You Shall Not Boil a Kid in its Mother’s Milk

The Interpretive History of a Curious Commandment

-----------------------------------------
Tim Hegg • TorahResource Institute

Introduction

Among the many groups that fall within the broad spectrum of the “Messianic Movement,” questions regard-
ing Torah halakhah abound. Some within the movement consider the Torah to be more or less abolished, and
therefore are not concerned at all about questions of how the Torah should be obeyed. On the other hand, those
groups who believe the Torah endures as God’s standard for righteous living hold various views of what exactly
constitutes Torah observance. One issue often discussed and debated is whether the developed halakhah of Rab-
binic Judaism should, in part or in whole, be the accepted halakhah for Messianics as well.1
It is the purpose of this paper to offer an inquiry into one particular halakhic question, namely, the separation
of meat and milk as a broad standard of kosher foods (kashrut). Ultimately, the purpose of such an inquiry is to
lay an historical and theological background in order to determine whether separating meat and milk as a matter
of kashrut is based upon a Torah commandment or is purely a rabbinic extension or innovation.
I will proceed with the inquiry in the following manner: First, I will look at the three Torah texts upon which
the rabbinic halakhah was formed, noting the context in which each is found. Then I will survey the textual and
exegetical issues related to the prohibition “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” Third, I will note the
text-critical issues, particularly the additions found in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Lxx, and the evidence from
Qumran that the additions may have been known by the sectarians of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Fourth, I will survey
the history of interpretation of these texts, and finally offer a suggested conclusion based upon the gathered data.

The Torah Texts & Their Contexts

The halakhah of separating meat and milk is a central element in the definition of kosher foods within rab-
binic Judaism. Historically this halakhah was based upon the interpretation of three Torah texts: Exodus 23:19,
Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21, each of which contain the phrase ‫א־ת ַב ֵשּׁל גְּ ִדי ַבּ ֲח ֵלב ִאמּוֹ‬
ְ ֹ ‫ל‬, “you shall not
boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”

The Context of the Three Texts: Exodus 23:19, 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21

Exodus 23:19
Exodus 23 (in parashah ‫)מ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬
ִ continues the enumeration of various laws from the previous context. Verses
1–9 deal primarily with laws pertaining to the treatment of one’s neighbor, including the stranger (‫)גֵּ ר‬. Verses 10–
11 present the law of the seventh year (‫)ה ְשּׁ ִמ ָטּה‬ ַ in which the land was to rest, giving as one of its purposes to af-
ford a ready supply of produce for the needy. The laws of the Shemittah are immediately followed in v. 12 by the
reiteration of the weekly day of rest (‫)שׁ ָבּת‬
ָ and (v. 13) the exhortation to be on guard against idolatry (naming oth-
er gods). Verses 14–17 prescribe the three pilgrimage festivals (Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot) with the requirement
that all males should appear before ‫ ָה ָאד ֹן יהוה‬, “the Lord GOD” and that they not appear “empty handed” (‫וְ לֹא־יֵ ָרא‬

1
For now, the question of whether Torah observance is incumbent upon all Messianics or only upon Messianics of Jewish
lineage, will be left aside since this issue does not bear directly upon the purpose of this paper.

~1~
‫) ָפנָ י ֵר ָיקם‬. Verses 18–19 deal with sacrifices and offerings (apparently in connection with the festivals just named),
in which three prohibitions and one positive commandment are enumerated: (1) offering a sacrifice with leavened
bread is prohibited, (2) allowing the fat (‫)ח ֶלב‬ ֵ of the sacrifice to remain overnight until morning is prohibited, (3)
bringing the choice first fruits is required, and (4) boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is prohibited.
Contextually, the prohibition of boiling a young goat in the milk of its mother is directly connected with festi-
val sacrifices.
Summary
1. Vv. 10–11 The Shemittah
2. V. 12 Weekly Shabbat
3. V. 13 No Idolatry
4. Vv. 14–17 Three Pilgrimage Feasts: Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot – all males must attend
5. Vv. 18–19 Sacrifices in the context of the Pilgrimage Festivals
a. prohibition: no sacrifice to be offered with leavened bread
b. prohibition: fat of the sacrifice not to remain overnight
c. requirement: to bring the first fruits of the ground
d. prohibition: do not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk

Exodus 34:26
Exodus 34:1–9 (in parashah ‫ ) ִכּי ִת ָשּׂא‬gives the narrative account of Moses’ second ascent to the mountain to
receive the Ten Words and his conversation with the Almighty. Verses 10–17 record God’s instructions to Moses
regarding the covenant He would make with Israel. These instructions emphasized (a) the need for Israel to obey
the commandments of God, (b) the prohibition of making covenants with the inhabitants of the land, (c) the com-
mand to destroy the pagan altars and pillars in the Land, cutting down the Asherim, and (d) that Israel was not to
participate in any of the idolatrous practices of the nations that dwelt in the Land. Verses 18–26 rehearse the pil-
grimage festivals which the covenant people of Israel were to observe: (1) Chag HaMatzot, followed by the com-
mand that every firstborn (whether of animal or man) belongs to the Lord, a provision for redeeming the first off-
spring of a donkey, and the requirement that first born sons be redeemed. Then the commandment that no one
should appear “empty-handed” (‫ )וְ לֹא־יֵ ָראוּ ָפנָ י ֵר ָיקם‬at the festival is appended. (2) Verse 21 repeats the command
of the weekly Shabbat. (3) Verse 22 prescribes the observance of two more pilgrimage festivals, Chag Shavuot
and Chag Sukkot, here called Chag Ha’Asiph (Festival of Ingathering), followed by the injunction that all males
were to appear before the Lord three times a year, i.e., at the festivals just enumerated (v. 23). (4) In vv. 25–26 the
commandments regarding the three pilgrimage festivals are concluded with three prohibitions and one positive
commandment (a direct parallel with Ex 23:18–19 but with some verbal variation): (a) no sacrifice is to be offered
with leavened bread, (b) the Pesach sacrifice must not be left over until morning, (c) the first fruits are to be
brought to the “house of the LORD your God,” and (d) a young goat was not be boiled in the milk of its mother.
Once again, as in Ex 23, the prohibition of boiling a young goat in the milk of its mother is directly connected
in context with the offering of festival sacrifices.
Summary
1. Vv. 10–17 Sinai Covenant made with Israel through Moses as mediator
2. Vv. 18–26 Pilgrimage Festivals and Weekly Shabbat – all males must appear
3. Vv. 27 – Commandments regarding the Pilgrimage Festivals
a. prohibition: no sacrifice to be offered with leavened bread
b. prohibition: Pesach sacrifice must not be left over until morning

~2~
 c. requirement: to bring the first fruits of the ground
d. prohibition: do not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk

Deuteronomy 14:21
The third occurrence of the prohibition is found in a context much different than the Exodus texts. The prima-
ry theme of the Deuteronomy context is Israel’s unique separation to their God and from the nations. Verses 1–2
prohibit pagan practices relating to mourning the dead, such as cutting oneself or shaving one’s forehead. The ba-
sis for the prohibition is that “You are a holy people to Adonai your God.”
Vv. 3–20 comprise a list of permitted and prohibited foods, describing those animals that are clean and un-
clean and thus the meat from which are either permitted or prohibited as a source of food.
V. 21 prohibits meat from an animal that has died of itself (‫)נְ ֵב ָלה‬, allowing such meat and carcass to be given
to an alien (‫ )גֵּ ר‬who may eat from it himself or who may sell it to a foreigner (‫)נָ ְכ ִרי‬. Once again, the basis for this
injunction is the unique covenant relationship Israel has with their God, “for you are a holy people to Adonai your
God,” which forms an inclusio to the pericope. The passage then ends with the prohibition: “do not boil a young
goat in its mother’s milk.”
Vv. 22–15:6 deal with (a) the yearly tithe of produce from the field and the first born of the flock, which are to
be eaten “in the place where He (the Lord your God) chooses to establish His name;” (b) the provision to ex-
change the tithe for money if the distance is too great; (c) the tithe of the third year which is to be deposited in
one’s own town in order that the Levite, the ger, the orphan and the widow will eat and be satisfied; (d) [in 15:1–
6] the laws pertaining to the Shemittah year and the remission of debts.
Summary
1. Vv. 1–2 Prohibition against adopting pagan mourning rituals
Reason: “You are a holy people to Adonai your God”
2. Vv. 3–20 Clean and unclean animals; those which can and cannot be used for food.
3. V. 21 Law relating to an animal that dies of itself (‫– )נְ ֵב ָלה‬
a. prohibition: meat from nebēlâ is prohibited to an Israelite (covenant member)
b. permitted: meat of nebēlâ may be given to a G‫גֵּ ר ֲא ֶשׁר ִבּ ְשׁ ָע ֶרי‬
c. permitted: meat of nebēlâ may be sold to a ‫נָ ְכ ִרי‬
d. prohibition: do not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk
Reason: “You are a holy people to Adonai your God”
4. Vv. 22–15:6 Laws of the yearly tithe including the first born of the flock (cf. 15:19–20) which are to be
taken to the Tabernacle or Temple and eaten “in the presence of the presence of Adonai,” followed by the
law of the third year tithe, which is to be deposited in one’s town so that the disadvantaged may eat.

General Summary Regarding the Three Contexts

It is clear that the contexts of the two Exodus passages essentially mirror each other. They both are concerned
with the Pilgrimage Festivals and the sacrifices that are offered in connection with them. Thus, the fact that the
prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk concludes each pericope seems clearly to link it to laws per-
taining to sacrifices.
The Deuteronomy text, however, is markedly different. It is primarily taken up with food laws given to Israel
as the covenant people set apart as holy unto Adonai. Though in Exodus the injunction not to boil a kid in its
mother’s milk concludes the command regarding the pilgrimage festivals (and thus is connected contextually with

~3~
proper sacrificial procedures performed at the festivals), in Deuteronomy the prohibition comes at the conclusion
of laws pertaining to clean and unclean foods.2 However, the paragraph immediately following the injunction in-
cludes the commandment to bring the yearly tithe, including the tithe of the first born of the herd and flock,3 and
to eat it “in the place where Adonai your God chooses to make His name dwell” (14:23), i.e., in connection with a
festival of Sukkot. Thus both in Deuteronomy as well as in Exodus, the contexts which contain the prohibition
against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk have this in common, that they contain the commandment regarding the
first fruits (of the soil, Ex 23; of the flock/herd, Ex 34 and Deut 14). Even though at first it may appear that the
context of Deuteronomy 14:21 is entirely different than the contexts of Ex 23:19 and 34:26, this apparent dispari-
ty is somewhat diminished by the fact that all three contexts contain the law of first fruits.4
Moreover, Deuteronomy anticipates Israel’s dwelling in the Land and thus the fixed (rather than mobile) place
chosen by God to establish the dwelling for His name, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem. With the potential that God
would bless Israel in accordance with their obedience to His commandments and thus expand their borders, the
situation would arise in which those who lived a far distance from Jerusalem would be hard pressed to bring the
the required offerings/tithes of first fruits and first born to the prescribed festival. Thus provision is made to sell
the tithes and with the proceeds to travel to Jerusalem and purchase food and drink for the festival celebration
(14:24–26). In light of this, it is understandable why the Deuteronomy injunction against boiling a kid in its moth-
er’s milk is grouped with food laws, for those coming to the festival with money rather than with their actual
tithes of grain and animals would be buying food for the festival celebration. Likewise, they would be purchasing
animals to offer as sacrifices for the firstlings (‫ צֹּאן‬,‫) ָבּ ָקר‬, so the injunction against boiling a kid in its mother’s
milk in Deuteronomy would likewise be connected with the festival sacrifices at the central sanctuary.5

2
The Masoretic texts uniformly mark the phrase ‫א־ת ַב ֵשּׁל גְּ ִדי ַבּ ֲח ֵלב ִאמּוֹ‬
ְ ֹ ‫ ל‬as the conclusion of a ‫תוּחה‬
ָ ‫ ְפּ‬petûchâ (‫)פ‬.
3
Note that Deut 15:19 requires consecrating “all the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock.”
4
As we will see when looking at the Targumim below, Targum Yerushalmi and Neofiti both unite the prohibition of boil-
ing a kid in its mother’s milk with the harvest theme by prescribing that the divine penalty for disregarding the prohibition
will result in the grain being destroyed.
5
Note Cooper’s comment: “All consumption of meat in the Torah is cultic except in Deuteronomy (12:20–21)….”, Alan
Cooper, “Once Again Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk,” (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), p. 5, n. 8.
While seeing the Deuteronomy location of the kid law as “decoupling” it from festival legislation and “recontextualizing
it,” Cooper does suggest that its appearance in Deut 14 does make it “concomitant of the offering of firstling animals.”

~4~
Textual & Exegetical Comments on the Three Texts Containing the Prohibition

Below are the three texts under investigation put into parallel columns for comparison. Words that are under-
lined indicate some differences. Textual variants among manuscripts will be discussed below.

Exodus 23:19
MT Lxx SamPent Syriac
‫ ָתּ ִביא‬G‫כּוּרי ַא ְד ָמ ְת‬
ֵ ‫אשׁית ִבּ‬ ִ ‫ֵר‬ τὰς ἀπαρχὰς τῶν ‫ ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא‬aT¥t Kørad h$TÒÒø V¥r
‫א־ת ַב ֵשּׁל גְּ ִדי‬
ְ ֹ ‫ ל‬G‫הי‬K ֶ ‫ ֵבּית יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬πρωτογενηµάτων τῆς γῆς σου ‫ ביתה יהוה אלהיך לא תבשל‬A¬ .kH¬a A¥Rµd hTÁı¬
εἰσοίσεις εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου
‫ ַבּ ֲח ֵלב ִאמּוֹ׃‬τοῦ θεοῦ σου οὐχ ἑψήσεις ἄρνα ‫ גדי בחלב אמו כי עשה זאת‬.Hµad AıÒÔ∫ A¥D© L◊∫t
‫כזבח שכח ועברה היא‬
ἐν γάλακτι µητρὸς αὐτοῦ ‫לאלהי יעקב׃‬
The first of the first fruits of
The first of the first fruits of The first of the first fruits of The first produce of the ground
your ground you shall bring to
your ground you shall bring your ground you shall bring you shall bring to the house of
the house of Adonai your
into the house of the Lord to the house of Adonai your the Lord your God. You shall
God. You shall not boil a
your God. You shall not boil a God. You shall not boil a not boil a young goat in the milk
young goat in the milk of his
lamb in milk of his mother. young goat in the milk of of his mother.
mother.
his mother for doing this is
like a sacrifice forgotten and
a rage [outburst] to the God
of Jacob.

