diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/merged.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/merged.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods/English/merged.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,482 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods",
+ "language": "en",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Forbidden_Foods",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "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.\"",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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 deer, it is a kosher wild beast. Its horns, however, must have these three signs: They must be curved, notched, and spiraled.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.
",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "[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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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."
+ ],
+ [
+ "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.\"",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "All these measures - and the distinctions between them - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].",
+ "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.",
+ "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].",
+ "[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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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].",
+ "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.",
+ "[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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "[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.",
+ "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."
+ ],
+ [
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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].",
+ "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.",
+ "[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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "[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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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."
+ ],
+ [
+ "A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl which dies is liable for lashes, as [Deuteronomy 14:21] states: \"Do not partake of any nevelah.\" All animals that were not slaughtered in the appropriate manner are considered as if they died. In the Laws of Shechitah, we will explain which types of slaughter are appropriate and which are not.",
+ "Only animals from kosher species are forbidden as a nevelah, for they are the species that are fit to be ritually slaughtered and if they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, it is permitted to partake of them. [When,] by contrast, one partakes of [meat from] a non-kosher species, [since] ritual slaughter is of no consequence with regard to them, whether they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, whether they died in a natural manner, or whether one cut meat from a living animal and ate it, one does not receive lashes for partaking of a nevelah or partaking of trefe meat, only because one ate the meat of a non-kosher animal.",
+ "When a person eats an [entire] kosher fowl of any size, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah, even though he ate less than an olive-sized portion. [The rationale is that] he consumed it in its entirety. If he ate it after it died, it must be the size of an olive [for him to be liable]. Even though it does not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, since as a whole, it is the size of an olive, he is liable for [partaking of] a nevelah.",
+ "When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of a stillborn fetus of a kosher animal, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.
It is forbidden to partake of a newborn animal until the night of the eighth day [of its life]. For whenever an animal has not lived for eight days, we consider it as stillborn, but lashes are not administered [for partaking] of it. [Moreover,] if it is known that the animal was born after a full term period of gestation, i.e., nine months for a large domesticated animal and five months for a small domesticated animal, it is permitted on the day that it was born.",
+ "The placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. A person who eats it, however, is not liable, because it is not [considered] meat.",
+ "When a person eats an olive-sized portion of a kosher domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl that was mortally wounded is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 22:30] states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs.\"
The term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] mortally wounded by a wild beast, e.g., a lion, a tiger, or the like, or a fowl mortally wounded by a bird of prey, e.g., a hawk or the like. We cannot say that the term trefe refers to an animal that was attacked and killed, for if it died, it is a nevelah. What difference does it make if it died naturally, was struck by a sword or died, or was battered by a lion and died? Thus [the term trefe] must refer to an instance when it was mortally wounded, but did not die.",
+ "If an animal that is mortally wounded is forbidden, shall we say that if a wolf or a lion comes and drags a kid by its foot, its tail, or its ear, and a man pursues [the beast] and saves [the kid], it will be forbidden, because it was attacked? The Torah states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs.\" [An animal is not considered trefe] unless it was brought to a state that its meat is fit [only] for the dogs. Thus we have learned that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] that was attacked by a wild beast and battered by it that has not died yet. Even if the person hurries and slaughters it before it dies, it is forbidden as trefe. For it is impossible that it will live after suffering such wounds.",
+ "Thus we have learned that the Torah forbade [an animal] that died, a nevelah, and it forbade one that was on the verge of death because of its wounds even though it has not died yet, i.e., a trefe.
Now we do not make a distinction with regard to an animal that has died regardless of whether it died naturally, it fell and died, it was strangled until it died, or it was attacked by a wild beast who killed it. Similarly, we do not make a distinction between an animal that is on the verge of death, regardless of whether it was attacked by an animal and battered, fell from the roof and broke the majority of its ribs, fell and crushed its limbs, it was shot with an arrow and its heart or lung pierced, it developed an illness that caused its heart or lung to be perforated, one broke the majority of its ribs, or the like. Since it is on the verge of death regardless of the cause, it is a trefe. [This applies] whether [its wound] was caused by flesh and blood or by God's hand.
If so, why does the Torah use the term trefe? For Scripture speaks with regard to prevalent situations. [We are forced] to say this. If not, only an animal that was mortally wounded in the field would be forbidden. One that is mortally wounded in a courtyard would not be forbidden. Thus we learn that Scripture [is employing this example,] only because it speaks with regard to prevalent situations.",
+ "The intent of the verse is that [an animal] that is mortally wounded and will not live because of these wounds is forbidden. On this basis, our Sages said: \"This is the general principle: Whenever [an animal] in this condition will not live, it is trefe.\" In Hilchot Shechitah, we will explain which conditions cause an animal to be deemed trefe and which do not cause it to be deemed trefe.",
+ "Similarly, when one cuts meat from a living kosher animal, one receives lashes for partaking of a trefe. For this meat comes from an animal that has not been ritually slaughtered and has not died. [Hence it is comparable to a trefe.] What difference does it make to me if it was attacked by an animal or cut by a knife? And what difference does it make if [the animal] was [wounded] in its totality or only a portion of it was wounded? For the verse states: \"Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] trefe in the field.\" Since [a portion of] the animal was made meat in the field, it is trefe.",
+ "When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.",
+ "Although it is permitted, the great sages would not partake [of the meat] of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died. [This applies] even if it makes convulsive movements after being slaughtered. This is a matter that does not involve a prohibition. Nevertheless, whoever desires to accept this stringency upon himself is praiseworthy.",
+ "When a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and blood does not flow out from them, they are permitted. We do not say: perhaps they were dead already. Similarly, when one slaughters a healthy animal and it does not make convulsive movements, it is permitted.
Different [rules apply with regard to an animal that] is dangerously ill, i.e., one which cannot maintain itself when others cause it to stand it up. [It is placed in this category] even if it eats the food of healthy animals. If [such an animal] is slaughtered and does not make any convulsive movements at all, it is a nevelah and one is liable for lashes [for partaking] of it. If it makes convulsive movements, it is permitted.
The convulsive movements must be made at the end of the slaughter. If they are made at the beginning, they are of no consequence.",
+ "What is meant by convulsive movements? For a small domesticated animal and for both a small and a large wild beast, the intent is that it extended its foreleg and returned it, extended its hind leg even though it did not return it, or merely bent its hind leg. This is considered a convulsive movement and [the animal] is permitted. If, however, it merely extended its foreleg and did not return it, it is forbidden. [This movement is] merely a result of the expiration of the soul.
With regard to a large domesticated animal, [more lenient laws apply]. If it either extended its foreleg or its hind leg without bending it or bent its foreleg or hind leg without extending it, it is considered as a convulsive movement and it is permitted. If, however, it neither extended or bent its foreleg or its hind leg at all, it is considered as a nevelah.
With regard to a fowl, even if it only blinked its eyelid or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement.",
+ "When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is a nevelah.",
+ "None of the substances prohibited by the Torah can be combined with each other [to reach the minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes] with the exception of the prohibitions that apply to a nazarite, as explained in that source. Therefore when a person takes a small amount of fat, a small amount of blood, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher animal, a small amount of the meat of a nevelah, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fish, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fowl, or the like from other prohibited substances, although he collects an olive-sized portion from the entire mixture and partakes of it, he is not liable for lashes. He is bound by the laws that apply when one eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden] substance.",
+ "All [types of] nevelot may be combined together. A nevelah may be combined with a trefe. All the non-kosher animals and wild beasts may be combined with each other. But the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a non-kosher animal may not be combined.
What is implied? When one takes [some meat] from a nevelah of an ox, some from the nevelah of a deer, some from the nevelah of a chicken and combined it so that he has an olive-sized portion of meat, he is liable for lashes if he eats it. Similarly, if he collected half of an olive-sized portion from the nevelah of a kosher animal and half of an olive-sized portion from a trefe, or half of an olive-sized portion from the meat of a nevelah and half from meat taken from a living kosher animal, he is liable if he eats it. Similarly, if he collects an olive-sized portion [by combining] the meat of a camel, a pig, and a hare, he is liable if he eats it.
If, by contrast, he takes half of an olive-sized portion of a nevelah of an ox and half an olive-sized portion of a camel [an eats it], they are not combined. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. Similarly, the meat of a non-kosher animal, fowl, or fish are not combined for they involve different prohibitions. For each one is forbidden by a separate negative commandment, as we explained. Nevertheless, all the forbidden species of fowl can be combined as may all the forbidden species of domesticated animals and wild beasts.
This is the general principle: Whenever substances are included in the same prohibition, they may be combined. [If they are included] in two [separate] prohibitions, they are not combined. The [only] exceptions are a nevelah and a trefe. [The rationale is that] a trefe is the beginning of [an animal] becoming a nevelah.",
+ "When a person eats the skin, the bones, the sinews, the horns, or the hoofs of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, from the nails of a non-kosher fowl in the places where blood would spurt through when they are cut off, or from their placenta, although this is forbidden, he is not liable. [The rationale is that] they are not fit to be eaten. They cannot be combined with meat [in the measure of] an olive-sized portion.",
+ "[Milk found in] the stomach of a nevelah and the stomach of a non-kosher animal is permitted, for it is like other waste products of the body. Therefore, it is permitted to use [milk found in] the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile or the stomach of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast to cause cheese to solidify. The skin of the stomach, by contrast, is like the other digestive organs and is forbidden.",
+ "The placenta of a donkey is permitted to be eaten because it is like dung and urine which is permitted. There is skin which is considered like meat and one who partakes of an olive-sized portion is considered like one who eats an olive-sized portion of meat, provided one partakes of it when it is soft.",
+ "The following [types of] skins are considered like meat: the skin of a human, the skin of a domesticated pig, the skin of a camel's hump upon which a burden has never been loaded, [because] it has not reached the age [to serve as a beast] of burden, for then it is still soft, the skin of genital area, the skin that is below the tail, the skin of a fetus, the skin of the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail. When all of these skins are soft, they are considered like meat with regard to all matters, whether with regard to [liability for] the prohibition against partaking of them or with regard to the laws of ritual purity.",
+ "With regard to an ox condemned to be stoned, [Exodus 21:28] states: \"Its meat shall not be eaten.\" Now, how could one think that it would be eaten after it was stoned to death, for it is a nevelah? Instead, the Torah is coming to teach you that once it has been sentenced to execution by stoning, it becomes forbidden; it becomes like a non-kosher animal. [Even] if one hurried and slaughtered it in an acceptable manner [before it was executed], it is forbidden to benefit from it. If one eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is liable for lashes. And when it is executed by stoning, its [meat] should not be sold or given to the dogs or to a gentile, [as implied by the phrase]: \"shall not be eaten.\" It is permitted [to benefit from] the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned.
If it is discovered that [a condemned ox] is not liable to be stoned after it was sentenced, e.g., the witnesses who testified against it were disqualified, it may be sent out to pasture with the herd. If this was discovered after it was executed, it is permitted to benefit from [its meat]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "According to the Oral Tradition, we learnt that [the intent of] the Torah's statement \"Do not partake of the soul together with the meat\" [is to] forbid a limb cut off from a living animal. With regard to a limb cut off from a living animal, it was said to Noah [Genesis 9:4]: \"But flesh, together with its soul, its blood, you may not eat.\"
The prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies to kosher domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl, but not to non-kosher species.",
+ "The term ever [translated as \"limb\"] applies both to a limb that has flesh, sinews, and bones, e.g., a hand or a foot, and to an organ that does not have a bone, e.g., the tongue, the testicles, the spleen, the kidneys, the heart, and the like. [There is, however, one difference.] When an organ does not possess a bone, the prohibition [against partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies whether one cut off the entire organ or only part of it. When, by contrast, a limb possesses a bone, a person is not liable [for violating the prohibition against] a limb from a living animal unless he separates it in its complete state, with its flesh, sinews, and bones. If, however, he only removes flesh from the living animal, he is liable for [the prohibition against partaking of] a trefe [animal] as explained, and not because of a limb from a living animal.",
+ "One is liable for lashes only for partaking of an olive-sized portion of a limb from a living animal. Even if one eats an entire limb or organ, if it is the size of an olive, one is liable; if not he is exempt.
If one cut off a olive-sized portion of flesh, sinews, and bones from the limb according to its natural form and ate it, one is liable, even if it possessed only the smallest amount of meat. If, however, one separated a limb which he tore off from a living animal and detached the flesh from the sinews and the meat, he is not liable for lashes unless he eats an olive-sized portion of the meat alone. The bones and the sinews are not included in the olive-sized portion since he changed [the limb's] natural form.",
+ "When one divides this organ and eats it bit by bit, he is liable if there is an olive-sized portion of meat in what he ate. If not, he is exempt. If he took an olive-sized portion of a limb with flesh, sinews, and bones according to its natural form and ate it, he is liable, even though it became divided inside his mouth before he swallows it.",
+ "When a person rips a limb from a living animal and causes it to become trefe when doing so, he is doubly liable for partaking of it: once for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and once for [partaking of] a trefe. Both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time. Similarly, if one rips fat from a living animal and partakes of it, he is doubly liable: for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and for [partaking of] fat. If he rips fat from a trefe [animal], he is liable for [the violation of] three [negative commandments].",
+ "[The following rules apply when] meat is disjoined from an animal and an organ is hanging from it. If it is impossible that this meat will again become a living part of the body, it is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes for it. [This applies] even though it was not separated [from the animal] until after it was slaughtered. If the animal dies, we consider [the limb] as if it fell off while [the animal] was alive. Therefore one receives lashes for [partaking] of it, because of the prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal. If, however, the limb could again become a living part of the body and the animal is ritually slaughtered, it is permitted.",
+ "If one pulled an organ [from its natural position], crushed it, ground it, e.g., one crushed testicles or pulled them from their place [and then slaughtered the animal, the organ] is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is] that it possesses a trace of life - as evidenced by the fact that it does not decay. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to partake of it as a result of a custom followed by the entire Jewish people from previous generations. For it resembles a limb separated from a living animal.",
+ "[The following laws apply when an animal's] bone was broken: If the flesh or the skin covers the majority of the thickness of the broken bone and the majority of the circumference of the fracture, it is permitted. If the bone emerged outside [the skin], the limb is forbidden. When the animal or the fowl is slaughtered, one should cut off [the limb] at the place where it is broken and discard it. The remainder of the limb is permitted.
We rule that [the limb] is forbidden until the flesh is healed [in all the following situations]: the bone broke, the flesh covers the bone, but that flesh was crushed or decayed like flesh which a doctor would remove, it is scattered in many different places, there were many perforations within the flesh, the flesh was cracked or pierced like a ring, the flesh was rubbed off from above until only a [thin] peel remained, or the flesh decayed from below around the broken bone to the extent that the flesh surrounding the bone does not touch it. If a person partook [of the limb] in any of these [circumstances], he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.",
+ "When a person inserts his hand into the inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, one of the kidneys, or the like, but leaves [the severed organ] inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as organs from a living animal although they remained within the animal's womb. If, however, he cut away [a portion of] a fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered [the mother], the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge [outside the mother].
