חלב עכו״ם, גבינת עכו״ם and butter by custom — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן קט״ו
דין חלב וגבינה וחמאה של עכו״ם
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 115: the 3 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, the vocalized Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. Why was milk drawn by a non-Jew without supervision forbidden (חלב עכו״ם)? What are the conditions of the heter (sitting by the herd, being able to see when standing up — מרתת)? Why is the cheese of non-Jews (גבינת עכו״ם) forbidden even when set with herbs, while butter (חמאה) is widely permitted by custom?
Topic: The milk, cheese and butter of non-Jews — חלב עכו״ם, גבינת עכו״ם, חמאה Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קט״ו
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 3 seifim, one after the other
2.Context: why the Sages decreed on the milk, cheese and butter of non-Jews
4.The table: milk / cheese / butter — what is forbidden, what is permitted
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.Chalav Yisrael vs chalav stam: the root of the modern debate
8.Modern practical cases: state supervision, milk powder, cheese hechsher, butter
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 3 seifim
Siman 115 deals with the three great dairy products that the Sages fenced with a decree when they come from a non-Jew: milk (חלב עכו״ם), cheese (גבינת עכו״ם) and butter (חמאה). The Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) sets out for each the reason of the prohibition and its limits, and the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה) for practice. Let us study the seifim one after the other.
Seif 1 — Chalav Akum: milk drawn without Jewish supervision
Seif 1 — The unsupervised-milk decree and the conditions of the heter
Milk that a non-Jew drew without a Jew seeing him is forbidden, lest he mixed impure milk into it (שמא עירב בו חלב טמא). If he was milking at home and a Jew sits outside: if it is known that he has no impure animal in his herd → permitted, even if the Jew cannot see him while he milks. If he has an impure animal in his herd and the Jew sits outside and the non-Jew milks for the Jew: even if he cannot see him while seated, as long as he can see him if he stands up → permitted, for the non-Jew fears the Jew might stand and see him (מרתת — שמא יעמוד ויראהו); provided the non-Jew knows that impure milk is forbidden to the Jew. Gloss of the Rama: a priori (לכתחילה), the Jew must be present at the start of the milking and inspect the vessel so it holds nothing impure; and the custom is to be strict not to milk into a vessel the non-Jew habitually uses, lest milk residues (צחצוחי חלב) of the non-Jew remain in it. Nevertheless, after the fact (בדיעבד), one need not worry about all this. Maidservants (שפחות) who milk the animals in the Jew's house or in their pen — wherever no non-Jew's house intervenes and there is no concern of an impure animal — it is permitted even a priori to let them milk even with no Jew present at all. And even a Jewish child, boy or girl, suffices, for the non-Jew fears before him (מרתת). Nowadays, when impure milk is not at all common, it is permitted (בזמן הזה… מותר). Forbidden non-Jew's milk renders the utensils forbidden in which it was cooked, like any prohibition, even though it is only a doubt; and likewise their cheeses; but not their butter (חמאה), which — even where the custom is to forbid it — renders neither the utensils nor its mixture forbidden. Forbidden non-Jew's milk remains forbidden: it does not help to make cheese or butter from it afterward, and all that is made from it remains forbidden.
The central idea: the decree rests on a doubt — perhaps the non-Jew mixed impure milk (camel, donkey, mare…) into the kosher milk. The remedy is supervision: a Jew present. But supervision may be indirect — it is enough that the non-Jew fears being seen (מרתת): seated outside and able to stand up and look. The Rama adds lekhatchila conditions (presence at the start, a clean vessel), leniencies (maidservants, a child), and above all the phrase that opens the whole modern debate: "בזמן הזה — nowadays," when impure milk is no longer common, one is lenient.
Three practical consequences of forbidden milk: (1) it forbids the utensils in which it was cooked, like any prohibition, even by mere doubt; (2) it likewise forbids the cheeses; (3) but not the butter — butter forbids neither utensils nor mixture. And forbidden milk remains forbidden even when transformed: making it into cheese or butter afterward does not "repair" it.
