"לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ"/2

Lo Tevashel Gedi

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Prohibition to Cook a Goat in Milk

The verse "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" prohibits cooking meat and milk together.

Sources:PhiloOn the Virtues 142-144About Philo, Targum Yerushalmi (Neofiti)Shemot 23:19Shemot 34:26Devarim 14:21About Targum Yerushalmi (Neofiti), Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelShemot 23:19About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)Shemot 23:19Shemot 34:26Devarim 14:21About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan), RashiShemot 23:19Shemot 34:26Devarim 14:21About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamShemot 23:19About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraShemot First Commentary 23:19Shemot First Commentary 30:12Shemot Second Commentary 23:19Devarim 14:21About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 23:19Shemot 34:26About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor #2, RambamMoreh Nevukhim 3:48About R. Moshe b. Maimon, R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 34:26About R. Avraham Maimonides, RambanShemot 34:26Devarim 14:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman, RalbagShemot Beur HaParashah 23:19About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelShemot 23:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoShemot 23:19Shemot 34:26Devarim 14:21About R. Ovadyah Seforno, ShadalShemot 23:19About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. S.R. HirschShemot 23:19About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. David Zvi HoffmannDevarim 14:21About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

Meaning of "תְבַשֵּׁל" – This approach understands "תְבַשֵּׁל" according to its most common meaning, "to cook".¹

Meaning of "גְּדִי" – Many of these sources maintain that "גְּדִי" refers to a young goat specifically, but that the prohibition nonetheless extends to all animals.² The goat is singled out as an example only since it was the most common source of meat to be boiled in milk (דיבר הכתוב בהווה).³

Meaning of "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" – Though the phrase "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" means the milk of the goat's mother, according to most of these sources,⁴ this, too, is understood to be but an example and the prohibition includes all types of milk. This case is specified only because it is the most common occurrence.⁵

Reason for the prohibition – These sources offer a variety of possible reasons for the prohibition:

• Bad etiquette and cruelty – According to Rashbam, cooking meat and milk is not decorous and betrays gluttony. Philo and others⁶ further emphasize that using a mother's milk to cook her own children is needlessly cruel and/or invites crulety.⁷ These sources compare the prohibition to that of "אֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד" (Vayikra 22:28) and "שילוח הקן" (Devarim 22:6-7).⁸
• Idolatrous Customs – Rambam and others in his wake⁹ suggest that cooking meat and milk together was an idolatrous custom, practiced during the festivals, perhaps with the belief that it would bring abundant crops or flock.¹⁰ Rambam is consistent in reading many laws as stemming from this same goal of distancing Israel from idolatrous rites,¹¹ however, as he himself notes, no evidence exists of such a custom in this case.¹²
• Unhealthy Mixture – Rambam and Ralbag add that eating a mixture of meat and milk is unhealthy.  Other food prohibitions, including Kashrut, Orlah and fat, have similarly been explained as being related to health concerns.¹³
• Hybrids – R. Hirsch suggests that the prohibition should be seen in light of similar forbidden mixtures¹⁴ such as כלאיים, which are prohibited since they are an unnatural mixing of species or kinds, going against Hashem's creation of "each according to his species".¹⁵ In remembering this natural law, man is supposed to recall that he, too, has an assigned and unique task in life: to keep Hashem's Torah.¹⁶
  

Context in Shemot

• Relevance to bikkurim –  Seforno suggests that the juxtaposition is also meant to combat idolatrous beliefs. Since idolators believed that cooking meat in milk would ensure abundant crops, the Torah explains that this is erroneous and prohibited; if one wants their crops blessed, they should instead bring bikkurim.¹⁷
• Relevance to the festivals – The law might be placed within a discussion of the festivals because that is when the fear of violation was highest:¹⁸
• According to Rashbam, since large amounts of meat are consumed during the festivals, it is more likely that meat and milk might come to be mixed.
• According to Ralbag, since the prohibition is a reaction against idolatrous festival practices, the warning logically appears in the midst of the festival laws.¹⁹

Context in Devarim – Ibn Ezra and Ramban explain that the prohibition is listed in Devarim after the laws of Kashrut and the prohibition of carrion because it is similarly a food prohibition.

Three-fold repetition – Mekhilta brings a variety of explanations for the three fold repetition of the prohibition, suggesting that it might come to include three groups of animals (domesticated animals, undomesticated animals and poultry), three types of prohibitions (against cooking, eating and deriving benefit) or be parallel to the three covenants, at Sinai, Arvot Moav and  Mt. Gerizim). Alternatively, one might suggest that the repetition is for emphasis.  If cooking meat and milk was a common practice, many warnings might be necessary to distance the nation from it.

