Unlike the prohibition of chalav akum (milk produced by a non-Jew), the prohibition of gevinat akum (cheese produced by a non-Jew) is upheld by all observant Jews in essentially the same manner. In this chapter, we shall outline the development and the parameters of this prohibition as well as some of the issues that are debated by twentieth-century poskim. We will base our discussion on three essays on this topic that have been written by three Kashrut professionals: Rav Yaakov Borow (Tnuva’s Bin’tiv Hechalav pp. 43-47), Rav Zushe Blech (the Orthodox Union’s Daf Kashrut, Adar I 5757), and Rav Avraham Juravel (Mehadrin kashrut journal, Adar II 5755).
Talmudic Background
The Rambam (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 3:12-13) notes that there should be more reason to allow cheese produced by a non-Jew than milk produced by a non-Jew, because milk from a non-kosher animal cannot be made into cheese. Nevertheless, Chazal prohibited consuming cheese produced by a non-Jew. Although the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5; see Avodah Zarah 35a) indicates that Chazal at first concealed the reason for this prohibition, the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 35a-b), searching for the correct explanation, cites a plethora of reasons. It suggests that the non-Jews curdled the milk with the stomach lining from niveilot (animals that were not properly slaughtered); that the non-Jews did not take adequate care to cover the milk that would be used to make cheese, leading Chazal to worry that snakes would release their venom into the uncovered liquids;1This explanation assumes that the decree on cheese is basically an extension of the decree against mayim megulim (water that was left uncovered), which Chazal also forbade out of concern for snake venom. that the non-Jews smoothed over the cheese with pig fat; that there might be leftover drops of milk in the cheese that did not curdle, and these drops might have been from a non-kosher animal; and that the non-Jews made the cheese using non-kosher vinegar.
Rishonim
The Rishonim debate which of these reasons is accepted. The Rambam (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 3:13) codifies the reason that they use the stomach lining of niveilot to curdle the cheese. Rabbeinu Tam (cited in Tosafot Avodah Zarah 35a s.v. Chada), on the other hand, believes that the primary concern is that the milk was exposed to snake venom. The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 115:2) endorses the approach of the Rambam.
The Rishonim also debate whether the enactment forbidding gevinat akum applies even when the concerns for the enactment are not relevant. Rabbeinu Tam (ibid.) asserts that the concerns are not relevant today, since snakes are not prevalent in our environs. He argues that Chazal did not issue this enactment in a situation where concern for snake venom is not relevant. Furthermore, he states:
In many places, Jews eat cheese produced by non-Jews, since the non-Jews use flowers to curdle the milk,2Interestingly, Rav Blech writes that there is a type of cheese made in Portugal today that uses an enzyme derived from the thistle flower to curdle the milk. In addition, Rav Juravel writes that during World War I, when there was a severe shortage of animal rennet, people in many countries used date tree sap to make cheese. This sap contains an enzyme known as ficin that serves as a curdling agent. and the great rabbis of Narbonne (Southern France) permitted this practice. However, in our locales (Northern France and Germany) there is reason to be strict, since they use stomach linings to curdle milk.
The Rambam (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 3:14), however, quotes “some Geonim” as ruling that the prohibition of gevinat akum applies even when the reason for the enactment does not apply. He writes:
[Regarding] cheese that non-Jews curdle with grass or with fruit juice, such as date tree sap, when it is evident in the cheese [that an animal product was not used to produce it]: some Geonim ruled that it is nevertheless forbidden, because the enactment applies to all cheese produced by non-Jews whether a kosher or non-kosher curdling agent was used.
The Rambam does not cite any authority who disputes the ruling of these Geonim, nor does he criticize this ruling. Rav Yosef Karo (in both the Kesef Mishneh ibid. and the Beit Yosef Y.D. 115 s.v. gevinot) assumes, therefore, that the Rambam concurs with the ruling of these Geonim. The Maggid Mishneh (ibid.) explains that the reason for this ruling is that gevinat akum is a davar sheb’minyan – a full-fledged decree of Chazal of the sort that remains in effect even when the reason for the prohibition is no longer relevant (see Beitzah 5a).
Shulchan Aruch and Codes
The Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 115:2) rules unequivocally in accordance with the Rambam. The Rama adds that this is the accepted custom and warns against being “poreitz geder” (breaking the “fence” of common practice enacted by Am Yisrael). He adds, though, that the stringency does not apply where the Jewish community has a tradition to follow the lenient ruling of the great rabbis of Narbonne. The Beit Yosef (ad. loc.), on the other hand, is far less tolerant of those places that maintain their tradition to follow the lenient approach. He strongly urges those few communities who follow this view to adopt the stringent practice of the overwhelming majority of Jewish communities throughout the world.
