We find in Parashas Shemos that after his miraculous salvation at the hands of Pharaoh’s daughter, Moshe Rabbeinu refused to nurse from an Egyptian woman, but was rather returned to his mother, at the advice of Miriam, in order to nurse.
The Gemara (Sotah 12b; see also Shemos Rabba 1:25) explains that although there is no prohibition for a Jewish child to nurse from a non-Jewish woman, Moshe nonetheless refused to eat from an Egyptian. With no alternative, Pharaoh’s daughter consented to send him to an Israelite.
The Gemara explains that Moshe’s refusal was by Divine providence: “[Should] the mouth that is destined to speak with me suckle from the defile?”
In the present article we will discuss foods that are permissible to eat according to the basic halachah, yet are avoided by many because of concern about spiritual damage that consumption of them might cause. Concerning which foods is there this concern? What is the source of the concern? Might there be reason to ignore it? These questions, and others, are discussed below.
The Negative Influence of non-Jewish Mother’s Milk
The Gemara (Yevamos 114a) cites a baraisa that says: “It is permitted for an infant to nurse from a non-Jewish woman and from a unclean animal, and there is no concern for yonek sheketz.” The Gemara clarifies that this halachah applies specifically to infants and not to adults, the reason being that “a standard infant is in physical danger with respect to needing milk.”
We can assume that an infant requires mother’s milk and is in actual danger if he does not get it, and therefore he may nurse from a non-Jewish woman and from an unclean animal.
RabbeinuChananelproves from here that the milk of a non-Jewish woman is actually prohibited for Jewish consumption, just as the milk of an unclean animal is prohibited. It is only permitted in circumstances of actual physical danger.
However, other Rishonim (Yevamos 114; Avodah Zarah 26a) dispute this, and write that according to Torah law there is no restriction on the milk of a non-Jewish woman. According to the Ritva (Avodah Zarah) the Sages prohibited such milk because non-Jews eat non-kosher foods; the negative spiritual effects thereof are passed on via the milk. The Ritva proves this from Moshe Rabbeinu’s avoidance of Egyptian milk. Rashi (Sotah 12b), too, writes that the reason Moshe shunned the milk of Egyptian women was because a woman’s milk transfers the taste of all that a woman eats.
The Rashba (as cited by the Ran, Avodah Zarah) writes that non-Jewish milk does not carry any prohibition – Torah or rabbinic – but writes that it is pious and proper to refrain from employing a non-Jewish wet nurse for Jewish infants. (In fact, the Rashba in his commentary to Yevamos writes that there may be a rabbinic prohibition in drinking the milk.)
The Rashba explains that the reason for this is not the foods consumed by the woman, but rather the nature of Jewish as opposed to non-Jewish milk: “For Israel is of compassionate and reserved nature, and even their milk generates similar properties.” The Rashba also cites the account of Moshe as proof of the point.
Rebbi and Antoninus
The idea mentioned by the Rashba whereby Jewish milk has an innate positive effect, and that the contrary is true for non-Jewish milk, is confirmed by the Midrash (cited by Tosafos, Avodah Zarah 10b).
The Midrash relates that the Romans had decreed a moratorium on circumcisions at the time that Rebbi was born. Nonetheless, Rebbi’s parents had him circumcised. As a result the Caesar sent for the parents to appear with the baby at the palace.
Antoninus’ mother, who had also just given birth, recognizing the grave danger awaiting the couple, had compassion on them, and offered to switch her son Antoninus with Yehudah (Rebbi). When the couple and the baby were called in, the Caesar saw that the baby was uncircumcised, and dismissed them. The Caesar commented: “I am well aware that they circumcised their child. However seeing that their G-d performs miracles for them I hereby rescind my decree forbidding circumcision!”
Besides the kinship (between Rebbi and Antoninus) that arose because they were temporarily switched, Antoninus had the merit to nurse from Rebbi’s virtuous mother while they were waiting to see the Caesar. The milk that Antoninus ingested inspired him to eventually study Torah clandestinely with Rebbi each day. Ultimately, Antoninus circumcised himself and converted to Judaism.
Halachic Rulings
There may be practical halachic ramifications of the different approaches of the Ritva and the Rashba.
Specifically, according to the Ritva perhaps, there will be no problem of employing a non-Jewish wet nurse if we know that she does not consume any non-kosher food. Conversely, according to the Ritva there will be a problem of employing a Jewish wet nurse who eats non-kosher food, whether by choice or by necessity. According to the Rashba, however, the issue is unrelated to the woman’s diet, and depends only on her religious identity.
The Rema (Yoreh De’ah 81:7) rules: “The milk of a non-Jewish woman has the same halachic status as Jewish milk, yet a Jewish infant should not nurse from a non-Jew if a Jewish woman is available, for non-Jewish milk taints the heart.” Although the source of the ruling is the Rashba, the Rema proceeds to add that “a wet nurse, even Jewish, should avoid eating forbidden foods.” He therefore incorporates the stringencies of both opinions.