When a fetus sticks its foreleg or hind leg out of the womb, that limb is forbidden forever, whether one cuts off [the limb] before he slaughters the mother or afterwards. Even if it returns the limb to the womb of the mother and afterwards, [the mother] was slaughtered or the fetus was born and lived for several years, that limb is forbidden as a trefe. [The rationale is that] all meat that emerged from its natural position is forbidden as flesh that was separated from a living animal.
[This is derived from the phrase (Exodus 22:30 :] \"Meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field.\" [Our Rabbis extrapolated:] When meat comes out to a place that is like a field for it, it becomes trefe, as we explained.",
+ "[When the fetus] sticks out a portion of a limb and a portion remains within, even if it is only the minority of it, the portion which emerged is forbidden and that which remained within is permitted.
If he cuts off the portion of the limb that emerged after it was returned within the animal and the animal was slaughtered, only that portion is forbidden, the remainder of the limb is permitted. If he did not return it to the womb and it remained outside and he cut it off there, the place where he cut it off - i.e., the place on the limb open to the air after the limb was cut off - is forbidden. He must afterwards cut off this portion as well. [This applies] whether he [originally] cut off the portion of the limb before [the mother] was slaughtered or afterwards.",
+ "Whenever a limb emerges and is cut off before the animal is slaughtered while it is outside, it is considered as a limb from a living animal and one is worthy of lashes for partaking of it. [This applies] even if the fetus dies before [the mother] is slaughtered. If it is cut off after ritual slaughter, one who partakes of it is not liable for lashes, even if it dies. If [the mother] dies and then one cuts off this limb, one who partakes of it is liable for lashes for the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal.",
+ "[The following rule applies when] a fetus sticks out a limb and that limb becomes forbidden and then the fetus is born. If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because of an unresolved halachic question. For the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.",
+ "When a person slaughters a kosher animal that is pregnant and discovers a fetus - whether live or dead - within it, the fetus is permitted to be eaten. Even the placenta is permitted to be eaten.
[The following rules apply if] a portion of the placenta emerged and then one slaughtered the mother. If the placenta was attached to the fetus, the portion which emerged is forbidden and the remainder is permitted. If it is not attached to the fetus, it is forbidden in its entirety, for perhaps the fetus that was in this placenta disappeared and maybe the placenta of the fetus that is found in the womb disappeared. Needless to say, if a fetus is not found in the womb at all, the placenta is forbidden in its entirety.",
+ "If one finds a living fetus [in the womb of a slaughtered animal] - even though it has been carried for nine months, and it is possible that it will live, it does not require ritual slaughter. Instead, it is acceptable because of the slaughter of its mother. If it steps on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter.",
+ "If a person ripped open an animal or slaughtered an animal that was trefe and found a live fetus that had been carried for nine months, [that fetus] must be ritually slaughtered to be permitted. The slaughter of its mother is not effective.
If the period [of gestation] was not completed, it is forbidden even though it is alive in the womb of the trefe animal. [The rationale is that] it is considered as one of the mother's limbs. Whenever an animal thrust its head [out of the womb] and then returned it and [only] afterwards its mother was slaughtered, the slaughter of its mother has no bearing on it, it is considered as if it was born and it must be ritual slaughtered [to be permitted]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of blood intentionally, he is liable for karet. If he does so inadvertently, he is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering.
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking of blood from all domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl alone. This applies whether they are from a non-kosher or kosher species, as [Leviticus 7:26] states: \"You may not partake of any blood from a fowl or an animal in all your dwellings.\" A wild beast is considered as an animal as [Deuteronomy 14:4-5] states: \"These are the animals that you may eat: an ox... a gazelle and a deer....\"
One is not, [by contrast,] liable for transgressing of the prohibition against partaking of blood for partaking of the blood of fish, locusts, creeping animals, teeming animals, or humans. Therefore it is permitted to partake of the blood of kosher fish and locusts. Even if one collects it in a container and drinks it, it is permitted. The blood of non-kosher fish and locusts is forbidden because it comes from their bodies like the milk of a non-kosher animal. The blood of creeping animals is comparable to their bodies, as we explained.",
+ "The blood of a human is forbidden according to Rabbinic law if it departed [from the person's body]. One is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for [partaking] of it. When, by contrast, one's teeth bleed, he may swallow it; he need not hold himself back. If one bit into bread and found blood upon it, he must scrape away the blood before partaking of it, for the blood has departed [from the body].",
+ "One is liable for karet only for blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red, blood that is collected within the heart, and blood that is let, i.e., blood that flows forcefully [from the body]. One is not, however, liable for blood that drips at the beginning of bloodletting before it begins to flow forcefully or blood that drips at the ending of bloodletting when the bleeding begins to cease. It is like \"blood within the limbs.\" [The reason for the distinction is that] blood that flows forcefully is bleeding through which the soul may expire.",
+ "One is not liable for karet for concentrated blood or the blood within the limbs, i.e., the blood of the spleen, the kidneys, the testicles, the blood that collects in the heart at the time the animal is slaughtered, and the blood found in the liver. A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, however, is liable for lashes, as it is written: \"You may not partake of any blood.\" With regard to one's liability for karet [Leviticus 17:11] states: \"For the soul of the flesh is in the blood.\" [Implied is that] one is liable for karet only for blood that causes the soul to expire.",
+ "When a fetus is found in an animal's womb, its blood is like the blood of an animal that has been born. Therefore one is liable for the blood that is collected in its heart. The remainder of its blood, by contrast, is considered as the blood of the limbs.",
+ "Whether one [desires to] roast or cook a heart, one must cut it open, remove its blood, and then salt it. If one cooks a heart without cutting it open, one may cut it open after it was cooked. It is then permitted. If one did not cut it open and partook of it, one is not liable for karet.
When does the above apply? With regard to the heart of a fowl, because it does not contain an olive-sized portion of blood. If, by contrast, one [partakes] of the heart of an animal, one is liable for karet. For there is an olive-sized portion of blood within the heart and therefore one is liable for karet.",
+ "If one cuts open the liver and casts it into vinegar or boiling water until it turns white, it is permitted to cook it afterwards. It has already become universal Jewish custom to singe it over a fire and then cook it. [This applies] whether one cooks it alone or one cooks it with other meat.
Similarly, it is a common custom that the brains are not cooked nor roasted until they are singed over a fire.",
+ "When a liver was cooked without being singed over a fire or cast into vinegar or hot water, the pot in which it was cooked is forbidden entirely: the liver and everything cooked with it.
It is permitted to roast a liver together with other meat on one spit, provided the liver is positioned below [the other meat]. If one transgressed and roasted it while it was positioned above the meat, [after the fact,] one may eat it.",
+ "It is permitted to cook a spleen together with meat, because it is not blood, but meat that resembles blood.
When one breaks the neck of an animal before its soul expires, the blood is absorbed into the limbs. It is forbidden to eat raw meat from it even if one causes the blood to be sealed. What should be done? One should cut open the piece and salt it thoroughly and afterwards, cook it or roast it.
We have already explained that when a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and no blood emerges, they are permitted.",
+ "Meat does not release [all] the blood it contains unless it is salted thoroughly and washed thoroughly. What should one do? One should wash the meat first and afterwards, salt it thoroughly. One should leave it in the salt for the time it takes to walk a mil and then wash it thoroughly, [continuing] until clean water emerges. Immediately afterwards, one should cast it into boiling water - warm water is not [sufficient] - so that it will become white immediately and [no further] blood will be released.",
+ "When we salt meat, we salt it only in a utensil that has holes.
We salt it only with thick salt that resembles coarse sand. [The rationale is that] salt that is thin like flour will be absorbed by the meat and will not extract the blood.
One must shake the salt from the meat before washing it.",
+ "All of the above procedures apply with regard to meat that one must cook. For roasting, by contrast, one may salt the meat and roast it immediately.
When a person desires to eat raw meat, he should salt it thoroughly and wash it thoroughly. If he causes the blood to be sealed [by casting the meat into] vinegar, it is permitted to eat the meat while raw. And it is permitted to drink the vinegar which sealed it, for vinegar does not extract blood.",
+ "Vinegar in which meat was sealed should not be used to seal meat a second time. When a piece of meat turns red within vinegar, it and the vinegar are forbidden. [It can be permitted by] salting it thoroughly and roasting it.
When meat turns red, similarly, the testicles of an animal or beast and their membranes, and similarly the neck which contains large blood vessels that are filled with blood, it is permitted to cook them if they are cut open and salted as required. If one did not cut them open and instead roasted them on a spit, they are permitted if he roasted the neck with its opening facing downward or he roasted all of them on the coals themselves.",
+ "[The following rules apply when one] roasts the head of an animal in an oven or a furnace. If one hangs the head with the opening to its neck hanging downward, it is permitted, for the blood will emerge and flow outward. If the opening to the neck is positioned to the side, the brain is forbidden, because the blood collects in it. The remainder of the meat on the external surface of the bones is permitted.
Should he [roast it] with its nose positioned downward, if he places a straw or a reed in its nose so that it will remain open and the blood can flow out through it, [the brain] is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.",
+ "One should not place a utensil beneath meat that is being roasted to collect the juice [dripping from it] until no red color remains in the juice. What should be done? One places a small amount of salt in the utensil and leaves the utensil there until the meat roasts. He then removes the fat resting on top. The liquid below the fat is forbidden.",
+ "When roasted meat is sliced over a piece of bread, it is permitted to eat the bread, for [the liquid] which exudes is only fat.
When fish and fowl are salted together, even in a utensil with holes, the fish are forbidden. [The rationale is that] the fish is soft and will absorb the blood which is being exuded by the fowl. Needless to say, [this law applies] if one salted fish together with the meat of an animal or beast.",
+ "When one leaves fowl whole, stuffs their cavity with meat and eggs, and cooks them, they are forbidden, for the blood flows into them. This applies even if one salted them thoroughly, and even if the meat inside them was cooked or roasted. If one roasted [the fowl], they are permitted. [This applies] even if the meat inside them was raw and even if their opening was pointed upward.",
+ "When one filled intestines [that were not salted] with roasted or cooked meat in this manner or with eggs and cooked them or roasted them, they are permitted. [The rationale is that] we do not presume that there is blood in the intestines. The Geonim ruled in this manner.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] one coated fowl with flour and roasted them, whether whole or cut in portions. If they were coated with coarse flour, one may partake of the coating, even if it became reddish. [The rationale is that] coarse flour will crumble and the blood will flow outward. When they are coated with wheat flour that was moistened [before being ground], it is permitted to eat from the coating if it is white like silver. Otherwise, it is forbidden. If they were coated with other flours, they are forbidden if they turn red. Otherwise, they are permitted.",
+ "It is forbidden to use a knife that was used for ritual slaughter to cut hot meat unless the knife was exposed to fire until it turned white, sharpened in a sharpener or inserted into hard earth ten times. [After the fact,] if one cut hot meat with it, it is permitted.
Similarly, one should not cut radishes or other sharp foods with it at the outset. If one washed the knife or cleaned it with a utensil, it is permitted to cut radish and the like with it, but not hot meat.",
+ "When meat has been salted in a bowl, one is forbidden to eat hot food in it for all time, for the blood has already been absorbed in its clay. [This applies] even if [the utensil] is coated with lead."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When a person willfully eats an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he is liable for kerat. If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.
It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking [of the fat] of the three species of kosher domesticated animals alone, as [Leviticus 7:23] states: \"Do not partake of any fat from an ox, lamb, or goat.\" [This applies] whether one partakes of fat from an animal that is ritually slaughtered or one partakes of fat from a nevelah or a trefe [from a kosher species]. With regard to other domesticated animals and wild beasts, whether non-kosher or kosher, their fat is comparable to their meat. Similarly, the fat of a stillborn fetus of the three species of kosher animals is comparable to its flesh. When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, one is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.",
+ "When a person partakes of the fat of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable for partaking of fat and for partaking of a nevelah or a trefe. [The rationale] is that since a prohibition is added to its meat - for it was permitted beforehand - it is also added to its fat. Hence one is liable for two sets of lashes.",
+ "When a person slaughters an animal and finds a fetus in its womb, all of its fat is permitted. [This applies] even if the fetus is alive, because it is considered as a limb of [the mother]. If it was carried for the full period of gestation and discovered to be alive, its fat is forbidden and one is liable for kerat for partaking of it. [This applies] even if [the fetus] never stepped on the ground and does not require ritual slaughter. [Instead,] we must remove all the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes from it as [is required] with regard to other animals.",
+ "When a person inserts his hand into an animal's womb and cuts off and takes out the fat of a fetus that has undergone a full period of gestation, he is liable for it in the same way as if he cut off the fat of the animal itself. [The rationale is that the fulfillment of the gestation period] is what causes the prohibition against fat.",
+ "There are three types of forbidden fat for which one is liable for kerat: the fat on the digestive organs, on both kidneys, and on the flanks. The fat-tail, by contrast, is permitted to be eaten. It is called fat only with regard to the sacrifices, just as the kidneys and the large lobe of the liver are referred to as \"fat\" with regard to the sacrifices. Similarly, we find the expressions \"the fat of the land,\" and \"wheat as fat as kidneys\" [where the intent is not \"fat,\"] but \"choice.\"
Since these entities are being raised up from the sacrifice to be consumed with fire for God, they are called \"the fat,\" i.e., the choice portion, for there is nothing more choice than the portion consumed with fire for God. For this reason, with regard to terumat ma'aser [Numbers 18:30] states: \"When you raise up its fat from it.\"",
+ "The fat on the abdomen and on the gut is what is meant by the term \"the fat on the digestive organs.\" One is liable for the fat at the joints of the thighs on the inside. This is what is meant by the term \"the fat on the flanks.\" There is also fat on the maw which is bent like an arch; it is forbidden. There is a ligament that extends like a lobe; it is permitted. The strands [stemming from] the fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.",
+ "Fat which is covered by meat is permitted. Scripture forbids \"fat on the flanks,\" but not within the flanks. Similarly, \"fat on the kidneys\" is forbidden, but not fat within the kidneys. Nevertheless, a person should remove the white matter within the kidney and only then, partake of it. It is not necessary, however, to remove all traces of it.",
+ "There are two cords of fat in the primary loin area, near the top of the thigh. While an animal is alive, this fat can be seen on the intestines. When, however, it dies, one portion of meat will cling to another and cover this fat. It will not be visible until the portions of meat will be separated from each other. Nevertheless, it is forbidden, because this is not fat that is covered by meat.
[In contrast,] wherever you find fat under meat, with the meat covering it and surrounding it in its entirety [so that] it will not be seen until the meat is cut away, it is permitted.",
+ "The fat of the heart and the fat of all of the small intestines are permitted. They are considered like shuman which is permitted fat with the exception of the top of the intestine that is next to the maw and is the beginning of the small intestines. The fat must be scraped off it. This is the fat of the small intestines that is forbidden. There are some of the Geonim who say that the top of the intestine from which the fat must be scraped off is the large intestine, i.e., the colon from which feces are excreted which is the last of the digestive organs.",
+ "In the body of an animal, there are strands of tissue and membranes that are forbidden. Some are forbidden because of the prohibition against partaking of fat and others because of that against blood. Whenever a strand of tissue or a membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition [Leviticus 3:17]: \"Do not partake of any blood,\" one must remove it, and only then salt the meat as we explained. If one cut [the forbidden blood vessel], it does not have to be removed. Similarly, if one roasts [the meat], it does not have to be removed.