Exodus 34:26
MT Lxx SamPent Syriac
‫ ָתּ ִביא‬G‫כּוּרי ַא ְד ָמ ְת‬
ֵ ‫אשׁית ִבּ‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬τὰ πρωτογενήµατα τῆς γῆς σου ‫ ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא‬aT¥t Kørad h$TÒÒø V¥r
‫א־ת ַב ֵשּׁל גְּ ִדי‬
ְ ֹ ‫ ל‬G‫הי‬K ֶ ‫ ֵבּית יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬θήσεις εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου τοῦ ‫ ביתה יהוה אלהיך לא תבשל‬A¬ .kH¬a A¥Rµd hTÁı¬
θεοῦ σου οὐ προσοίσεις ἄρνα ἐν
‫ ַבּ ֲח ֵלב ִאמּוֹ׃‬γάλακτι µητρὸς αὐτοῦ ‫ גדי בחלב אמו׃‬.Hµad AıÒÔ∫ A¥D© L◊∫t
The first produce of the ground
The first of the first fruits
The first of the first fruits of The first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of
of your ground you shall
your ground you shall bring to you shall bring into the house the Lord your God. You shall
bring to the house of Adon-
the house of Adonai your not boil a young goat in the milk
of the Lord your God. You ai your God. You shall not
God. You shall not boil a of his mother.
shall not offer a lamb in milk boil a young goat in the
young goat in the milk of his of his mother.
milk of his mother.
mother.

Deuteronomy 14:21c
MT Lxx SamPent Syriac
‫א־ת ַב ֵשּׁל גְּ ִדי ַבּ ֲח ֵלב ִאמּוֹ׃‬
ְ ֹ‫ל‬ οὐχ ἑψήσεις ἄρνα ἐν γάλακτι ‫לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו׃‬ AıÒÔ∫ A¥D© L◊∫t A¬
µητρὸς αὐτοῦ .Hµad

You shall not boil a young You shall not boil a lamb in You shall not boil a young You shall not boil a young goat
goat in the milk of his mother. milk of his mother. goat in the milk of his in the milk of his mother.
mother.

~5~
Exegetical Comments on the phrase: ‫א־ת ַב ֵשּׁל גְּ ִדי ַבּ ֲח ֵלב ִאמּוֹ‬
ְ ֹ‫ל‬

I. ‫ – ָבּ ַשׁל‬The verb ‫( ָבּ ַשׁל‬bashal) shares a Semitic root attested in Akkadian (bašālu, “to boil,” [intransitive]
“to ripen”), Old South Arabic (bsl, “to sacrifice”), Arabic (absala, “to cook unripe dates”), and Ethiopic
(basala, “to boil,” [intransitive] “to grow ripe”). The verb is found 27x in the Tanach, with the following
distribution:
a. Qal – 2x (Ezek 24:5, “to boil”; Joel 4:13 “to be ripe [of fruit to be harvested])
b. Piel – 21x (Ex 16:23[2x]; 23:19; 29:31; 34:26; Lev 8:31; Num 11:8; Deut 14:21; 16:7; 1Sam 2:13;
2Sam 13:8; 1Kings 19:21; 2Kings 4:38; 6:29; Ezek 46:20, 24[2x]; Zech 14:21; Lam 4:10; 2Chr
35:13[2x]).

All of these references use ‫ ָבּ ֵשׁל‬in connection with the preparation of food. Two of these references,
however, use ‫ ָבּ ֵשׁל‬to mean “cook” rather than “boil,” and a third reference, though not as clear, may
also use ‫ ָבּ ֵשׁל‬to mean “cook” rather than “boil.”

You shall cook (‫)וּב ַשּׁ ְל ָתּ‬

ִ and eat it [the Pesach lamb] in the place which Adonai your God chooses. In the
morning you are to return to your tents. (Deut 16:7)

So they roasted (‫ )וַ ַיְב ְשּׁלוּ‬the Pesach over the fire according to the ordinance, and they boiled (‫)בּ ְשּׁלוּ‬
ִ the holy
things in pots, in kettles, in pans, and carried them speedily to all the lay people. (2Chron 35:13)

Since it was commanded regarding the Pesach lamb that it be roasted and not boiled (Ex 12:8-9), the
use of ‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬in Deut 16:7, and its first use in 2Chron 25:13, must mean “to cook by roasting.” The sec-
ond use of ‫ ָבּ ֵשּׁל‬in 2Chron 35:13 clearly means “boil,” for the meat is said to be in pots, kettles, and
pans.

A third text (2Sam 13:8) likely uses ‫ ָבּ ֵשּׁל‬to mean “roast” or “cook,” though this is less certain than
the two verses listed above.

So Tamar went to her brother Amnon’s house, and he was lying down. And she took dough, kneaded it,
made cakes in his sight, and baked (‫)תּ ַב ֵשּׁל‬
ְ the cakes. (2Sam 13:8)

While it is possible that cakes of dough could have been boiled, it is more likely that they were
cooked over a fire.

c. Pual – 3x (Ex 12:9; Lev 6:21; 1Sam 2:15). All of these references refer to boiling as a method of food
preparation.
d. Hifil – 1x (Gen 40:10), meaning “to be ripe (of clusters of fruit).”

The Lxx uses e{yw (hepsō, “to boil”) to translate ‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬in Ex 23:19 and Deut 14:21. However, in Ex 34:26
‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬is translated with prosfevrw (prospherō, “to bring, offer”) in ‫א‬, B, D, and E, while A and F both have

~6~
 e{yw.6 The switch to prosfevrw in four of the six primary Lxx manuscripts is noteworthy because it casts
the phrase within the context of an offering or a sacrifice: “You shall not bring (or offer) a kid in (or with)
its mother’s milk.”

Summary: The verb ‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬is primarily found in the Piel stem, with only six of its 27 occurrences in other
stems. All but four of the contexts in which the verb is found support the meaning “boil in a liquid.”
Twice (Gen 40:10; Joel 4:13) ‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬is used to describe fruit that is ripe for harvest, and twice or three times
the verb appears to denote “cooking” by some other method than boiling in a liquid (Deut 16:7; 2Chron
35:13; 2Sam 13:8). However, to take the two or three instances where ‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬is used in the wider sense of
“cooking” and apply this meaning to the three kid-law texts against the majority of times the verb ‫ָבּ ֵשּׁל‬
means “to boil” in the contexts of offering sacrifices, seems unwarranted. Further, since the three kid-law
texts under consideration are all found in contexts dealing with sacrifices offered at the central sanctuary,
it would appear most consistent with the data to accept the meaning “boil” in these texts as well.

II. ‫ – גְּ ִדי‬The noun ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is found 16x in the Tanach (Gen 27:9, 16; 38:17, 20, 23; Ex 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21;
Judg 6:19; 13:15, 19; 14:6; 15:1; 1 Sam 10:3; 16:20; Is 11:6). Of these 16, nine times ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is found in the
construction ‫( גְּ ִדי ) ָה( ִעזִּ ים‬Gen 27:9, 16; 38:17, 20; Judg 6:19; 13:15, 19; 15:1; 1Sam 16:20) and the re-
maining seven (in which ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is not in the construct state) include the three texts under consideration plus
Gen 38:23; Judg 14:6; 1 Sam 10:3; Is 11:6. The context of Gen 38:23 makes it clear the ‫ גְּ ִדי‬refers to a
goat, for vv. 17, 20 both have ‫גְּ ִדי ) ָה( ִעזִ ים‬. In Is 11:6, ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is the poetic parallel of ‫( ֶכּ ֶבשׂ‬keves, “lamb”)
which might indicate that the two words bear some distinction:

‫ם־כּ ֶבשׂ‬ֶ ‫וְ גָ ר זְ ֵאב ִע‬ And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
‫וְ נָ ֵמר ִעם־גְּ ִדי יִ ְר ָבּץ‬ and the leopard will lie down with the gedi,
‫וּמ ִריא יַ ְח ָדּו‬ ְ ‫וּכ ִפיר‬
ְ ‫וְ ֵעגֶ ל‬ and calf and young lion and fatling will be together
‫וְ נַ ַער ָקטֹן נ ֵֹהג ָבּם׃‬ and a young lad will lead them.

This leaves us with just two texts (besides the three texts currently under consideration) in which ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is
ambiguous as to whether it refers to a young goat or a young lamb: Judg 14:6, which describes the Spirit
coming upon Samson so that he “tore him [young lion] as one tears a gedi,” and 1Sam 10:3, which de-
scribes a man “carrying three gedayim.”

Ugaritic gdy appears in several Ras Shamra texts (114:4; 1097:3; Anat:II:2) with the meaning “kid.”7
Commenting on the use of ‫ גְּ ִדי‬in the Tanach, Botterweck writes:

In these constructions [i.e., ‫]גְּ ִדי ) ָה( ִעזִּ ים‬, gedhi means the offspring of goats, a kid, while in the absolute it origi-
nally meant the offspring of sheep or goats, thus a lamb or a kid, like seh…8

6
Using Swete’s sigla, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 3 vols (Cambridge, 1934), 1.xxviii.
‫ = א‬Sinaiticus, A = Alexandrinus, B = Vaticanus, D = Cottonianus Geneseos, E = Bodleianus Geneseos, F = Ambrosianus
7
See Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Glossary Indices (Potificium Institutum Biblicum, 1965), p. 379 (No. 560);
Botterweck, “‫ ”גְּ ִדי‬in TDOT, 2.385.
8
Ibid., 2.386. HALOT also lists the meaning “kid of goat or sheep,” ad. loc. “‫”גְּ ִדי‬.

~7~
 Rashi (on Ex 23:19) expands the meaning of ‫ גְּ ִדי‬to include both lamb and calf:

Also a calf and a lamb are included in the term ‫גְּ ִדי‬, for ‫ גֶּ ֶדי‬denotes only a young animal. This is derived from
that which you find in many passages in the Torah where ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is written and it was necessary to specify immedi-
ately after it ‫עזִ ים‬,
ִ as in Gen 38:17, “I will send you a kid of the goats (‫)גֶּ ֶדי ִעזִ ים‬,” “the kid of the goats (‫גְּ ִדי ָה ִעזִ ים‬,
v. 20), “two kids of the goats (27:9 ,‫)גְּ ִדיֵ י ִעזִ ים‬. This fact serves to teach you that every passage where ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is stated
undefined, also a calf and a lamb are implied.

But Ibn Ezra takes exception to Rashi’s interpretation. In his comments on Ex 23:19 he says:

Rashi is incorrect that the phrase ‫ גְּ ִדי ) ָה( ִעזִּ ים‬shows that ‫ גְּ ִדי‬may refer to any young animal. As in Arabic, gedi
applies only to a goat and to no other species. But ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is independent [not in construct form], whereas a “kid of
goats” (in this construct form) implies one that is younger and must still be with the flock at all times.9

An important factor in this discussion is the fact that the Lxx, in all three of our texts, translates ‫ גֶּ ִדי‬with
ajrnov~ (ajrhvn), “lamb, sheep,” even though everywhere else in the Tanach (with one exception) the Lxx
translates ‫ גְּ ִדי‬with e[rifo~, “young goat, kid.” The one exception is 1Sam 10:3, where ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is translated by
ai[x, “goat.” One is struck by the fact that the Lxx translators chose “lamb, sheep” to translate ‫ גְּ ִדי‬only in
the three texts that contain the injunction against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. Milgrom suggests that
this might indicate a very early halakhic interpretation that expanded the meaning of ‫ גְּ ִדי‬to include both
kid and lamb.10

The data would appear to support the position that ‫גְּ ִדי‬, while most often referring to a “kid” (the offspring
of a goat), may also refer to a lamb, the offspring of a ewe. But there is nothing to support the idea that ‫גְּ ִדי‬
has a wide enough semantic range to include the offspring of other quadrupeds (e.g., cow, ox, etc.).

Summary: Given the fact that the Semitic root gedi could denote either a young goat or a young lamb, it
seems warranted to allow either meaning in our texts as well. However, since the use of ‫ גְּ ִדי‬throughout the
Tanach favors the meaning “young goat,” this may tip the scales in favor of that meaning in our texts as
well.

III. ‫“ – ַבּ ֲח ֵלב‬in the milk”

‫ – ב‬The preposition ‫ בּ‬in ‫בּ ֲח ֵלב‬,
ַ “in the milk of,” has been understood primarily in two ways: (1) meaning
“in” as a spacial referent, and (2) meaning “with” or “at” as a temporal referent. Understood as a locative,
the meaning is that the meat of the kid is boiled in the milk of its mother. If the ‫ ב‬is given a temporal
sense, the meaning would be that the kid is still “with the milk of its mother,” that it is still nursing.

Taking ‫ ַבּ ֲח ֵלב‬to qualify ‫גְּ ִדי‬, the subject of the clause, rather than ‫בּ ֵשּׁל‬,
ָ the verb, has been dismissed by
some scholars on the grounds that such a construction (verb + object + prepositional phrase where the

9
English translation from Michael Carasik, The Commentator’s Bible–The JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot: Exodus (JPS, 2005), p.
201.
10
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 in The Anchor Bible, vol. 3 (Doubleday, 1991), pp.741–42.

~8~
 prepositional phrase modifies the object) has “linguistic difficulties,”11 but Schorch has shown this not to
be the case, but that such a temporal construction is “neither linguistically difficult nor against Hebrew id-
iomatics, as is generally acknowledge by Hebraists.”12 However, we find no example in the Tanach (nor
in extra-biblical literature as far as I know) where a new born mammal is described as a suckling by the
construction “preposition + ‫( ָח ָלב‬or its semantic equivalent),” i.e., that the suckling is identified as such
by being “with milk.” Note that in Ex 22:29[30], the newborn suckling is described as ‫ם־אמוֹ‬ ִ ‫ע‬,ִ “with its
mother,” which appears to be the normal way to express an unweaned suckling.

Others have objected to reading the ‫ ב‬as temporal on the grounds that the Torah permits offering a kid or
lamb as a sacrifice from the eighth day onward after its birth (Lev 22:27). Likewise, Ex 22:29[30] re-
quires that the first born of oxen and sheep (G ֶ‫ )צֹאנ‬remain with its mother for seven days, and then be
“given to Adonai” on the eighth day.13 The point is that a kid or lamb will nurse for much longer than sev-
en days, so to suggest that our texts prohibit offering a kid or lamb as a sacrifice while it is still nursing
(“while with its mother’s milk”) would contradict the clear statements of other Torah texts.14

Summary: The preposition ‫ ב‬in ‫ ַבּ ֲח ֵלב‬has been understood two ways: as locative (“in the milk”) and as
temporal referent (“with the milk” = “still a suckling”). Based upon the data given above, the locative un-
derstanding should be accepted. The temporal or time-bound interpretation should be rejected because (1)
it is in conflict with other Torah texts (Ex 22:29[30]; Lev 22:27), and (2) it lacks literary evidence that
this construction (“with its mother’s milk”) was a Semitic idiom describing a suckling.

‫ – ָח ָלב‬If one accepts the Masoretic pointing,15 it is clear that ‫ ָח ָלב‬in our three texts means “milk.” Some,
however, have suggested that the word be repointed to ‫בּ ֱח ֶלב‬, ֶ “in fat.”16 Such an alternate reading was
known to have been suggested in Talmudic times. In the Bavli, dealing with whether the Masoretic tradi-
tion is determinative, we read:

R. Acha b. Ya’acov questioned that (saying): Is there anyone who does not accept the reading (‫ )למקרא‬as deter-

11
C. J. Labuschagne, “‘You Shall Not Boil a Kid in its Mother’s Milk’: A New Proposal for the Origin of the Prohibition,”
in F. Garcia Martinez, A. Hilhorst, C. J. Labuschagne, eds., The Scriptures and the Scrolls: Studies in Honor of A. S. van
der Woude (VTSup 49, Brill, 1992), p. 8,
12
Stefan Schorch, “‘A Young Goat in Its Mother’s Milk’? Understanding an Ancient Prohibition,” VT 60 (2010), p. 123f.
13
Note also 1Sam 7:9, where Samuel offers a “suckling lamb” (‫ )טלה חלב‬as a whole burnt offering to Adonai.
14
Schorch, Op. cit., p. 126, ends up opting for the temporal interpretation of ‫בּ ֲח ֵלב‬,
ַ and overcomes the problem of contra-
dicting Torah commandments (i.e., Ex 22:29; Lev 22:27) by suggesting that though “related to the cult in the Book of Ex-
odus, the prohibition of the sucking kid was transformed by the Deuteronomist into a general dietary law.” Cf. also Mil-
grom, Leviticus 1–16 in The Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1991), p. 742, who comments that the absence of the prohibition
in Leviticus can only be explained by the fact that “the deuteronomic transformation has not yet taken place.”
15
‫ ַבּ ֲח ֵלב‬is the articular preposition attached to the noun ‫ח ָלב‬.
ָ The vowelation results in the first vowel being chatuf patach
rather than simple sheva due to the guttural ‫ח‬, and the second vowel (qametz) to tzere, in both cases due to vowel reduc-
tion in the construct form. For examples without an inseparable preposition, cf. Is 60:16, Prov 27:27.
16
J. M. Sasson, “Ritual Wisdom? On ‘Seething a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk,’” in U. Hübner and A. Knauf, eds., Kein Lan für
sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan (Göttingen, 2002), p. 298; note the remarks of Stefan Schorch, Op. cit.,
pp. 121–22; Alan Cooper, “Once Again Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk,” Op. cit., p. 5, n. 7.

~9~
 minant? Has it not been taught: “in the milk of its mother” (bachalêb) in which verse you might read “in the
fat” (bechelev)? (b.Sanhedrin 4a)

R. Acha, active in the 4th Century, was apparently aware that some were reading ‫“( ֶבּ ֱח ֶלב‬in the fat of”)
rather than ‫“( ֲבּ ֲח ֵלב‬in the milk of”) in our texts. But he considered such a vocalization of the Hebrew word
absurd, seen by the fact that he uses this example to prove his case, that the received reading tradition
(represented by the Masoretic tradition) determines the correct understanding of the biblical text.

ֵ “fat,” was, in fact, the original.17 On the contrary, all of the manu-
There is no textual evidence that ‫ח ֶלב‬,
script evidence substantiates the received Masoretic reading. For instance, the Lxx has ejn galavkti, “in
milk,” in all three texts we are studying without any known variants for galavkti.18 That the Lxx transla-
tors of the Torah did their work in the 3rd or 2nd Century BCE indicates that their Hebrew Vorlage had
the same vocalization which was transmitted in the Masoretic text.

The witness of the Lxx is strengthened by appeal to the Samaritan Pentateuch, the only Hebrew witness
outside of the Masoretic tradition to provide a complete vocalization of the Torah. Since the Samaritan
tradition is generally considered to have developed independently from the Masoretic tradition, its text
may provide a more or less independent witness of the proto-Masoretic text. Once again, in all three of
the texts under investigation, the Samaritan Pentateuch reads ‘alab “milk” instead of the suggested ēleb
“fat.” As Schorch notes:

This reading [of the SP], although realized in a different Hebrew dialect, is entirely identical with the Masoretic
vocalization from a semantic point of view.19

Summary: While the noun ‫ חלב‬could be pointed either to mean “milk” or “fat,” the evidence for reading
‫“( ַבּ ֲח ֵלב‬in the milk”) rather than ‫“( ֶבּ ֱח ֶלב‬in the fat”) in all three of the texts under investigation is
conclusive.

IV. ‫ – ִאמוֹ‬The word ‫אם‬, ֵ “mother,” can be used of the female parent of man or animal.20 As we shall see be-
low, in the history of interpretation of our three texts the question of whether ‫ ִאמוֹ‬supplies a general or a
specific parameter of the kid in milk prohibition becomes a factor. But we must pause to consider, if read-
ing our three verses in a grammatical, historical manner, why ‫ ִאמוֹ‬would be added at all? What is the in-
tended meaning of “its mother?” Regardless of what else may be said, it is clear from the addition of ‫ִאמוֹ‬
that the original intention of Moses was not to make a broad, categorical commandment governing
kashrut. The presence of ‫ ִאמוֹ‬surely casts our three texts as dealing with something quite specific rather

17
See Stefan Schorch, Op. cit., p. 117, who references R. Heckl, “Helœb oder hālāb? Ein möglicher Einfluß der frühjüdis-
chen Halacha auf die Vokalisation des MT in Ex 23, 19b; Ex 34,26b; Dtn 14,21b,” ZAH 14 (2002), pp. 144–58.
18
For the value of the Lxx in the text-critical study of the MT, see E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Bibli-
cal Research (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 160–174.
19
Schorch, Op. cit., p. 122. The Samaritan Targum in one witness (STA) does have the word vocalized as “fat” (‫)בּ ֵח ֶלב‬,
ְ see
below.
20
HALOT, “‫אם‬.”
ֵ

~ 10 ~
 than general. For if the original intention was that milk and meat should not ever be mixed when prepar-
ing or eating food, then the added ‫ ִאמוֹ‬is entirely superfluous.

The Additions in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Lxx

Samaritan Pentateuch Addition to Ex 23:19

As noted above, both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Lxx (and possibly the Dead Sea Scrolls) offer additio-
nal readings in several of the texts under consideration. Since these sources offer some evidence for the pre-Ma-
soretic Vorlage of the Tanach, they give important data for our investigation.
In the Samaritan Pentateuch [hereafter SP], an additional clause is added at the end of Ex 23:19.
‫ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא ביתה יהוה אלהיך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו כי עשה זאת כזבח שכח ועברה היא לאלהי יעקב׃‬

“The first of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of Adonai your God. You shall not
boil a young goat in the milk of his mother, for doing this is like forgetting a sacrifice and it is a rage [out-
burst] to the God of Jacob.”

The meaning of the word ‫ שכח‬in the added phrase is difficult to interpret. Is it a nominal form (‫“ = ְכּז ֵֹב ַח ֶשׁ ַכח‬as
sacrificing something forgotten”) or verbal (‫“ = ְכּזֶ ַבח ָשׁכ ַֹח‬like forgetting a sacrifice”)? Interestingly, the Samaritan
Targum [hereafter ST], in the J manuscript, represents the Samaritan oral tradition in understanding ‫ שׁכח‬in this
latter sense:

‫קדמאות בכירי ארעתך תנדי לבית יהוה אלהך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמה הלא עבד דה כדבח אנשהו ומרגזה היא לאלהי יעקב‬21

“The first of the first fruits of your land you shall bring to the house of Adonai your God. You shall not boil
a kid in the milk of its mother, for doing this is like forgetting (‫ )אנשהו‬a sacrifice, and it is a provocation to
the God of Jacob.”

Teeter gives good evidence for taking ‫ אנשהו‬of the STJ with its normal sense of “forgetting” rather than as “con-
tempt” (a meaning given to the word in Samaritan Aramaic apparently on the basis of this ST text alone).22
In STA some variations in the final phrase occur when compared with STJ:

‫לא תבשל גדיה בתרב אמה הלא עבד דה כדבח שחי ורגזה היא לאלהה דיעקב‬

“You shall not boil a kid in the fat (=‫)בּ ֵח ֶלב‬

ְ of its mother, for doing this is like delaying (‫ )שׁחי‬a sacrifice,
and it is a provocation to the God of Israel.”

21
In Adolf Brüll, Das samaritanische Targum zum Pentateuch (Frankfurt, 1875), p. 93, there are variant readings. For ‫אמה‬
it reads ‫עמה‬, and for ‫ אנשהו‬it reads ‫אנשחו‬, which may be variant spellings or some conflation of STA (see below). Note
Aramaic ‫שׁחי‬/‫שׁהי‬, for example. However, I have opted to follow the text as transcribed by D. Andrew Teeter, “You Shall
Not Seethe a Kid in its Mother’s Milk”: The Text and the Law in Light of Early Witnesses,” Textus 24 (2009), p. 43, from
A. Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition, 3 vols. (Tel-Aviv Univ, 1980).
22
Teeter, Ibid. The question of whether a distinct second root (II ‫)שׁכח‬, “to wilt, wither,” exists in biblical Hebrew is dis-
cussed in HALOT, ad. loc. It is possible that the meaning “wilt, wither” is an extension of (I) ‫שׁכח‬, on the analogy that
something or someone dead has been “forgotten,” and death is often associated with “wilting” or “withering.” Dahood
translates Ps 31:13a, ‫נִ ְשׁ ַכּ ְח ִתּי ְכּ ֵמת ִמ ֵלּב‬, “I am shriveled up like a corpse” (M. Dahood, Psalms in The Anchor Bible, 3 vols
[Doubleday, 1966], 1.186, 190). If ‫ שׁכח‬does have this extended meaning, then Ps 137:5, ‫יְמינִ י‬ ִ ‫ ִתּ ְשׁ ַכּח‬Y‫רוּשׁ ָל‬ ֶ ‫ ִא‬,
ָ ְ‫ י‬X‫ם־א ְשׁ ָכּ ֵח‬
might be translated “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, may my right hand wither.”

~ 11 ~
 Numbers of suggestions have been offered for the meaning of ‫ כזבח שׁכח‬of the SP. One suggestion23 is that it
is analogous to the “forgotten sheaf” of Deut 24:19–21 (cp. Lev 19:9–10) and the phrase is equivalent to the tech-
nical term ‫ שכחה‬in the rabbinic discussions, yielding “like one who sacrifices the forgotten sheaf.” But this hardly
makes sense in the context of Ex 23:19. Others have sought to give ‫ שכח‬a meaning equivalent to ‫שׁ ֻקּץ‬, ִ “abomina-
24
tion,” on the analogy that something “forgotten” is of little value or loathsome, and that ‫ שכח‬stands as a eu-
phemistic expression for ‫( ִשׁ ֻקּץ‬yielding “like sacrificing an abominable thing”), but again, one wonders why a eu-
phemism would have been thought necessary in the text of Ex 23:19. Still another suggestion is that ‫ שׁכח‬should
be understood in the Aramaic sense of “to find,” “be found,”25 and thus refers to a fetus “found” inside an animal
being slaughtered. A. Teeter26 points to interesting parallels between the SP addition and the Qumran scrolls. Of
particular interest is the parallel between the SP use of ‫ עברה‬in ‫ועברה היא לאלהי יעקב‬, “and it is a provocation to
the God of Jacob” and ‫ עברה‬in 4QMMT B 38, 11Q19 (11QTemplee) LII:3–7, and 4Q270 (4QDe) 2ii: 15–18, all of
which speak to the issue of slaughtering an animal that is pregnant.

4QMMT (c + a + d = 4Q396 I:1-4 as reconstructed by Qimron and Strugnell)

35 [……………] they do [not] slaughter in the sanctuary.

