The concept of לֹא-תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי, בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ is brought down three times in the Torah. The Gemarah learns from this that there are three prohibitions: 1) The prohibition against cooking milk and meat 2) The prohibition of eating milk and meat together 3) the prohibition against deriving any benefit from a cooked mixture of milk and meat.

Why does the Torah use the same language to indicate three different things? Why isn't the verb used to separate each of the three prohibitions used in the Torah?

  • They are all about eating
    – Double AA
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 2:13
  • @DoubleAA only 1 is about eating. The others are not.
    – Bochur613
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 2:14
  • Depends how narrowly you take "eating".
    – Double AA
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 2:16
  • Sanhedrin uses the same logic with the clause "el ha'elokim" to enumerate three dayanim for a court. Commented May 13, 2014 at 2:16
  • @DoubleAA even if you have a different definition of eating, it still should not say לֹא-תְבַשֵּׁל
    – Bochur613
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 2:19

1 Answer 1


This exact question is asked on the Daat website, and they answer as follows:

If the Torah had written "Don't eat a kid in its mother's milk," it would have prohibited all such forms. Therefore the Torah wrote "cook" to be lenient and only prohibit eating via cooking ("אכילה דרך בישול"). (See Chullin 108a) The word "cook" also serves to be more stringent that the word "eat," for "cook" prohibits this act even if one does not benefit from it. (See Pesachim 25a).

The Rambam (Forbidden Foods 9:2) answer this question by saying it's a kal v'chomer: The Torah says "cooking" which includes "eating."

(Translation is mine; Can't copy-paste because Daat has messed-up character encoding; article continues here)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .