Gemora: Chulin 116a

Mishnah: If one made cheese with the rennet (the skin of the stomach) of a validly slaughtered animal and there is a sufficient amount to impart a taste (to the cheese), it is forbidden.

The Mishnah deals with making cheese by adding milk to the skin of the stomach of an animal. This process produces a curdling effect on the milk. In the Talmudic times this was done by placing the milk inside the stomach of the animal. Today, it is done by adding a minute concentration of the stomach to the milk. The laws, however, remains the same.

The Mishnah states that the cheese is forbidden if there is a taste (ta'am) of the meat in it. If the meat is less than one part against sixty parts of milk, we rule that there is no meat taste in the milk. Therefore, the meat will be nullified (botel) and the cheese permitted. If, on the other hand, there is a greater proportion of meat in the milk, we rule that there will be a taste of meat in the cheese , and consequently, the cheese will forbidden.

It is necessary to reconcile this Mishnah with the discussion (sugiah) in Avodah Zarah.

The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 29) states: Rabbi Yishmael asks Rabbi Yehoshua why the cheese of gentiles is prohibited? The Gemora answers (Avodah Zarah 35), Shmuel says that it is forbidden because they make it with the rennet of a non-kosher animal.

The Gemora in Hullin also comes to the same conclusion: "The halachah is that we do not make cheese with the rennet of non-kosher animals.

Apparently, both the Mishnah in Avoda Zora and the statement of Shmuel in the Gemora (Avodah Zarah 35) rule that cheese made from the rennet of a non-kosher animal is prohibited whatever the quantity of rennet, even a minute amount (mashahu). This means that the meat will not be nullified (botel) even if it is only a thousand part or less than the quantity of milk. The prohibition which rules that even a minute amount of rennet will forbid any quantity of cheese, irrespective of taste, is called the prohibition of ma’amid (literally standing). Ma’amid is the name of the process whereby one substance gives form or solidity to a liquid.

We must clarify two points. Firstly, the nature of the prohibition of ma’amid. Secondly, the difference between the case brought in Avoda Zora where the cheese is prohibited even where there is only a minute quantity, and the Mishna in Chulin, where the cheese is prohibited only when there is enough rennet to give the taste of meat.

Clarifications:

1. Does the din of ma’amid (that the issur is not botel even in a thousand) only apply when rennet comes from a non-kosher animal or when some other forbidden substance is used, or does it apply even to rennet of a kosher animal?

2. Is the din of ma’amid a Torah or Rabbinical prohibition?

3. When cheese is produced from a combination of rennet and another permitted substance such as herbs, we apply the following principle: Where two causal factors exist simultaneously, one permitted (mutar) and the other prohibited (osser), the result of the combination of those causative factors, is permitted. This rule is described succinctly "ze v-ze gorem, mutttar". We will explain the parameters of this din as it applies to ma'amid.

We will investigate these questions according to a fundamental chakira (two sided analysis). In general, there are two factors which prevent a prohibited substance (issur) being nullified (botel) in a permitted substance (heter).

1. The "actual presence of the issur (b’ayn).
2. The presence of taste (ta’am).

In ma’amid, do we compare the curdling effect of the rennet, to the case of the actual presence of the issur b’ayn, or to the presence of taste? In either case, the issur of ma’amid would exist in any quantity, but there are two ways of explaining it.

1. Do we say that rennet cannot be botel since it makes the cheese solid, i.e. that it "stands up" or forms the cheese and is considered as if it is b’ayn (actually present in the cheese).

2. Or do we say that a dover shma’amid (a solidifying agent) by its nature adds taste to the substance. Since that is its function, it is considered that the taste is there even if it is considerably less than the normal quantity fiixed as giving taste (one in sixty) and the taste of the ma’amid is always deemed present. The result, therefore, would be to prohibit the osser in a mashahu.

The first question:

1. The Ran in Chulin brings the Ri MiGash who raises the following difficulty (kashe): Why did Shmuel in Avodah Zora have to say the the cheese of non-Jews was forbidden because they made it with the rennet of a nevaleh? Even if the animal was kosher it would be osser because of the prohibition of meat and cheese (boser b’halev). He raises a further difficulty (kashe): Why is it osser in a mashehu? Let us just see if it has taste! The Ri MiGash answers that the din of mamid (that the issur is not botel even in a thousand) applies only when rennet of nevelah or other forbidden substance is used. When milk is curdled with rennet of a kosher animal, the din is the same as any other instance of boser b’holev (it will be osser if there is a ta'am).

