Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've recently read (again) the verse "לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו", meaning, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk".

How did anyone get from that, to "Don't eat meat with milk at all"? I've always been curious to know.

share|improve this question
3  
Welcome to the site, and thanks bringing this important question here! I hope you stick around end enjoy the site. – msh210 Feb 17 '12 at 16:15
@msh210: Meh :) area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/36772/hebrew-language-usage By yours truly. Please come and follow :) – Madara Uchiha Feb 17 '12 at 16:38
There's some interesting discussion over at Biblical Hermeneutics for the curious. (Though, I should point out that some of the answers are not at all helpful for someone interested in Jewish Life and Learning. The accepted answer here is far more useful for that. ;-) – Jon Ericson Feb 17 '12 at 17:56

3 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

See here for more.

Basically, if you look carefully in Biblical Hebrew, g'di actually means "a young animal" -- usually if you didn't specify it meant a goat, but it could be a generic term for any young. Thus elsewhere it might specify g'di izim -- "a young goat."

So that gives us "don't cook a young animal in its mother's milk."

Why the thing about "mother's"? Hebrew lesson once again, the language is written without vowels. "Chalav" is milk; "chelev" is fat. So by adding in the phrase "mother's" we know it's talking about cooking it in milk, not fat.

We believe that an Oral Tradition was given along with the Bible as we know it, which meant that this verse was intended as:

Don't cook the meat of any ruminant animal in the milk of any ruminant animal.

The verse appears thrice in the Torah, giving us: don't cook it, don't eat it if it was cooked, and don't sell it if it was cooked.

In fact you'd only violate the direct Torah prohibition if it was cooked with milk; if you took a cold hamburger and soaked it in milk for an hour, that isn't in the prohibition. Centuries later, the rabbis of the Talmud added a prohibition of their own, knowing that if you okayed people to eat such a hamburger, it's likely they'll reheat it - thus getting to a Torah prohibition.

That pertains as the legal definition. As for the ethical message, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch suggests that meat is taking, and milk is giving. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook suggests going back to the simple reading of the verse -- once you kill an animal, its mother's milk has no use. To then take that milk and use it to make the meat extra-tasty is too blatant of a disrespect for animal life.

share|improve this answer
4  
+1 Excellent answer! I've never heard that part about cheilev/chalav, but it makes a lot of sense! Thanks! – HodofHod Feb 17 '12 at 14:27
1  
+1, but the answer would be much improved IMO if it contained a fuller explanation of the "The verse appears thrice..." paragraph, explaining that that, too, is part of the oral tradition. – msh210 Feb 17 '12 at 16:17
1  
Why can't the verse be telling us not to cook the kid in the mother's fat? – avi Feb 19 '12 at 9:27

The Torah never says anything unnecessarily, yet it repeats the law about not eating a young animal in the milk of its mother three times when it could have said just one "Don't eat meat with milk". From here the gemara and later commentators pick up a few things: 1) There are three aspects - not cooking, eating or benefiting 2) The d'oraysa aspect only applies to kosher, domesticated mammals 3) Milk is kosher even though it was mixed with meat in the mother's udders. All these are learned (see gemara in Chullin as referenced above and elsewhere) from the wording of the three repetitive verses.

share|improve this answer
Related judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8558/… – avi Feb 19 '12 at 9:28

I hope this isn't disrespectful, but there are also health considerations. These words are much older than refrigeration-- and a combination of warming lactose (in the milk) and iron/protein (in the meat) can make you feel ill.

share|improve this answer
4  
edthethird, welcome to Judaism.SE, and thanks very much for bringing up this this perspective! I don't think it's disrespectful at all to mention this as a possibility, but I'd point out that from the point of view of those who consider Jewish Law binding, the bottom-line reason for each law is "God said so." Depending on whom you ask, it could be worthwhile to try to explore why God may have legislated one way or the other, and this health concept could be part of that exploration, but to be relevant in a traditional Jewish context, it would have to... – Isaac Moses Feb 17 '12 at 18:08
2  
... be evaluated against the traditional sources for the laws, their mechanics, and their possible reasons. – Isaac Moses Feb 17 '12 at 18:09
1  
I fully agree with @IsaacMoses. I would also add that the question was not "Why did G-d say so," but rather, "Why is G-d's command interpreted the way it is?" – Seth J Feb 17 '12 at 19:31
1  
I just want to point out, that many things which are Kosher are unhealthy. In fact, European Jews suffer greatly from dietary based illnesses. – avi Feb 19 '12 at 9:30
1  
I wouldn't use the word "disrepectful". I would use the word "irrelevant". It doesn't matter what physical / practical benefit a mitzvah does or does not have. We do it because G-d said so, not because it might make sense to do it, even if G-d didn't say so. – user1095 Feb 19 '12 at 13:27
show 3 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.