Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 3

I.e., foods that are forbidden by a negative commandment.

Chullin 64b. The term literally means "the daughter of the ostrich." Our Sages, however, expanded the interpretation of the term as the Rambam explains.

I.e., even by an adult. Note, however, Halachah 4.

Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

Thus it does not contradict the general principle mentioned in the previous halachah.

As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there is a difference of opinion among the Sages in Bechorot 7b whether the honey of hornets is forbidden. This difference of opinion is perpetuated among the later authorities. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:9).

Or into a person's hands. She may not, however, express it into the person's mouth [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)].

The Ra'avad and the Turei Zahav 81:9 explains that these words of censure were issued because an observer might think that the milk of a non-kosher animal is also permitted.

Needless to say, if there is a danger to the child's life, he may be allowed to nurse again regardless of the amount of time for which he had been weaned [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)].

When an infant has never been weaned, he may continue past the 24 month limit as the Rambam states at the beginning of the halachah. If, however, he has been weaned, he is bound by this restriction [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 81)].

See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.

For they are part of the fish's body and are not separated by a shell.

For this instance as well, the eggs are not a distinct entity, but instead are considered part of the fowl's body. The Maggid Mishneh brings proof of this concept from Chapter 9, Halachot 4-5, which states that it is forbidden to eat such eggs together with milk and from Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 3:10 which states that they convey ritual impurity like the meat of the fowl itself.

The embryo is not considered as a non-kosher fowl. Nevertheless, it is already a distinct entity. Hence it is considered as a non-kosher teeming animal. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are other Rishonim who do not accept the Rambam's position.

The Siftei Cohen 15:1 explains that while the embryo is within the egg, it has the characteristics of a teeming animal.

From Chullin 64a, it appears that there is only a Rabbinic prohibition against partaking of this embryo. Hence, this punishment is given.

This refers to an egg that could have been fertilized. If, however, we know that an egg was not fertilized, it is acceptable no matter where the blood spot is found. The blood itself, however, must be discarded [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)]. Most of the eggs commercially sold are not fertilized.

For the embryo has not begun to form and has not affected the entire egg.

At this stage of development, the entire egg has been affected. See the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:2-3) which also mention other halachic perspectives with regard to blood found in fertilized eggs.

Even though they could be considered spoiled [see Rashi, Chullin 77a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)].

Until it is hatched, however, it is forbidden is indicated by Halachah 8. See also Siftei Cohen15:2 who mentions authorities who suggest that one should wait until its wings start to develop before slaughtering it.

Forbidden because it contracted a wound that will cause it to die within a year.

Although the milk comes from a kosher species, since the animal itself is unacceptable, its milk is also deemed unacceptable.

According to Rabbinic decree, this law applies to eggs that are found within a fowl that died without being ritually slaughtered [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:3)].

Chulin 31a states that the fact that the egg from which the embryo is formed is trefe does not present a halachic problem. The rationale is that, for the embryo to form, the egg must decompose. Hence its halachic status does not affect that of the embryo.

For 21 days [Bechorot 8a; the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:99]. This is the amount of time our Sages thought necessary for a fowl to begin laying a new batch of eggs.

I.e., the eggs it was carrying when it first became trefe. Although Chulin 58a states that a fowl which is trefe will not lay eggs, the intent is that it will not lay a new batch of eggs. It will, however, lay the batch it is presently carrying.

There are opinions in the Ashkenazic halachic tradition that forbid such a chick. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:7) states that the initial and preferred option is to respect these views.

This term refers to an animal from a kosher species which died without being ritually slaughtered.

For milk to solidify as cheese, it needs a catalyst, rennin, to cause it to curdle. One of the most common sources of rennin was the digestive organs of an animal. For the enzymes that facilitate the digestion of food also produce such an effect. Using the skin of a non-kosher organ causes the cheese to be non-kosher for the reasons the Rambam proceeds to explain. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 19, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.

As the Ra'avad and Maggid Mishneh mention, Avodah Zarah 35a gives several additional reasons for these prohibitions. The Rambam, however, does not mention them because the factors causing the prohibition could be nullified as explained in the following note. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are opinions that maintain that the motivating factor behind the prohibition against non-Jewish cheese is to prevent social interaction between Jews and non-Jews. Hence the prohibitions are never nullified even if there is a substantially larger quantity of the kosher substance.

As will be explained, according to Scriptural Law, when a forbidden substance is mixed together with a kosher substance, it is nullified - i.e, considered as if it has become part of the permitted substance - if the quantity of the permitted substance is greater than it. According to Rabbinic Law, this is true when the quantity of the permitted substance is so great that the taste of the forbidden substance would not be detected. That would certainly be true in the instance at hand. Nevertheless, the forbidden substance is not nullified for the reason explained by the Rambam.

Chapter 9, Halachah 16; Chapter 16, Halachah 26.

This is also the Rambam's view. It is quoted by the the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:2. The Rama states that it is customary to follow this view. The Rama continues, stating that when a Jew observes a gentile milking the cows and making the cheese, it is permitted to partake of it even though the cheese belongs to the gentiles. He continues, stating that even if the Jew does not observe the gentile milking the cow, as long as he observes him making the cheese, the cheese is acceptable after the fact. The Turei Zahav 115:11 and the Siftei Cohen 115:22 quote opinions that differ and maintain that the prohibition should be observed even if a Jew did not observe the milking.

This difference of opinion is relevant today, reflecting the difference between chalav Yisrael cheese and ordinary kosher cheese. In both instances, the cheesemaking process is supervised. Chalav Yisrael cheese uses milk that was supervised when milked, while ordinary kosher cheese does not.

For his behavior is in violation of an explicit Rabbinic prohibition. Even though the rationale for the original decree is no longer applicable, the prohibition established by our Rabbis is still in force. (See Hilchot Mamrim 2:2.)

In the present era, there are certain Rabbis (see Rav Moshe Feinstein, Igros Moshe) who give a rationale for leniency with regard to this prohibition, stating that government supervision makes it impossible for gentiles to mix non-kosher milk together with cow's milk and thus there is no necessity to heed that prohibition. It must be emphasized, however, that this responsum was authored before the time when it became relative easy to procure chalav Yisrael and that many other Rabbinical authorities never accepted this decision. On the contrary, basing themselves on the ruling of Hilchot Mamrim 2:2, they explain that the original decree must still be observed. As a result of their forceful stance, at present, it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael products in almost every major Jewish community.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) states that one should not rebuke those who permit the use of such butter, but if the local custom is to forbid it, that custom should be respected. At present, since it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael butter in almost every major Jewish community, many Rabbis urge that this prohibition be observed.

We are speaking about homemade butter which always has some small drops of whey within it. These drops, however, are not mixed with the butter itself, but instead remain as a separate entity. Hence, they cannot be nullified. See Kessef Mishneh.

This expression connotes a law derived by the Rambam through his deductive reasoning without an existing prior Rabbinic source.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that not only is this permitted after the fact, one may do so at the outset (lechatchilah). For it is possible that there is no forbidden substance present at all.

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) quotes this ruling. Nevertheless, most of the authorities who forbid using non-Jewish butter maintain that, in practice, one should refrain from cooking it as well.

I.e., the amount of non-kosher milk is surely insignificant in relation to the quantity of the mixture as a whole. Hence it is nullified.

I.e., in their own utensils.

As explained in Chapter 17, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to cook food in utensils belonging to gentiles, for the utensil will have absorbed some of the non-kosher food cooked in it previously and will discharge it into the kosher food during the cooking process.

The Kessef Mishneh and the Rama (loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam regarding this issue. See the notes to Chapter 17 Halachah 18, for a discussion of this matter.

Similarly, if the Jew walks in and out of the place where the milking is taking place, it is acceptable. For the gentile will fear that any moment, the Jew will return (Turei Zahav 115:3).

The Rambam is explaining that although our Sages require that a Jew observe the milking of an animal, it is not necessary that he watch the actual milking. As long as he is present and could see what the gentile is doing, the gentile will refrain from mixing in a non-kosher substance.

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:1) states that this ruling applies only after the fact. At the outset, the Jew must observe the milking and also check the container into which the gentile is milking.