Whenever a strand of tissue or membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition, \"Do not partake of any fat,\" it must be removed from the animal whether one's intent is to cut it or roast it.",
+ "There are five strands of tissue in the flanks: three on the right and two on the left. Each of the three on the right splits into two and each of the two on the left splits into three. All are [forbidden] as fat.
The strands of tissue from the spleen and from the kidneys are forbidden as fat. Similarly, the membrane on the spleen, the membrane above the flanks, and the membrane on the kidneys are forbidden as fat. One is liable for kerat for the membrane on the thick side of the spleen. The remainder of the membrane is forbidden, but one is not liable for it.",
+ "The kidney has two membranes. One is liable for kerat for [partaking of] the upper one as one is for [partaking of] the fat of the kidney itself. The lower one is like other membranes. The strands of tissue in them are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.",
+ "The strands of tissue of the heart, of the foreleg, of the end of the spinal cord, of the lower jaw, those at either side of the tongue, and those within the fat of the small intestines which are interwoven like spiderwebs, and the membrane above the brain in the cranium and the membrane on the testicles are all forbidden because [of the prohibition against partaking] of blood.",
+ "When a kid or a lamb is less than 30 days old, it is permissible to cook its testicles without peeling [the membranes from them]. After 30 days, if thin red lines can be seen within them, it is recognizable that blood has circulated through them and one should not cook [the testicles] until their outer membrane has been removed or until they have been cut open and salted, as we explained. If thin red lines have not yet been seen within them, they are permitted.",
+ "We do not assume that there is blood in any of the digestive organs through which the food passes.",
+ "It appears to me that all of these strands of tissue and membranes are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [Even] if one would say that they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law, and are included in the prohibitions against partaking against any fat or any blood, one is not liable for lashes for them, only stripes for rebellious conduct. [Partaking of] them is comparable to partaking of half the measure of a forbidden substance. This is forbidden by Scriptural Law, yet one is not liable for lashes for it.",
+ "We do not salt or wash fat together with meat. One should not use a knife used to cut fat to cut meat, nor a container in which fats were washed to wash meat.
Therefore a butcher should prepare three knives: one with which to slaughter, one to cut the meat, and one to cut fat.",
+ "If it is local custom for the butcher to wash the meat in his store, he should prepare two containers of water, one in which to wash meat and one in which to wash fat.",
+ "It is forbidden for a butcher to spread the fat of the flanks over the meat to make it appear attractive. [The rationale is that] the membrane over the fat is thin. It may become crushed by the butcher's hand and the fat will ooze out and saturate through the meat.
[Although] it is forbidden to perform all of these acts, if they are performed, the meat is not forbidden. Nor is the person who performs them given corporal punishment. Instead, he is taught not to act in this manner.",
+ "Meat should not be salted before the forbidden membranes and strands of tissue are removed. If the meat was salted with them, they must be removed after the salting. Even if the gid hanesheh was among them, one may remove them after salting and cook [the meat].",
+ "When a butcher follows the practice of cleaning meat [from forbidden strands of tissue and membranes and] such a strand or membrane is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], we teach him and warn him not to act negligently with regard to prohibitions. [More stringent rules apply] if forbidden fat is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat]. If it is a barley corn in size, he is removed [from his position]. If an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat is found - even in several places - after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], he is given stripes for rebellious conduct and he is removed from his position. The rationale is that a butcher's word is relied upon with regard to fat."
+ ],
+ [
+ "[The prohibition against partaking of] the gid hanesheh applies with regard to kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts, even nevelot and trefot. It applies to a fetus and to animals that have been consecrated, both those consecrated [for sacrifices] of which we partake and for sacrifices of which we do not partake. It applies to [the gid] on the right thigh and that on the left thigh.
According to Scriptural Law, only [the gid] on the hip socket is forbidden, as [Genesis 32:33] states: \"which is on the hip-socket.\" The remainder of the gid which is above the socket or below the socket - and similarly, the fat which is on the gid - are forbidden only according to Rabbinic decree. There are two giddim. The inner one next to the bone is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. The entire outer one is forbidden by Rabbinic decree.",
+ "When a person partakes of the inner gid hanesheh on the socket, he is liable for lashes. If he partakes of the fat [of the gid], the remainder of the inner gid, or the entire outer one, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
What is the measure of which one must partake to be liable? An olive-sized portion. If one ate the entire gid on the socket, one is liable, even though it is less than an olive in size. The rationale is that it is considered as a self-contained entity.",
+ "When a person eats an olive-sized portion of the gid on the right side and an olive-sized portion of the gid on the left side, or he ate two entire giddim even if they are not the size of an olive, he receives 80 lashes. He is given lashes for every gid independently.",
+ "The prohibition against gid hanesheh does not apply with regard to a fowl, because it does not have a [round] hip-socket. Instead, its thigh is long [and flat]. If there is a fowl whose thigh is shaped like that of the thigh of an animal, i.e., it has a hip-socket, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes, because of it. Similarly, when there is an animal whose thigh is long like that of a fowl, its gid hanesheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes for it.",
+ "When a person eats the gid hanesheh from a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, he is not liable. [The rationale is that this prohibition] does not apply with regard to a non-kosher animal, only with regard to an animal that is entirely permitted. Nor is he considered as one who partook of the remainder of its body, for the gid is not included as meat, as we explained. If, however, one partakes of the fat on the gid [of a non-kosher] animal, it is considered as if one ate from its meat.",
+ "When a person partakes of a gid hanesheh from a nevelah, a trefe, or an animal consecrated as a burnt offering, he is liable for two [sets of lashes]. Since [the prohibition] includes the remainder of its body which was permitted, it also includes the gid and causes another prohibition to be added to it.",
+ "One who removes the gid hanesheh must ferret out all traces of it until nothing remains. A butcher's word is accepted with regard to the gid hanesheh, just as it is accepted with regard to forbidden fat. [Accordingly,] we do not purchase meat from every butcher, [only from] an upright man who has established a reputation for observance. If he slaughters meat himself and sells it, his word is accepted.",
+ "Where does the above apply? In the Diaspora. In Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, when it is populated entirely by [Torah-observant] Jews, meat may be purchased from anyone.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a butcher is considered as trustworthy to sell meat, but it is discovered that he sold meat that was nevelah or trefe. He must return the money to its owners. He is placed under a ban of ostracism and is removed from his position.
There is no way that he can correct [his act] so that people [will be allowed] to purchase meat from him until he goes to a place where his identity is unknownand returns a lost object of significant worth or slaughters an animal for his own self and has it declared trefe although it involves a significant financial loss. For these actions indicate that he certainly repented without any [intent to] deceive.",
+ "When a person purchases meat and sends it via a common person, [the latter's] word is accepted with regard to it. Although he has not established a reputation for Torah observance, we do not suspect that he will exchange [the meat for a non-kosher cut]. Even the servants and maidservants of the Jews are trusted with regard to such a matter. A gentile, by contrast, is not [trusted], for we fear that he will exchange [the meat].",
+ "[The following rule applies when there are] ten stores, nine sell kosher meat and one sells nevelot. If one purchased meat from one of these stores and did not know which one he purchased from, [the meat] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] whenever [the presence of a forbidden entity] is firmly established, the situation is considered as half and half.
If, however, meat is found cast away in the street, [it is judged] according to the majority. For [we follow the assumption:] Anything that was separated, separated from the majority. If the majority of sellers were gentile, [the meat] is forbidden. If the majority were Jewish, it is permitted.",
+ "Similarly, when meat is found in the hand of a gentile and it is not known from where he purchased it, if [the majority of] the sellers of meat were Jewish, it is permitted.
This reflects the ruling according to Scriptural Law. [Nevertheless,] our Sages have already forbidden any meat found in the marketplace or in the possession of a gentile even though all the slaughterers and all the sellers are Jewish. Moreover, even if one purchased meat, left it in his house, and it disappeared from one's sight, it is forbidden unless it had a distinguishing mark, he was familiar with it and could recognize it definitely as [the piece of meat lost], or it was bound and sealed.",
+ "[The following rule applies when] one hung a container filled with pieces of meat, the container broke, and the pieces fell to the earth. If there is no distinguishing mark [on the meat] and he was not able to recognize it, it is forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is possible to say that the meat that was in the container was dragged away by a wild beast or creeping animal and this is other meat.",
+ "It is permitted to derive benefit from a gid hanesheh. Therefore it is permissible for a person to send a thigh which contains a gid hanesheh to a gentile. He may give him the entire thigh intact in the presence of a Jew. We do not suspect that [the other] Jew will partake of this meat before the gid is removed, because its place is recognizable. Accordingly, if the thigh was cut into pieces, he should not give it to a gentile in the presence of a Jew, lest the other Jew partake of it.",
+ "Wherever the Torah states: \"Do not eat,\" \"You shall not eat,\" \"They shall not eat,\" or \"It shall not be eaten,\" the intent is that it is forbidden both to partake of or benefit from the forbidden entity unless:
a) a verse explicitly states otherwise, as it does with regard to a nevelah [Deuteronomy 14:21]: \"Give it to the stranger in your gate and he shall partake of it,\" or with regard to forbidden fat [Leviticus 7:24]: \"You may use it for any task\"; or
b) the Oral Law states explicitly that it is permitted to benefit from it, as is the case with regarding to teeming animals, swarming animals, blood, a limb from a living animal, and the gid hanesheh. For according to the Oral Tradition, it is permitted to benefit from all these prohibited entities, even though it is forbidden to partake of them.",
+ "Whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if a person derives benefit without partaking of it, e.g., he sold or gave to a gentile or gave it to dogs, he is not liable for lashes. He should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct. The money [he received] is permitted.
Whenever it is forbidden to partake of a substance, but it is permitted to benefit from it, even though it is permitted to benefit from it, it is forbidden do business with such articles or establish oneself in a profession that involves forbidden entities. [There is] an exception, forbidden fat, for concerning it, it is written: \"You may use it for any task.\" For this reason, we do not do business with nevelot, trefot, teeming animals, and swarming animals.",
+ "When a trapper happens upon a non-kosher wild animal, fowl, or fish, and he snares them or he traps both kosher and non-kosher animals, he may sell them. He may not, however, intend to have his profession concern non-kosher species.
It is, however, permitted to do business with milk that was milked by a gentile without being observed by a Jew, cheeses made by gentiles, and the like.",
+ "This is the general principle: Whenever a prohibition is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is forbidden to do business with it. Whenever the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, it is permitted do business with it, whether we are certain of the existence of the prohibition or it is a matter of question."
+ ],
+ [
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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].",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "[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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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."
+ ],
+ [
+ "All the prohibitions we mentioned involve living beings. There are also other Scriptural prohibitions that involve the produce of the earth. They include: chadash, kilai hakerem, tevel, and orlah.",
+ "What is meant by chadash? It is forbidden to partake of any of the five species of grain alone before the omer is offered on the sixteenth of Nisan, as [Leviticus 23:14] states: \"You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels.\"
Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of fresh grain before the offering of the omer is liable for lashes. [This applies] in every place and at all times, whether in Eretz [Yisrael] or in the Diaspora, whether at the time of the Temple or when the Temple is no longer standing.
[The only difference in observance is that] while the Temple is standing, once the omer has been offered, it is permitted [to partake of] new grain in Jerusalem. Distant places are permitted [to partake of new grain] after midday. For the court will not be indolent with regard to [the offering of omer] beyond midday. [Now] when the Temple is no longer standing, the entire day is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In the present age, in the places where the festivals are observed for two days, chadash is forbidden on the entire day of the seventeenth of Nisan until the evening according to Rabbinic Law.",
+ "When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of bread from each of roasted kernels, or fresh kernels [from chadash], he is liable for three sets of lashes, as [implied by the verse]: \"You may not partake of bread, roasted kernels, or fresh kernels.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that all three involve separate prohibitions.",
+ "Whenever grain took root before the offering of the omer, it is permitted to be eaten after the offering of the omer despite the fact that it did not reach maturity until after that offering. Grain that took root after the offering of the omer is forbidden until the offering of that sacrifice the following year even though it was planted before that offering was brought. This law applies in every place and in every era according to Scriptural Law.",
+ "[There is an unresolved halachic difficulty in the following situations:] Grain took root after the omer. One harvested it and sowed this wheat in the ground. Afterwards, the omer of the following year was offered, while these kernels of wheat were still in the ground. There is a doubt whether [the offering of] the omer caused [these kernels] to be permitted as if they had been stored in a jar or it did not cause them to be permitted, because they have been nullified in the ground. Therefore if a person collected them and partook of them, he is not liable for lashes, but [instead] is given stripes for rebellious conduct.
Similarly, when a stalk reached a third of its growth before the offering of the omer, one uprooted it and then replanted it after the offering of the omer, and it increased in size. There is a doubt whether it is forbidden because of the increase in size until the offering of the omer the following year or it is not forbidden because it took root before the offering of the omer.",
+ "What is meant by kilai hakerem? Sowing a species of grain or a type of vegetable together with a vine. [This applies] whether they were sown by a Jew or a non-Jew, whether they grew on their own, or whether one planted a vine among vegetables, we are prohibited against partaking and benefiting from both of them, as [Deuteronomy 22:9] states: \"Lest the fullness of the seed which you sowed and the produce of the vineyard become hallowed.\" [\"Becom[ing] hallowed\"] means being set apart and forbidden.",
+ "One who eats an olive-sized portion from kilai hakerem, whether from the vegetables or from the grapes is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. The two can be combined to reach this measure.",
+ "When does the above apply? When they were sown in Eretz Yisrael. In the Diaspora, by contrast, kilai hakerem are forbidden by Rabbinic decree.
In Hilchot Kelayim, it will be explained which species are forbidden as kilai hakerem and which are not forbidden, how they become forbidden, when they become forbidden, in which situations, produce causes vines to become \"hallowed,\" and when they do not cause them to become \"hallowed.\"",
+ "What is meant by orlah? Whenever anyone plants a fruit tree, it is forbidden to partake of or benefit from all of the fruit the tree produces for three years after being planted, as [Leviticus 19:23] states: \"For three years, they shall be closed off for you, they may not be eaten.\" Whoever eats an olive-sized portion of such fruit is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law.",
+ "When does this apply? When one plants in Eretz Yisrael, as [the above] verse states: \"When you enter the land....\" With regard to the prohibition against orlah in the Diaspora, it is a halachah transmitted to Moses at Sinai that fruit that is definitely orlah is forbidden. If there is a doubt regarding the matter, it is permitted. In Hilchot Ma'aaser Sheni, it will be explained which [growths] are forbidden as orlah and which are permitted.",
+ "When there is a doubt whether produce is orlah or kilai hakerem in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden. In Syria, i.e., the lands that David conquered, it is permitted.
What is implied? If there was a vineyard [containing] orlah and grapes were being sold outside it, or there were vegetables sown inside it and vegetables were being sold outside it, [in which instance,] there is a doubt whether [the grapes or the vegetables] came from it or from another place, in Syria, they are permitted. In the Diaspora, even if one sees grapes being taken out from a vineyard that is orlah or vegetables being taken out from a vineyard, one may purchase them provided one does not actually see orlah being reaped or the vegetables being harvested [from the vineyard].",
+ "When there is a doubt whether a vineyard [contains] orlah or kilai hakerem, in Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden. In Syria, it is permitted. Needless to say, that ruling prevails in the Diaspora.",
+ "It is forbidden to drink a jug of wine that is found hidden in an orchard [whose produce is] orlah. It is permitted to benefit from it. [The rationale is] that a thief will not steal from a place and hide [what he stole] there. Grapes that are hidden there are forbidden, lest they have been harvested from there and stored away there.",
+ "[The following laws apply when] a gentile and a Jew are partners in planting [an orchard]. If at the beginning of the partnership, they agreed that the gentile would benefit from the produce during the years of orlah and the Jew would benefit from it for three years when the produce is permitted afterwards, it is permitted. If they did not make such an agreement at the outset, it is forbidden [to make one afterwards]. [Even when the agreement was made at the outset,] they may not make a reckoning.
What is meant [by making a reckoning]? I.e., to calculate the quantity of produce from which the gentile benefited in the years of orlah so that the Jew will benefit from exactly that amount. If they made such an agreement, it is forbidden, for this is exchanging the produce which is orlah.",
+ "It appears to me that the laws of neta reva'i do not apply in the Diaspora. Instead, one may eat the produce of the fourth year without redeeming it at all. Our Sages mentioned only orlah.
An extrapolation can be made from a more stringent instance to [this one] which is less stringent. In Syria, the laws governing the tithes and the Sabbatical year apply by Rabbinic decree, nevertheless, the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply, as will be explained in Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni. Thus, in the Diaspoa, how much more so should [we conclude] that the laws governing neta reva'i do not apply.
In Eretz Yisrael, however, these laws apply whether or not the Temple is standing. Some of the Geonim ruled that kerem reva'i alone must be redeemed in the Diaspora before it is permitted to be eaten. There is no basis for this [ruling].",
+ "In Eretz Yisrael, it is forbidden to eat any of the produce of the fourth year until it is redeemed. In Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, we will explain the laws governing the redemption [of the produce], how it should be eaten, and when we begin calculating the growth of a tree with regard to orlah and [netah] reva'i.",
+ "How is produce which is neta reva'i redeemed in the present age? After [the produce] is collected, one recites the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to redeem neta reva'i. Afterwards, one redeems the entire crop even with one p'rutah. This p'rutah is then cast into the Dead Sea.
Alternatively, one may transfer the holiness to other produce that is worth a p'rutah by saying: \"The holiness of all of this produce is transferred to this wheat,\" \"...to this barley,\" or the like. Afterwards, one burns the [latter quantity of produce] so that they will not cause difficulty to others. He may then partake of all the produce [he harvested].",
+ "Some of the Geonim ruled that even though one redeemed the produce of the fourth year or transferred its holiness, it is forbidden to partake of it until the entrance of the fifth year. This ruling has no foundation. It appears to me that it is in error. [Although Leviticus 19:25] states: \"And in the fifth year, you shall partake of its produce,\" the intent of the verse is that in the fifth year you will partake of its produce without redeeming it like any ordinary produce in the world. One should not heed the above ruling.",
+ "What is meant by tevel? Any produce from which one is obligated to separate terumah and tithes is called tevel before one separates these portions. [In that state,] it is forbidden to partake of it, as [Leviticus 22:16] states: \"And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel which they will dedicate to God,\" i.e., one should not treat them in an ordinary manner while the sacred elements that will be separated in the future have not yet been separated.
When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of tevel before he separates terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser, he is liable for death by the hand of heaven, as [Leviticus 22:15-16] states: \"And they shall not desecrate the sacraments of the children of Israel... And they will bear the sin of guilt.\"",
+ "When, however, one partakes of food from which terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser have been separated, but from which tithes - even the tithes of the poor have not been separated - he is worthy of lashes for partaking of tevel. He is not worthy of death. For only with regard to terumah gedolah and terumat ma'aser is the sin worthy of death.",
+ "The warning against partaking of tevel from which tithes were not separated is included in [Deuteronomy 12:17 which] states: \"You may not eat the tithes of grain... in your gates.\"
In Hilchot Terumot and Hilchot Ma'aserot, it will be explained which produce is obligated to have terumah and the tithes [separated from it] and which is not, when does the obligation stem from Scriptural Law and when is it Rabbinic. When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of produce that is tevel according to Rabbinic Law or kilai hakerem or orlah from the Diaspora, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.",
+ "The juices that come from produce that is tevel, chadash, consecrated to the Temple, growths of the Sabbatical year, kilayim, and orlah are forbidden as they are. One is not, however, liable for lashes for partaking of them. Exceptions are wine and oil that are orlah and wine that is kilai hakerem. One is liable for lashes for them just as one is liable for lashes for the olives and grapes,",
+ "There are other prohibitions involving foods applicable to consecrated entities. They are all of Scriptural origin, e.g., there are prohibitions against partaking of terumot, the first fruits, challah, and the second tithe. And there are prohibitions involving sacrifices consecrated [to be offered] on the altar, e.g., piggul, sacrificial meat that remains past its time, and sacrifices that have become impure. All of these [prohibitions] will be explained in the appropriate place.",
+ "The measure for which one is liable - whether for lashes or for kerait is an olive-sized portion. We have already explained the prohibition against [partaking of] leaven on Pesach and the [relevant] laws in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is a different type of prohibition. The prohibition against all products of the vine that applies to a Nazirite does not apply equally to all. Therefore, all of these prohibitions, the measure for which one is liable, and the [relevant] laws are explained in the appropriate place."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When wine has been poured as a libation to a false divinity, it is forbidden to benefit from it. A person who drinks even the smallest quantity of [such wine] is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, anyone who partakes of the smallest quantity of something offered to a false deity, e.g., meat or fruit, even water or salt, is worthy of lashes, as [implied by Deuteronomy 32:38]: \"The fat of whose offerings they would eat; they would drink the wine of their libations. Let them stand.\"",
+ "Wine poured as a libation to a false deity is like a sacrifice offered to it. Since this prohibition stems from [the prohibition against] the worship of false deities, there is no minimum measure involved, as stated with regard to the worship of false deities [ibid. 13:18]: \"Let no trace of the condemned [entity] cling to your hand.\"",
+ "When we do not know whether wine belonging to a gentile was used for a libation or not, it is called \"ordinary [gentile] wine.\" It is forbidden to benefit from it, as it is forbidden to benefit from wine used as a libation. [This matter] is a Rabbinic decree. When a person drinks a revi'it of \"ordinary [gentile] wine,\" he is liable for \"stripes for rebellious conduct.\"",
+ "It is forbidden [to benefit from] any wine that a gentile touches; for perhaps he poured it as a libation. For the thought of a gentile is focused on the worship of false deities. From this, we learn that it is forbidden to benefit [even from] wine belonging to a Jew which was touched by a gentile; it is governed by the laws that apply to ordinary gentile wine.",
+ "When a gentile touches wine unintentionally and similarly, when a gentile child touches wine, it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to benefit from it.
When one purchases servants from a gentile and they were circumcised and immersed [in the mikveh] immediately, they no longer pour libations to false deities. It is permitted to drink wine which they touch even though they have yet to conduct themselves according to the Jewish faith and they still speak of idolatry.",
+ "[With regard to] the children of gentile maidservants that were born in a Jewish domain and circumcised, but were not immersed yet: The older ones cause wine that they touch to become forbidden. The younger ones do not cause it to become forbidden.",
+ "With regard to a resident alien, i.e., one who accepted the observance of the seven universal laws [commanded to Noah and his descendants], as we explained: It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it. We may deposit wine in his possession for a short time, but may not entrust it to him for a lengthy period.
With regard to any gentile who does not serve false deities, e.g., the Arabs: It is forbidden to drink his wine, but it is permitted to benefit from it. The Geonim rule in this manner. With regard to those who worship false deities, by contrast, it is forbidden to benefit from their ordinary wine.",
+ "Whenever it is stated that wine is forbidden in this context, if the gentile who causes the wine to be forbidden worships false deities, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If he does not worship false deities, it is merely forbidden to drink it. Whenever we refer to a gentile without any further description, we mean one who worships false deities.",
+ "Only wine that is fit to be offered on the altar is used for libations for false deities. Therefore when [our Sages] decreed against ordinary gentile wine, ordaining that it is forbidden to benefit from any wine touched by a gentile, their decree involved only wine that is fit to be used as a libation. Accordingly, wine that was boiled that was touched by a gentile is not forbidden. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile in one cup. If, however, [a gentile] touches wine blended [with water] and wine that began to turn into vinegar, but can still be drunken it is forbidden.",
+ "The Geonim of the west ruled that if a small amount of a sweetener or yeast became mixed with Jewish wine, since it is no longer fit for the altar, it is considered as if were boiled or as if it were beer and will not be used as a libation. It is permitted to drink it together with a gentile.",
+ "When does wine belonging to a gentile become forbidden? When the grapes have been crushed and the wine begins to flow, even though it has not descended into the cistern and is still in the wine press, it is forbidden. For this reason, we do not crush grapes together with a gentile in a wine press, lest he touch it with his hand and offer it as a libation. [This applies] even if he is bound. [Similarly,] we do not purchase a wine press [filled with] crushed [grapes] even if the wine is still mixed with the seeds and peels and has not descended into the cistern.",
+ "When a gentile crushes [grapes for] wine without touching it and a Jew is standing over him, and a Jew is the one who collects it in jugs, it is forbidden [only] to be drunken.",
+ "It is forbidden to benefit from vinegar belonging to a gentile, because it became [forbidden like] wine offered as a libation before it became vinegar.
When a gentile is crushing grapes in a barrel, we are not concerned that the wine [becomes forbidden] as wine used for a libation. If a gentile was eating from the baskets [of grapes brought to a winepress] and left over, a se'ah or two and threw them into the winepress, he does not cause the wine [to become forbidden] as wine used for a libation, even though it spatters over the grapes.",
+ "Grape seeds and peels belonging to a gentile are forbidden for twelve months. After twelve months, they have already dried out; they contain no moisture and they are permitted to be eaten. Similarly, the dregs of wine that have dried out are permitted to be eaten after twelve months. [The rationale is that] no trace of wine remains; they are just like dust or earth.",
+ "It is forbidden to put wine in wineskins or barrels in which gentiles had kept wine until:
a) they are allowed to dry for twelve months;
b) they are placed in a fire until their pitch becomes soft or they become hot;
c) water is placed in them for three days for a full 24 hour period; [one places water in them], pours it out after 24 hours, and puts other water in. [This should be done] three times, [once a day] for three days.
[This applies] whether the containers belong to [the non-Jews] or they belonged to a Jew from whom [the non-Jews] borrowed them and then placed their wine into them. If one put wine in them before purifying them, it is forbidden to drink [that wine].",
+ "It is permitted to place beer, fish brine, or fish oil in these containers immediately. None of these [purging processes] are necessary. After one placed fish brine or fish oil in them, one may place wine in them, for the salt [in the fish brine or fat] will burn out [any residue of wine].",
+ "When a person purchases new utensils that were not covered with pitch from a gentile, he may place wine in them immediately, he need not worry that gentile wine had been placed in them. If they were covered with pitch, he should wash them thoroughly even though they are new.
Similarly, [any] utensil in which gentile wine was placed, but was not stored there for an extensive period, e.g., a bucket used to draw wine from a cistern, a funnel, or the like, should have water swished in them. That is sufficient for it.",
+ "Similarly, it is forbidden to drink from an earthenware cup that a gentile had drunk from. If one washed it thoroughly three times, it is permitted, for all traces of wine have been washed away. This applies provided it is glazed with lead as potters do or covered with pitch. If, however, it is of earthenware, washing it thoroughly [once] is [all that is] required.",
+ "When earthenware utensils that are glazed with lead are used for gentile wine, they are permitted if they are white, red, or black. If they are green, they are forbidden, because they absorb. If they have a portion where the earthenware is revealed, they are forbidden whether they are white or green, because they absorb.
It appears to me that this ruling applies only when wine was placed in them for long term storage. If, however, it was not placed in them for long term storage, [it is necessary merely to] wash them. They are then permitted, even if they are earthenware.",
+ "When a gentile treads on grapes in a winepress of stone or of wood or a gentile applied pitch to a winepress of stone even though he did not tread the grapes there, one must wash [the press] thoroughly with water and ashes four times. Afterwards, one may tread grapes there. If [the press] is still moist, one should place the ashes in before the water. If it is not moist, one should place the water in first.",
+ "When a gentile treaded [grapes] in a stone winepress covered with pitch or [applied] pitch to a wooden winepress even though he did not tread grapes there, one must peel the pitch. If one left it for twelve months or placed water in it for three days, it is not necessary to peel [the pitch off]. [The laws applying to] a winepress need not be more stringent than those applying to barrels. [The option of] peeling was given only to allow [the winepress to be used] immediately.",
+ "An earthenware winepress [is governed by more stringent rules]. Even if one peels the pitch, it is forbidden to tread grapes in it immediately. [Instead, one must] heat it with fire until the pitch softens. If, however, one leaves it for twelve months or places water in it for three successive days, it is permitted, as we explained.",
+ "[The following laws apply to] a filter that had been used for wine belonging to a gentile. If it is made of hair, it should be washed thoroughly and then it may be used as a filter. If it is made from wool, it should be washed thoroughly four times with water and ashes and then left until it dries. If it was from flax, it should be left for twelve months. If it has knots, they should be untied [before the filter is washed out].
Similar [laws apply with regard to] utensils from reeds, from date bast, or similar utensils like wicker baskets that are used to tread grapes. If they were sewed with ropes, they should be washed thoroughly. If they are tangled together with snarls that are difficult to undo, they should be washed four times with ashes and with water. [After] they are dried, they may be used. If they are sewed with flax, they should be left unused for twelve months. If they have knots, they should be untied.",
+ "How can the utensils of a winepress used by a gentile for gentile wine be purified so that a Jew may use them? The boards, the balls of clay, and the palm branches should be washed thoroughly. The restraints of wood and of canvas should be dried out. Those from water grasses and from bullrushes should be left unused for twelve months.
If one desires to purify them immediately, he should place them in boiling water, seal them with water used to cook olives, or place them under a drain through which water flows continually or in a stream of running water for twelve hours. Afterwards, they are permitted.",
+ "In the era when the land of Israel was entirely within the possession of the Jewish people, it was permitted to purchase wine from any Jewish person without holding anyone in suspicion. In the Diaspora, they would only purchase [wine] from a person whose reputation [for observance] has been established. In the present age, in every place, we only purchase wine from a person whose reputation for observance has been established. These laws also apply to meat, cheese, and a cut of fish that does not have a sign as we explained.",
+ "When a person enjoys the hospitality of a homeowner in any place and at any time and that homeowner brings him wine, meat, cheese, or a piece of fish, it is permitted. There is no need to inquire concerning it. [This law applies] even if he does not know him at all; all that he knows is that he is Jewish.
If [the host] has an established reputation for non-observance and for not paying attention to these matters, it is forbidden to accept his hospitality. If one transgresses and accepts his hospitality, it is forbidden to eat meat and drink wine [despite] his assurances unless a person who has an established reputation for observance testifies [to their acceptability]."
+ ],
+ [
+ "How do we define the term touch when we say that a gentile who touches wine causes it to be forbidden? Touching the wine itself whether with his hands or with any of his other limbs with which it is customary to pour a libation and shook the wine.
If, however, he extended his hand to a barrel, but his hand was grabbed before he could remove [any wine] or shake it, [there is room for leniency]. If the barrel was opened from below and the wine was allowed to flow out to the extent that it reached below his hand, the wine is not forbidden.
Similarly, if he held an open container of wine and shaked it, the wine becomes forbidden even though he did not lift up the container or touch the wine.",
+ "If he took an [open] container of wine, lifted it up, and poured it out, the wine becomes forbidden, even though he did not shake it. For the wine moved as a result of his power. If he lifted the container up, but did not shake it or touch it, it is permitted.",
+ "When a gentile was holding a container on the ground and a Jew poured wine into it, the wine is permitted. If the gentile shakes the container, the wine becomes forbidden.",
+ "It is permitted to have a gentile move a closed [container of wine] from one place to another even though the wine moves. For this is not the manner in which a libation is made.
When [a gentile] moves a wineskin containing wine from one place to another while [a Jew] was holding the opening of the wineskin with his hand, it is permitted. [This applies] whether the wineskin was entirely full or not and [applies] even though the wine moves.
[When a gentile] transfers an open earthenware vessel that is filled with wine, it is prohibited, for perhaps he touched it. If it was only partially full, [the wine] is permitted unless he shook it.",
+ "When a gentile touches wine without intending to, it is permitted only to benefit from the wine. What is implied? He fell on an [open] wineskin or stretched his hand out to a barrel under the impression that it contained oil and it actually contained wine.",
+ "If wine moves because of a gentile's power although he did not intend to do so, since he did not touch the wine, it is permitted to drink it. What is implied? If he lifted up a container of wine and poured it into another container while thinking that it was beer or oil, [the wine] is permitted.",
+ "If a gentile entered a house or a store seeking wine and extended his hand to search for it and touched wine, [the wine] is forbidden. [The rationale is that] he was intending [to touch] wine. This is not considered as touching without intent.",
+ "When a barrel is split lengthwise and a gentile comes and embraces it so that the halves will not separate it is permitted to benefit from [the wine]. If, however, it split widthwise and he grabbed the upper half so that it will not fall, it is permitted to drink [the wine]. For the wine is not affected by the gentile's power.",
+ "When a gentile fell into a cistern of wine and was hoisted up dead, measured a cistern containing wine with a reed, swatted away a fly or a hornet from it with a reed, patted a boiling bottle of wine so that the boiling would cease or took a barrel and threw it into the cistern in anger, it is merely permitted to benefit from the wine. If, [in the first instance,] the gentile was raised [from the cistern] alive, it is forbidden to benefit from the wine.",
+ "When there is a hole on the side of a barrel, the stopper slips away from the hole, and a gentile places his finger over the hole so that the wine will not flow out, all of the wine from the top of the barrel until the hole is forbidden. It is, however, permitted to drink the wine beneath the hole.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] one end of a bent outflow pipe made from metal, glass, or the like is placed in wine and the other end extends out of the barrel. If one sucked on the wine and the wine began flowing out as is always done, and a gentile came and placed his finger at the end of the outflow pipe and prevented the wine from flowing outward, all of the wine in the barrel is forbidden. [The rationale is that] were it not for his hand, everything [in the barrel] would have flowed out. Thus all the wine is affected by his power.",
+ "When a person pours wine into a receptacle containing gentile wine, all of the wine in the upper container is forbidden. [The rationale is that] the column of wine being poured connects between the wine in the upper container and the wine in the lower container. Therefore when a person is measuring wine for a gentile into a container in the latter's hands, he should interrupt [the column of wine before it reaches the utensil] or throw the wine so that [the column of wine] being poured will not establish a connection and cause the wine remaining in the upper container to become forbidden.",
+ "When a funnel that was used to measure wine for a gentile has an obstruction that prevents wine [from flowing] the funnel should not be used to measure wine for a Jew until it was washed thoroughly and dried. If he did not wash it thoroughly, [the Jew's wine] is forbidden.",
+ "[The following rules apply with regard to] a container possessed by a Jew that has two \"nostrils,\" that emerge from it, like containers that are used to wash hands, and is filled with wine. If a Jew is sucking and drinking from one nostril and a gentile is sucking and drinking from the other nostril, this is permitted, provided the Jew begins [drinking] and concludes while the gentile is still drinking. When the gentile stops drinking, all the wine that was in the nostril will return to the container and cause all the wine in it to be forbidden. [The rationale is that] the wine [in the nostril] was moved by [the gentile's] power.",
+ "When a gentile sucks wine from a container with an outflow pipe, all the wine in the container becomes forbidden. For when he ceases [sucking], all of the wine that entered the outflow pipe through his sucking will return to the barrel and cause it to become forbidden.",
+ "When a gentile is transferring barrels of wine from one place to another together with a Jew and [the Jew] is walking after them to protect them, they are permitted even if he separates from him for a mil. [The rationale is] that he is afraid of him and will say: \"He will suddenly appear before us and observe us.\"
[More stringent rules apply if the Jew] tells [gentile porters]: \"Proceed and I will follow after you.\" If they pass beyond his sight to the extent that [they have time] to uncover the opening of the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink all of the wine. If for a lesser [time], [the wine] is permitted.",
+ "Similarly, if a Jew leaves a gentile in his store, even though he departs and enters, [going back and forth] the entire day, the wine is permitted. If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.
Similarly, if a person left his wine in a wagon or a ship with a gentile and enters a city to tend to his needs, the wine is permitted. If he informs him that he is departing for a significant period, should he wait long enough [to enable the gentile] to open the barrel, seal it again, and [allow it] to dry out, it is forbidden to drink the wine.
All of the above rulings apply with regard to closed barrels. If they are open, even if he did not wait, since he told him that he was departing for a significant period, the wine is forbidden.",
+ "When a Jew was eating together with a gentile, left wine open on the table and on the counter, and departed, the wine on the table is forbidden, while that on the counter is permitted. If [the Jew] told him: \"Mix [the wine] and drink,\" all the open wine in the house is forbidden.",
+ "When [a Jew] was drinking together with a gentile and he heard the sound of prayer in the synagogue and departed, even the open wine is permitted. For the gentile will say: \"Soon he will remember the wine, come hurriedly and see me touching his wine.\" Therefore [we do not suspect that] the gentile will move from his place. Hence only the wine that is before him becomes forbidden.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a gentile and a Jew are living together in one courtyard and they both left in agitation to see a bridegroom or a funeral. If the gentile returns and closes the entrance and the Jew comes later, the open wine in the Jew's home remains permitted. [We assume that] the gentile closed [the entrance] with the assumption that the Jew had already entered his home and no one remained outside; [i.e.,] he thought that the Jew came before him.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] wine belonging to both a Jew and a gentile [is being stored] in one building and [the Jew's] barrels were open. If the gentile entered the building and locked the door behind him, all the wine is forbidden. If there is a window in the door that enables a person standing behind the door to see in front of him, all of the barrels that are opposite the window are permitted. Those on the sides are forbidden. [The leniency is granted,] because the gentile will fear from those who can see him.",
+ "Similarly, if a lion roared or the like and the gentile fled and hid among the open barrels, the wine is permitted. For he will say, \"Perhaps another Jew also hid here and will see me if I touch [the wine].\"",
+ "[The following laws apply with regard to] a wine cellar whose barrels were open, a gentile also stored wine in that inn, and the gentile was discovered standing among the open barrels belonging to the Jew. If he was frightened when discovered and it would be considered as if he was a thief, it is permitted to drink the wine. For because of his fear and dread, he will not have the opportunity to pour a libation. If he would not be considered as a thief, but instead, he feels secure there, the wine is forbidden.
When a [gentile] young child is discovered among the barrels, regardless of whether he would be considered like a thief or not, all of the wine is permitted.",
+ "When a battalion [of soldiers] enter a country with an approach of peace, all of the open barrels [of wine] in the stores are forbidden. The closed ones, by contrast, are permitted. At a time of war, however, if a battalion spread through a city and moved on, both are permitted, because they do not have time to make libations.",
+ "[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered standing next to a cistern of wine [belonging to a Jew]. If [the Jew] owes him a debt for which this wine serves is collateral, [the wine] is forbidden. Since he feels privileged, he will extend his hand and make a libation. If it is not collateral for a debt, it is permitted to drink the wine.",
+ "When a gentile harlot is present at a Jewish feast, the wine is permitted. For she is in dread of them and will not touch [the wine]. When, however, a Jewish harlot is present at a gentile feast, her wine that is before her in her utensils is forbidden, for [the gentiles] will touch it without her consent.",
+ "[The following laws apply when] a gentile is discovered in a winepress: If there is enough moisture from wine that when one places his hand in it, [the hand] will become moist to the extent that if it touches his other hand, that hand will become moist, it is necessary to wash out the winepress thoroughly and dry it out. If this amount is not present, all that is necessary is to wash it out thoroughly. This is an extra measure of stringency.",
+ "[The following rules apply with regard to] a barrel floating in the river. If it was found near a city populated primarily by Jews, we are permitted to benefit from it. Near a city populated primarily by gentiles, it is forbidden.",
+ "In a place where most of the wine merchants are Jewish, if one discovers large containers that are generally used only by wine merchants to store wine and which are filled with wine, it is permitted to benefit from [the wine].
When a barrel has been opened by thieves, if most of the local thieves are Jewish, it is permitted to drink the wine. If not, it is forbidden."
+ ],
+ [
+ "[The following rules apply when a Jew] purchases or rents a building in a courtyard belonging to a gentile and fills it with wine. If the Jew lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted even if the entrance is open. [The rationale is that] the gentile will always worry, saying: \"He may suddenly enter his building and find me there.\" If the Jew lives in another courtyard, he should not depart until he closes the building and keeps the key and the seal in his possession. He need not fear that the gentile will make a copy of the key to the building.",
+ "When [the Jew] left [the building] without closing the entrance or closed it and gave the key to the gentile, it is forbidden to drink the wine. Perhaps the gentile entered and poured a libation, for the Jew is not present there.
If [the Jew] told [the gentile]: \"Hold the key for me until I come,\" the wine is permitted. He did not entrust him with guarding the house, only with guarding the key.",
+ "[The following laws apply when] a gentile hires a Jew to prepare wine for him in a state of ritual purity so that it will be permitted to the Jews and they will purchase it from him. The wine is [stored] in a building belonging to the gentile. If the Jew who is guarding the wine lives in that courtyard, the wine is permitted. [This applies] even if the entrance is open and the [Jewish] guard goes out and returns.
If the guard lives in another courtyard, the wine is forbidden even though the key and the seal are in the possession of a Jew. [The rationale is that] since the wine belongs to the gentile and is found in his domain, he does not fear falsifying [the seal and/or key] and to enter the building. He will say: \"What could be? If they find out about this, they will not purchase [the wine] from me.\"",
+ "Even if a gentile wrote [a legal document] for the Jew stating that he received the money for which he agreed to sell him the wine, since the Jew cannot remove the wine from the gentile's domain until he pays him the money, the wine belongs to the gentile and it is forbidden unless the guard lives in the courtyard.
The guard does not have to sit and guard [the wine] at all times. Instead, he may come in and go out, as explained. [This applies whether the wine is stored] in the domain belonging to the owner of the wine or in a domain belonging to another gentile.",
+ "When the pure wine belonging to a gentile was placed in the public domain or in a building that is open to the public domain and there are Jews going back and forth, it is permitted. For it has not entered the gentile's domain.",
+ "[When wine is located] in a garbage dump, a window, or under a palm tree even if it does not have fruit, it is as [if it is located in] the public domain. When a gentile is located near wine located in such a place, it is not forbidden. A house which is open to such a place is considered as if it as open to the public domain.",
+ "[The following rule applies when] there is a courtyard divided by low barriers, on one side there is a gentile and on the other, a Jew, there are two roofs, with the Jew's roof located above the gentile's roof, or [the two roofs are located] side by side, but there are dividers separating them. Even though the gentile can reach the Jew's portion, he need not worry about [the gentile pouring] his wine as a libation or [disqualifying] articles that are ritually pure.",
+ "It is permitted for a Jew to entrust his wine to a gentile for safekeeping in a closed container, provided it has two distinguishing marks. This is referred to as \"a seal within a seal.\"
What is implied? [A Jew] closed a barrel with a utensil that is not tightly fitting as most people do and then sealed it with clay, it is considered as one seal. If the container is tightly fitting and he applied clay to it from above, it is considered as \"a seal within a seal.\"
Similarly, if one tied the opening to a wineskin close, it is considered as one seal. If he turned the opening to the wineskin inside and then tied it close, it is considered as \"a seal within a seal.\" Similarly, any deviation from the ordinary pattern people follow is considered as one seal and applying clay or tying it is a second seal.",
+ "If [a Jew] entrusted [wine that was closed] with one seal to a gentile for safekeeping, it is forbidden to drink it, but it is permitted to benefit from it provided he designates a [specific] corner for it.",
+ "Two seals are not necessary when one deposits boiled wine, beer, wine which is mixed with other substances, e.g., honey or oil, – and similarly, vinegar, cheese, and any substance that is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law – with a gentile. Instead, one seal is sufficient. Nevertheless, two seals are necessary for wine, meat, and pieces of fish that do not have signs and which were entrusted to a gentile.",
+ "It appears to me that anywhere in this context that we have stated that our wine is forbidden to be drunk, but it is permitted to benefit from it because of the possibility that a gentile touched it, we are speaking about an instance where the gentile is an idolater. If, however, the prohibition has arisen because of a gentile who is not an idolater, e.g., an Arab, who touched our wine unintentionally or tapped the top of a barrel, [the wine] is permitted to be drunken. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.",
+ "When, however, one deposits wine in the domain of a resident alien sends wine with him and departs for an extended period, or leaves one's home open in a courtyard that [one shares with] a resident alien, it is forbidden to drink the wine. For it appears to me that the suspicions that a gentile will exchange [wine] and forge [a seal] apply equally to all gentiles. Since the wine enters their domain, it is forbidden at least to drink it.",
+ "There are situations where the prohibition against wine poured as a libation does not apply at all, yet our Sages forbade them as a safeguard against libation. They are: a gentile should not mix water into wine in a Jew's possession lest he come to pour wine into water. A gentile should not bring grapes to the winepress lest he come to press them or touch the wine. He should not help a Jew when he pours wine from one container to another lest he leave the wine in the possession of the gentile and the wine [will flow] because of [the gentile's] power. If the gentile assists [the Jew], mixes water [into wine] or brings grapes, [the wine] is permitted.",
+ "Similarly, it is permitted for a gentile to smell the fragrance of our wine and it is permitted for a Jew to smell the fragrance of a barrel of wine that had been used as a libation. There is no prohibition against this, because fragrance is of no consequence since it has no substance.",
+ "We already explained, that whenever it is forbidden to benefit from a substance, if one transgresses and sells it, it is permitted [to make use of] the money with the exception of false deities, their accessories, offerings made to them, and wine poured as a libation to it. Our Sages were stringent with regard to ordinary gentile wine [and ruled that] money given for it is forbidden like money given for wined poured as a libation to a false deity.