Warning Not to Delay Offerings

The verse is a warning not to delay the bringing of offerings. This approach subdivides with regards to the meaning of "גְּדִי" and, hence, regarding which offering is referred to:

First Fruits

The "גְּדִי" is a fruit and the verse warns that one must bring bikkurim to the Mikdash in a timely fashion.

Sources:Machberet MenachemבשלגדAbout Menachem b. Saruk,²⁰ Dunash cited by R. Yosef KaraShemot 23:19About R. Yosef Kara, RaavanChulin 271About R. Eliezer b. Natan, rejected opinion in Ibn EzraShemot First Commentary 23:19Shemot Second Commentary 23:19About R. Avraham ibn Ezra²¹

Meaning of "תְבַשֵּׁל" – Menachem and Dunash understand "תְבַשֵּׁל" to refer to the ripening of fruit, as per the word's usage in Bereshit 40:10 and Yoel 4:13.  The verse warns against leaving the first fruits on the tree, allowing them to continue ripening,²² rather than bringing them to the Mikdash as soon as possible.

Meaning of "גְּדִי" – Menachem asserts that "גְּדִי" is related to the word "מְגָדִים" and refers to fruit.²³ [See Devarim 33:13-15, Shir HaShirim 4:13, 4:16, and 7:14 where the root is connected to fruit or crops.]

Meaning of "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" – According to this approach, "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" could refer to the sap of the tree which feeds the fruit till it ripens. This understanding of "חֲלֵב" might be supported by Bemidbar 18:12. However, the word "אִמּוֹ" as a reference to the tree is somewhat difficult. ²⁴

Reason for the prohibition – The prohibition is simply the flip side of the commandment to offer bikkurim. Tanakh mandates both that the first fruits be brought to the Mikdash and that they not be left on the tree too long. It might be equivalent to the command, "מְלֵאָתְךָ וְדִמְעֲךָ לֹא תְאַחֵר" of Shemot 22.

Context in Shemot – The juxtaposition of the warning "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" to the command of bikkurim is the main motivation for this approach's understanding of the verse.²⁵  Linking the law to the bringing of first fruits naturally leads one to suggest that it, too, might refer to fruit.

Context in Devarim – It is difficult to understand why a law regarding prompt offerings would be connected to the food prohibitions of Devarim 14.  This approach misght   which precede it, but to the laws of tithes which follow it. Both deal with the bringing of one's crops to the Mikdash.²⁶

Variation of this approach – Midrash Aggada, Rashi, and R. Saba appear to understand the word to mean cook or burn, and that the phrase delineates the punishment of one who delays bringing his first fruits; he will cause the young kernels of his grain to dry out as Hashem brings an easternly wind and "cooks" them. See Devarim 33:14, "וּמִמֶּגֶד תְּבוּאֹת שָׁמֶשׁ". Midrash Aggadah also thinks that the word refers to grains, but via a metaphor. The young grain is compared to a young goat which needs nourishing. [See Devarim 33:13-15, Shir HaShirim 4:13, 4:16, and 7:14 where the root is connected to fruit or crops.ccording to Midrash Aggadah, Rashi, and R. Saba, in contrast, "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" is not prohibition but a punishment, warning what will be the consequences of not bringing bikkurim.

Firstborn Animals

The "גְּדִי" is a goat and the verse warns to bring firstborn animals to the Mikdash as soon as possible.

Sources:Binyamin Nahawandi (a Karaite), rejected opinion in Ibn EzraShemot Second Commentary 23:19About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 23:19Shemot 34:26Devarim 14:21About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, approach attributed to the Karaites by AbarbanelShemot 23:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel and ShadalShemot 23:19About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Meaning of "תְבַשֵּׁל" – According to this approach, "תְבַשֵּׁל" means to mature or develop, and refers to the growth of the young goat.²⁷

Meaning of "גְּדִי" – The word "גְּדִי" means a young goat, but in this context refers specifically to a firstborn. These sources would likely explain that the verse is just using a goat as a common example, but that the law refers to any firstborn animal.²⁸

Meaning of "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" – According to this approach, "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" is the milk of the goat's mother upon which the goat is nourished and develops.

Reason for the prohibition – This prohibition is the flip-side of the positive commandment to sacrifice the first-born animals. The Torah both mandates that we offer firstborns and warns not to delay the offering.

"שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִהְיֶה עִם אִמּוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי" – The Karaites understand our verse to be equivalent to Shemot 22:28-29 which directs that a firstborn muststay by ot smother for seven days, but "בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי תִּתְּנוֹ לִי".  Though Rabbinic interpretation reads the verse in light of Vayikra 22:27 (וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה לְקׇרְבַּן) to mean that one may bring a firstborn from the eighth day and on, the Karaites read the phrase literally, that one must bring the firstborn already on the eighth day.  Our verse, then, is simply another warning not to delay.²⁹

Context in Shemot – R"y Bekhor Shor notes that the prohibition is intrinsically connected to the laws of bikkurim that precede it in the first half of the verse. The verse speaks of two types of first fruit – those of the ground and those of animals, mandating that both must be brought to the Mikdash. It is possible that these two laws close the unit on festivals as that is when people would normally bring their first fruits/flock to the Mikdash.³⁰

Context in Devarim – According to this approach, it is unclear why the prohibition would be found in the context of laws of prohibited foods in Devarim. This is perhaps what leads R" Y Bekhor Shor to explain the phrase in Devarim to refer to the prohibition of milk and meat and not firstborns. It is possible, though, that the prohibition connects to the laws of tithes that follow it rather than the laws of kashrut which precede it. As both firstborns and tithes are gifts that must be brought to the Mikdash, the two laws follow one another.³¹

¹ The root בשל appears 28 times as a verb and twice more as an adjective.  With but two exceptions, the word refers to cooking meat.

² In contrast, Rashi, R"Y KaraShemot 23:19About R. Yosef Kara, Ibn Ezra (in his first commentary) and R. D"Z Hoffmann understand that the word "גְּדִי" actually means any young domesticated animal and not specifically a goat. [Cf. Ramban who similarly suggests that "גְּדִי" refers to any nursing animal.] As evidence, they point to the fact that the Torah often feels the need to specify  "גְּדִי עִזִּים", telling the reader what type of "גְּדִי".  This implies that the word "גְּדִי" alone has a more general meaning and can refer to any number of animals.  [In his second commentary, Ibn Ezra rejects this reading, claiming that a "גְּדִי" refers only to a goat and the difference between "גְּדִי" and "גְּדִי עִזִּים" is only that the former is older.]

³ See the Mekhilta, "מפני מה דיבר הכתוב בגדי? מפני שהחלב מרובה באמו".  Rashbam elaborates, explaining that goats tend to bear two calves at a time and tend to have a lot of milk, so it was common to slaughter one and use the ample milk of its mother to cook it.  Ibn Ezra, instead, posits that due to the lack of moisture in goats as compared to other animals, boiling was the most common way to eat them specifically.

⁴ Philo is exceptional, as he understands that one is allowed to boil meat in another animal's milk. It is specifically the mother's milk which is prohibited for only in that is inappropriate and cruel.

⁵ As the mother's milk was often the most readily available, this is the most prevalent scenario. [See Rashbam in the footnote above.]  Ramban, instead, suggests that the word "אם" refers to any animal who is nursing and giving forth milk (and need not refer to the animal's mother specifically). R. D"Z Hoffmann raises a third possibility, suggesting that the term comes to disambiguate between "fat" and milk".  Since without vocalization the two words are identical (חלב), when people wanted to specify "milk", they would refer to it as "חלב אם". According to both Ramban and R. Hoffmann, though, the verse should have read simply "חלב אם" and not "בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ" (his mother's milk).

⁶ See Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, Ramban, Abarbanel (in his first explanation) and Shadal.

⁷ Philo points out that using the very milk which had nourished the kid to cook and consume its flesh is cruel and inappropriate.  The prohibition might further be compared to that of eating blood which might similarly stem from its being a life source; eating flesh with either its blood or the milk which nourished it betrays a disregard for the sanctity of life. [See Prohibition of Blood for elaboration on this understanding of the prohibition and for alternative understandings.]
According to this understanding, one would have expected the law to be limited to a mother's milk and not encompass any other animal's milk. This, is in fact, how Philo reads the law. Ibn Ezra, though, explains that other milk was included as a safeguard. Since many people buy their milk in the market where it is gathered from many animals, there is no way of knowing what includes the milk of the mother and what does not.  Ramban, instead, suggests that it is in appropriate to use any mother's milk; the very idea of using a source that was meant to give life and nourishment in order to cook is simply wrong.

⁸ These laws similarly deal with a mother animal and her son and appear to stem form humanitarian values and a desire to prevent cruelty.

⁹ See R. Avraham b. HaRambam, Ralbag, Abarbanel, and Seforno.

¹⁰ See Abarbanel and Seforno who make this last point. [Netziv suggests that the mixture might have been used the way one uses fertilizer today, sprinkling it over the field. However, he implies that this was a superstition, a "charm" or "סגולה", and not an idolatrous practice.]

¹¹ For some of many examples, see his understanding of Sacrifices, Orlah, Hybrids and the Prohibition of Blood.