Seif 2 — Gevinat Akum: the cheese of non-Jews
Seif 2 — Rennet from nevela; forbidden even when set with herbs (לא פלוג)
The cheeses of non-Jews the Sages forbade, because they set them with the skin of the stomach of their slaughter (עור קיבת שחיטתם), which is נבלה (an animal not ritually slaughtered); and even when set with herbs (בעשבים) — it is forbidden. Gloss of the Rama: such is the custom, and one must not breach the fence (אין לפרוץ גדר), except in a place where the lenient custom is ancient (מקדמונים). If the Jew sees the cheese-making AND the milking → permitted — and such is the widespread custom in all these lands. And if he saw the cheese-making but not the milking → one may permit after the fact (בדיעבד), for there is no concern that he mixed in something impure: since he made cheese from the milk, and an impure substance does not curdle (דבר טמא אינו עומד), he surely mixed nothing in, his intent being to make cheese. Nevertheless, the milk itself remains forbidden to drink.
The central idea: cheese is forbidden by a Mishnaic decree whose stated reason is the rennet — the curdling agent taken from the stomach of an animal slaughtered by them, hence נבלה. But the crucial point: the decree holds even when they set it with herbs, without animal rennet. This is the principle לא פלוג: the Sages did not subdivide the decree — it applies uniformly, unlike the decree of גילוי (Siman 116) which has been lifted today. That is why cheese is a stronger prohibition than milk.
The Rama's nuance: what permits cheese is sight — seeing making + milking permits it (widespread custom). Seeing the making alone permits it bediavad (reasoning: impure milk does not curdle, so the non-Jew, who wanted cheese, mixed nothing in). But this reasoning holds only for the cheese: the milk itself remains forbidden to drink.
Seif 3 — Chemah: butter by custom
Seif 3 — Not rebuking the lenient; cooking; the traveler (חומרי המקום)
The butter of a non-Jew: one does not rebuke (אין מוחין) the people of a place who have the custom to permit it. And if the majority of the place have the custom to forbid it — one does not change. And where there is no established custom, if one cooked it until the milk residues (צחצוחי חלב) departed → permitted. Gloss of the Rama: it is even permitted to cook it a priori (לכתחילה) to make the milk residues depart. And if a non-Jew cooked it → permitted, since generally their utensils are not "of the day" (סתם כליהם אינן בני יומן). One who travels from a place where it is not eaten to a place where it is: he eats it there with them; but it is forbidden to bring it back and eat it in a place that forbids it, unless it bears a distinguishing mark (הכר) showing it comes from the permitted places. And one who travels from a lenient place to a strict one — it is forbidden to eat it there; and some say (וי״א) the same if it was brought from a permitted place to a strict one: it is forbidden even with a distinguishing mark — and such is the practice (והכי נהוג).
The central idea: unlike milk and cheese, butter depends largely on local custom (מנהג). Where it is permitted, one does not rebuke; where the majority forbid, one does not deviate; and where nothing is fixed, cooking (which drives off any milk residues) suffices to permit it — even cooked a priori. The seif also settles the case of the traveler: this is the principle of חומרי המקום — one follows the stringencies of the place where one is (cf. Pesachim 50a), and one may not, in principle, "import" leniency into a strict place.
2. Context — why these decrees
Siman 115 belongs to the Sages' decrees on the foods of non-Jews (bread — Siman 112, wine, cooking — בישולי עכו״ם). The issue here is not the meat-milk mixture, but the provenance of the dairy product: can one trust a non-Jew who produces it without supervision? Three answers, three levels of stringency — milk, cheese, butter — decreasing.
The three pillars of the siman
Product
Reason of the decree
How to permit it
Milk (חלב עכו״ם)
שמא עירב חלב טמא (doubt of impure-milk mixture)
Supervision, even indirect (מרתת); "בזמן הזה" lenient
Cheese (גבינת עכו״ם)
עור קיבת שחיטתם (rennet from נבלה) — לא פלוג
See making + milking; bediavad if making alone
Butter (חמאה)
Concern of milk residues (צחצוחי חלב)
Local custom; cooking; widely permitted
The cross-cutting idea: it is all a matter of trust and custom. Milk depends on supervision (real or by fear); cheese on a uniform, harsher decree (לא פלוג) that always demands oversight; butter, the most lenient, is carried by local custom and by cooking.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 115, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing the nature of each decree and how to fulfill it.