36 [And concerning pregnant (animals)] we are of the opin[ion that] the mother and the fetus [may not be
sacrificed] on the same day
37 [………… And concerning] eating (a fetus): we are of the opinion that the fetus
38 [found in its (dead) mother’s womb may be eaten (only) after it has been ritually slaughtered. And you
know that it is] so, namely that the ruling refers (to) a pregnant (‫ )עברה‬animal

4Q270 (2ii:15–18)

‫את פי אל או ישחט בהמה וחיה עבר]ה או אשר ישכב עם‬ 15

[‫אשה הרה מקיץ דם ]או יקרב א[ל בת] אחיו או ישכב עם זכר‬ 16
[ ‫ עוברי א]ת [ם וא]ת‬vac ‫משכבי אשה‬ 17
‫כם חקק אל להעביר בח]רון אפו בק[ץ‬ 18

(15) against the word of God, or one who slaughters an animal or a beast while it is pregnan[t or one who
lies with] (16) a pregnant woman, causing blood to stir (?) [or approaches] the daughter [of his brother or
one who lies with a male] (17) as with a woman. vacat Those who transgress [… … … … …] (18) God has
ordained, causing his w[rath] to be kindled during the peri[od of iniquity …]27

Most interesting in this text is the presence of the lexeme ‫ עבר‬used to denote pregnancy, transgression, and di-
vine wrath all in close proximity.

Insofar as the fragmentary text admits, these notions appear to be related within a particular logical se-
quence: those who slaughter a pregnant animal transgress against what God has commanded and thereby

23
J. H. Hottinger, Exercitationes Anti-Morinianae: De Pentateucho Samaritano, ejusque udentica authentia: oppositae
cononicae ejusdem authentiai J. Morino (Zurich: J. Bodmer, 1644), p. 89, from A. Teeter, Op. cit., p. 45.
24
R. Kittel, “Das Böklein in der Milch der Mutter,” ZAW 33 (1913), pp. 153–54, as noted in Teeter, Ibid.
25
Teeter, Ibid., referring to A. Geiger, Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren En-
twicklung des Judentums (Verlag Madda, 1928).
26
D. Andrew Teeter, “You Shall Not Seethe a Kid in its Mother’s Milk”: The Text and the Law in Light of Early Witness-
es,” Textus 24 (2009), pp. 37–63.
27
The English translation of both Qumran quotes above is from Teeter, Ibid., pp. 38, 56 respectively.

~ 12 ~
 provoke his wrath. The proximity of this outlook or thematic matrix to that reflected in the addition at Exod
23:19SP and 4QMMT B 36–38 (both of which feature ‫ … )עברה‬is striking.28

Lxx Additions to Ex 23:19 and Deut 14:21

Some Lxx manuscripts (Lxx58-767) contain a version of the SP addition at Ex 23:19.

oujc eJyhvsei~ a[rna ejn gavlakti mhtro;~ aujtou` o{ti oJ poiw`/n toiauvthn qusivan29 mi`so~ kai; paravbasiv~
ejstin tw`/ Qew`/ Iakwb.
“You shall not boil a lamb in its mother’s milk, for the one who makes this kind of sacrifice is hated and it
is a transgression to the God of Jacob.”

Other Lxx manuscripts30 contain a somewhat different version of the SP addition at Deut 14:20[21].
oujc eJyhvsei~ a[rna ejn gavlakti mhtro;~ aujtou` o{~ ga;r poiei` tou`tou wJsei; quvsei ajspavlaka mhvnimav ejstin
tw`/ Qew`/ Iakwb.
“You shall not boil a lamb in its mother’s milk, for whoever does this is as if he would sacrifice a mole; it
is a provocation to the God of Jacob.

Greek ajspavlaka is literally “an unseen animal,” and is therefore understood as a rodent that lives underground
and is not seen.31

Qumran – 1Q4 [1QDeuta], frag. 11

It is possible that the addition to the Masoretic text of Deut 14:21 as witnessed by the SP and Lxx was also
known at Qumran. One fragment of Deut 14:21 was found in Cave 1 (1Q4 [1QDeuta], frag. 11), and there is a let-
ter following what in the MT is the end of the line. Barthélemy32 reconstructs it as: [‫בח]לב אמו ב‬, “in the milk of
his mother ‫ב‬,” but gives no indication what the following ‫ ב‬might mean. According to Teeter,33 the photographs
available permit reading a ‫ כ‬rather than a ‫ב‬, so that the line could well have read …‫בחלב אמו כי עשה זאת‬, “in the
milk of his mother, for [he who does this] …,” giving possible evidence that an addition to Deut 14:21, as found
in the SP and Lxx, was also known at Qumran.

28
Teeter, Ibid., p. 56.
29
Some manuscripts have the plural here: toiauvta~ qusiva~.
30
F1mg (Ambrosianus), M (Coislinianus), Q (Theodotian), (ita ut vid)
31
Cf. HALOT, “‫”א ֶשׁת‬ֵ and Ps 58:9, ‫ל־חזוּ ָשׁ ֶמשׁ‬
ָ ‫ נֵ ֶפל ֵא ֶשׁת ַבּ‬XK‫ ְכּמוֹ ַשׁ ְבּלוּל ֶתּ ֶמס יַ ֲה‬, “Like a snail that melts as it goes along; As the
miscarriage of women, never seeing the sun.” The suggestion has been made that ‫ ֵא ֶשׁת‬should be read as ‫אשׁוּת‬, ָ “mole,”
and this is how the Targum on Psalms reads: “Another reading: And so fall below like moles that have not seen the sun.
David said: You will fall below like moles that do not see the sun, but burrow into the earth and there squat.” (William G.
Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 2 vols (Yale Univ Press, 1959), 1.506. Note also b.Mo’ed Qatan 6b: ‫מאי אישות? אמר רב‬
‫ מאי קרא? )תהלים נ"ח( כמו שבלול תמס יהלך נפל‬:‫ ואיתימא רב יימר בר שלמיא‬,‫ אמר רבא בר ישמעאל‬.‫ בריה שאין לה עינים‬:‫יהודה‬
‫אשת בל חזו שמש‬. “What is ’eshut? — Said Rab Judah: [It is] a creature which has no eyes. Raba b. Ishmael, some say, R.
Yemar b. Shelemia, said, What [may be the] text [for this]? —[Ps 58:9] ‘Let them [the wicked] be as a snail which melts
and passes away; like the young mole [’eshet] which has not seen the sun.’” Cp F. Delitzsch, Psalms, 3 vols. (Funk &
Wagnalls, 1873), 2.208–209, who opts not to follow the Bavli or the Targum in the interpretation of ‫ נֵ ֶפל ֵא ֶשׁת‬of Ps 58:9.
32
D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, Cave 1, vol. 1 (Claredon, 1955), p. 55.
33
Andrew Teeter, “You Shall Not Seethe a Kid in its Mother’s Milk,” Op. cit., p. 53, n. 40.

~ 13 ~
 1Q4, frag. 11 – Deut 14:21
Comment in D. Barthelemy and J. T. Milik, eds., Discoveries in the Judaean
Desert, v. 1 (Oxford, 1955), p. 55
“F. 11:…‫ ב‬peut correspondre à une glose comme en ont ici Ps-Jon et Lxx. Les
autres témoins terminent ici le verset et la parashah.” [“The ‫ ב‬may correspond to
a gloss as some, Ps-Jonathan and the Lxx, have it. The other witnesses finish the
verse and the parashah here.”]
Possible restoration of the text on 1Q4, frag. 11. Note that the baseline stroke of
the letter before ‫ אמו‬looks different than the baseline stroke of the letter following
‫אמו‬. Likewise, the end of the upper stroke of the original letter following ‫ אמו‬is
what one would expect if the letter were a ‫כ‬. Thus, we may speculate that the text
originally had ‫חלב אמו כ‬, which would correspond to: “…its mother’s milk
because….”
[suggested restoration of letters]
Table 1

See also the note in the “Commentary on the Critical Apparatus” of BHQ on Deut 14:21.

The evidence of 1QDeuta suggests that this fragment may have contained an expansion of the type present
in some GMss, an expansion echoing that of Smr at the parallel text of Exod 23:19 (which begins with ‫)כי‬.
The initial letter could be ‫( כ‬rather than ‫ ֯ב‬as suggested by Barthélemy in DJD I, 55. Les autres témoins ter-
minent ici le verset et la parashah”). The spacing after ‫ אמו‬in 4QpaleoDeutr indicates that this fragment did
not contain the expanded text (cf. DJD IX, 141). All the Targums interpret the sense of M in accordance
with tradition, and in so doing fail to render ‫ אמו‬explicitly. TJN contain more fulsome expansions (TN: “you
shall not boil and you shall not eat flesh and milk mixed together, lest my anger grow strong and I boil your
bundled corn, the wheat and the straw mixed together”).34

Summary

The SP and Lxx give witness to an ancient textual tradition that two of the three texts (i.e., Ex 23:19 and Deut
14:21) had an additional line not found in the MT. It is further very likely that this additional phrase or one like it
at the end of Deut 14:21 was known at Qumran. The addition itself clearly identifies the prohibition as pertaining
to a sacrifice offered to the God of Jacob. We therefore have very early textual witnesses from two (and very pos-
sibly, three) sources that place the prohibition clearly within the sacrificial cult.
This coincides with the contexts in which the repeated prohibition is found. Two of the three texts (Ex 23:19;
34:26) are located within contexts which deal with the pilgrimage festivals and the sacrifices offered at the central
sanctuary in conjunction with these festivals. The third text (Deut 14:21) is put just before laws pertaining to
tithes and the requirement to bring the firstlings of the flock and herd to the sanctuary. All of them, therefore, are
connected contextually with sacrifices at the sanctuary, and the additional phrase found in the SP and the Lxx
(and possibly Qumran) at the end of Ex 23:19 and Deut 14:21 gives further ancient textual evidence that this is
how the prohibition was interpreted from earliest times.

34
Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Deuteronomy (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), p. 96.

~ 14 ~
The History of Interpretation in the Rabbinic Literature

The Targumim

The dating of the Targumim is notoriously difficult, and scholars are relatively undecided as to the date when
each of the Aramaic translations of the Tanach were composed.35 But the Targum fragments found at Qumran
(4QtgLev [4Q156], 4QtgJob [4Q157], 11QtgJob) give evidence that at least some of the Targumim were extant in
the pre-rabbinic era. To what extent the Targumim as we now have them reflect their ancient form is also a matter
of scholarly debate, but it is universally recognized that the Targumim are not strictly translations but incorporate
the various interpretations (both aggadic and halakhic) that prevailed as the Targumim were written and re-writ-
ten. Some of the Targumim may give the ability to recover the underlying Hebrew text being translated, while
others do not. All are paraphrastic, some minimally and others almost entirely.36 Further, it is well established that
the Targumim aim (to one extent or another) to strengthen the prevailing and/or rabbinic halakhah when translat-
ing or paraphrasing halakhic texts of the Torah.

The targumim translate the halakhic portions of the Pentateuch, and in doing so interpret the halakha. Their
halakhic interpretations can be compared with the halakha in the Mishna (compiled around 200 C.E.). In
cases where the targumim disagree with the Mishna, the possibility is worth considering that they represent
an exegesis that arose prior to the redaction of the Mishna and its acceptance as authoritative.37

Targum Onkelos:

Ex 23:19
‫חלב׃‬
ַ ‫יכלוּן ְב ַסר ַב‬
ְ ‫קד ָשׁא ַדיוי ְא ָל ָהך ָלא ֵת‬
ְ ‫ית־מ‬
ַ ‫יתי ְל ֵב‬
ֵ ‫רעך ַת‬
ָ ‫כוּרי ַא‬
ֵ ‫ֵרישׁ ִב‬
“The first of your first fruits you shall bring to the sanctuary of Adonai your God. You shall not eat meat with milk.”

Ex 34:26
‫חלב׃‬
ַ ‫יכלוּן ְב ַסר ַב‬
ְ ‫קד ָשׁא ַדיוי ְא ָל ָהך ָלא ֵת‬
ְ ‫ית־מ‬
ַ ‫יתי ְל ֵב‬
ֵ ‫רעך ַת‬
ָ ‫כוּרי ַא‬
ֵ ‫ֵרישׁ ִב‬
“The first of your first fruits you shall bring to the sanctuary of Adonai your God. You shall not eat meat with milk.”

Deut 14:21
‫ר־ע ְמ ִמין‬
ַ ‫יכ ִלינַ ה אוֹ ְתזַ ְבנִ ינַ ה ְל ַב‬
ְ ֵ‫בקרוָ ך ִת ְתנִ ינַ ה וְ י‬
ִ ‫תוֹתב ֲע ַרל ִד‬
ַ ‫יכלוּן כֹל נְ ִב ָילא ְל‬
ְ ‫ָלא ֵת‬
‫חלב׃‬ַ ‫יכלוּן ְב ַסר ַב‬ ְ ‫ֲא ֵרי ַעם ַק ִדישׁ ַאת קדם יוי ֲא ָל ָהך ָלא ֵת‬
“You may not eat any carcass. You may give it to the uncircumcised sojourner in your cities and he may eat it, or
you may sell it to a Gentile. For you are a holy people before the Lord your God. You may not eat meat with milk.”

35
See E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd edition (Fortress/Van Gorcum, 2001), pp. 148–51.
36
See Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Fortress/Van Gorcum, 1988), pp. 228–37.
37
Ibid., p. 245.

~ 15 ~
Targum Yerushalmi [Ps. Jonathan]:

Ex 23:19
‫שׁירוי ביכורי פירי ארעך תיתי לבית־מוקדשׁא דייי אלקך עמי בית ישׂראל לית אתון רשׁאין לא‬
‫למבשׁלא ולא למיכול בשׂר וחלב מערבין כחדא דלא יתקף רוגזי ואיבשׁיל עיבוריכון דגנא וקשׁא תריהון כחדא‬
“The beginning of the first fruits of the fruit of your ground you shall bring to the sanctuary of the Lord your God.
My people, house of Israel, you have no permission, neither to boil, neither to eat meat and milk mixed together, that
my anger not grow strong and I cook your grain, the wheat and the chaff, the two of them together.”