¹² In the nineteen thirties various scholars, following H.L. Ginsberg, "Notes on the Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods," JRAS (1935): 45-72, attempted to bring evidence of such an idolatrous practice from an Ugaritic text known as "Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods."  Line 14 of the text was understood to read, "coo[k a k]id in milk, a ? in butter", leading scholars to assume that there was some Canaanite cultic ceremony which mandated cooking a goat in milk, and it was against this that the Torah was reacting. Over the next few decades, however, better photographs of the tablet and closer analysis has questioned this reading and led to the conclusion that one cannot learn of any such cultic practice form the Ugaritic text.  For discussion, see M. Haran, "Seething a Kid in its Mother's Milk", Journal of Jewish Studies 30 (1979):23-35 and R. Ratner and B. Zuckerman, "A Kid in Milk"?:New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14*", HUCA 57 (1986): 15-60.

¹³ This utilitarian approach to mitzvot has often been questioned.  See, for example, Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel (in the context of the laws of kashrut) who argue that the purpose of Torah is not to teach medicine but rather to instill good character and deeds.  Rambam and Ralbag, though, appear to disagree with the basic assumption that laws cannot be utilitarian and give practical explanations for several commandments. See, for instance, Rambam's understanding of the purpose of Shemittah and the Incense Altar and Ralbag on the laws of Tzara'at.

¹⁴ He notes that the verse does not forbid only eating the mixture, but its very creation through cooking. As such,the prohibition should be compared not to other forbidden foods, but to other forbidden mixtures.

¹⁵ undefined

¹⁶ For elaboration on this understanding of forbidden mixtures and other explanations of the laws, see Purpose of the Laws of Hybrids.

¹⁷ Cf. Targum Yerushalmi (Fragmentary), Targum Yerushalmi (Neofiti), andTargum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) who explain that the juxtaposition hints that the punishment for violating the prohibition of meat and milk is damage to the crops mentioned in the beginning of the verse.

¹⁸ See also Ramban who explains that as young goats were born around the same time of the year as fruits ripened, the first fruits and firstborn goats would often be brought together to the Mikdash as people came to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals.  As the firstborns who were still suckling were often accompanied by their mothers, this increased the potential for cooking them in their mother's milk.  Hence, the prohibition is mentioned in connection to laws of both bikkurim and the festivals.

¹⁹ The continuation of Shemot 23 and the larger context of Shemot 34 deal with distancing one's self from idolatry, and could further support the reading that the law is a reaction to idolatry.

²⁰ This is Menachem's opinion when discussing the roots בשל and גד. Menachem seems to contradict himself in root חלב, implying there that חלב is animal milk.

²¹ He quotes the opinion in the name of the "deniers" and and is likely referring to a Karaite interpretation.

²² Ibn Ezra points out that it is the sun which ripens the fruit, not a human, so the text's formulation "לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל" is not accurate according to this reading.  One cannot command a human not to ripen his fruit as he is incapable of doing so regardless.

²³ Connecting the words "גדי" and "מגד" matches Menachem's general approach to grammar, which allows for two-letter roots (in this case, both words share the root גד). Ibn Ezra, in his critique of this approach, notes that given the modern three-letter root system, "מְגָדִים" is from the root מגד, and is thus unrelated to "גְּדִי".

²⁴ Though one can metaphorically refer to a tree as a fruit's "mother," such a poetic formulation seems out of place in a legal code.

²⁵ See Ibn Ezra who disparagingly suggests that this is the only reason to take this (in his opinion, untenable) approach..

²⁶ Rashi and R. Saba explicitly connect the phrase to the laws of tithes, suggesting that it plays the same role here as it did in Shemot: warning of the consequences of not bringing tithes, just as it warned of the consequences of not bringing bikkurim.

²⁷ Ibn Ezra questions whether the root can be used in this manner, claiming that by vegetation, the term is applicable because the fruit is ripened by the heat or "cooking" of the sun. This, however, is not true of an animal who is being nourished by his mother's milk.  These sources might reply that the common meaning of the root "בשל" might not be to cook via heat, but rather to prepare food for eating. It can thus refer to boiling, ripening or fattening.

²⁸ Either way, it is not clear why the text does not specify "בכור" if that is the central point.  R"Y Bekhor Shor implies that this might be unnecessary, given the verse's context of "first fruits".

²⁹ Ibn Ezra asserts that this is itself a weakness of this reading, for what would be the point of repeating the prohibition just one chapter later.

³⁰ See Ramban above who notes this.

³¹ It is also interesting to note that in Devarim the law follows that of neveilah, while in Shemot 23, the equivalent laws of firstborn precede that of a tereifah. Though in both cases the connection between the two sets of laws is unclear, the similarity makes one wonder if the juxtaposition is intentional.