חלב עכו״ם — The milk of a non-Jew: milk drawn by a non-Jew without a Jew seeing him. Forbidden by the Sages lest impure milk be mixed in (שמא עירב חלב טמא). Its opposite is חלב ישראל, drawn under Jewish supervision.
מרתת — Mirtat: "he fears." The mainspring of the entire heter for milk: the Jew need not actually see; it suffices that the non-Jew fears being seen (שמא יעמוד ויראהו — "lest he stand and see him"). This fear counts as supervision.
גבינת עכו״ם — The cheese of a non-Jew: forbidden by a Mishnaic decree whose stated reason is the rennet taken from the stomach (קיבה) of an animal slaughtered by them, hence נבלה.
נבלה — Nevela: an animal that died without a valid ritual slaughter (or slaughtered by a non-Jew). Its stomach skin serves as rennet: it is this that "contaminates" the cheese per the reason of the decree.
לא פלוג — Lo plug: "they did not subdivide." When the Sages decree, the decree applies uniformly, even where its reason does not hold. Thus cheese remains forbidden even when set with herbs, without animal rennet — unlike the decree of גילוי (Siman 116), which was lifted.
צחצוחי חלב — Tzichtzuchei chalav: "milk residues." The traces of milk (possibly unsupervised) that remain in the butter or on the utensils. Cooking the butter drives them off — hence the leniency of seif 3.
חומרי המקום — Chumrei ha-makom: "the stringencies of the place." The traveler follows the strict customs of the place where he is (and of his place of origin). Seif 3 applies this to butter: one eats it where it is permitted, but does not "import" it into a strict place.
A distinction to keep in mind: milk rests on a doubt (perhaps an impure mixture) — hence the leniency "בזמן הזה." Cheese rests on a formal decree not subdivided (לא פלוג) — hence its stringency, even without rennet. Butter, finally, has no strong reason of its own (only צחצוחי חלב) — hence its broad permission.
4. The table — milk, cheese, butter
The whole siman comes down to one table. For each product, we cross the reason of the prohibition, its strength and its remedy.
Product
Basic status
Consequences / heter
Milk (חלב עכו״ם)
🟡 Forbidden by doubt (שמא עירב חלב טמא)
Permitted by supervision or מרתת; forbidden → forbids utensils; "בזמן הזה" lenient
Cheese (גבינת עכו״ם)
🔴 Forbidden by decree, even with herbs (לא פלוג)
Permitted if one sees making + milking; bediavad if making alone
Butter (חמאה)
🟢 By local custom
Forbids neither utensils nor mixture; cooking permitted even לכתחילה
Forbidden milk transformed
🔴 Remains forbidden
Making it into cheese or butter does not "repair" — all remains forbidden
The logic in one sentence: the more "formal" the reason of the decree (cheese, by an unsubdivided decree), the more rigid it is; the more it is only a "doubt" (milk) or a "residue" (butter), the more custom and cooking can ease it.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Aruch is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure practical study: the Shach and the Taz. These are the reference nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berurah here, which comments only on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — abbreviation of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (Lithuania, 17th century). It is the reference commentary on Yoreh De'ah, of great analytical depth.
The Taz (ט״ז) — abbreviation of טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). Often in dialogue — and sometimes in disagreement — with the Shach.
A key entry of the Taz
Taz s.k. 2 — The condition of the beraita: sitting by the herd
The Taz stresses that the heter of seif 1 assumes the situation of the beraita (Avoda Zara 39b): the Jew is seated beside the herd (שישב בצד עדרו), so that the non-Jew fears being seen. And he clarifies (s.k. 3) that the Jew need not fix his gaze on the milking at all times: "going out and coming in" (יוצא ונכנס) suffices — as with the slaughter of a Kuti that the Jew supervises intermittently (Chullin 3b). The fear (מרתת) born of this intermittent presence suffices to secure the milk.
