It is forbidden to partake of it according to Rabbinic Law so that people at large will not be negligent and come to violate the Scriptural prohibition against milk and meat and partake of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal [cooked] in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal. For the literal meaning of the verse implies only the meat of a kid in the milk of its actual mother. Therefore, they forbade all meat in milk.

(5) It is permitted to partake of fish and locusts [cooked] in milk.
When a person slaughters a fowl and finds eggs that are completed within it, it is permitted to partake of them together with milk.

(6) When [milk and meat] are smoked, cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, or the like, one is not liable for lashes. Similarly, when meat is cooked in whey, milk from a dead animal, or milk from a male, or if blood is cooked with milk, one is absolved and is not liable for partaking [of the mixture] because of [the prohibition against partaking of] milk and meat.
When, however, a person cooks the meat of a dead animal, forbidden fat, or the like in milk, he is liable for lashes for cooking. He is not liable for lashes for partaking [of the mixture] because of the prohibition against meat and milk. For the prohibition against [mixtures of] meat and milk does not take effect with regard to [entities] prohibited as nevelah or forbidden fat, because we are not speaking about a more encompassing prohibition, a prohibition which adds a new dimension, or [two] prohibitions that take effect at the same time.

(7) When a person cooks a fetus in milk, he is liable. Similarly, one who partakes of it is liable. When, however, one cooks a placenta, skin, sinews, bones, the roots of the horns, or the soft portion of the hoofs [cooked] in milk, he is not liable. Similarly, one who partakes [of such a mixture] is not liable.

(8) When meat falls into milk or milk falls into meat and they are cooked together, the minimum measure [for which one is liable is] enough for one substance to impart its flavor to the other.
What is implied? When a piece of meat falls into a bubbling pot full of milk, a gentile should taste [the contents of] the pot. If it has the flavor of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted, but the piece of meat is forbidden.
When does the above apply? When he hurried and removed the piece of meat before it discharged the milk that it absorbed. If he did not remove it [that quickly], we require 60 times its volume, because the milk that it absorbed became forbidden. It was discharged and then mixed together with the remainder of the milk.

(9) When milk falls [onto a piece of] meat [being cooked] in a pot, we taste the piece on which the milk fell. If it does not have the flavor of milk, everything is permitted. [More stringent rules apply] if the piece of meat has the flavor of milk. Even though if the piece of meat was pressed to remove [the absorbed liquid], the flavor [of milk] would not remain, since it has the flavor of milk now, it is forbidden and we must measure its entire volume. If everything in the pot - the other meat, the vegetables, the sauce, and the spices - is great enough so that the piece is one sixtieth of the entire [volume], that piece of meat is forbidden and the remainder is permitted.

(10) When does the above apply? When he did not stir the pot at the outset when the milk fell into it. [He did so] only at the end and did not cover the pot.
If, however, he stirred the pot from the beginning until the end or covered [the pot] from the time [the milk] fell until the end, [the question of whether a prohibition exists depends] on whether [the milk] imparted its flavor.
Similarly, if the milk fell into the sauce or onto all the pieces and it was not known on which piece [the milk] fell, he should stir the entire pot so that all its contents will be mixed [thoroughly]. If the flavor of milk [can be detected] in the entire pot, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. If a gentile to taste [the pot] whom we can rely on cannot be found, we require a measure of sixty whether for meat in milk or milk in meat. If there is one measure in sixty, it is permitted. If there is less than sixty, it is forbidden.

(11) When meat has been cooked in a pot, milk should not be cooked in it. If one cooked [milk] in it, [it is forbidden] if it imparted its flavor.

(12) The udders [of an animal] are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [The prohibition is not of Scriptural origin, because] meat that was cooked in milk from an animal that was slaughtered is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law, as we explained.
Therefore if one cut it open and discharged the milk it contained, it is permitted to roast it and eat it. If one cut it both horizontally and vertically and then pressed it into a wall until none of the moisture of the milk remained, it may be cooked with other meat.
When an udder has not been cut open, when from a young animal that never nursed or from an older one, it is forbidden to cook it. If one transgressed and cooked it alone, it is permitted to partake of it. If one cooked it with other meat, we require 60 times its volume. The udder itself is calculated in the 60.