This explanation of the Ri miGash is held by the Rambam, the Rashbah and the Shulchan Orech. It also solves the problem of reconciling the two Gemoros. Avodah Zora is concerned with nevalah and therefore prohibits in a mashahu. Chullin is concerned with a kosher animal and therefore the cheese is prohibited only if there is the taste of meat (one in sixty). According to this view, the prohibition of Mamid is because it is as if b’ayn.

2. There are two other views which are opposed to this explanation. Each at the opposite ends of the spectrum. According to the Rav Mordechai Ashkenazi, the prohibition of Mamid applies equally to rennet from a kosher animal, a nevalah or any other forbidden substances (sha'ar isurrim). The Rav Ashkenazi explains the Mishnah in Chulin as referring to a case of "ze v'ze gorem". In other words the rennet was assisted by another permitted substance when it produced the cheese. This, then, is why there is no prohibition of Mamid for it would only be prohibited by ta'am, if there was the taste of the meat. But if the cheese was made from rennet alone then surely there would be an prohibition of Mamid and would osser in a mashahu.

3. The Rashal, on the contrary, holds that even Nevelah only causes the cheese to be prohibited if there is the taste of rennet (one in sixty). He rejects the din of Mamid and holds that the prohibition depends on the ta'am both in sha'ar issurrim and in boser b’halev. If it is not tasted in the cheese it does not prohibit. He explains the Gemora in Avodah Zora as giving the rule that cheese of gentiles are prohibited as a general statement of the rule but without specifying the quantity required to make such a prohibition. The Gemora in Chulin explains that the quantity is sixty i.e. that is in the amount that gives ta’am.

The second question:

Most Halachic Authorities (Posekim) hold that the prohibition of Mamid is Rabbinical. Only the Mogen Avraham in the name of the Tor (Or Chaim Simon 602:9) holds that it is from the Torah.

This will make halachic differences (nafka minas).In doubtful cases (sofek) we will be lenient (makil) if the law is Rabbinical,  but strict if the source of the law is from the Torah.

There will be another halachic difference relating to the following question: Is it permissible to add more cheese to cancel (mevatel) the taste of the meat? The Rambam permits the adding of more of the permitted substance into a mixture of heter and issur in order to increase the heter to the amount required to mvatel the Rabbinical issur. This can be done even initially (l'chatchilah). Accordingly, in the case of kosher rennet, in a case where the amount of milk was less than sixty, and the cheese would therefore be prohibited, if the din of ma’amid is Rabbinical, the Rambam would permit the addition of more milk, to bring the proportion of milk to rennet to more than sixty to one, in order to mevatel the issur and permit the cheese.

Since the Torah prohibits bose b’halev only when cooked together, ma’amid, in a case where it would apply to boser b’halev could by definition only be Rabbinical as it is not a form of cooking. Where the din of Mamid applies, it must be an Rabbinical prohibition. However, when the issur is based on the presence of other isurrim such as nevaleh, then it is possible that the issur of ma’amid is from the Torah and the din would be strict in the case of a sofek.

The third question:

All the Posekim hold the law of "z' v'ze gorem mutar", (which we learn from Pasachim) applies when neither the prohibited substance nor the permitted substance is sufficient in itself to effect the change, for instance in the case of curdling milk to make cheese. However, when both substances are present in such quantity that each in itself could effect the change, for instance where there is enough rennet and enough herbs, then only the Rama holds that the din still applies and that the cheese is permitted. This din of the Rama is against the usual din of "ze v-ze gorem muttar" and both the Taz and the Shach disagree strongly with the Rama. The Rama states that he bases his din on the Mordechai but his understanding of the Mordechai is also challenged by the Taz and the Shach. It is possible that the Rama would be makil even if there was sufficient amount of the forbidden rennet and an insufficient amount of the other permitted agent present in the cheese.

Since the Shulchan Oruch does not state the law as being like the Rama, we may infer that the view of the Shulchan Orech in the question of ze v-ze gorem is like the Taz and the Shach.

So far as the question of whether the prohibition of ma’amid is from the Torah or Rabbinical, in the case of the rennet of nevela and sha’ar issurim, the M’chaber holds that the prohibition Rabbinical since the Shulchan Orech follows the view of the Ri MiGash, and according to this view, the issur of Mamid is a issur b’eyn.