The Chochmat Adam (53:38 and 67:7) and the Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 115:16-17) rule in complete accordance with the strict view, giving harsh rebuke to those who follow the lenient opinion. These authorities, writing in the nineteenth century, make no mention of entire communities that are lenient, apparently an indication that by their time, there were no longer any prominent communities that followed the lenient tradition.
This is an especially relevant issue today, as cheese is generally made using either non-animals sources, such as microbial rennet, or animal sources that have been reduced to a powder, which seems to reduce the stomach lining to “mere wood” (Rama Y.D. 87:10) and remove its prohibited status. Accordingly, the reason for this enactment is virtually never relevant today – yet the prohibition still applies, and all observant Jews strictly adhere to it.
Stomach Lining of a Kosher Animal
The Rishonim question why the stomach lining of a niveilah renders cheese non-kosher. Indeed, only a small amount of the lining is used, certainly not amounting to one sixtieth of the amount of milk used, which would seem to make the stomach lining bateil (nullified) in the milk. The Maggid Mishneh (to Hilchot Maachalot Asurot 3:13), citing the Ramban and the Rashba, answers that the fact that the taste of the stomach lining is nullified is irrelevant, because Chazal enacted the prohibition of gevinat akum primarily to create a social barrier between us and nochrim – not because of a kashrut problem. Accordingly, they did not apply the standard rules of kashrut, and they prohibited the cheese even though under normal circumstances such a small quantity of niveilah is bateil. This approach is quite cogent in light of our practice to prohibit gevinat akum even though the stated reason for its enactment does not apply.
The Rambam (ad. loc.), on the other hand, answers that the stomach is a davar hama’amid (something that establishes the form of the item) – it contains the catalyst that turns the milk into cheese – and therefore is not bateil even if it is outweighed sixty to one. This approach, too, is eminently logical. Normally, placement in a mixture sixty times an item’s volume makes the item bateil because it has no significance in such a large quantity. The stomach lining, though, cannot be described as insignificant, since it is indispensable in creating the cheese.
The Rambam (ibid. 9:16) then observes that if the stomach lining is never bateil because it is a davar hama’amid, cheese made from the stomach lining of an animal that was slaughtered properly should also be forbidden as a mixture between milk and meat. Why, then, does the Gemara mention concern only for the stomach of a niveilah? He answers, following the reasoning of his father’s Rebbe (the Ri Migash), that the rule that a davar hama’amid is never bateil applies only if the davar hama’amid is prohibited already (such as the stomach lining of a non-kosher animal). An item that is inherently kosher, however, such as the stomach lining from a properly slaughtered animal, cannot create a prohibited mixture of milk and meat just because it is a davar hama’amid.3See Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 35a s.v. Mipnei) for a different resolution of this problem.
One also might ask how it is permissible to make kosher cheese if we are forbidden to intentionally nullify prohibited items (ein mivatlin issur l’chatchilah; see Shach Y.D. 87:33). For example, we are not permitted to intentionally place a bit of meat into a glass of milk if we wish to drink the milk, even if there is sixty times more milk than meat. How, then, are we permitted to add a bit of stomach lining to milk in order to make cheese? Rav Akiva Eiger (Teshuvot Rav Akiva Eiger 207, cited in the Pitchei Teshuvah 87:19) explains that the prohibition of ein mivatlin issur l’chatchilah does not apply if two lenient factors are in effect. In the case of cheese, there is, in addition to the factor of the lining’s nullification in more than sixty times its volume of milk, the common practice from the nineteenth century to produce cheese with completely desiccated stomach linings mixed together with other curdling items (see Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 87:43). Since the curdling process is effected by other items besides the stomach linings, this becomes a situation of zeh v’zeh goreim (an item that was created by two factors, one permissible and one forbidden). In such a situation, we may disregard the prohibited item if it could not have accomplished the task without the aid of the permitted item (see Rama Y.D. 87:11 and Shach Y.D. 87:35).4For further discussion of this issue, see Pitchei Teshuvah (Y.D. 87:19) and Darchei Teshuvah (87:138). This leniency, coupled with the bittul, allows us to produce cheese. 5Rav Yaakov Borow notes that to his knowledge, no kosher cheese today is made with stomach linings, even ones that have been desiccated.
Jewish Supervision or Participation – Rama vs. Shach
There are two unresolved debates concerning the production of kosher cheese. The Rama (Y.D. 115:2) rules (and notes that this is the common custom) that it is sufficient for a Jew to monitor the cheese-making process to render the cheese kosher. According to the Rama, the prohibition of gevinat akum parallels the prohibition of chalav akum, for which supervision likewise suffices to permit the product. The Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 115:19) cites the Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5 s.v. Amar Lo), who writes explicitly in accordance with the view of the Rama. The Shach (Y.D. 115:20), on the other hand, requires either Jewish ownership of the cheese or active participation of a Jew in the cheese-making. According to the Shach, then, the rules of gevinat akum parallel those of pat akum (bread baked by a non-Jew) in that Jewish participation is required to render the product permissible.