A key entry of the Shach
Shach s.k. 1 — Drawn for himself or for the Jew: the two prohibitions
The Shach (at the start of the siman) settles a simple but essential point: whether the non-Jew drew the milk for his own need (לצרכו) or for the Jew (לצורך ישראל), in both cases the milk is forbidden without supervision — this is pashut (obvious). The heter of fear (מרתת) does not exempt one from the basic rule: without any supervision or fear, the milk remains forbidden.
One sees the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they anchor the halacha in the sugyot (the beraita of Avoda Zara, the "going out and coming in" supervision of Chullin) and refine the conditions. This is exactly what is deepened at the Lamdan level, with the chakira on the very foundation of the milk prohibition.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that reflect the custom and refine the practice. Here are his most notable interventions in our siman.
On seif 1 — supervision lekhatchila, the leniencies, and "בזמן הזה"
The Rama clarifies that, a priori, the Jew must be present at the start of the milking and inspect the vessel (no צחצוחי חלב of the non-Jew) — but bediavad, one need not worry. He then eases: maidservants (שפחות) who milk in the Jew's house or quarter (so long as no non-Jew's house intervenes) are permitted even lekhatchila with no Jew present; a child (קטן or קטנה) suffices, for the non-Jew fears before him. And he sets down the decisive phrase: עכשיו בזמן הזה שאין חלב דבר טמא מצוי כלל — מותר — "nowadays, when impure milk is not at all common, it is permitted." This is the textual root of the modern debate over chalav stam.
On seif 2 — the custom, "do not breach the fence," and the bediavad of cheese
Gloss of the Rama: וכן המנהג ואין לפרוץ גדר — "such is the custom, and one must not breach the fence," except where the leniency is ancient (מקדמונים). Seeing making + milking permits it (widespread custom); seeing the making alone permits it bediavad (impure milk does not curdle — דבר טמא אינו עומד); but the milk itself remains forbidden to drink.
On seif 3 — cooking lekhatchila, and the chumrei ha-makom of the traveler
Gloss of the Rama: it is permitted to cook the butter a priori to drive off the צחצוחי חלב; cooked by a non-Jew → permitted (סתם כליהם אינן בני יומן). He then details the traveler: one eats the butter where it is permitted, but does not bring it back to a strict place except with a distinguishing mark (הכר); and וי״א — some hold that even with a mark it is forbidden — והכי נהוג ("and such is the practice").
The Rama carefully distinguishes the basic law (the Mehaber) from the practice: he sets stringencies lekhatchila (presence at the start, a clean vessel, "do not breach the fence" on cheese), while opening targeted leniencies (maidservants, a child, "בזמן הזה," cooking the butter).
7. Chalav Yisrael vs chalav stam — the root of the debate
Seif 1 — and above all the Rama's closing phrase "בזמן הזה" — is the heart of a great contemporary debate. Let us put it simply.
Everything depends on the reason of the milk prohibition:
If it is a mere doubt of an impure-milk mixture (שמא עירב חלב טמא): where there is no impure milk available, the reason disappears → one may be lenient. This is the reading of the Radvaz and the Pri Chadash, supported by the end of the Rama ("בזמן הזה… מותר").
If the prohibition was "counted in the vote" of the Sages (דבר שנמנה במנין) like yayin nesech: it holds even without fear of impure milk, so long as no Jew sees. This is the position of the Chatam Sofer (Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 3), against Radvaz and Pri Chadash.
