Proposition: Torah, on three occasions, says "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19, 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21). In Hebrew, the words for milk and fat are written the same, and only differ in pronunciation. Without the Oral Torah, how do we know that the word here (bachalayv) is 'cholov' (milk) and not 'cheylev' (fat)? If it is 'fat', it would be much like the other dietary laws forbidding the use of certain fats, especially when considering the context of Exodus 34:26, which like the verses before it, speak about Shabbat, Festivals, sacrifices, etc. Later on in Leviticus we see laws in the same context that discuss the fats also, and because the context is similar, or because of the other dietary restrictions concerning fats, we can assume that it really means 'its mother’s fat', and not its milk.
Response: 1. Herman Rubin gives the following explanation. When a newborn animal is born, the newborn's mother starts producing milk. Since the newborn drinks the milk, the only way for people in ancient times to get to the milk was to separate the newborn from its mother. Without its mother's milk, even if the humans did not slaughter it, the infant animal would die.
Thus, in ancient times, it was very common to have a dead infant animal of a milking animal. Perhaps there was a pagan ritual in which the infant animal was boiled in its mother's milk. The ritual could have signified the life / death cycle: people have food (milk) and life through the infant animal's death. Torah could be speaking out against this pagan ritual, as it does concerning other pagan rituals. The other reading, that the kid is boiled in its mother's fat, does not make sense. To get to the fat, the infant animal's mother could have to be slaughtered. Why would the ancients slaughter a perfectly fine milking animal, especially right after it started giving milk?
2. In modern times, whether we read "its mother's milk" or "its mother's fat" does not make any practical difference. When was the last time anyone wanted to cook an animal in its mother's anything?
3. Dr. Shlomo Argamon says that the verb used here, bishul, can only mean to cook in liquid: boil, seethe, poach, etc. Thus, it cannot be referring to fat, since cooking in fat is frying, not boiling.
Bishul appears in the Tanakh 28 times. Twice, it is used figuratively, to mean "ripe". The rest of the time, it translates as "boil" or one of its synonyms. At times, there is no indication that there is cooking specifically in liquid, but there is also no indication that there is cooking in oil; thus, those times, it could still mean cooking in liquid. There is only one problematic instance of the word. 2 Samuel 13:8 says "So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house; and he was lying down. And she took dough, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake / bishul the cakes." It's difficult to imagine that bishul in this passage could mean cooking in liquid. Then again, it might just be that I do not know all there is to know about ancient culinary.
4. Mesorah, the traditional pronunciation, says that the word here is "milk", not "fat". Remember that mesorah is not the same an an Oral Torah and does not require an Oral Torah.
5. Let us see if the prohibition makes sense given the surrounding text. In both Exodus 23:19 and 34:26, the full verse is "The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of YHWH your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." Assuming that the verse is forbidding a pagan ritual, the verse makes a lot of sense. It says: this is the correct way to elevate fruit, and this is the wrong way to elevate "fruit" / infant animal.
Ex 23:19 has the form "this is the right way, and this is the wrong way". Just before the verse, there are several passages that have the same form. For example 23:4-5: "When you encounter your enemy's ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him. [right way] When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from raising it [wrong way], you must nevertheless raise it with him." 23:12: "Six days you shall do your work [right way to work], but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor [wrong way to work on the seventh day], in order that your ox and your ass may rest, and that your bondman and the stranger may be refreshed." 23:13: "Be on guard concerning all that I have told you [right way]. Make no mention of the names of other gods [wrong way to mention other gods]; they shall not be heard on your lips."
Near Ex 34:26, in 34:10-16, it talks about destroying the pagan nations, destroying their ritual objects, and not worshiping other gods, as those pagan nations do. If boiling a kid in its mother's milk was a pagan ritual, then the prohibition is continuing the thought of not following the ways of the pagans.
Deuteronomy 14:21 is given in the context of a list of meats that are forbidden to eat, which also makes sense.