(13) What is implied? If the entire mixture together with the udder was sixty times the volume of the udder, the udder is forbidden, and the remainder is permitted. If there was less than 60 times its volume, the entire mixture is forbidden. Regardless of [the ruling applying to the entire mixture], if the udder fell into another pot, it can cause it to be forbidden. We require 60 times its volume as in the original instance. [The rationale is that] the udder which is cooked becomes considered as a forbidden piece of meat.
We measure [the volume of] the udder at the time that it was cooked, not according to its state when it fell [into the mixture].

(14) We do not roast an udder that has been cut above meat on a spit. If, however, one roasted it [in that manner], everything is permitted.

(15) A stomach that is cooked with milk inside it is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is no longer considered as milk. Instead, it is considered as a waste product, because it undergoes a change in the digestive system.

(16) It is forbidden to place the skin of a kosher animal's stomach [in milk] to serve as a catalyst for it to harden into cheese. If one used it as a catalyst, [a gentile] should taste the cheese. If it has a taste of meat, it is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the catalyst is itself a permitted entity, for it comes from the stomach of a kosher animal. [The only question] is [whether] the prohibition against meat and milk [was violated] and that is dependent on whether the flavor was imparted.
[Different laws apply, however, when] one uses the skin of the stomach of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher animal. [The rationale is that] since the catalyst is forbidden in its own right, the cheese becomes forbidden, not because of the prohibition of meat and milk, but because of the prohibition against a nevelah. For this reason, [our Sages] forbade cheeses made by gentiles, as we explained.

(17) Meat alone is permitted and milk alone is permitted. It is [only] when the two become mixed together through cooking that they both become forbidden.
When does the above apply? When they were cooked together, when a hot object fell into a hot object, or when a cold object fell into a hot object. If, however, [milk or meat] that is hot fell into the other when it is cold, [all that is necessary is to] remove the surface of the meat which touched the milk; the remainder may be eaten.
If cold [meat] fell into cold [milk or the opposite], one must wash the piece of meat thoroughly. [Afterwards,] it may be eaten. For this reason, it is permitted to [carry] meat and milk bound together in a single handkerchief, provided they do not touch each other. If they do touch each other, one must wash the meat and wash the cheese. [Afterwards,] he may partake of them.

(18) When a substance is salted to the extent that it cannot be eaten because of its salt, is considered as if it is boiling. If it can be eaten in its present state like kutach, it is not considered as if it is boiling.

(19) [The following rules apply when] a fowl that has been slaughtered falls into milk or kutach that contains milk: If it is raw, it need only be washed thoroughly and it is permitted. If it was roasted, one should remove its surface. If it has portions where it is open or it is spiced and it falls into milk or kutach, it is forbidden.

(20) It is forbidden to serve fowl together with milk on the table upon which one is eating. This is a decree [enacted] because habit [might lead] to sin. We fear that one will eat one with the other. [This applies] even though fowl with milk is forbidden only because of Rabbinic decree.

(21) When two guests who are not familiar with each other are eating at the same table, one may eat the meat of an animal and one may eat cheese. [The rationale is] that they are not well-acquainted with each other to the extent that they will eat together.

(22) We do not knead a loaf with milk. If one kneaded it [with milk], the loaf is forbidden, because habit [might lead] to sin, lest he eat it together with meat. We do not dab an oven with animal fat. If in fact one dabbed an oven [with fat], any loaf is forbidden until one fires the oven, lest one eat milk with [that loaf]. If one altered the appearance of the bread so that it will be evident that one should not eat meat or milk with it, it is permitted.

(23) When a loaf has been baked together with roasted meat, or fish were roasted together with meat, it is forbidden to eat them together with milk. When meat was eaten in a dish and then fish were cooked in it, it is permitted to eat those fish together with kutach.

(24) When a knife was used to cut roasted meat and then was used to cut radish or other sharp foods, it is forbidden to eat them together with kutach. If, however, one cut meat [with a knife] and afterwards cut zucchini or watermelon, one should scrape away the place where the cut was made and the remainder may be eaten with milk.

(25) We do not place a jar of salt near a jar of kutach, because it will draw out its flavor. Thus one will cook meat with this salt that has the flavor of milk. One may, however, place a jar of vinegar near a jar of kutach, because the vinegar will not draw out its flavor.