Accordingly, when a gentile hires a Jew to work with him with wine, his wages are forbidden.",
+ "Similarly, when a person rents a donkey or a boat to transport wine, the payment for them is forbidden. If he gave him money, he should bring them to the Dead Sea. If he gave him clothes, utensils, or produce as payment, he should burn it and bury the dust so that he does not benefit from it.",
+ "If a gentile rented a donkey to ride and placed containers of wine on it, the rental fee for the donkey is permitted. If [a gentile] hires a Jew to break barrels of wine used as a libation, his fee is permitted. May he be blessed because he eliminated obscenity.",
+ "When a person hires a worker and tells him: \"Transport 100 barrels of beer for me for 100 p'rutot,\" and it is discovered that one of them is [gentile] wine, his entire wage is forbidden.",
+ "If he told him: \"Transport barrels for me at a p'rutah each,\" and he transported them and barrels of wine were discovered among them, the wage for the barrels of wine is forbidden. The remainder of the wage is permitted.",
+ "When a gentile sends Jewish craftsmen a barrel of wine as part of their wages, it is permitted for them to tell him: \"Give us its worth.\" Once it enters their domain, it is forbidden.",
+ "When a gentile owed a Jew a maneh, it is permitted for the gentile to sell a false deity and wine that had been poured as a libation and bring him the money. If, before he sells them, he tells [the Jew]: \"Wait until I sell the false deity or libation wine that I own and [then] I will bring you [the money],\" if he sells it and brings [the money] to him, [the money] is forbidden. [This applies] even with regard to ordinary gentile wine. [The rationale is that] the Jew desires that [the false deity or the wine] to continue to exist so that he will be able to pay him his debt.",
+ "Similarly, when a convert and a gentile were partners and they came to divide the resources [of the partnership], the convert may not tell the gentile: \"You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the produce.\" [The rationale is that] he desires that [the forbidden entities] continue to exist so that he will be able to receive something in exchange for them.
When, by contrast, a convert and a gentile inherit the estate of their father who was a gentile, [the convert] may tell [the gentile]: \"You take the false deity and I will take the money. You take the wine and I will take the oil.\" This is a leniency granted with regard to an estate inherited by a convert so that he will not return to his deviant ways. If [the forbidden entities] entered the domain of the convert, it is forbidden.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a Jew sells his wine to a gentile. If he established a price before he measured out [the wine], the money is permitted. [The rationale is that] from the time a price was established, [the gentile] definitely agreed [to the purchase] and when he pulled [the wine] into his domain, he acquired it. And it does not become [comparable to] wine offered as a libation until he touches it. Therefore at the time of sale, it was permitted.
If he measured it out for him before he established a price, the money is forbidden. [The rationale is that the gentile] did not definitely agree [to the purchase], even though he pulled [the wine] into his domain. Thus at the time he touched [the wine], he had not definitely agreed to the purchase. Hence the wine becomes forbidden because of his touch and it is as if [the Jew] is selling gentile wine.",
+ "When does the above apply? When the Jew measured [the wine] into his own containers. If, however, he measured it into the gentile's containers or to a container belonging to a Jew in the gentile's possession, he must take the money, before measuring out [the wine]. If he measured out [the wine,] but did not take the money, the money is forbidden even though he established a price. As soon as [the wine] enters [the gentile's] container, it is forbidden as ordinary gentile wine.",
+ "When [a Jewish employer] gives a dinar to a gentile storekeeper and tells his gentile employee: \"Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him,\" he must show concern lest [the employee] will drink wine. Thus it will be as if he purchased wine used as a libation and gave it to him.
A similar arrangement with regard to the Sabbatical year is also forbidden; i.e., one gives a dinar to a Jewish storekeeper who is a common person and tells his Jewish employee: \"Go, drink, and eat [on my account] from the storekeeper and I will settle the accounts with him.\" If the worker eats food that was not tithed, it is forbidden.",
+ "If, however, he told them: \"Eat and drink the worth of this dinar,\" or \"Eat and drink from the storekeeper on my account and I will pay him,\" this is permitted. Although the Jew becomes liable, his liability is not specifically related [to the foods from which the employees partake]. [Therefore,] he need not be concerned, not about wine used as a libation, not about produce of the Sabbatical year, nor about untithed produce.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a [gentile] king distributes his wine among the people and takes money for it, as he desires. A [Jew] may not tell a gentile: \"Take 200 zuz and go into the king's storehouse in place of me,\" so that the gentile will take the wine designated for the Jew and give the money to the king. He may, however, tell him: \"Here is 200 zuz for you. Save me from [going to] the storehouse.\"",
+ "When a gentile touches a Jew's wine against [the Jew's] will, it is permitted to sell that wine to that gentile alone. [The rationale is] since that gentile wished to cause a Jew a loss [by] having his wine forbidden, it is as if he destroyed it or burnt it, in which instance, he would be obligated to pay. Thus the money [the Jew] takes from him is money for the loss and not money for a sale."
+ ],
+ [
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "[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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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.",
+ "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."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of another type, [it causes it to become forbidden] if its flavor can be detected. When [a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of] the same type and it is impossible to detect [the forbidden substance] by its flavor, its presence becomes nullified if there is a majority [of the permitted substance].",
+ "What is implied? When the fat of the kidneys falls into beans and becomes dissolved, the beans should be tasted. If the taste of fat cannot be detected, they are permitted. If [not only] the taste, [but also] the substance of the fat is present, they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. If the flavor could be detected, but there is no substance, they are forbidden by Rabbinic Law.",
+ "What is meant by its substance? For example, there was enough forbidden fat for there to be an olive-sized portion [of fat] in each portion the size of three eggs from the mixture. If a person eats a portion of beans the size of three eggs, he is liable for lashes for they contain an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, for [not only] the flavor, [but also] the substance of [the forbidden fat] is present. If one eats less than a portion the size of three eggs [of the mixture], one is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct as prescribed by Rabbinic Law.
Similarly, if there was less than an olive-sized portion of [forbidden] fat in every portion the size of three eggs, even if the flavor of fat is detectable and he eats the entire pot, he is not liable for lashes [as prescribed by Scriptural Law], only stripes for rebellious conduct.",
+ "[The following laws apply when] the fat of the kidneys falls into the fat from the fat tail and the entire [mixture] becomes dissolved. If there is twice as much fat from the fat tail as fat of the kidneys, the entire mixture is permitted according to Scriptural Law. Even when a piece of [meat from] a nevelah becomes mixed with two pieces of [meat from] a ritually slaughter animal, everything is permitted according to Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, everything is forbidden until the forbidden substance will be nullified because of the tiny proportion [of the entire mixture it represents] to the extent that it is not significant and it is as if it does not exist, as will be explained.",
+ "Into what quantity [of a permitted substance] must a forbidden substance be mixed for it to be considered nullified because of its tiny proportion? [Each forbidden substance according to] the measure the Sages specified for it. There are substances that are nullified in a mixture 60 times its size, others in a mixture 100 times its size, and still others in a mixture 200 times its size.",
+ "Thus we learn from this that [the following laws apply] with regard to all of the prohibited substances in the Torah, whether those punishable by lashes or punishable by kerait or substances from which it is forbidden to benefit that become mixed with permitted substances. If the substances are of different types, [the mixture is forbidden] if the flavor is detectable.
If the substances are of the same type and thus it is impossible to detect the flavor [of the forbidden substance], we measure [whether there was] 60, 100, or 200 [times the amount of permitted substances]. The only exceptions are wine poured as a libation to a false deity, because of the severity [of the prohibition against] worship of a false deity and tevel, because it can be corrected. For that reason, even the slightest mixture of them with a substance of their type is forbidden. If they become mixed with substances of a different type, the matter is dependent on whether their flavor is detectable.",
+ "What is implied? When several barrels of wine fell over a drop of wine that was poured as a libation, the entire mixture is forbidden, as will be explained. Similarly, if a cup of wine which is tevel becomes nixed into a barrel [of wine], the entire [barrel] is considered tevel until the amount of terumah and tithes that are appropriate to be separated are separated as will be explained in the appropriate place.",
+ "[Related concepts apply with regard to] produce of the Sabbatical year. If [such produce] becomes mixed with [produce of] the same type, the tiniest amount [causes the mixture to be considered bound by the laws of the produce of the Sabbatical year]. [If it becomes mixed with produce of] another type, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor can be detected. [Nevertheless,] it is not considered as one of the substances forbidden by Scriptural Law. For this mixture is not forbidden. Instead, one is obligated to eat the entire mixture in keeping with the holiness of the produce of the Sabbatical year, as will be explained in the appropriate place.",
+ "Although chametz on Pesach is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is not governed by these general principles, for this mixture is not forbidden forever. For after Pesach, the entire mixture will be permitted, as we explained. Therefore the slightest amount [of chametz] causes [a mixture] to become forbidden, whether [it becomes mixed] with a substance of its own type or of another type.",
+ "The same law applies when new grain becomes mixed with old grain before [the offering of] the omer. Even the tiniest amount causes [the entire mixture] to become forbidden. For there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted. For after [the offering of] the omer, the entire mixture is permitted.
Similarly, whenever there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted, e.g., consecrated entities, the second tithe, or the like, our Sages did not mention a measure [in which it could be nullified]. Instead, even if one [of the forbidden substance] becomes mixed with several thousand [times that amount of a permitted substance], it is not nullified. [The rationale is that] there is a way that the prohibition can be released. [This principle applies] even when the prohibition stems from Rabbinic decree, e.g., an article set aside or born on a festival.",
+ "With regard to orlah, mixed species grown in a vineyard, fat, blood, and the like, our Sages fixed a measure [that would enable mixtures to be nullified]. Similarly, our Sages fixed a measure with regard to terumot, for there is no way it can be permitted for all people.",
+ "It appears to me that even there is a factor that will cause a substance to become permitted, if that substance becomes mixed with a substance of a different type and its flavor is not detectable, it is permitted. The fact that there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted does not [cause the prohibition to be] more severe than tevel. [For tevel] can be corrected, and yet when it [becomes mixed with a substance] of a different type, [it is permitted if] its flavor cannot be detected, as explained. One should not raise a question with regard to chametz on Pesach [where such leniency is not granted. A distinction can be made.] For with regard to chametz, the Torah [Exodus 12:20] states: \"Do not eat any leavened substance.\" For this reason, [our Sages] were stringent with regard to it, as we explained.",
+ "These are the measures which the Sages established: Terumah, terumat ma'aser challah, and bikkurim become nullified [when the mixture is] 101 times the [original] amount. [In addition,] one must separate [a portion and give it to a priest]. [All of these sacred foods] are combined one with the other. Similarly, a slice of the showbread becomes nullified when mixed with slices of ordinary bread [if] the mixture is 101 times the original amount.
What is implied? When a se'ah of flour from one of the above- or one se'ah from all of them [combined] - falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary [flour] and [the flour] became mixed together, one should separate one se'ah from the mixture for the se'ah that fell in originally. The remainder is permitted to all people. If it fell into less than 100 se'ah, the entire mixture is meduma.",
+ "Orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard become nullified [when the mixture is] 201 times the [original] amount. The [two prohibitions] are combined one with the other, and it is not necessary to separate any thing.
What is implied? When a revi'it of wine which is orlah or which [came from grapes] grown together with mixed species in a vineyard - or one revi'it was combined from both prohibited substances - falls into 200 revi'iot of wine, the entire mixture is permitted. It is not necessary to separate anything. If it falls into less than 200, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].",
+ "Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Because terumah is the property of the priests. Accordingly, any terumah which the priests are not concerned with, e.g., terumah from [low-grade] figs, carobs, and Edomite barley, need not be separated.",
+ "Why was the measure doubled for orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard? Because it is forbidden to benefit from them.
Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for terumot? For terumat ma'aser is one hundredth of the entire crop, and yet it causes the entire crop to be \"sanctified,\" as [Numbers 18:29] states: \"its sacred part.\" Our Sages said: \"An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it if it returns to it.",
+ "The measure for all of the other prohibitions of the Torah, e.g., the meat of crawling animals, teeming animals, fat, blood, and the like is sixty times [the original amount].
What is implied? When an olive-sized portion of the fat of the kidneys falls into sixty times the size of an olive of the fat from the fat tail, the entire mixture is permitted. If it falls into less than sixty [that amount], the entire mixture is forbidden. Similarly, if a portion of forbidden fat the size of a barley-corn, [the mixture] must contain permitted substances the size of sixty barley-corns. Similar [laws apply] with regard to other prohibitions.
Similarly, if the fat of the gid hanesheh falls into a pot of meat, we require sixty times its amount. The fat of the gid itself is included in this sum. Although the fat of the gid is prohibited [only] by Rabbinic Law, as we explained, since the gid hanesheh is considered a creation in its own right, [our Sages] ruled stringently concerning it as if it was forbidden by Scriptural Law. The gid itself is not measured and it does not cause other substances to be forbidden, because the gid does not impart flavor.",
+ "When, by contrast, an udder is cooked with meat, we require sixty times its amount and the udder is considered as part of the sum. [The rationale is that] since [the prohibition against] the udder is Rabbinic in origin, [our Sages] were lenient in establishing a measure.",
+ "[The following laws apply when] an egg in which a chick is found is cooked together with eggs that are permitted. If there are 61 and it, they are permitted. If, however, there are only sixty [permitted eggs], the entire mixture is forbidden. [The rationale is that the chick] is a creation in its own right, [our Sages] made a distinction and added to its [required] measure.",
+ "If, however, the egg of an non-kosher fowl was cooked together with the eggs of kosher fowl, it does not cause them to become forbidden.
If [the eggs were opened and] mixed together or the egg of a non-kosher fowl or the egg of a fowl that is trefe become mixed with other eggs, the required measure is 60.",
+ "What is the source because of which the Sages relied on the measure of 60? For the portion given [to the priest] from the ram brought by a Nazirite,i.e., the foreleg, is one sixtieth of the remainder of the ram. It is cooked together with it and does not cause it to be forbidden, as [Numbers 6:19] states: \"And the priest shall take the cooked foreleg from the ram.\"",
+ "[The following rules apply when] two substances of the same type, [one permitted and one forbidden,] and a [third] entity become mixed together, e.g., there was a pot with fat from the fat tail and beans and fat from the kidneys fell into it. The entire [mixture] dissolved and became a single entity. We view the fat from the fat tail and the beans as a single entity and we measure the fat from the kidneys against it. If the ratio was one to sixty, it is permitted. For it is impossible to detect the taste.",
+ "The same principle applies when terumot are mixed together [with other substances, some of the same type and some of a different type], their measure is 100. And the measure of mixed species from a vineyard and orlah is 200.",
+ "When we calculate the measure of permitted substances with regard to all prohibitions, whether the measure is 60, 100, or 200, we include the soup, the spices, everything that is in the pot, and what the pot has absorbed after the prohibited substance fell according to our estimation. For it is impossible to know the exact amount which the pot absorbed.",
+ "It is forbidden to nullify a substance forbidden by Scriptural Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted. Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture. It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance. For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.",
+ "What is implied? If a se'ah of orlah falls into 100 se'ah [of permitted produce], the entire [mixture] is forbidden. One should not bring another 100 se'ah and join [the entire quantity] together so that [the forbidden substance] will be nullified because of the presence of 201 times the original amount. If, however, he transgressed and did so, the entire [mixture] is permitted.