Posted by Ami at October 3, 2004 09:20 AM | TrackBackRight. I was not as sharp in writing this post as I should have been. I thank all who posted comments. Helping each other make our positions more solid and logical is really what this site is all about. :)
The point that Eddie makes should have been the basis of my answer. To reiterate:
Those who received the Law knew what the word meant. They thus did not need another law to explain it to them. It is the same case as with birds.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/disproofs_6_forbidden_birds.html
They knew the meanings of the words from the written text. This means that no Oral Law was necessary, since the Written sufficed them. If we do not know, or are not sure, we use our best judgment to determine the meaning. With birds, we are a bit unsure. With this verse, it's clearer.
One problem is that today, few people know the context. This time, it is the cultural / historical context. As Shlomo points out, there is not enough fat on a goat to boil a kid in. Why would the verse forbid something that is physically impossible?
And also, I was pointed out in the comments, and I should have made the point much stronger. Chelev / fat is already forbidden in all its forms.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/disproofs_5_forbidden_fat_chelev.html
Why would the text now forbid it in this specific use?
Posted by: Ami at October 9, 2004 05:33 AMJosiah,
I believe that the idea that cooking meat in milk featured in a Canaanite fertility ritual is based on a not completely clear Ugaritic tablet. Scholars nowadays doubt that this is in fact what the tablet means. (A Christian Bible study site, http://www.keithhunt.com/Kidmilk.html , has some references.)
As I recall, an old Karaite interpretation of Exodus 23:19 (which Ibn Ezra writes against, but which one or two rabbinite commentators accept as the plain meaning) is "bring the first fruits of your land to the temple of your god YHWH; do not let a kid mature on its mother's milk" (understanding "tevashel" as "let mature"). Here the second half of the verse is taken to exactly parallel the first, instructing that firstborn kids should be sacrificed without undue delay. On this interpretation, there is no connection whatsoever to eating milk with meat. Do you know whether this reading is still current in Karaite circles?
Milk & Meat, Pagan Ritual
There was in fact a Caananite Fertility ritual which did just that. It involved sacrifices to the 3 wives of Ba'al and such. I can't remember the specifics, but I know Nehemia mentioned it in the Biblical Kosher mp3s on my main site (ancient paths).
Posted by: Josiah at October 3, 2004 08:59 PMit would also seem redundant to mention that Helev is being referred to here - since it is already known to be forbidden.
We could equally make thousands of other combinations, eg in pig lard, pig fat, etc etc, but since we know they r already forbidden, this prohibition would be superfluous.
Posted by: Eddie at October 3, 2004 08:44 PMOne of the problems with the Oral Law argument is that they assume the recipients of the Torah were as ignorant of Biblical Hebrew as today's average Jew is (or even Rabbi).
Ther is also the cultural knowledge - again it is assumed that 3000 years ago, peopel dint knwo how to do anything, and needed an Oral Law to tell them. The Torah doesnt explicitly say how humans procreate, however, people did it in those days, but that doesn't imply they needd an Oral law to tell them how.
On a less facetious note, we can look at forbidden birds - which apparently we need the Oral Aw to know which species the Bible refers to. But i think such an argument is clearly false. An example would be: In England, everybody knows what a Magpie is - its a common bird, with distinct colours and even legends surrounding it. However, when i mention the magpie to most Americans, they have no idea what it is, unless they are ornithologists. That doesnt mean that the British have some extra constitution, a hidden Magna Carta, that was not written down, to identify the Magpie. The same would apply to many other species. I don't recall having seen a Robin or starling in Israel, or a squirrel for that matter.
In Scandinavia they have flying suirrels, but an israeli (lacking photographic evidence) might mistake it for a bat.
A lot of the argumentation for the Oral Law assumss ignorance of their audience.
1)Or perhaps they weren’t really concerned over this. They may have had other goats for milking. The fat we are cooking in is commonly referred to as LARD, and is still used just about everywhere.BUT, lard is already forbidden.
3)Ever deep fry anything? Ever boil anything in oil? Deep fried turkeys are all the rage these days. Damn tasty, too.
Of course, there would be a very practical reason why you cannot boil a kid in its mothers fat. There just wouldn’t be enough fat. Goats are especially lean animals. The only liquids in any kind of abundance would be blood or milk.
SL
Posted by: at October 3, 2004 10:49 AM