Ex 34:26
‫שׁירוי בוכרת פירי ארעכון תייתון לבית־מוקדשׁא דייי אלקכון לית אתון רשׁאין למבשׁלא ולא‬
‫למיכול בשׂר וחלב תריהון מערבין כחדא דלא יתקוף רוגזי בכון וארשׁין פירי אילניכון עם בוסרא בליבלוביהון וטרפיהון כחדא‬
“The beginning of the first-fruits of your land you shall bring to the sanctuary of the Lord your God. You are not
permitted to cook, and neither to eat meat with milk, the two of them mixed together, lest my anger be kindled
against you, and I destroy the fruit of your trees with the half-ripe fruit of their blossoms, together with their leaves.”

Deut 14:21
‫לא תיכלון כל דמיקלקלא בניכסא לגיור ערל דבקירויכון תיתנונה וייכלונה או תזבנון לבר־עממין ארום עם‬
‫קדישׁ אתון קדם ייי אלקכון לית אתון רשׁאין למבשׁל כל־דכן למיכול בשׂר וחלב תריהון מערבון כחדא‬
“You may not eat anything rejected for sacrifice. You may give it to the uncircumcised alien who is in your cities
and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a Gentile. For you are a holy people before the Lord your God. You are not
permitted to cook, so much the more to eat meat and milk, the two of them mixed together as one.”

Targum Neofiti:

Ex 23:19

‫שׁרוי בכרית פירי עללתכון תייתון לבי}ה{>ת< מוקדשׁא דייי אלהכון עמי בני ישׂראל לא תבשׁלון ולא תיכלון‬
‫בשׂר בחלב מערבין כחדא דלא יתקף רוגזי עליכון ונ}כ{בשׁל עבוריכון צריכין דגנה וקשׁה מערבין כחדא׃‬
“The beginning of the first fruits of your harvest you shall bring to the sanctuary of the Lord your God. My people,
children of Israel, you shall not boil and you shall not eat meat in milk mixed together, lest my anger be harsh
against you, and I cook your grain while it is bundled, grain and chaff mixed together.”

Ex 34:26
‫שׁרוי בכורת ארעכון תייתון לבית־מקדשׁא דייי אלהכון עמי בני ישׂראל לא תבשׁלון‬
‫ולא תאכלון בשׂר וחלב מערבין כחדא דלא יתקו>>ף<< רוגזי ונבשׁל עבריכון צרירין דגנא וקשׁה מערבין כחדא׃‬
“The beginning of the first-fruits of your land you shall bring to the sanctuary of the Lord your God. My people,
children of Israel, you shall not boil, and you shall not eat meat and milk mixed together, that my anger not grow
strong and I cook your bound grain, grain mixed together with chaff.”

Deut 14:21
‫לא תאכלון כל נבלה לתותבייה מן בני־עממיא די בקורייכון תתנון יתה ויכלון יתה או מזבנה תזבנון‬
‫יתיה לבני־עממיא ארום עם קדישׁין אתון קדם ייי אלהכון עמי בני ישׂראל לא תבשׁלון‬
‫ולא תאכלון בשׂר וחלב מערבין כחדה דלא יתקף רוגזי ונבשׁל עבוריכון צרירין דגנה וקשׁה מערבין כחדה׃‬
“You may not eat any carcass. You may give it to the sojourners among the gentiles who are in your cities and they
may eat it, or you may indeed sell it to the Gentiles. For you are a holy people before the Lord your God. O my peo-
ple the children of Israel, you may not cook and you may not eat meat and milk mixed together, lest my anger grow
strong and I cook your wrapped grain, the kernels and the straw mixed together.”

~ 16 ~
 Interestingly, two later rabbinic midrashim, Pesiqta de Rab Kahana (5th Century CE) and Midrash Tanchuma
(6th–8th Century CE) contain a midrashic interpretation of the threefold repetition of the kid in milk prohibition.
Since the prohibition is found three times it is understood as pertaining to three categories: to the thing itself, to
the Torah, and to tithes. This third category offers an interpretation very similar to that of Targums Yerushalmi
and Neofiti.

Pesiqta de Rab Kahana - Piska 10.9 [Piska 11 in Buber’s transcription]

‫ לא תאכלו כל נבילה לגר אשר בשעריך וגו׳ לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו )דברים ט׳ו כ׳׳א( וכתיב‬,‫ מה כתיב‬,‫לענין מעשרות‬
‫ ואמ אין אתם מוֹציאין מעשרותיכם‬,‫ אמר חקב׳׳ה אל תגרמו לי לבשל גדיים עד שהן במעי אמותיהן‬,‫בתריה עשר תעשר‬
(‫ כד׳׳א ושדפה לפני קמה )מ׳׳ב י׳׳ט כ׳׳ו‬,‫ והוא שודפתן‬,‫כראוי רוח אחד של קדים אני שולח‬

The prohibition “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” is stated a third time in regard to the pay-
ment of tithes. How does Scripture put it? The beginning of the verse “You shall not eat anything that dies
of itself; though you may give it to the stranger that is within thy gates” (Deut. 14:21) [intimates that the
non-payment of tithes is as much of a sin as is the eating of meat not ritually slaughtered], and the conclu-
sion of the verse “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” (ibid.) [goes on to intimate that the non-
payment of tithes is as much of a sin as the seething of a kid in its mother’s milk]. That these are the inti-
mations of the verse is proved by the command given in the very next verse “Tithe, and then you shall
again tithe” (Deut. 14:22). By your sin in not tithing, the Holy One said, do not bring Me to have the ker-
nels of your crops ripen prematurely in their mothers’ wombs, [in their seedpods].38 For if you do not pay
the proper tithes from your produce, I will despatch a searing blast from the east wind to wither up the
seedpods. “The corn will thus be blasted before it is grown up” (2Kings 19:26).39

Midrash Tanchuma (Devarim: Re’eh)

‫ אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אל תגרמו לי‬.‫ וכתיב בתרה עשר תעשר‬.‫ לא תאכלו כל נבלה וגוֹ׳‬,‫ דכתיב למעלה‬,‫לענין מעשר‬
‫ רוח אחת של קדים אני‬,‫ שאם אין אתם מוציאין מעשרותיכם כראוי‬.‫לבשל גדיים בחלב אמותיהן עד שהן במעי אמותיהן‬
.(‫ כמה דאת אמר ושדפה לפני קמה )מ׳׳ב יט כו‬,‫מוציא ומשדפתן‬

With reference to tithes (in Deut 14:22) what is written above? You shall eat no carcass that is not properly
slaughtered […You shall not boil (‫ )בשל‬a kid (‫ )גדי‬in its mother’s milk (‫)חלב‬.] Then after that is written (in
Deut 14:22): You shall surely tithe. The Holy One (blessed is He) said: Do not cause me to have the tender
grains (‫ )גדיים‬ripen prematurely (‫ )בשל‬in the fat (‫ )חלב‬of their mothers (‫אמותיהן‬, i.e., in their pods). Thus
unless you take out a tithe properly, I will send out a certain wind from the East to blast them (i.e., the ten-
der grains), just as you have said (in 2Kings 10:26=Is 37:27): And blasted before it is grown.40

Summary

The Targumim in their current form clearly reflect the Mishnaic halakhah on the texts under consideration.
Referring to the rendering of Onkelos, Schorch writes:

Nevertheless, both wording and context of the Hebrew text seem to show that this can hardly be the
meaning which was originally intended. Moreover, even a comparison of the different rabbinic sources
which discuss the interdict of mixing meat and milk suggests that both the halakha and its connection with

38
Rabbinic Hebrew uses ‫ גְּ ִדי‬to refer to youths or students as contrasted with teachers, and by analogy, that which is tender.
Thus the play on the word in this midrash in which ‫ גְּ ִדי‬can mean both “kid or lamb” and “tender grain.” See Jastrow, Dic-
tionary of the Talmud, “‫גְּ ִדי‬,” p. 211.
39
Translation from Braude and Kapstein, Pĕsikta dĕ-Rab Kahăna (Routledge & Kegan, 1975), pp. 196–97.
40
Translation from John T. Townsend, Midrash Tanhuma, 3 vols. (KTAV, 2003), 3:318.

~ 17 ~
 the biblical text developed gradually and in successive stages only.41

Onkelos has removed significant parts of the biblical text: the verb ‫בּ ַשׁל‬, ָ “to boil,” as well ‫גְּ ִדי‬, “goat, lamb”
and ‫אמוֹ‬,ִ “its mother” are not represented. In each of the three targumic texts, the original prohibition is summed
in the injunction not to eat meat with milk, indicating that ‫ גְּ ִדי‬is interpreted to mean “any meat,” and the boiling or
cooking process envisioned in the original prohibition is eclipsed by the verb ‫אכל‬, “to eat.” Moreover, none of the
Targumim include any reference or even interpretative representation of ‫ ִאמוֹ‬found in the biblical text.
It is evident that Targum Yerushalmi [TY] and Neofiti [N] are parallel in their expansive renditions. Both TY
and N, in all three texts, include the prohibition both to cook (or boil) meat with milk as well as to eat meat with
milk. This would reflect the evolving rabbinic halakhah found in the Mishnah, Gemara, and Midrashim. Interest-
ingly, both TY and N add the description of how God’s wrath would be administered if meat and milk were
cooked or eaten together: He would “cook/boil” (= destroy) their grain at the very time of the harvest. Two things
are of note here: first, the idea that cooking or eating meat with milk would draw God’s wrath is reminiscent of
the SP and Lxx additions, and thus may give evidence that they were aware of the additions. Second, the fact that
the grain, still standing in the field or being gathered by the reapers, would be destroyed, connects with (a) the
bringing of the tithes of “all the produce from what you sow” (Deut 14:22), and (b) the festivals of Shavuot and
Sukkot, which celebrate the ingathering of first fruits (Ex 34:22). It would appear, then, that both TY and N have
interpreted Ex 23:19 and 34:26 through the lens of Deuteronomy 14:21 and its context. But it is also interesting to
see how TY and N seek to make sense of how the prohibition in Deuteronomy 14:21 fits with the context that im-
mediately follows (14:22–15:6), i.e., the bringing in of tithes, first fruits, and firstlings. The connection they de-
vise is clear, apparently incorporating the Lxx addition to Deut 14:21: one’s crops would suffer divine judgment if
meat and milk were combined either in food preparation or consumption. All of this is missing in Onkelos.
Pesikta de Rab Kahana and Midrash Tanchuma parallel Targumim Yerushalmi and Neofiti. These later
midrashim find in the thrice repeated prohibition a connection with the command to bring tithes, expressing that
God would punish the one who failed to pay tithes by ruining their crops while the kernel was still in the pod. The
impetus for this interpretation lies not only in the fact that the prohibition in Deut 14:21 is followed immediately
by the commandment to offer tithes, but also because of the words used in the prohibition itself. Hebrew ‫ גְּ ִדי‬could
metaphorically be understood as “pods,” “husks,” or “kernels” and ‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬can mean “to ripen” as well as “to boil.”
Thus, the divine punishment for neglecting to pay the tithe would be to mimic the boiling of a kid in its mother’s
milk by destroying the grain before it ripened. It appears, then, that these later midrashim interpret the prohibition
as akin to sacrificing a pregnant female animal, i.e., slaughtering the firstling and its mother on the same day in
violation of the Torah commandment (Lev 22:28).42 Significant for our study, however, is simply the fact that
these later midrashim also see the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk as connected with the sacrificial
service at the central sanctuary and that to transgress the prohibition brings divine punishment. Such an interpreta-
tion parallels the general thrust of the SP and Lxx additions.

Philo

On the Virtues, 142–44

142 And our lawgiver [Moses] endeavors to surpass even himself, being a man of every kind of resource
which can tend to virtue, and having a certain natural aptitude for virtuous recommendations; for he com-
mands that one shall not take an animal from the mother, whether it be a lamb, or a kid, or any other crea-
ture belonging to the flocks or herds, before it is weaned. And having also given a command that no one
shall sacrifice the mother and the offspring on the same day, he goes further, and is quite prodigal on the

41
Stefan Schorch, “‘A Young Goat in Its Mother’s Milk’? Understanding an Ancient Prohibition,” VT 60 (2010), p. 117.
42
As noted by D. Andrew Teeter, Op. cit., p. 58.

~ 18 ~
 particularity of his injunctions, adding this also, “Thou shalt not seethe a lamb in his mother’s milk.”
143 For he looked upon it as a very terrible thing for the nourishment of the living to be the seasoning and
sauce of the dead animal, and when provident nature had, as it were, showered forth milk to support the
living creature, which it had ordained to be conveyed through the breasts of the mother, as if through a reg-
ular channel, that the unbridled licentiousness of men should go to such a height that they should slay both
the author of the existence of the other, and make use of it in order to consume the body of the other.
144 And if any one should desire to dress flesh with milk, let him do so without incurring the double re-
proach of inhumanity and impiety. There are innumerable herds of cattle in every direction, and some are
every day milked by the cowherds, or goatherds, or shepherds, since, indeed, the milk is the greatest source
of profit to all breeders of stock, being partly used in a liquid state and partly allowed to coagulate and so-
lidify, so as to make cheese. So that, as there is the greatest abundance of lambs, and kids, and all other
kinds of animals, the man who seethes the flesh of any one of them in the milk of its own mother is exhibit-
ing a terrible perversity of disposition, and exhibits himself as wholly destitute of that feeling which, of all
others, is the most indispensable to, and most nearly akin to, a rational soul, namely, compassion.43

Philo lived from 15–50 CE and therefore reflects at least one Jewish perspective on our subject from the pre-
destruction era. His comments deal entirely with how the prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk
was given as divine command to foster and enrich an humanitarian soul within His people. In this emphasis, Philo
takes the position that the prohibited milk with meat is only that of the animal’s mother and that cooking and eat-
ing meat with the milk obtained from other than the slaughtered animal’s mother is permitted. In this regard, we
can say that either the prohibition of eating any meat with milk (made clear in later rabbinic halakhah) was not
yet extant or if it were, Philo remained uninfluenced by it.44
This humanitarian or life vs. death interpretation of the prohibition’s meaning figures significantly in the his-
tory of interpretation. For instance, Rashbam (R. Shmuel b. Meir, 1085–1158 CE) writes that to eat the meat of a
goat cooked in its mother’s milk

is disgusting, voracious, and gluttonous…. According to the same model, [in Lev 22:28 and Deut 22:6–7]
Scripture teaches us civilized behavior.45

Ibn Ezra (1089 – 1164 CE) also adopts the humanitarian view:

We have no need to seek the reason that it is prohibited, for this is hidden even from those of understand-
ing. But perhaps God commanded us not to do it because it demonstrates a certain cruelty. The command-
ments “no animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young”
(Lev 22:28) and “do not take the mother together with her young” (Deut 22:6) are similar.46

A number of the early Church Fathers also follow Philo in his humanitarian interpretation. Clement of
Alexandria parallels the prohibition with the command in Deut 25:4 (following Philo) and teaches that the prohi-
bition of seething a kid in its mother’s milk teaches the need for compassion.47 Moorhead notes that Theodoret of
Cyrrhus likewise taught that the prohibition was given to teach mankind humane (filanqropiva) behavior.48

43
English translation from C. D. Yonge, The Works of Philo, Completed and Unabridged (Hendrickson, 1993).
44
See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus in The Anchor Bible, Op. cit., p. 742; Idem., “Milk and Meat: Unlikely Bedfellows” in John
M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds. By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley (Deseret Book
Co., 1990), p. 152.
45
Quoted from Cooper, “Once Again Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk,” Op. cit., p. 9.
46
Ibn Ezra on Ex 23:19. English translation from Michael Carasik, The Commentator’s Bible: The JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot
(JPS, 2005), p. 201.
47
Stromata 2.94.
48
John Moorhead, “Cooking a Kid in it’s Mother’s Milk,” Augustinianum 37 (1997), p. 264.

~ 19 ~
 Some modern scholars have adopted this view as well.49 For example, Carmichael writes:

There is no dietary reason for the rule. Eating a young animal cooked in its mother’s milk does not harm
the health of the consumer. Ambiguity about life and death is in fact the issue underlying the rule. The aim
of the lawgiver is to keep life and death apart.50

The Mishnah

The primary text of the Mishnah on the separation of meat and milk is m.Chullin 8.51

1 Every [kind of] flesh it is prohibited to cook in milk, except for the flesh of fish and locusts. And it is pro-
hibited to serve it up onto the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and locusts. He who vows [to
abstain] from flesh is permitted [to make use of] the flesh of fish and locusts. “Fowl goes up onto the table
with cheese, but it is not eaten,” the words of the House of Shammai. And the House of Hillel say, “It does
not go up, and it is not eaten.” Said R. Yose, “This is one of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai
and the strict rulings of the House of Hillel” [cf. m.Eduyyot 4.1, 5.2; t.Chullin 8.2–352]. Concerning what
sort of table did they speak? Concerning a table on which one eats. But as to a table on which one lays out
cooking, one puts this beside that and does not scruple.
2 A man ties up meat and cheese in a single cloth, provided that they do not touch one another. Rabban
Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “Two guests eat on one table, this one meat, and that one cheese, and they do not
scruple.”
3 A drop of milk which fell on a piece [of meat], if it is sufficient to impart flavor to that piece [of meat]—
it is prohibited. [If] one stirred the pot, if there is in it sufficient [milk] to impart flavor to that pot’s con-
tents, it [the contents of the pot] is prohibited. The udder: one cuts it open and takes out its milk. [If] he did
not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account. The heart: One cuts it open and takes out its blood.
[If] he did not cut it open, he does not transgress on that account. He who serves up fowl with cheese on the
table does not transgress a negative commandment.
4 The meat of clean cattle with the milk of a clean cattle— it is prohibited to cook [one with the other] or to
derive benefit [therefrom]. The meat of clean cattle with the milk of an unclean cattle, the meat of unclean
cattle with the milk of clean cattle—it is permitted to cook and permitted to derive benefit [therefrom]. R.
Aqiba says, “A wild beast and fowl [are] not [prohibited to be mixed with milk] by the Torah. For it is said,
‘You will not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk’ (Ex. 23:19, 34:26; Dt. 14:21)—three times, [for the purpose
of] excluding [from the prohibition of milk and meat] (1) the wild beast, (2) the bird, (3) and unclean cat-
tle.” R. Yose the Galilean says, “It is said, You will not eat any sort of carrion (Deut 14:21), and it is said,
You shall not seethe the kid in its mother’s milk (Deut 14:21)—This means: What is prohibited on the
grounds of carrion [also] is prohibited to be cooked in milk. Fowl, which is prohibited on the grounds of
carrion, is it possible that it is prohibited to be seethed in milk? Scripture says, In its mother’s milk—ex-

49
E.g., Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus in The Anchor Bible, Op. cit.; M. Haran, “Seething a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk,” JJS 30
(1979).
50
Calum M. Carmichael, The Spirit of Biblical Law (Univ of Georgia Press, 1996), p. 127.
51
Other Mishnah texts that speak of separating meat and milk are: m.Qiddushin 2.9; m.AvodaZera 5.9; m.Temura 7.4, all of
which list items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. M.Eduyyot 5.1-2 includes the dispute between the Houses (Hil-
lel and Shammai) over whether meat and cheese can be placed on the same table. This is in a list of six rulings in which
the house of Shammai is lenient and the house of Hillel is stringent. Interestingly, t.Eduyyot 8:2–3 begins by stating
“These are twenty-four things of the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and the stringent rulings of the House of
Hillel…,” but ends up only listing fourteen, and the “no fowl and cheese on the same table” is included. Sifre on
Deuteronomy (Behar Pereq 1.5) repeats m.Chullin 8.4 in which the interpretations of R. Akiva and R. Yose the Galilean
are included.
52
The parallel text of the Tosefta (t.Shechitat Chullin 8.1-13) is expansive and appears to show marked evidence of later
evolution of the rabbinic halakhah pertaining to meat and milk.

~ 20 ~
 cluding fowl, the mother of which does not have milk.”53
5 [The milk in] the stomach of [a beast slaughtered by] a gentile and of carrion is prohibited. He who cur-
dles [milk] in the skin of the stomach of a validly slaughtered beast, if it is sufficient to impart a flavor—lo,
this [cheese] is prohibited. A valid beast which sucked from a terefah beast—[the milk in] its stomach is
prohibited. A terefah beast which sucked from a valid beast—[the milk in] its stomach is permitted, [in
both cases because [the milk remains] collected together in its intestines.
6 A more strict rule applies to fat than to blood, and a more strict rule applies to blood than to fat. A more
strict rule applies to fat: For as to fat: the laws of sacrilege apply to it. And they are liable on its account to
the laws of refuse, remnant, and uncleanness, which is not the case with blood sacrilege [m.Meila 3.3]. A
more strict rule applies to blood, for [the law forbidding] blood applies to cattle, a wild beast, and a bird,
whether unclean or clean. But [the prohibition of] fat applies only to a clean cattle alone.

The rulings of this Mishnah give evidence of the halakhic debates that inevitably took place in light of basing
the separation of meat and milk on the three texts we have studied. Paragraphs 1 and 4 arise from interpreting ‫גְּ ִדי‬,
“goat, lamb” as representative of all meat, which brings up the question of whether the rabbinic prohibition equal-
ly applies to fowl. This also shows that the rabbis sought to find a way to apply ‫ ַבּ ֲח ֵלב ִאמוֹ‬, “in the milk of his
mother,” to the halakhah of kashrut they were developing, and how the prohibition regarding a kid in milk is to
be understood in light of the prohibition of carrion to which it is joined in Deut 14:21. R. Yose the Galilean (110–
135 CE) appears to represent the minority opinion, exempting fowl from the prohibition (both Torah and rab-
binic54) of cooking meat and milk together because it is obvious that a bird could not be cooked in the milk of its
mother. This is actually an argument over how widely ‫ גְּ ִדי‬should be interpreted, i.e., whether it pertains only to
certain animals (e.g., goat and sheep, or mammals in general) or if it stands as representative of all meat.
Likewise, the question of how widely ‫ גְּ ִדי‬should be interpreted in the biblical texts becomes a point of debate,
pertaining not only to what meat can be cooked in milk but also from which kinds of meat with milk one is al-
lowed to derive benefit. And further, does the Torah prohibition as extended by derived halakhah refer only to do-
mesticated animals or to undomesticated animals as well? R. Akiva, who applies his rule of hermeneutics, that
multiple mentions require multiple applications, concludes that the halakhah, based as it is upon the three biblical
texts (all employing ‫)גְּ ִדי‬, requires three distinct applications: (1) meat from undomesticated animals with milk, (2)
meat from fowl with milk, and (3) meat from unclean animals with milk. Akiva’s point is that derived halakhah
(not direct Torah law55) permits gaining benefit from these three categories. In the same way that one is permitted
to give nevēlah (‫ )נְ ֵב ָלה‬to a foreigner, so one is permitted, in these three categories, to give meat cooked in milk to
a foreigner and to derive benefit therefrom.
Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 of m.Chullin 8 deal with the halakhah of physical separation between meat and milk,
whether placed on a preparation table, served at the same table where food is being eaten, or wrapped in a cloth
(i.e., meat with cheese). The mishnaic halakhah is that as long as the meat and milk do not touch, they are permit-
ted to be placed together. And if they do touch, the milk must be of sufficient quantity to impart flavor to the meat
in order to be prohibited. This aspect of imparting flavor is also involved in the question of how to deal with milk
in the process of slaughtering meat and the use of the stomach as a container. Notice that Rabban Simeon b.
Gamaliel56 is concerned that the separation of meat and milk not disrupt table fellowship, so he ruled that one
could eat meat and another milk while seated at the same table.
The fact that a debate over mixing meat and milk is attributed to the houses of Hillel and Shammai has been
thought by some to provide evidence that separating meat and milk was an established halakhic rule of kashrut in

53
Cf. Sifre Devarim, Behar Pereq 1.5.
54
See the comments of Pinhas Kehati, Mishnah, 22 vols (Eliner Library: Jerusalem, 1994), 14.96–97 (m.Chullin 8.4).
55
‫ ִתּ ְתּנֶ נָּ ה וַ ֲא ָכ ָלהּ אוֹ ָמכֹר ְלנָ ְכ ִרי‬G‫ר־בּ ְשׁ ָע ֶרי‬ ְ ֹ ‫( לֹא ת‬Deut 14:21). See the comments of Kehati, Ibid.
ִ ‫אכלוּ ָכל־נְ ֵב ָלה ַלגֵּ ר ֲא ֶשׁ‬
56
This is most likely attributed to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel II (135–170).

~ 21 ~
the pre-destruction era.57 However, it should be recognized that the debate over kashrut laws pertaining to meat
and milk are never attributed to Hillel and Shammai themselves, but only to the Houses. Current studies in dating
the compositional history of rabbinic texts have suggested that the disputes between the Houses were compiled or
composed in the centuries following the destruction. Neusner has grouped the Shammai-Hillel materials into four
categories:

First, possibly authentic records of legal and moral opinions of the two masters, transmitted through the
Houses at a time that the Shammaites were able to preserve their master’s teachings at parity with Hillel-
materials; second, legendary stories about the superiority of Hillel and everything he said and did…A third
group of materials explains why the Shammaites one time had been able to predominate in Pharisaism; and
a fourth presents an evaluation of the disputes of the masters and their Houses. The latter three come long
after the masters were dead and probably after the House of Shammai had ceased to be an important force
in the Pharisaic-rabbinic movement.58

We must therefore evaluate the stories pertaining to the Houses with this in mind. Moreover, it is not uncommon
in the rabbinic literature for later rulings to be attributed to earlier authorities in order to garner greater authority
for the emerging rabbinic halakhah. As Neusner writes:

Ample evidence in virtually every document of rabbinic literature sustains the proposition that it was quite
common for sages to make up sayings and stories and attribute the sayings to, or tell the stories about, other
prior authorities.59

For as anyone who knows two or three pages of the Talmud of Babylonia will concur, it is easy to cite
hundreds of passages in which, faced with a logical problem in a saying assigned to a prior authority, an ex-
egete will rewrite the saying to conform to the requirements of logic.60

This rabbinic phenomenon of attributing to earlier authorities the dogma of later halakhah is perhaps best il-
lustrated by the insistence of the rabbis that God revealed the Mishnah itself to Moses on Sinai, including the de-
bates between the houses of Hillel and Shammai.61 In the same manner, the influence of the later rabbinic ha-
lakhah upon the targumic interpretive paraphrase of the three texts prohibiting boiling a kid in its mother’s milk
shows how later dogma can be ascribed to earlier authorities. It is therefore tenuous to conclude that separation of
meat and milk was a widely accepted halakhah of kashrut in the pre-destruction era based solely upon this Mish-
nah text.

57
Aaron Eby, Biblically Kosher (FFOZ, 2012), p. 100ff. “The fact that these two schools agreed on these points [prohibiting
the mixing of meat and milk] suggests that the interpretation pre-dates the division of the two schools, placing it at least as
early as the beginning of the first century CE.” (p. 100); “Separation of meat and dairy was standard practice in the first
century.” (p. 102).
58
Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, 3 vols. (Wipf and Stock, 2005 [Originally pub-
lished by E. J. Brill, 1971]), 1.339–40. See also Shamma Friedman, “Uncovering Literary Dependencies in the Talmudic
Corpus” in Shaye J. D. Cohen, ed. The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature (Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), pp. 35–57.
59
Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament (Trinity Press, 1994), p. 68.
60
Ibid., p. 69.
61
E.g., Tanhuma, Ki Tissa, §34 [2.161 in Townsend, Op. cit.]; Wa-yera, §5 [1.93–4 in Townsend, Op. cit.]. See also Pesikta
De-Rab Kahana, Piska 4, where Moses and the Holy One discuss the halakhah of R. Eliezer; (in Braude and Kapstein,
Pĕsikta dĕ-Rab Kahăna [Routledge & Kegan, 1975), pp. 80–81); m.Avot 1.1 contains the well known dictum tracing the
“oral Torah” back to Moses.

~ 22 ~
Genesis 18 & Abraham’s heavenly guests

One might well expect that as rabbinic Judaism was being formulated following the destruction of the Tem-
ple, the rabbinic debates on the meat and milk issue would have at least included some mention of the events in
Gen 18, in which Abraham feeds his heavenly guests “curds and milk and the calf which he had prepared…and
they ate” (v. 8, ‫אכל‬
ֵ ֹ ‫ן־ה ָבּ ָקר ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה…וַ יּ‬
ַ ‫וּב‬ ֶ Yet, even though this is an argumentum ex silentio, the fact
ֶ ‫)ח ְמ ָאה וְ ָח ָלב‬.
that the early halakhic midrashim fail to mention it in relation to the prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s
milk is curious. One would think that if the separation of meat and milk was being established as a standard law
of kashrut in the pre-destruction era, the authorities would have felt Abraham’s serving meat with milk in need of
some explanation.
Yet it is not until the later midrashim that the issue is raised. In Pesikta de Rab Kahana, the Ex 34:26 prohibi-
tion of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is connected to the giving of the Torah, since the words which immedi-
ately follow the prohibition in this text are “Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words….” The
midrash interprets this to describe the conversation of God and Moses on the mountain:

The Lord said unto Moses: Write these words… and He went on to say: Moses, [the angels at this moment
are confounded by My reminder to them] You shall not seethe a kind in its mother’s milk, so while the san-
dal is on your foot, crush the thorn [of their opposition to My giving the Torah to mortals. Take advantage
of the angels’ confusion and] write down the Ten Commandments.62

Apparently the point of the midrash is that “the angels in all too human fashion violated the law when they ate
meat and milk together”63 and thus were rebuked by the prohibition given to Moses which caused them momen-
tary confusion. Their moment of confusion interrupted their protest to God that the Torah should not be given to
mere mortals, and gave Moses the time to write down the Ten Words.
On the other hand, Midrash Rabbah Bereishit (xlviii.14), being an exegetical midrash rather than halakhic,
shows no explicit concern that Abraham served meat and milk together. For instance, when discussing Gen 18:8 it
focuses on the fact that the list of foods which Abraham brings to his guest does not include bread even though he
had previously instructed Sarah to knead three measures of fine flour and make cakes. Ephraim Michsha’ah, a dis-
ciple of R. Meir, gives his explanation: Sarah had become menstruous while kneading the dough and so it became
defiled.64 But the midrash says nothing about the combination of meat with milk.
In the later rabbinic literature any problem that may have arisen over Abraham serving meat and milk is
entirely alleviated through ingenious, rabbinic logic. The axiom is introduced that one should following the cus-
toms of the place where one resides as demonstrated by Moses and the angels who visited Abraham. When Moses
entered the angelic realm (the cloud on Sinai) he did not eat or drink. And, when the angels entered the sphere of
the world to visit Abraham, since they had no need to consume the food of mortals to sustain their life, when they
were served the food by Abraham they only pretended to eat it but actually did not.

Rabbi Tanchum bar Chanilai said: A person should never deviate from the custom. For Moses ascended on
high and did not eat bread; and the ministering angels descended below and ate bread. “And they ate” – can
this enter your mind? Rather say: “They appeared as if they ate and drank.”65

All that we can say is that the earliest halakhic midrashim saw no reason to offer an explanation for Abra-
ham’s meal consisting of meat and milk even though the later rabbinic literature did.

62
Braude and Kapstein, Pĕsikta dĕ-Rab Kahăna [Routledge & Kegan, 1975), p. 196; cp. Pesikta Rabbati 25.3.
63
Ibid., Pĕsikta dĕ-Rab Kahăna, p. 196, n. 34.
64
Cf. also b.BavaMetzia 87a.
65
b.BavaMetzia 86b.

~ 23 ~
Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Ex 23:1966
The opening section of Mechilta on Ex 23:19 gives an extended list of differing rabbinic views as to why the
prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is repeated three times in the Torah. The following table
summarizes the data:

Authority Why is the Prohibition Repeated Three Times?

To correspond to the three covenants which the Holy One, blessed be He, made with Israel: (1) at
R. Ishmael
Horeb, Ex 24:7–8 (2) in the plains of Moab, Deut 29:11 (3) on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, Deut 28:69
(1) first statement on a subject cannot be employed for any special interpretation, (2) to show that
R. Josiah even as one is forbidden to cook a clean animal in milk, so one learns that the milk of an unclean an-
imal is excluded, (3) to intimate that the law does not apply to human milk
R. Jonathan (1) to apply to domestic animals, (2) to apply to the beast of chase, (3) to apply to fowl
R. Eliezar (1) to apply to large animals, (2) to apply to goats, (3) to apply to sheep
R. Simon b. Eleazar (1) to apply to large cattle, (2) to apply to small cattle, (3) to apply to wild animals
(1) to prohibit eating it, (2) to prohibit deriving benefit from it, (3) to prohibit merely cooking it
R. Simon b. Yochai
(1) in the Land as well as outside of the Land, (2) while the Temple stood, (3) after the Temple was
2nd Interpretation
destroyed
Not to derive benefit from (1) cattle with milk, (2) wild animals with milk, (3) fowl with milk
R. Akiva
[parallel to m.Chullin 8.4; cp. b.Chullin 113a]

In the commentary which follows the discussion of why the prohibition is repeated three times, Mechilta com-
ments on the phrase “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” with more words than on any other verse (9
pages in Lauterbach’s edition).67 I will therefore summarize the comments:
1. Proving, via ‫( קל וחומר‬kal vachomer), that meat with milk is forbidden both to cook and to be eaten.
a. the case of the Paschal lamb does not give sufficient proof.
b. Akiva states that the law not to eat the thigh-vein proves it, but this argument is defeated by stating
that the law not to eat the thigh-vein is pre-Torah (Gen 32:33), while the prohibition against cooking
meat in milk is in the Torah.
c. Does the law against eating from a carcass prove the prohibition to eat meat with milk? No, this is
different:
1) the carcass makes the one who carries it unclean, proving that it is forbidden to be eaten.
2) not so with one who carries meat cooked with milk, so the law against a carcass does not provide
proof.
a) but the law of tallow and blood would countermand this, for the tallow and blood do not
make one who carries them unclean, yet they are forbidden to be eaten.

66
The date of Mechilta is impossible to pin down, since in its extant form it clearly is a compilation of various strands of
rabbinic, halakhic commentary. Some, like B. Z. Wacholder, considers it quite late, i.e., composed in the post-Talmudic
era of the 8th Century (“The Date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael” HUCA 39 [1968], 117–44). Others take it to be earli-
er, at the dawn of the Talmudic era. Strack and Stemberger write: “The form of the individual traditions, the cited rabbis
and the historical allusions suggest a date of final redaction in the second half of the third century.” Strack and Stemberg-
er, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Fortress, 1992), p.278–79. However, Wacholder has some formidable argu-
ments for its later date.
67
Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. (JPS, 1935), 3:187–196.

~ 24 ~
 b) No. The law of tallow and blood is different, for the law against them carries the penalty of
extermination, but there is no such law attached to the prohibition of cooking meat in milk.
d. Proof from gezera sheva (verbal analogy) and repeated phrases.
1) Deut 12:23–24 – “You shall not eat” is repeated three times: once to forbid all blood (as food
law), once to forbid eating the “life” (blood as a consecrated substance), and once to forbid meat
with milk.
2) Issi: Deut 12:23 – “You shall not eat the life with flesh” forbids eating meat with milk (on the
idea that the milk was life giving to the suckling).
3) Issi b. Gur Aryeh: “holiness” is mentioned in Deut 14:21 and also in Ex 22:30 (which forbids eat-
ing carrion). Just as “holiness” forbids eating carrion, so here “holiness” forbids eating meat with
milk.
2. Now that it is proven that eating meat with milk is forbidden, how can it be proven that it is forbidden to
derive benefit from meat cooked in milk?
a. by kal vachomer – Fruit of the first three years is forbidden to be eaten and to derive benefit from it,
even though the production of it violates no law. Is it not logical then, that meat cooked with milk, a
production that is prohibited, should be forbidden both to be eaten and to derive benefit from it?
b. No! Consider leaven at Pesach. The penalty against it is extermination, and therefore it is also prohib-
ited to derive benefit from it. But with meat cooked with milk, there is no such penalty prescribed.
Therefore it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it.
c. Does not the law of mixed seeds in a vineyard (Deut 22:9) overturn your counter argument? The pro-
hibition against them does not carry the penalty of extermination, but it is forbidden to derive benefit
from them.
d. Rabbi says: “Or you may sell it to a foreigner … you shall not seethe a kid … (Deut 14:21). The
Torah says: When you sell it you may not cook it first and then sell it. Behold then you thus learn that
it is forbidden to derive benefit from any use of it.
3. It is proven that cooking meat in the milk of its mother is forbidden. How about cooking it with the milk
of a sister species?
a. it is forbidden on the basis of kal vachomer: since the kid or lamb is permitted to come into the shed
together with its own species, but other species are not allowed to come into the shed to be tithed, it is
logical that it cannot be cooked in the milk of another species.
b. What about cooking it in its own milk? Proven to be forbidden by kal vachomer: if the law permits
product with product, as with respect to slaughtering them on the same day, it forbids product with
parent together (Lev 22:28). The animal, so to speak, is the parent of its own milk, thus it is forbidden
for an animal to be cooked in its own milk, even as it is forbidden for a parent and child to be slaugh-
tered on the same day.
c. What about using goat’s milk in which to cook lamb? Forbidden by kal vachomer: if the law permits
coupling (yoking or tethering) product with product (same species), and it forbids product with parent
(as proven above), here, where the law forbids product with product, even with regard to coupling (it
is forbidden to couple a lamb with a goat, m.Bekorot 1), product with parent is surely forbidden.
d. The same argument applies to using goat’s milk in which to cook beef.
1) Why then does the Scripture speak of the kid? Because it is rich in milk.
2) Rabbi said: Here it is said “its mother” (‫)אמוֹ‬ ִ and there (Lev 22:27) it also said “its mother” (‫)אמוֹ‬.
ִ
Just as there (in Lev 22:27) “its mother” (written only once) applies to an ox, a sheep, or a goat,

~ 25 ~
 so here (Ex 23:19) when it says “its mother” it applies to the mother of an ox or a sheep or a goat.
4. Only meat and milk are forbidden to be cooked together, both of which separately are permitted for food.
What about cooking prohibited things together (in order to derive benefit from them), which even sepa-
rate are forbidden to eat?
a. It says “You shall not seethe a kid …”
b. thus only meat and milk are forbidden to be cooked together, but all other prohibited things men-
tioned in the Torah are not likewise forbidden.
5. Thus far only non-consecrated animals have been discussed. What about animals consecrated for
sacrifices?
a. If it is forbidden in the case of non-consecrated animals, should it not be forbidden in the case of con-
secrated animals?
b. No! The case of non-consecrated animals is different, for the law also forbids pinching off the head in
the case of non-consecrated animals. But would you argue the same for consecrated animals?
1) the law does not forbid pinching in the case of consecrated animals (Lev 1:15, where pinching off
the head is prescribed for birds offered as sacrifice).
2) the law forbids this mode of slaughtering in the case of fowl used for ordinary food.
c. It says: “In the house of the Lord your God you shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk” (since both
phrases are used in the same verse, the one applies to the other).

Summary

I have taken the space to outline the arguments of Mechilta because they cover nearly every aspect of the de-
veloping rabbinic halakhah regarding meat and milk, showing that the arguments come at the end of the devel-
oped halakhah rather than in its early formulation. As would be expected, the school of Ishmael counters the ar-
guments of Akiva, accepting only gezera sheva (a text-based argument) to be the means for interpreting the three
scriptural repetitions prohibiting boiling a kid in its mother’s milk as a general rule of kashrut. But the fact that
Mechilta includes the discussion in a more fully developed form might be another indication that this particular
aspect of kashrut was still in its final development in the Amoraic period (220–500 CE). What is more, this com-
mentary (expounding Ex 23:19) gives witness to the manner in which the context of Deut 14:21 had become
foundational for interpreting the two texts in Exodus, just as we saw in Targums Yerushalmi and Neofiti.

Rambam – Guide of the Perplexed & Ugaritic KTU 1.23 – Meat in Milk an Idolatrous Practice

Rambam (Moshe b. Maimonides) is often quoted for his interpretation that the prohibition against boiling a
kid in its mother’s milk was given because such a practice was done by the idolatrous nations.

As for the prohibition against eating meat [boiled] in milk, it is in my opinion not improbable that—in addi-
tion to this being undoubtedly very gross food and very filling—idolatry had something to do with it. Per-
haps such food was eaten at one of the ceremonies of their cult or at one of their festivals. A confirmation
of this may, in my opinion, be found in the fact that the prohibition against eating meat [boiled] in milk,
when it is mentioned for the first two times [Ex 23:19; 34:26], occurs near the commandment concerning
the pilgrimage: Three times in the year, and so on. It is as if it said: When you go on pilgrimage and enter
the house of the Lord your God, do not cook there in the way they used to do. According to me this is the
most probable view regarding the reason for this prohibition; but I have not seen this set down in any of the
books of the Sabians that I have read.68

68
English translation from Shlomo Pines, The Guide of the Perplexed (Univ of Chicago, 1963), p. 599.

~ 26 ~
 In recent times, an Ugaritic text (KTU 1.23, line 14) was heralded as providing the proof which Rambam
lacked. In this text, commonly referred to by the title “Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods,” line 14 was
translated as: “Cook a kid in milk, a lamb in butter.” Many thought that at last a parallel to the biblical phrase had
been found in a context of pagan sacrificial rituals. Many older commentators, based upon the information pub-
lished from the Ras Shamra tablets, settled on the view that the prohibitions in the three texts we have studied
was, as Rambam had surmised, an injunction to Israel against adopting pagan sacrificial practices.69 However, in
more recent times, the misgivings of some scholars regarding the reconstructed Ugaritic text has been confirmed.
Ratner and Zuckerman, with new photographs of the tablet in question, have given ample evidence to the fact that
whatever the line read originally, the reconstructed text does not refer to cooking a kid in milk and therefore can-
not be used as a parallel to the biblical prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.70
Therefore, the interpretation of our texts as prohibiting a pagan cultic practice remains without support,
whether biblical or extra-biblical.

Summary of the Paper

In our survey of the three Torah texts that prohibit boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Deut
14:21) we have looked at the biblical texts and suggested the following:

1. The verb ‫ ָבּ ַשׁל‬should most likely be understood as “boil” or “seethe” in all three texts. Though two times
in the Tanach (Deut 16:7; 2Sam 13:8) this verb means “to cook” in a manner other than boiling, all three
of the texts that contain the prohibition are contextually connected with service at the central sanctuary,
and therefore with sacrifices offered there.71 The Lxx also corroborates that the verb means “to boil”
rather than “to cook” in the three texts under investigation (using e{yw in Ex 23:19 and Deut 14:21, and re-
casting the verb entirely in Ex 34:26 to prosfevrw).
2. The noun ‫גְּ ִדי‬, should be taken in its common sense of “young goat,” though since the Semitic root can en-
compass both “young goat” and “lamb,” either could be the meaning in our texts. Still, since ‫ גְּ ִדי‬in the
Tanach most often means “young goat,” it is most probable that this is the meaning in our texts as well.
3. The grammatical construction preposition + construct noun in ‫ ַבּ ֲח ֵלב‬should be understood as locative, i.e.,
“in the milk of.” The fact that the noun could be vocalized as ‫בּ ֱח ֶלב‬,
ֶ “in the fat of” does not apply to our
texts, at least on the basis of the textual evidence available. Both the SP and the Lxx give united witness
to the noun being “milk” not “fat.” Further, the idea that the preposition could be taken to mean “with” (a
temporal sense) in order to support the interpretation that the prohibition is against offering a kid while it
is still nursing, simply lacks cogency on two grounds: (1) the Torah allows offering a kid or lamb on the
eighth day after birth (which surely is during the time it is still nursing), and (2) the idiom “with its moth-
er’s milk” to mean “still nursing” is unattested.
4. The contexts of all three texts involve service at the central sanctuary. While this is obvious in the Exodus

69
See, for example, U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Magnes Press, 1967), p. 305. See further examples
in Milgrom, Leviticus in The Anchor Bible, Op. cit., p. 738. See also Loren R. Fisher, Ras Shamra Parallels, 2 vols.
(Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1972), 1.29–32.
70
Robert Ratner and Bruce Zuckerman, “‘A Kid in Milk?’ New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14,” HUCA (1986), pp. 15–
60. See also Milgrom, Leviticus, Op. cit., p. 738.
71
Cf. Ex 29:31; Lev 8:31; cp. Ezek 46:20, 23. See David Qimhi’s remarks on 2Chron 35:13 in Yitzhak Berger, The Com-
mentary of Rabbi David Kimhi to Chronicles: A Translation with Introduction and Supercommentary (Brown Judaic
Studies, 2007), p. 276.

~ 27 ~
 texts, it is less obvious in the Deuteronomy text where the prohibition comes at the conclusion of a list of
food laws. Nevertheless, the context following the prohibition in Deut 14:21 includes laws of tithing and
offering of first fruits, which has the central sanctuary in view. The placing of the prohibition in the con-
text of the food laws in Deuteronomy may be explained on the basis that the text following involves the
procedure for those who live too far from the sanctuary and who would therefore sell their first fruits and
firstlings and buy food and sacrificial animals for the celebration when they arrived at the sanctuary. Thus
purchasing food brings to the fore the matters relating to clean and unclean meat (i.e., kashrut).
5. That all three texts have to do with sacrifices at the central sanctuary is strengthened by the pluses found
in the SP and Lxx renderings of Ex 23:19 and Deut 14:21. These pluses indicate clearly that at an early
stage of the textual tradition, boiling a kid in its mother’s milk was viewed in the context of sacrifice, and
that offering a kid in its mother’s milk was a forbidden sacrifice that would attract divine wrath. It is also
possible that the Qumran sect was aware of the addition to Deut 14:21, as evidenced by a scrap from Cave
1. If this is the case, it would add weight to the suggestion that a final line of the text, which locates the
prohibition within the context of sacrifices at the central sanctuary, has, for one reason or another, been
expunged from or fallen out of the MT.

In surveying the history of interpretation of the three texts containing the prohibition, we found the following
options suggested by both ancient and contemporary scholars:

1. That the prohibition was given on humanitarian grounds, i.e., to take the life-giving milk of the mother
and boil the meat of her suckling young in it was to act cruelly and inhumanely toward both mother and
offspring. From this perspective, the prohibition was given to Israel to foster civility and decency, and if
toward animals, how much more toward one’s fellowman.
The problem with the humanitarian interpretation is that the Torah clearly allows the slaughter of a
suckling on the eighth day and onward, which hardly would seem to comport with the notion that slaugh-
tering the suckling was inhumane. Moreover, “the mother goat can in no way be aware that her kid is
boiling in her milk,”72 so the prohibition does not seem to be given in order to assure humane treatment of
animals.
2. Another widely held interpretation is that the prohibition is to be grouped with the often found Torah pro-
hibitions against illicit mixtures. This perspective would include those who see boiling the kid in its moth-
er’s milk as an illicit mixing of substances that represent life and death, the milk being the life-giving sub-
stance, and the meat of the slaughtered kid representing death. Yet though this viewpoint certainly has
merit in view of the central theme of the Torah against illicit mixtures, one wonders if it is a sufficient ex-
planation in this case. For surely in the sacrificial service of the sanctuary, the blood (which represents
life, Lev 17:11–14) is poured out at the altar (which is the place of slaughter).
Under the category of illicit mixtures, there has also been the suggestion that the milk represents a
feminine substance and the meat represents a male quality. Thus to boil the meat in milk is to mix female
and male which is prohibited in the Torah.73

72
Milgrom, Leviticus in The Anchor Bible, Op. cit., p. 739.
73
Alan Cooper’s paper, “Once Again Seething a Kid in Its Mother’s Milk,” Op. cit., makes the strongest case for this
viewpoint.

~ 28 ~
 Yet a third category under the illicit mixtures perspective is that of Labuschagne,74 who proposes that
in the first days after giving birth, the milk of a mother goat or ewe lamb has spots of blood in it
(“beestings”), and that to boil the kid in the mother’s milk would be to eat meat commingled with blood,
strictly forbidden in the Torah. Yet if this were the origin of the prohibition, it surely was missed by all of
the early interpreters. And what is more, if this were the case, that milk from an animal nursing its young
contained blood, then one would expect not only the cooking of meat in it to be prohibited, but also any
use of this milk for eating and drinking. Yet this is surely not the focus of the prohibition.
3. A view held by some is that the origin of the prohibition was to guard Israel against adopting a pagan con-
cept of magic. It is proposed that in some pagan cultures, boiled milk, and even meat boiled in milk, was
thought to have some kind of magical power, or cosmic significance. But this suggestion seems to go far
afield from the biblical contexts themselves and clear literary examples of a connection between boiled
milk and magic in the ANE are questionable.75
4. We also saw that suggesting the prohibition was grounded in a repudiation of a pagan sacrificial ritual has
no historical grounds, even though for some time it was thought that an example had been found at Ras
Shamra in the Ugaritic tablets discovered there. Subsequent re-evaluation, based on better photographs of
the tablet in question, has confirmed that the text once thought to incorporate the line “cook a kid in milk”
can no longer be read in that way. Thus the explanation that the biblical prohibition was given to distance
Israel from incorporating a pagan ritual currently lacks corroborative, historical evidence.
5. When we came to the rabbinic literature, we saw how the Deuteronomy text became the lens through
which the Exodus texts were interpreted. This was made clear in the rendering of the Targumim as well as
in Mechilta and other midrashim. It is also clear that in the Mishnah, traditionally thought to have been
compiled in the last half of the 2nd Century (though final redaction undoubtedly took place much later),
the prohibition of cooking meat in milk had been extended to include eating meat with milk and stated to
be the received halakhah. Yet even in the Mishnah we saw some matters of debate upon which the sages
were not in full agreement (such as whether the meat of fowl could be eaten with milk, and whether meat
and milk could be in close proximity to each other). The fact that variant rulings regarding whether meat
and milk could be placed on the same table where people sat to eat are referenced to the Houses of Hillel
and Shammai should not be uncritically accepted as proof that separating meat and milk was “the
standard practice” in the pre-destruction era. Since it is common for later rabbinic authorities to attribute
their own rulings to earlier authorities, we should be very careful about presupposing that what we read in
the Mishnah necessarily describes halakhah in the pre-destruction era. This is particularly the case when
rulings are ascribed to the Houses and not to the masters themselves.
We also saw that the primary arguments contained in m.Chullin 8, and particularly as demonstrated in
Mechilta, are built upon rabbinic interpretation and argumentation which goes well beyond the basic
meaning of the biblical text. How much of the later rabbinic halakhah actually reflects common practice
in the pre-destruction era remains a matter of speculation. Given the indications that even into the Talmu-
dic era debates continued over the issue of separating meat and milk might well suggest that the perspec-
tive of m.Chullin 8 represents the post-destruction formulations created in the emerging rabbinic Judaism

74
C. J. Labuschagne, “‘You Shall Not Boil a Kid in its Mother’s Milk’: A New Proposal for the Origin of the Prohibition,”
Op. cit.
75
See C. J. Labuschagne, Op. cit., pp.7–8.

~ 29 ~
 which were then attributed to earlier authorities to garner halakhic authority.

Conclusion

The prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, found three times in the Torah, clearly pertains to
sacrifices within the central sanctuary as part of a festival celebration, and in connection with the bringing of the
first fruits from the ground and the firstlings of the flock. This is made clear by the contexts in which each of the
three occurrences are found, as well as the language of the prohibition itself, namely (1) the use of ‫ גְּ ִדי‬rather than
ָ “flesh, meat,” or equivalent terminology, (2) the use of ‫בּ ָשׁל‬,
‫בּ ָשׂר‬, ָ “to boil,” which comports well with the context
of the Israelite sacrificial service, and (3) ‫אמוֹ‬, ִ “its mother’s [milk],” which narrows the focus of the prohibition to
a cultic framework connected with the offering of firstlings.
Given the fact that the biblical prohibition is clearly attached to the festivals and festival sacrifices offered at
the central sanctuary, the question that confronts us is this: why, in emerging rabbinic Judaism, did the injunction
against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk became entirely removed from context of sacrifices and interpreted
rather as pertaining solely to kashrut (food laws)?
While the answer to this question is shrouded in history, I would like to suggest some possibilities. First, we
know that following the destruction of the Temple and subsequent failure of the Jewish revolt under Bar Kochbah
(134 CE), the rabbis of Yavneh began the process of transferring key aspects of the Temple and priestly service to
daily life within the synagogue communities of the diaspora.76 It seems possible that in a similar manner they
transferred the enigmatic prohibition not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk from the Temple service to the food
laws as a way of retaining some of the Temple service. Following the destruction, the sacrificial connection no
longer existed and thus the prohibition was removed from its biblical context and reinterpreted to fit within the
laws of kashrut, something the Deuteronomy context already seemed to suggest. This would also explain why
Deuteronomy became the lens through which the Exodus texts were interpreted.
The developed rabbinic halakhah, which took the prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk and
transformed it into a central halakhah of kashrut, also served an additional purpose. For in the emerging rabbinic
Judaism, the need to mark distinctions between the Synagogue and the emerging Christian Church became in-
creasingly important. The complete separation of meat and milk as an essential element of kashrut made social in-
teraction with non-Jews via table fellowship a near impossibility.
It is interesting that in the earlier strata of rabbinic literature, very little is offered to explain the meat and milk
which Abraham served to his guests in Gen 18:1–8. While an argument from silence, this might be because the
developed kashrut interpretation and application of the prohibition was not well fixed in the decades immediately
following the destruction but awaited the formulation and rise of rabbinic Judaism in the following centuries.
If we take all of the data available to us, we are left with this conclusion: there simply is not sufficient evi-
dence to suggest that the separation of meat and milk as a widely accepted standard of kashrut existed in the pre-
destruction era. Nor is the mention of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai debating the issue sufficient evidence to
substantiate a pre-destruction halakhah of no meat with milk, particularly since it is not uncommon for later au-
thorities to attribute their rulings to earlier authorities in order to give them greater weight. Moreover, it is clear
that the developed rabbinic halakhah which placed the separation of meat and milk as a central aspect of kashrut
cannot be derived from exegesis of the biblical texts but is the sole product of rabbinic midrash. Though the pre-
cise application of the biblical prohibition of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is illusive, we can say with some
confidence, based upon the extant historical data, that the later rabbinic halakhah which demands the strict separa-
tion of meat and milk, is not a Torah commandment and was not a recognized law of kashrut as practiced among
pre-destruction Jewish sects. The strict halakhic separation of meat and milk which came to characterize kashrut
within rabbinic Judaism is a halakhah entirely borne of rabbinic innovation.

76
For example, the liturgy containing three daily prayer times (Shacharit, Mincha, Ma’ariv) parallels the set times of the
daily sacrifices in the Temple.

~ 30 ~