(26) When a person eats cheese or milk first, it is permitted for him to eat meat directly afterwards. He must, however, wash his hands and clean his mouth between the cheese and the meat.
With what should he clean his mouth? With bread or with fruit that [require him] to chew and then swallow or spit them out. One may clean his mouth with all substances with the exception of dates, flour, and vegetables, because they do not clean effectively.

(27) When does the above apply? With regard to the meat of a domesticated animal or a wild beast. If, however, one [desires to] eat the meat of a fowl after eating cheese or milk, it is not necessary for him to clean his mouth or wash his hands.

(28) When a person ate meat first - whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a fowl - he should not partake of milk afterwards unless he waits the time for another meal, approximately six hours. This stringency is required because meat that becomes stuck between teeth and is not removed by cleaning.

(1) The minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of any of the forbidden foods in the Torah is [the size of] an average olive. [This applies] whether for lashes, kerait, or death at the hand of heaven. We already explained that anyone who is liable for kerait or death at the hand of heaven for [partaking of] forbidden food, should receive lashes.

(2) This measure, as all the other measurements, is a halachah conveyed by Moses from Sinai. It is forbidden by Scriptural Law to eat even the slightest amount of a forbidden substance. Nevertheless, one receives lashes only for an olive-sized portion. If one partakes of any amount less than this measure, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

(3) The measure of "the size of an olive" that we mentioned does not include what is between one's teeth. What is between one's gums, however, is included in what one swallows, for his palate benefited from an olive-sized portion of food.
Even if one ate half of an olive-sized portion, vomited it, and then ate the same portion that was half the size of an olive that he vomited, he is liable. For the liability is for the benefit one's palate receives from a forbidden substance.

(4) When an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, a nevelah, piggul, notar, or the like was left in the sun and was reduced in volume, one who eats it is not liable.
If, afterwards, one left it in the rain and it expanded, one is liable for either kerait or lashes. If, originally, it was smaller than an olive-sized portion and then expanded to the size of an olive, it is forbidden to partake of it, but one is not liable for lashes for it.

(5) We already explained that all of the forbidden substances in the Torah are not combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with the exception of the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a trefe and the prohibitions involving a nazirite, as explained in the appropriate places. The five types of grain, their flour, and the dough made from them all can be combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to the prohibition against leaven on Pesach, the prohibition against partaking of chadash before the offering of the omer, and the prohibitions involving the second tithe and the terumot.

(6) It appears to me that all [produce] from which we are required to separate terumah and tithes can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to [the prohibition against] tevel because a single prohibition is involved. To what can the matter be compared? To [meat from] the corpse of an ox, the corpse of a sheep, and the corpse of a deer which can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive as we explained.

(7) When a person partakes of a large amount of food from a forbidden substance, he is not liable for lashes or kerait for every olive-sized portion he eats. Instead, he is liable once for all he ate. If, however, the witness gave him a warning for every olive-sized portion, he is liable for every warning even though he ate it in one sitting, without interruption.

(8) [The following rules apply when] a person partakes of a barley-corn or mustard-seed-sized portion of any forbidden food, waits, and then partakes of another mustard-seed-sized portion whether inadvertently or intentionally. If he waited from the beginning to the end the time it takes to eat a portion of bread with relish the size of three eggs [or less], everything [he ate] is combined. He is liable for kerait, lashes, or a sacrifice as if he ate an olive-sized portion at one time. If he waits a longer time from the beginning to the end, [the small portions] are not combined. Since he completed the olive-sized portion only in a longer time than k'dei achilat p'ras, he is not liable even if he did not wait at all, but continued eating mustard-seed-sized portion after mustard-seed-sized portion.

(9) Similar [laws apply when] a person who drinks a revi'it of ordinary gentile wine little by little, swallows liquefied leaven on Pesach or fat little by little, or drinks blood little by little. If he waits from the beginning until the end the time it takes to drink a revi'it, [all of the sipping] is combined. If not, it is not combined.