With regard to a prohibition forbidden by Rabbinic decree, we do nullify a prohibition as an initial and preferred measure.",
+ "What is implied? If milk fell into a pot that contains fowl and imparted its flavor to the food, one may add other fowl to the pot until the flavor [of the milk] is no longer discernable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.",
+ "We already explained that if a forbidden substance imparts its flavor to a permitted substance, the entire mixture is not permitted. When does the above apply? [When the flavor imparted] improves [the flavor of the permitted food]. If, however, the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance and impairs it, it is permitted.
[This applies] provided it detracts from its flavor from the beginning until the end. If, however, it detracted from its flavor at the outset, but ultimately improved it or improved it initially, even though it will ultimately detract from it, [the mixture] is forbidden.",
+ "Who will taste the mixture? If terumot were mixed with ordinary crops, a priest should taste the mixture. If the flavor of the terumah is discernible, the entire mixture is considered as miduma. In Hilchot Terumot, the laws pertaining to [produce that is] miduma will be explained.",
+ "If [the mixture involved] meat and milk, wine poured as a libation, wine that was orlah, or [made from grapes that grew together with] mixed species in a vineyard that fell into honey, or the meat of crawling animals or teeming animals that were cooked with vegetables and the like, a gentile should taste [the mixture].
We rely on his word. If he says: \"It does not have the flavor [of the forbidden substance],\" or he says: \"It [imparted] its flavor, but that flavor is bad and it detracts [from the flavor of the permitted substance,\" the entire [mixture] is permitted, provided it will not ultimately improve it, as we explained. If there is no gentile to taste it, we rely on the measures of 60, 100, or 200.",
+ "When a rat falls into beer or vinegar, we require a measure of 60, for we suspect that it imparted its flavor to the beer or the vinegar and it improves it.When, however, it falls into wine, oil, or honey, it is permitted, even if it imparts its flavor, for the [rat's] flavor detracts [from the flavor of these substances]. For [these substances] must all have a pleasant fragrance and rat meat spoils their aroma and detracts from their flavor.",
+ "When a goat is roasted in its fat, it is forbidden to eat from even the tip of its ear. [The rationale is that] the fat permeates through all its limbs, improves [their taste], and imparts flavor. Accordingly, if [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs, i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the fat.
Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted together with the gid hanesheh, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the gid [hanesheh]. [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it. When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.",
+ "One should not roast ritually slaughtered meat with the meat of a nevelah or the meat of a non-kosher species in one oven, even though they do not touch each other. If one roasted them together, [the kosher meat] is permitted. [This applies] even if the forbidden meat was very succulent and the permitted meat was lean. For an aroma does not cause a substance to become forbidden; only the flavor of a forbidden substance does.",
+ "When the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal was mixed together with the meat of a nevelah that was salted, the [kosher] meat becomes prohibited, for the concentrated [juices] of the nevelah are absorbed in the kosher meat. It is impossible to detect their flavor or to calculate the quantity of the forbidden substance.
When the meat of a unsalted species of kosher fish was mixed together with the meat of a species of unkosher fish that was salted, the [kosher] fish becomes prohibited because of the [non-kosher] brine. If, however, it was the kosher fish that was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, the salted fish does not become forbidden. For even though the unsalted [fish] absorbs [the brine] of the salted one, it does not absorb it to the degree that it will cause it to discharge [its own brine].
When a non-kosher fish was pickled with a kosher fish, the entire mixture is forbidden unless the ratio of kosher fish to non-kosher is 200:1."
+ ],
+ [
+ "All the above measures given by our Sages with regard to a forbidden substance being mixed with a permitted substance of the same type apply when the forbidden substance is not a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity that is discrete and is not mixed together with or blended with the permitted substance. If, however, [the forbidden substance] is a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity, even the slightest amount of it causes [the entire mixture] to be forbidden.",
+ "What is implied? When yeast from wheat that is terumah falls into a dough of ordinary wheat [flour] and it is of sufficient quantity to cause the dough to leaven, the entire dough is considered as having been mixed with terumah. Similarly, if spices that are terumah fall into a pot of ordinary food [containing] the same substance, when [the forbidden spices] are of sufficient quantity to season [the dish], the entire [dish] is considered as having been mixed with terumah. This applies even if the ration between the yeast and the spices [to the permitted substances] is 1:1000.
Similarly, if yeast from mixed species grown in a vineyard fall into a dough or spices of orlah fall into a pot, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].",
+ "Even the smallest amount of an important entity [that is forbidden] can cause a mixture of its own type to become forbidden. The seven entities that follow are considered as important: nuts from Perach, pomegranates from Baden, sealed barrels, beet shoots, cabbage heads, Greek squash, and loaves baked by a private person.",
+ "What is implied? If one pomegranate from Baden that was orlah became mixed with several thousand other pomegranates, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture. Similarly, if a sealed barrel of wine that is orlah or that is a product of mixed species from a vineyard that became mixed with several thousand sealed barrels, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity.",
+ "Similarly, when a piece of meat from a nevelah or from a non-kosher species of animal, beast, fowl, or fish become mixed with several thousand other pieces of meat, the entire mixture is forbidden until one separates that piece of meat and makes certain that there is sixty times its measure. For if one does not separate [the forbidden piece of meat], it will continue to be present and it will not have changed. And this piece of meat is important to him, for he receives honor [by serving it] to guests.",
+ "The same laws apply with regard to a piece of meat [cooked] with milk or an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, for it is forbidden to benefit from [the latter] according to Rabbinic decree, as will be explained in Hilchot Shechitah. Even the slightest amount of them causes [a mixture] to become forbidden until they are removed.
Similarly, when a gid hanesheh was cooked with other similar tissue or with meat, when it can be recognized, it should be removed and the remainder is permitted. For giddim do not impart flavor. If one cannot recognize it, the entire mixture is forbidden. For [the gid hanesheh is considered as a created being in its own right. Hence, it is significant; no matter how small it is, it causes [a mixture] to become forbidden.",
+ "Similarly, all living animals are significant and they never become nullified. Therefore, if an ox sentenced to be stoned to death becomes intermingled with 1000 oxen, a calf whose neck is to be broken becomes intermingled with 1000 calves, a dove selected for a metzora becomes intermingled with 1000 doves, or a firstborn donkey becomes intermingled with 1000 donkeys, it is forbidden to benefit from any of them. With regard to other entities, even though it is customary to [sell] them by number, they can be nullified according to the ordinary measures.",
+ "What is implied? When a bundle of vegetables that come from mixed species grown in a vineyard are mixed with 200 bundles or an esrog which is orlah is mixed with 200 esrogim, the entire quantity is permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.",
+ "It appears to me that every article that is significant to the inhabitants of a given place as nuts from Perach and pomegranates from Baden were significant in Eretz Yisrael in [the Talmudic] era causes a mixture to be forbidden if even the slightest amount becomes mixed in because of its importance in that time and in that era. The particular entities [referred to above] were mentioned because the slightest amount of them causes a mixture to be forbidden in every place. The same laws apply to articles similar to them in other places. It is clear that all of these prohibitions stem from Rabbinic decree.",
+ "If one pomegranate from a mixture [of pomegranates including a forbidden pomegranate from Baden] falls into two other [permitted] pomegranates from Baden and then one of these three pomegranates fell into other pomegranates, the latter mixture is permitted. [The rationale is that the presence of] the pomegranate from the first mixture [which fell into the second mixture] is nullified because of the majority of permitted substances. If, however, [a pomegranate] from the first mixture falls into 1000 pomegranates, they are all forbidden. [The concept that the presence of the forbidden pomegranate] was nullified because of the majority of permitted substances only when there is a multiple doubt involved: i.e., that if one of the second mixture will fall into another place, it does not cause [that third mixture] to become forbidden. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.",
+ "If the nuts that were forbidden because of the nut that was orlah intermingled with them were cracked open, the pomegranates were taken apart, the barrels were opened, the squash was cut, or the bread was sliced after they became forbidden, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume. This law also applies with regard to a piece of forbidden meat that is minced together with other pieces and they are all [minced] in the same way, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 60 times its volume.",
+ "It is, however, forbidden to crack the nuts, take apart the pomegranates, open the barrels after they have become forbidden so that [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume. For, as an initial and preferred measure, we do not nullify the presence of an entity. If one does so, we penalize him and forbid [the entity] to him, as explained.",
+ "[The following rule applies when] yeast that comes from mixed species in a vineyard and from terumah falls into dough and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] alone to cause the dough to rise, but when the two are combined, there is enough to cause the dough to rise. This dough is forbidden to an Israelite, but permitted to the priests.
Similarly, when spices that come from terumah and from mixed species in a vineyard fall into a pot and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] to spice the pot, but together there is enough of both of them to spice the pot, that pot is forbidden to an Israelite - for an entity forbidden to him spice it - and permitted to the priests.",
+ "When there are two or three types of the same species of spice or three species of the same type, they can be combined to cause a pot to be forbidden when they spice it or when [a similar type mixture] causes dough to leaven.
What is implied? Yeast from wheat and yeast from barley are not considered as being two separate substances. Instead, since the category yeast is the same, they are considered as one substance and they can be combined to measure to see if they are sufficient to cause a dough of wheat to leaven if their combined flavor is that of wheat or to cause a dough of barley to leaven if their combined flavor is that of barley.",
+ "What is meant by three species of the same type? For example, river parsley, parsley that grows in meadows, and parsley that grows in gardens. Although each of them has a distinct name, since they are of one type, they can be combined to [cause a dish to be forbidden if they] spice [it].",
+ "[The following rules apply when] yeast that is terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard falls into dough that is already leavened or spices that are terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard fall into a pot that has already been spiced. If there is enough [of the forbidden] yeast to cause the dough to leaven if it had been unleavened or there is enough of the spices to spice the pot had it been unspiced, the entire mixture is forbidden. If they are of sufficient size to spice [the pot] or cause [the dough] to leaven, their presence can be nullified according to the required measure: terumah when [the mixture] is 101 times [the size of the forbidden substance] and mixed species in a vineyard when [the mixture] is 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance].",
+ "Terumah can [help] cause orlah and mixed species from a vineyard to be nullified.
What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 99 [se'ah of] ordinary produce and afterwards, a half se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard falls into the entire mixture, the prohibition against orlah or mixed species in a vineyard does not apply. For it is nullified because of the presence of 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance] even though a portion of the 201 is terumah.",
+ "Similarly, orlah and mixed species from a vineyard can [help] cause terumah to be nullified.
What is implied? When 100 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 20,000 se'ah of ordinary produce, the entire mixture is thus 20,100 se'ah. Afterwards, a se'ah of terumah fell into every 100 se'ah, the entire [mixture] is permitted and the presence of the terumah is nullified because of the presence of 101 times [the original amount of terumah]. [This applies] even though part of the 100 that nullify its presence are orlah or mixed species from a vineyard.",
+ "Similarly, orlah may [help] nullify mixed species from a vineyard and mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify orlah. Mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify [the presence of other] mixed species from a vineyard and orlah may [help] nullify [the presence of other] orlah.
What is implied? 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 40,000 se'ah of ordinary produce. Afterwards, a se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fell into each of the 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the entire mixture is permitted. Since the presence of the forbidden substance that fell into [the mixture] originally was nullified, the entire [mixture] is considered as ordinary produce that is permitted.",
+ "A garment that was dyed with shells of orlah should be burnt. If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount. Similarly, when a dish was cooked or a loaf of bread baked with the shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the dish or the bread must be burnt, for the benefit [from the forbidden substance] is evident. If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.",
+ "Similarly, when milo hasit of a garment was dyed with [a dye that is] orlah, and [that garment] cannot be identified, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount. If powdered dye that is orlah becomes mixed with powdered dye that is permitted, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount. When liquid dye that is orlah becomes mixed with liquid dye that is permitted, its presence is nullified when there is a majority [of the permitted substance].",
+ "When an oven has been heated with shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, it must be cooled off [before cooking in it]. [This applies] to both a new and an old [oven]. Afterwards, one should heat [the oven] with permitted wood. If one cooked in it before it was cooled, whether bread or food, it is forbidden to benefit from it. [The rationale is that] the forbidden wood increased the value of the bread or the food.
If one removed the entire fire and then cooked or baked with the heat of the oven [that remained], it is permitted, for the forbidden wood is no longer present.",
+ "It is forbidden to benefit from plates, cups, pots, and bottles that were fired by a potter with shells of orlah. [The rationale is] they are made new by an object from which it is forbidden to benefit.",
+ "When bread was baked on coals from wood that is orlah, it is permitted. Once [the wood] becomes coals, the forbidden dimension is no longer present, even though they are still glowing.
When a pot was cooked with shells from orlah or mixed species from a vineyard together with permitted wood, the food [cooked in it] is forbidden, even though [it was cooked by two factors, one forbidden and one permitted]. [The rationale is] that at the time it was cooked with the forbidden wood, the permitted wood had not been introduced. Thus part of the cooking process was performed with permitted wood and part with forbidden wood.",
+ "When a plant that is orlah becomes mixed together with other plants or a row of mixed species from a vineyard became mixed with other rows, at the outset, one should gather all [the produce]. If [the ratio of] permitted plants to forbidden plants was 200:1 or the ratio of forbidden rows to permitted ones is 200:1, everything that was gathered is permitted. If the ratio was less than this, all that was gathered is forbidden.
[One might ask:] Why is one permitted to gather [the produce] at the outset? Seemingly, the law should require that everything be forbidden for him until he undertakes the difficulty of removing the forbidden plant or row. [It can be explained that that] a person will not cause his vineyard to be forbidden because of one plant. Were he to be able to identify it, he would remove it.",
+ "It is forbidden to benefit from cheese that is made to harden using the syrup of orlah fruit that has not ripened, the stomach of an animal offered as a sacrifice to false divinities, or vinegar made from the wine of a false divinity. Although the forbidden entity is being mixed with a substance of another type and a very small amount is used, [the cheese] is forbidden for [the effect of] the forbidden entity is obvious, for it [caused the milk] to harden into cheese.",
+ "The law is that fruit that is orlah or from mixed species from a vineyard should be burnt. Liquids from [that fruit] should be buried, because it is impossible to burn liquids.",
+ "When wine that was poured as a libation to idols is mixed with [other] wine, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture regardless of how small [the amount of forbidden wine], as we explained.
When does the above apply? When the permitted wine is poured onto a drop of wine that had been poured as a libation. If, however, one poured wine that had been poured as a libation from a small bottle into a cistern of wine, its presence is nullified. Even if one poured the entire day, each individual drop becomes nullified, drop after drop.