The Shach offers a textual proof to his ruling from the language of the Mishnayot that present the prohibitions of chalav akum and gevinat akum. The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6) that presents the former prohibition states explicitly that the milk is prohibited only if a Jew does not watch the milking, whereas the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5) that presents the prohibition of gevinat akum states simply that the cheese is prohibited, making no distinction as to whether a Jew must watch the cheese-making process or not. The Shach, accordingly, concludes that Jewish ownership or active participation is indeed required to permit us to eat the cheese.6See, however, the comments of Rav Yonatan Eybeshitz (Mateh Yonatan Y.D. 115:2), who seeks to refute this proof.
This dispute has never been fully resolved. Among eighteenth-century authorities, the Noda Biy’huda (2 O.C. 37) rules in accordance with the Rama and notes that this is the accepted practice, whereas the Vilna Gaon (Bei’ur Hagra Y.D. 115:15) rules in accordance with the Shach. Among the nineteenth-century authorities, the Chochmat Adam (67:7) embraces the Shach’s opinion, but the Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 115:19) essentially follows the Rama, though he writes that it is proper to accommodate the Shach’s strict ruling. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 3:16) adopts the same approach as the Aruch Hashulchan. Rav Zushe Blech notes that it seems that the generally accepted practice is to follow the Shach.7Rav Avraham Halbfinger told me that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik instructed the Rabbinical Council of New England to follow the Shach.
This dispute has a major impact on the level of supervision required for the cheese-making process. According to the Rama, occasional inspections suffice, because the Gemara (Chullin 4a) states that yotzei v’nichnas k’omeid al gabav dami (spot checks are equivalent to constant supervision). According to the Shach, however, a mashgiach (supervisor) must constantly be available on location to participate in the cheese-making process. This explains why it is impractical for a large company to have its cheeses certified kosher and why kosher cheeses are generally made by companies that produce cheese specifically for the observant Jewish community.
Soft Cheeses
Another major debate rages about whether soft cheeses, such as cottage cheese and cream cheese, are included in the prohibition of gevinat akum. Logically, it would seem that since the concern according to the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch is that the non-Jews used the stomach lining of a niveilah to curdle the cheese, the prohibition should apply only to cheeses that are produced using the enzyme from the stomach lining. Soft cheeses, on the other hand, were not originally made using enzymes. Before the modern age, cottage cheese was made by passively allowing the milk to ferment and separate into curds and whey. Since soft cheese does not need rennet to curdle it, it would seem that it is totally removed from the enactment against gevinat akum, since the premise of the enactment is that non-kosher stomach linings might be used in the cheese production.8Even though, as mentioned above, the prohibition of gevinat akum applies even where the reason is not relevant, perhaps soft cheeses, an entire category to which the reason never applied, were not included in the original prohibition.
In the modern age, when a small amount of rennet is added to hasten the process of making soft cheeses, it can be argued that since the rennet is unnecessary for the actual cheese-making, it does not qualify as a davar hama’amid. Even if the rennet is not kosher, it would seem reasonable to overlook this ingredient under the principle of zeh v’zeh goreim. This rule, as we explained above, dictates that if both a forbidden and a permitted substance contribute together to the creation of a food product, we may ignore the contribution of the non-kosher item if the kosher item could have accomplished the task even without its aid.9Rav Blech notes that soft cheese uses no more than 2 milliliters of rennet per 1000 pounds of milk, whereas hard cheese generally requires between fifty and ninety milliliters of rennet. Since the cheese could have formed even without the rennet, the rennet, even if it is not kosher, does not render the cheese forbidden.
Accordingly, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 2:48) is inclined to rule that the prohibition of gevinat akum does not apply to soft cheeses. He comments that the principle of zeh v’zeh goreim appears to apply to the production of cottage cheese. In fact, Rav Blech cites Rav Tuvia Goldstein10Rav Moshe writes that some great rabbis permit soft cheeses l’chatchilah. Rav Yisroel Belsky reports that this refers to Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin. as ruling that one may even rely on this approach l’chatchilah (ideally), since soft cheeses are equivalent to butter, regarding which most observant Jews follow the lenient view among the poskim.11We discuss this issue in our earlier chapter about chalav yisrael.