(10) One is not liable for partaking of any of the prohibited foods unless one partakes of them in a manner in which one derives satisfaction with the exception of a mixture of meat and milk and mixed species grown in a vineyard. [The rationale is that with regard to these prohibitions, the Torah] does not use the term "eating," but instead conveys the prohibition against partaking of them in other terms. [With regard to meat and milk, it uses] the term "cooking" and [with regard to mixed species grown in a vineyard, it uses the term] "become hallowed." [This implies] that they are forbidden even when one does not derive satisfaction.

(11) What is implied? When one liquefied fat and swallowed it when it was so hot that his throat was burned from it, he eat raw fat, mixed bitter substances like gall or wormwood into wine or into a pot [where meat from] a nevelah [is cooking] and he partook of it while they were bitter, or he ate a forbidden food after it became decayed, spoiled, and unfit for human consumption, he is not liable. If, by contrast, he mixed a bitter substance into a a pot [where meat and milk are cooking] or into wine from a vineyard where mixed species are growing and partook of it, he is liable.

(12) When a person partakes of one of the forbidden food in a frivolous manner or as one who is acting purposelessly, he is liable. Even though he did not intend to actually partake of the food, since he derived pleasure, it is considered as if he intended to actually partake of the food. When, [by contrast,] a person is forced to derive [forbidden] pleasure, if he focuses his intent on it, he is liable. If he does not, it is permitted.

(13) When a person partakes of a forbidden food because of desire or because of hunger, he is liable. If he was wandering in the desert and he has nothing to eat but a forbidden substance, it is permitted, because of the danger to his life.

(14) When a pregnant woman smells a forbidden food [and is overcome by desire for it], e.g., consecrated meat or ham, she should be given some of the gravy. If her mind becomes settled, that is commendable. If not, we feed her less than the forbidden measure [of the meat itself]. If her mind does not become settled, we feed her until her mind becomes settled.

(15) Similarly, when a sick person smells food that contains vinegar or the like, [i.e.,] substances that arouse a soul's [desire], he is governed by the same laws that apply to a pregnant woman.

(16) When a person is overcome by severe hunger, he may be fed forbidden food immediately until his eyesight clears. We do not seek permitted food. Instead, we hurry to feed him what is available.
We feed him substances bound by more lenient prohibitions first. If his sight clears, that is sufficient. If not, we feed him the substances bound by the more severe prohibitions.

(17) What is implied? If there is tevel and a nevelah, we feed him the nevelah first. {The rationale is] that [partaking of] tevel is punishable by death [at the hand of heaven]. If [the choice is between] a nevelah and produce that grows on its own during the Sabbatical year, we feed him the produce, for it is forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, as will be explained in Hilchot Shemitah.
If [the choice is between] tevel and produce grown during the Sabbatical year, we feed him the produce grown during the Sabbatical year. If [the choice is between] tevel and terumah, if it is impossible to make the tevel acceptable, we feed him the tevel. [The rationale is] that it is not sanctified as terumah is. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

(18) We have already explained that one prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time, the latter prohibition forbids additional entities, or the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities.
Accordingly, [it is possible] for there to be a person who eats one olive-sized portion of forbidden food and yet, he will be liable for five [sets of] lashes for it, provided he was warned for all five prohibitions that accumulated.
What is implied? For example, on Yom Kippur, a person who was ritually impure ate an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat from a consecrated animal that remained after its prescribed time. He is liable for lashes because he partook of forbidden fat, notar, because he ate on Yom Kippur, because he partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, and because he derived benefit from consecrated food, thus [violating the prohibition of] me'ilah.

(19) Why do these prohibitions fall on each other? Because although it was forbidden to partake of the fat of this animal, it was permitted to benefit from it. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to benefit from the fat. Since the prohibition to benefit from it was added to it, the prohibition against [benefiting from] consecrated articles became added to it.
Although this fat was forbidden to an ordinary person, it was still permitted to be offered to the One on High. When it became notar, since it became forbidden to the One on High, [that] prohibition was added to an ordinary person.
This person was permitted to partake of the meat of the animal, although he was forbidden to partake of its fat. When he became impure, since its meat became forbidden an additional prohibition was added to its fat. When Yom Kippur commenced, all food became included [in the prohibition], since this prohibition affects non-consecrated food, it adds a prohibition to this fat. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.