The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this ruling applies only when the gentile is milking the animal for the Jew and knows that the Jew will not drink the milk of the non-kosher animal. If he is not aware of the prohibition, we suspect that he will give the Jew milk from any animal in his herd.

I.e., all kosher eggs have these characteristics, but not all eggs with these characteristics are kosher.

But not a non-Jewish hunter, as evident from the following halachah.

We are certain that he will not lie, because it is possible to bring other eggs from that species and see that they are not alike (Turei Zahav 86:1; Siftei Cohen 86:3).

For the method of verification mentioned in the previous note does not apply.

The Ra'avad rules that if the hunter has an established reputation for observance, we may rely on his word, even though he does not name the species of the fowl. The Maggid Mishneh states that, as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 20, the Rambam would also accept that ruling. According to this understanding, the hunter we are speaking about is not known for his observance. Nevertheless, we rely on his statements.

In his notes to Halachah 20, the Rashba emphasizes that we are not speaking about a person who is known to sell non-kosher food as kosher. As evident from Hilchot Maaserot 12:16, such a person is considered as a gentile and his word is not accepted at all. Instead, the intent is someone whose reputation for observance has not been established, but is also not suspect to cause others to transgress.

The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Ramban who differs with the Rambam and maintains that there is no difference between a Jew whose reputation for observance is not established and a gentile. Just like we accept the Jew's word, we accept that of the gentile. For we assume that he will not risk his reputation by making false statements. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Tur and the Rama cite that of the Ramban.

The Maggid Mishneh also quotes Rashba who states that in the present age, we purchase eggs from gentiles without compunction, because non-kosher species are uncommon and the overwhelming proportion of eggs sold are from chickens or geese. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:2).

I.e., that died without being ritually slaughtered; see Chapter 4, Halachah 1. We rule leniently, because it is very uncommon to have eggs from fowl in such a condition (Maggid Mishneh).

For we fear that it came from an egg that was trefe (Maggid Mishneh).

For the distinguishing signs themselves are not sufficient for the eggs to be considered kosher. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although Avodah Zarah 40a would appear to indicate that the distinguishing signs are sufficient, since Chullin 64a compares fish eggs to fowl eggs, we assume that all the laws that apply to one apply to the other.

In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:8), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling, but states that at present, it has become customary to buy any red fish eggs, even from gentiles. Black fish eggs, however, may not be purchased. In his Beit Yosef 81:12, he explains that the Rabbinic authorities of the earlier ages researched the matter and discovered that there are no common non-kosher fish that lay red eggs. See Siftei Cohen 83:27 who quotes other sources from which it is not clear whether or not this ruling was accepted in all communities.

I.e., to preserve them, for it is common to bring fish eggs from distant places.

Naming the species as in Halachah 18.

As indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 25, today, the same principles that apply in the Diaspora apply in Eretz Yisrael. 54. In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:9), he states that they possess very little moisture. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and forbids brine from non-kosher locusts.

For then we assume that the brine came from this species of fish.

For we consider all the open barrels as a single entity and the one fish indicates that the entire quantity is acceptable. See Kessef Mishneh. This represents the Rambam's understanding of Avodah Zarah 39b-40a. The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:6) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also those of others who interpret that passage differently.

The intent is not that all the barrels are considered as a single entity, but that since two barrels are discovered to be kosher, we assume that the others are also kosher (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., by looking at the head and the backbone, the person is able to recognize that the fish comes from a kosher species. One alone, i.e., either the head or the backbone, is not sufficient (Avodah Zarah 40a).

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6), the Rambam explains that it was customary to crush and stir the fish until it produces a mixture like dough that was used as a dip.

I.e., if we discover the head and the backbone of one fish, we may purchase a larger quantity, because we do not expect that kosher fish and non-kosher fish were salted together (Maggid Mishneh).

The Siftei Cohen 83:4 notes that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:4) does not quote the Rambam's wording and explains that according to that source, it is not necessary for it to be obvious that they all come from one fish.

If it is not obvious that they come from one fish, the the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that only the piece with scales is permitted.

For every fish that has scales will also have fins.