Rav Juravel suggests a fascinating proof to Rav Moshe’s approach. As noted earlier, the Rambam rules that cheese that was curdled using date sap is prohibited (even though no rennet was used). Rav Juravel notes that the enzyme from date tree sap creates hard cheese. He proposes that the reason why the Rambam presents the example of date tree sap in his description of the gevinat akum prohibition is specifically to illustrate that only hard cheeses are included in the ban.
Nonetheless, both the Chochmat Adam (53:38) and the Aruch Hashulchan (Y.D. 115:16) rule that the prohibition applies even to cheeses whose production involves no rennet. This approach fits well with the ruling of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch that the prohibition applies even when its reason does not. Indeed, even Rav Moshe does not rule unequivocally that soft cheeses are not included in the prohibition of gevinat akum. He even writes that it is inappropriate for a Rav to publicize his lenient considerations.
Rav Blech and Rav Borow demonstrate that this dispute has been debated by authorities of previous generations, as well: the Radbaz (Teshuvot Radbaz 6:2291) rules that yogurt (which is made without rennet) is included in the gevinat akum prohibition, but the Pri Chadash (Y.D. 115:21) rules leniently.
Rav Blech questions Rav Moshe’s particular approach based on the assertion in Frank V. Kosikowski’s Cheese and Fermented Milk Foods (p. 111) that the rennet enzymes added in the production of soft cheeses provide for a sweeter cheese. Since this taste could not be attained without the rennet, one cannot use zeh v’zeh goreim as a lenient consideration. Rav Borow, on the other hand, states that the food technologists at Tnuva with whom he consulted stated that the rennet added to soft cheeses does not play a primary role in creating the cheese. Rather, it allows industrial-scale production of the cheeses to proceed more efficiently.
This dispute has never been fully resolved. Rav Avrohom Gordimer reports that the Orthodox Union’s policy is to rely on the rationale presented by Rav Moshe, which, although not endorsed l’chatchilah by Rav Moshe, was accepted l’chatchilah by Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin. This position explains the certification by reliable kashrut agencies of cottage cheese and cream cheese from companies that do not produce specifically for the observant Jewish community. Other kashrut agencies, though, are stricter and require the active participation of a mashgiach even for the production of soft cheeses. Of course, as Rav Borow notes, all agree that even soft cheese requires a reliable kashrut certification to ensure that all ingredients are kosher.
Whey
In the cheese-making process, the milk separates into curds and whey. It is questionable whether the whey (which is essentially a byproduct of the process but is used as an important ingredient in many industries) is included in the prohibition of gevinat akum. While Rav Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron (Techumin 23:466) believes that it should be included, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Y.D. 3:17) rules that it is not. Rav Moshe argues that the whey should be viewed as distinct from cheese, just as butter is treated as distinct from milk according to the lenient opinions regarding chem’at akum. Rav Shmuel Wosner (Teshuvot Sheivet Halevi 4:87) adopts a middle approach, applying the prohibition to whey only when the whey is heated together with the curd at a temperature higher than yad soledet bo (hot to the touch), which is the halachic definition of heat in the context of kashrut and Shabbat.12Poskim have varying opinions regarding the parallel in degrees Fahrenheit, ranging from 110-120 degrees (see Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:91:8, Rav Shimon Eider’s Halachos of Shabbos p. 243, and Rav Mordechai Willig’s Am Mordechai, Shabbat pp. 62-64). Since bli’ah (absorption from food) occurs at yad soledet bo, Rav Wosner reasons that the whey absorbs flavor from the curd and is rendered forbidden as gevinat akum.
Rav Avrohom Gordimer reports that the policy of the Orthodox Union is to follow the approach of Rav Wosner, using Rav Aharon Kotler’s standard (as reported by Rav Shimon Eider and Rav Moshe Heinemann, cited by Rav Blech) of 120 degrees Fahrenheit for yad soledet bo. Although many ordinarily would not rely on Rav Kotler’s ruling in a context where it serves as a leniency, in this context it is justified because the custom in the United States (as mentioned in Rav Moshe’s teshuvah) and Israel (see Bin’tiv Hechalav p. 42) has been to follow Rav Moshe’s entirely lenient ruling. Accordingly, the OU’s policy actually represents an increase in stringency from the previously accepted practice.13The OU also requires that the ingredients used to make the cheese be kosher, including the enzymes.
Conclusion
Unlike the area of chalav yisrael, there is near uniformity regarding the prohibition of gevinat akum. However, a few pockets of debate still persist, and about these we say “Eilu v’eilu divrei elokim chaim” (these and these are the words of the Living God; Eruvin 13b).
Although we can expect further areas of disagreement as modern food technology changes at breakneck speed, the poskim surely will continue to successfully apply our ancient and venerated Halacha to new, contemporary challenges.