We likewise find in the Or Zarua (Vol. 2, Shabbos 48) that a pregnant woman should make a special effort to avoid forbidden foods, citing as a proof, Acher’s mother who ate a forbidden food during her pregnancy, which “seeped through her like snake venom, and he ultimately turned to evil.” Even where there is no formal prohibition in eating the foods, we thus find a special instruction to avoid forbidden foods during pregnancy, due to the negative effects of the food on the fetus.
The Negative Effect of Forbidden Foods
The idea (as found in the Ritva) that forbidden foods have a negative impact on a person’s spiritual condition even where no prohibition is involved, is something of a chiddush. We would expect a sin to bring a person spiritual damage, but why should permitted consumption of a forbidden food have a negative effect?
An explanation of this effect is found in a teaching of the Ramban (Vayikra 11:13), who writes that the reason the Torah forbids certain foods is because of their inherently negative nature – an explanation already suggested by Ibn Ezra (Vayikra 19:22). According to this line of reasoning, it is clear that the food itself breeds negative character traits, for the bad nature of the food is the reason the Torah forbids it – and not vice versa.
Some commentaries, however, dispute the rationale offered by the Ramban (see, for instance, Maharal, Tiferes Yisrael, Chap. 8), and others entirely reject the concept that forbidden foods have a negative impact beyond the effect of sin.
The Gemara (Yoma 39a) writes that when the Torah warns (Vayikra 11:43), “You shall not make yourselves detestable with (by consuming) any swarming thing that swarms… that you should be defiled thereby,” the intention is that a person should not cause himself spiritual contamination through sin. Although the verse itself refers specifically to creatures that swarm, the Gemara derives a principle whereby “sin contaminates the heart of man.”
The Rif (in Ein Yaakov) explains that there is no special property of contamination latent in non-kosher food; it is the sin, rather than the food itself, that causes contamination. This opinion is in line with the above interpretation of the Rashba, according to which the reason to refrain from a non-Jewish wet nurse is not the food she eats, but rather her non-Jewish nature.
According to the Ramban, the Ritva, and others, however, non-kosher food has a defiling effect even when eaten with Torah permission. This is also the position of the Chasam Sofer (Orach Chaim 83), who ruled that a retarded child should not be placed into an institution where he will be fed non-kosher food, even where the treatment might lead to his recovery. The concern of the Chasam Sofer was not for any actual prohibition, but for the negative effect of the food: “It is better that he should be retarded his entire life, than that he should be wicked for one hour before Hashem.”
It is noteworthy that according to Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggros Moshe, Orach Chaim Vol. 2, no. 81) the ruling applies only where there is a chance of the child recovering. Where this is an impossibility, it is permitted to place the child in an institution even if kosher food is not available.
Prohibited Foods Annulled in a Mixture
There is room to investigate the status of non-kosher foods that were annulled in a mixture with kosher foods. Do we say that the defiling power of the non-kosher food is also annulled, or is it still correct to refrain from consuming such foods?
The Tur (Yoreh De’ah 109) writes that forbidden foods that were annulled in a mixture with kosher food are permitted to eat, both on a Torah and rabbinic level. The Beis Yosef cites (Shaarei Dura 39:6) that when prohibited meat fell into a permitted mixture, the Maharam was careful to take out a piece of meat – whichever came to hand – from the mixture, and hand it to a non-Jew, before eating the rest. The assumption was that the piece he took out was the forbidden piece that had fallen in – as a righteous Torah scholar, it would be denigrating should he eat prohibited food, and Maharam was confident that Hashem would not allow this to happen.
According to the formal halachah there is no question that even the piece of forbidden meat was permitted to eat, after falling into the mixture. However, Maharam nonetheless understood that eating the food is considered derisory (genai) for a righteous person, even after it becomes permitted for consumption.
Yet, it does not seem that the defiling effect of forbidden food will apply after bittul (annulment) has taken place, for bittul implies that the forbidden food turns into something permitted (there is some discussion of this principle, but this is the mainstream view), and is not merely permission to eat the food. It therefore stands to reason that the defiling effect is also erased. This principle is indeed noted by the Taz (Yoreh De’ah 112:9).
At the same time, there is room to distinguish between bittul of solid foods, which can be construed as permission to eat the forbidden food (we follow the majority), and bittul of liquids, which is generally understood as a true annulment of the forbidden food.
It is important in this context to mention the dispute among authorities as to whether it is permitted to avoid eating forbidden food after bittul or not. The Pischei Teshuvah (Yoreh De’ah 116:10) cites the Issur Ve-Heter (Chap. 57) that this is permitted, and indeed recommended, for it is proper that a person should distance himself from forbidden foods. Clearly, the Issur Ve-Heter maintains that in spite of bittul the negative effects of the forbidden food remain, at least to some degree.
The Soles Ha-Minchah (76:8), however, writes (citing the Toras Ha-Asham): “Taking upon oneself a stringency in a matter that the Sages were not stringent, for instance for forbidden foods that were annulled in permitted mixtures, is akin to heresy, and his reward is outweighed by his loss.”
As noted above, it is possible that there is room to distinguish between bittul of solid mixtures, and bittul of liquid mixtures.
May we merit to realize the words of our prayers: “Purify our hearts to serve You in truth.”
