118 THE COMMON SENSE OF THE MILK QUESTION 



these and many other factors greatly increase the 

 risks of infection. It is, however, quite evident that 

 no matter how much we may be disposed to discount 

 the risk of infection, there is an element of danger 

 which it is prudent and wise to avoid if possible. 

 And it is still important that a minimum of bacteria 

 be insisted upon, first, because large numbers of 

 bacteria in milk always indicate filth and carelessness 

 in handling, and, second, because it is reasonable to 

 suppose that under such conditions the dangers of 

 infection by disease germs will, as a rule, be greatly 

 increased. For if a farmer or dairyman is so careless 

 and ignorant as to let his milk become so contami- 

 nated, he is not likely to be very particular about the 

 health of his cows or of those who attend them.'"* 



The ancient Hebrews, though they knew nothing of 

 our modern science of bacteriology, were thoroughly 

 alive to the dangers of impure milk. The elaborate 

 Rabbinical regulations concerning the manner of its 

 keeping and use indicate that they had a wider 

 knowledge of milk hygiene than most modem nations 

 possess. Permission to drink milk was by the Rabbis 

 regarded as an exception (hiddiish) to the general 

 rule which forbade the eating of anything which came 

 from the living animal. This was, doubtless, due 

 to a keen recognition of the dietetic value of milk. 

 It was forbidden to use milk which came from an 

 animal suffering from any visible malady, a wise 