If one pours from a jug, the entire quantity is forbidden. [This applies] whether one pours permitted wine into forbidden wine or forbidden wine into permitted wine. [This stringency is enforced,] because the column of wine which descends from the large jug [creates a connection].",
+ "When even the smallest amount of ordinary [gentile] wine is mixed with [Jewish] wine, it is forbidden to drink [the entire mixture]. Instead, it should be sold to a gentile in its entirety. The money [paid] for the forbidden wine should be cast into the Dead Sea. One may, however, benefit from the remainder of the money.
Similarly, if a jug of wine poured as a libation had become intermingled with jugs of [kosher] wine, it is forbidden to drink the entire mixture. One may, however, benefit from it, selling the entire mixture to a gentile and casting the money for the [forbidden] jug into the Dead Sea. The same applies with regard to a jug of ordinary [gentile] wine.",
+ "When water is mixed into wine or wine is mixed into water, [the forbidden entity causes the mixture to be prohibited] if its flavor can be detected, because they are two different types of substances.
When does the above apply? When the permitted liquid falls into the forbidden liquid. If, however, the forbidden liquid fell into the permitted liquid, the presence of it is nullified, drop after drop, provided it fell from a from a small bottle.
How is it possible for water to be forbidden? If it was worshipped or if it was offered to a false divinity.",
+ "[The following law applies when] a pitcher of water fell into a cistern of wine and afterwards, wine that was poured as a libation fell into it. [Initially,] we consider the permitted wine as if it did not exist, We measure the water in relation to the wine poured as a libation. If it is [of sufficient volume] to nullify the taste of the wine poured as a libation, the water is more abundant than it and it nullifies [the forbidden wine] and the entire [mixture] is permitted.",
+ "When wine poured as a libation falls on grapes, one should wash them. They are permitted to be eaten. If the grapes have split open, when the wine imparts its flavor to them, it is forbidden to benefit from them.If not, it is permitted to partake of them. [This applies] whether the wine is aged or fresh.",
+ "When [forbidden wine] falls on figs, they are permitted, because wine impairs the flavor of figs.",
+ "When wine poured as a libation falls on wheat, [the wheat] is forbidden to be eaten, but it is permitted to benefit from it. One should not sell it to a gentile, lest he sell it again to a Jew. What should be done instead? He should grind [the wheat] into flour, make it into bread, and sell it to a gentile outside the presence of a Jew. [In this way,] a Jew will not repurchase it from the gentile, for the bread of a gentile is forbidden, as will be explained.
Why do we not check the wheat to see if [the wine imparted] its flavor? Because [the wheat] draws out the wine and it becomes absorbed within it.",
+ "When wine poured as a libation becomes vinegar and falls into vinegar that comes from beer, even the slightest amount causes it to become forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is considered to have become mixed with the same type of substance, because they are both vinegar.
When wine becomes mixed with vinegar, we see if [the forbidden entity] imparts its flavor. [This applies] whether [forbidden] vinegar falls into wine or [forbidden] wine falls into vinegar."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When the meat of a nevelah or a crawling animal or teeming animal was cooked in an earthenware pot, one should not cook the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal in that pot on that same day. If he cooked a type of meat [in the pot that day], the dish is forbidden. If he cooked another substance in it, [it is forbidden if] its flavor can be detected.",
+ "The Torah forbade only [the use of] a pot that was [cooked with the forbidden substance] on that day. For [in that time,] the flavor of the fat absorbed in the pot had not been impaired.
According to Rabbinic Law, one should never cook in it again. For this reason, one should never purchase used earthenware utensils from gentiles to use them for hot foods, e.g., pots and plates. This applies even when they are coated with lead. If one purchased such a utensil and cooked in it from the second day onward, the food is permitted.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a person purchases metal or glass dinnerware from a gentile. Utensils that [the gentile] did not use at all should be immersed in the waters of a mikveh. Afterwards, it is permitted to eat and drink with them.
Utensils that he used for cold [food and drink], e.g., cups, flasks, and pitchers, he should wash them thoroughly and immerse them. [Afterwards,] they are permitted. Utensils that he used for hot food: large pots, kettles, and pots used to heat food, should be purged through hagaalah, and immersed in the mikveh. Afterwards, they are permitted. Utensils that he used by exposing them to fire, e.g., spits and grills, should be exposed to fire until they become white-hot and their outer surface falls off. They may then be immersed and become permitted for use.",
+ "How is [the purging process of] hagaalah achieved? A small pot is placed into a large pot and they are filled with water until the smaller one is submerged. Then one must boil it very thoroughly.
If a large pot was [forbidden], one should place dough or mud along its edge [so that] he could fill it with water so that it will flow over its edge.He [then] boils it.
In all instances, if he used them before boiling [water in them for hagaalah], washing them thoroughly, making them white hot, or immersing them, [the food] is kosher. For any fat [absorbed] in them imparts an unpleasant flavor, as explained.",
+ "The immersion of the dinnerware that is purchased from gentiles to allow it to be used for eating and drinking is not associated with ritual purity and impurity. Instead, it is a Rabbinic decree.
There is an allusion to this [in Numbers 31:23 that describes Moses' instructions with regard to the spoils taken from Midian:] \"Everything that can be passed through fire, you shall pass through fire and it will become pure.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that the verse is speaking only about purifying [the utensils] from gentile cooking, not from ritual impurity. For there is no ritually impurity that is dispelled by fire. All those who are impure ascend from their impurity through immersion and the impurity stemming from [contact with] a human corpse is [dispelled] through the sprinkling [of water and the ashes of the red heifer]. There is no concept of fire [employed in this context], rather [it is employed] with regard to purification from gentile cooking. Since the verse states \"and it will become pure,\" our Sages said: \"Add to it another dimension of purity after passing it through fire to cause it to be permitted because [of its contact] with gentile cooking.\"",
+ "[Our Sages] obligate this immersion only for metal dinnerware utensils that were purchased from a gentile. When, however, a person borrows [such utensils] from a gentile or a gentile left him such utensils as security, it is only necessary to wash them thoroughly, boil them, or expose them to fire. He does not have to immerse [them]. Similarly, if one purchased wooden or stone utensils, it is only necessary to wash them thoroughly, boil them, or expose them to fire. Similarly, earthenware utensils need not be immersed. If, however, they are coated with lead, they are considered as metal utensils and require immersion.",
+ "When a person purchases a knife from a gentile, he must expose it to fire until it become white hot or have it honed in its sharpener. If it was a perfectly [smooth] knife without any blemishes, it is sufficient to insert it in hard earth ten times. [Afterwards,] one may eat cold food with it. If it had blemishes or it was perfectly [smooth], but one desired to use it to eat hot food or to slaughter with it, he should expose it to fire until it becomes white hot or hone it in its entirety. If he slaughtered [an animal] with such a knife before purifying it, he should wash thoroughly the place of slaughter. If he removes the surface [of the meat around the place of slaughter], it is praiseworthy.",
+ "When a knife was used to slaughter an animal that was trefe, one should not slaughter with it [again] until it is washed thoroughly, even with cold water or wiped clean with worn-out clothes.",
+ "There are other substances which are forbidden by the Sages. Even though there is not a basis for their prohibition in Scriptural Law, they decreed against their use to separate from the gentiles so that Jews will not intermingle with them and intermarry. They are: It is forbidden to drink [alcoholic beverages] with them even in a place where there was no suspicion that the wine was poured as a libation. And they forbade eating from their bread or cooked dishes even in a place where there is no suspicion that the food was forbidden.",
+ "A person should not drink at a party of gentiles even though boiled wine which is not forbidden [is being served] or he is drinking from his own utensils. If the majority of the attendants of the party are Jewish, it is permitted. We may not drink the beer that they make from dates, figs, or the like. [This is forbidden] only in the place where they are sold. If, however, one brought the beer home and drank it there, it is permitted. For the fundamental point of the decree is that one should not feast with [a gentile].",
+ "It is permitted to drink wine from apples, pomegranates, and the like in every place. [Our Sages] did not institute a decree in an uncommon situation. Raisen wine is like ordinary wine and is used for libations.",
+ "Although [our Sages] forbade bread [baked] by gentiles, there are places where leniency is shown regarding this matter and bread baked by a gentile baker is purchased in a place where there is no Jewish baker and it is in a field, because this is a pressing situation. There is, by contrast, no one who will rule that leniency may be shown with regard to bread baked by a homeowner. For the primary reason for [our Sages'] decree was [to prevent] intermarriage. If one will eat the bread of a [gentile] homeowner, [it is likely that] he will feast with him.",
+ "[The bread] is permitted [in the following situations]: A gentile lit the oven and a Jew baked within it, a Jew lit the oven and the gentile baked within it, the gentile both lit the oven and baked, but the Jew stirred the fire or reduced it, since he was involved in the baking tasks, [we rule leniently]. Even though he did not do more than throw one piece of wood into the oven, he caused all the bread in it to be permitted. [The rationale is that this requirement] is only to make a distinction that [a gentile's] bread is forbidden.",
+ "When a gentile cooks wine, milk, honey, quince, or the like, i.e., any entity that is usually eaten raw, it is permitted. [Our Sages] issued their decree only with regard to entities that are not eaten at all raw, e.g., meat, unsalted fish, an egg, and vegetables. If a gentile were to cook them from the beginning to the end without the Jew participating in the cooking at all, they are forbidden because they were cooked by gentiles.",
+ "When does the above apply? To [food] that would be served on the table of kings to be eaten together with bread, e.g., meat, eggs, fish, and the like. When, by contrast, [food] would not be served on the table of kings to be eaten together with bread, e.g., vetch cooked by gentiles, it is permitted despite the fact that it is not eaten uncooked. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. For the fundamental purpose of the decree was to prevent intermarriage, by [hindering] a gentile from inviting [the Jew] to a feast. And when [food] would not be served on the table of kings to be eaten together with bread, a person would not invite a friend [to share a meal] of it.",
+ "When small fish were salted by a Jew or a gentile, it is as if they have undergone part of their cooking process. [Therefore] if a gentile roasted them afterwards, they are permitted. [Similarly,] whenever a Jew performs a small part of the cooking process, whether at the beginning or at the end, [the food] is permitted. Accordingly, if a gentile placed meat or a pot on the fire and the Jew turned over the meat or stirred the pot or, conversely, the Jew placed [the food on the fire] and the gentile completed [the cooking process], [the food] is permitted.",
+ "When a gentile salts fish or smokes fruit and in this way prepares them to be eaten, they are permitted. With regard to this decree, salted food is not considered as if it were boiling hot, nor is smoking considered as cooking. Similarly, kernels of grain roasted by a gentile are permitted. They were not included in the decree, for a person will not invite a colleague to [come and eat] roasted kernels of grain.",
+ "Beans, peas, lentils, and the like that have been cooked by gentiles and are sold are forbidden because of [the decree against] gentile cooking in places where they are served on the tables of kings as a relish. [They are also forbidden,] because of prohibited foods in all places for perhaps they were cooked together with meat or in a pot in which meat had been cooked. Similarly, doughnuts that are fried by gentiles in oil are forbidden because of prohibited foods.",
+ "When a gentile cooked without intending to cook, [the product] is permitted. What is implied? A gentile lit a fire in a swamp to clean away the overgrowth and grasshoppers were roasted, it is permitted to eat them. [This applies] even in places where they are served on the tables of kings as a relish. Similarly, if he scorches a [kosher animal's] head to remove its hair, it is permitted to partake of the strings of meat and the tips of the ears that were roasted at the time of the scorching.",
+ "[The following rules apply to] dates that were cooked by gentiles. If, initially, they were sweet, they are permitted. If they were bitter and the cooking sweetened them, they are forbidden. If they were of intermediate sweetness, they are forbidden.",
+ "Roasted lentils that were kneaded with water or with vinegar are forbidden. When, however, roasted kernels of wheat or barley are kneaded with water, they are permitted.",
+ "The oil of gentiles is permitted. One who forbids it commits a great sin, for he rebels against [the teachings] of the [High] Court who permitted it. Even if the oil was cooked, it is permitted. It is not forbidden because of gentile cooking, because we partake of oil uncooked. Nor is it forbidden, because of prohibited foods, because meat impairs [the flavor of] oil and spoils it.",
+ "Similarly, when gentile honey was cooked and sweets were made from it, it is permitted for the same reason.",
+ "Date dregs of gentiles that were heated in hot water, whether in a large pot or a small pot, are permitted. For the [flavor of forbidden meat absorbed in the pot] impairs its flavor. Similarly, pickled foods to which it is not customary to add vinegar or wine or pickled olives or pickled grasshoppers that are brought from the storehouse are permitted. Nevertheless, grasshoppers and pickled foods over which wine is sprinkled are forbidden. Similarly, they are forbidden if vinegar - even vinegar made from beer - is sprinkled over them.",
+ "Why is gentile vinegar made from beer forbidden? Because they cast the dregs of wine into it. Therefore [vinegar] taken from a storage room is permitted.",
+ "[Gentile] fish brine, in places where it is customary to mix wine into it, is forbidden. If the wine is more expensive than the fish brine, it is permitted. We rule this way in all instances where we suspect that the gentiles mixed a forbidden substance [into a permitted substance]. For a person will not mix something expensive into something that is low-priced, for he will lose. He will, however, mix the low-priced into the expensive, for then he profits.",
+ "When a child eats forbidden foods or performs a forbidden labor on the Sabbath, the Jewish court is not commanded to make him cease, because he is not intellectually capable.
When does the above apply? When he acts on his own initiative. It is, however, forbidden [for an adult] to give him [non-kosher food] by hand. [This applies even] to foods forbidden by Rabbinic decree. Similarly, it is forbidden to make him accustomed to desecrating the Sabbath and the festivals. [This applies] even to [performing] activities forbidden as a shvut.",
+ "Although the Jewish court is not commanded to separate a child from transgressions, his father is commanded to rebuke him so that he withdraws in order to train him in holy conduct, as [Proverbs 22:6] states: \"Educate a child according to his way.\"",
+ "Our Sages forbade [a person from partaking of] food and drink from which the souls of most people are revolted, e.g., food and drink that were mixed with vomit, feces, foul discharges, or the like. Similarly, our Sages forbade eating and drinking from filthy utensils from which a person's soul languishes, e.g., the utensils of a lavatory, the glass utensils of medical attendants that are used to let blood, and the like.",
+ "Similarly, they forbade eating with unclean and soiled hands and with dirty utensils. All of these matters are included in the general [prohibition]: \"Do not make your souls detestable.\" A person who partakes of these foods is given stripes for rebellious conduct.",
+ "Similarly, it is forbidden for a person to delay relieving himself at all, whether through defecation or urination. Anyone who delays relieving himself is considered among those who make their souls detestable in addition to the severe illnesses he brings upon himself and becoming liable for his life. Instead, it is appropriate for a person to train himself [to eliminate] at specific times so that he will not have to separate himself in the presence of others and not have to make his soul detestable.",
+ "Whoever is careful concerning these matters brings an additional measure of holiness and purity to his soul and purges his soul for the sake of the Holy One, blessed be He, as [Leviticus 11:44] states: \"And you shall sanctify yourselves and you will be holy, for I am holy.\""
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007",
+ "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות",
+ "categories": [
+ "Halakhah",
+ "Mishneh Torah",
+ "Sefer Kedushah"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Halakhah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file