This chakira (the foundation of the prohibition: a removable doubt, or a fixed decree?) drives the whole contemporary debate over חלב סתם — industrial milk under government supervision. It will be deepened at the Lamdan and Halacha lema'asse levels. For your concrete practice, consult your Rav.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — Chalav Yisrael vs chalav stam: commercial milk
Industrial milk is produced under state supervision (inspections, records). A famous heter sees in this the modern equivalent of supervision: the producer fears the official inspection (כאילו ישראל רואה), parallel to the "שמא יעמוד ויראהו" of seif 1 — hence the permission of chalav stam among many poskim (and the Sephardic tendency to permit). Against this, the requirement of actual chalav Yisrael (mehadrin circles) demands real Jewish supervision. The same question applies to milk powder, casein and whey. For application to your situation, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — Gevinat akum: why cheese always requires a hechsher
Because of the principle לא פלוג (seif 2), the cheese decree holds even with microbial or vegetable rennet — the reason (rennet from נבלה) is no longer always present, but the decree itself was not subdivided. Practical consequence: cheese always requires a hechsher, a stronger prohibition than plain milk. One also distinguishes hard cheese (גבינה, stricter) from other dairy products. For application to your situation, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — Chemah: butter by custom
Butter is, of the three, the most lenient (seif 3): the custom to permit it is widespread (especially among Sephardim and many others), carried by the cooking that drives off the צחצוחי חלב and by the principle "אין מוחין" (one does not rebuke the lenient). It all depends, then, on the local custom — and on the status of the milk from which it comes. For application to your situation, consult your Rav.
The thread running through the three cases: before ruling, ask yourself — which product is it (milk, cheese, butter)? what is the custom of the place? is there supervision that makes the producer "fear"? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the factual details and the custom.
9. Summary of Siman 115
The essence of Siman 115 in a few sentences:
Milk drawn without Jewish supervision is forbidden lest impure milk be mixed in (seif 1).
It is permitted by supervision, even indirect: it suffices that the non-Jew fears being seen (מרתת — שמא יעמוד ויראהו).
The Rama eases: maidservants, a child of the requisite age, and above all "בזמן הזה" when impure milk is no longer common.
Forbidden milk forbids utensils and cheeses, but not butter, and remains forbidden even when transformed.
Cheese is forbidden by decree (rennet from נבלה), even when set with herbs (לא פלוג) — a stronger prohibition (seif 2).
It is permitted if one sees making + milking; bediavad if one sees the making alone (impure milk does not curdle).
Butter follows local custom: one does not rebuke the lenient, the majority decides, cooking permits (seif 3).
The traveler follows the chumrei ha-makom: he eats butter where it is permitted, does not import it into a strict place.
The great modern debate — chalav Yisrael vs chalav stam — is born of the phrase "בזמן הזה" and the nature of the prohibition.
Memory table
Situation
Status
Milk drawn with no supervision at all
🔴 Forbidden (שמא עירב חלב טמא)
Milk — the non-Jew fears being seen (מרתת)
🟢 Permitted
Cheese of non-Jews, even with herbs
🔴 Forbidden (לא פלוג)
Cheese — making + milking seen
🟢 Permitted
Butter — lenient local custom / cooking
🟢 Permitted
Forbidden milk made into cheese / butter
🔴 Remains forbidden
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
Why is milk drawn without supervision forbidden (seif 1)? What is the precise concern?
What is מרתת? Why does being able to see by standing up suffice?
Cite three leniencies of the Rama in seif 1 (maidservants, a child, "בזמן הזה").
Does forbidden milk forbid the butter? Does it remain forbidden if transformed (seif 1)?
Why is cheese forbidden (seif 2)? What is עור קיבת שחיטתם?
Explain לא פלוג: why does cheese remain forbidden even when set with herbs?
What is the difference between seeing making + milking and seeing the making alone (seif 2)?
How is the status of butter settled (seif 3)? What role does cooking play?
What is חומרי המקום? What may (or may not) the traveler do?
How does the phrase בזמן הזה feed the chalav Yisrael / chalav stam debate?
To go further
If you want to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the chakira on the foundation of the milk prohibition (a doubt, or "counted in the vote"), the Radvaz/Pri Chadash vs Chatam Sofer dispute, the לא פלוג of cheese, anchored in the sugyot of Avoda Zara and Chullin
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (milk / cheese / butter), the golden rules, and quick memorization of the 3 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halacha lema'asse: practical ruling (Shach, Taz, Pri Chadash, Pitchei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim (Rav Moshe Feinstein, Chazon Ish, Yalkut Yosef) on chalav stam and gevinat akum
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: