“Boiling a Kid in its Mother’s Milk: Norms and Interpretations of Kashrut” by Atid Malka

Baby Goats Resting on the Road by Amaury Laporte (CC BY-SA 2.0).

If anyone unfamiliar with Judaism were to be introduced to the concept of a kosher kitchen for the first time, they would likely raise questions. Why does the family have different dishes and cutlery for meat and dairy foods? While that may be common in religious communities, those who allowed themselves more leniency in their practice have adopted varying levels of adherence to kashrut (Jewish food laws), based largely on their family’s tradition. For example, one family might not have separate dishes while also waiting for over an hour after eating dairy to eat meat, whereas another family may use separate dishes and only require rinsing one’s mouth in that scenario. Poultry complicates things even more – some families define it as meat and do not mix it with dairy, while others see chicken, turkey, and the like in the same category as fish (in the sense that they are neither meat nor dairy) See Chullin 8:4 (wherein a discussion on such matters is presented between Rabbi Akiva, who posits that separating fowl from dairy is a rabbinic prohibition, and Rabbi Yosei Ha-Gelili who counters that proposition with the argument that birds do not produce milk and thus are not prohibited. Ultimately, this disagreement is settled in the Shulkhan Aruch [Yoreh Deah 87:3],  where Rabbi Joseph Karo codifies the prohibition against mixing poultry and dairy, explicating the prohibition as one which arises from Rabbinic law rather than from the Torah directly.) Despite the variety of adherence levels to kashrut, they all stem from the same biblical verbiage which can be found in Exodus 23:19, 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21: 

לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ
You shall not boil a kid in its mother milk

The family with separate sets of dishes in their kosher kitchen would likely explain their understanding of the verse to restrict mixing meat and dairy at all times. The verse itself, in their eyes and the eyes of the prevailing religious Jewish community, would extend beyond the action of boiling a kid in its mother’s milk to the consumption of food that may have both meat and dairy “particles” in it. The family that does not use separate dishes but waits six hours may object to that interpretation as being overly restrictive and overbearing. They both would object to the third family’s eating chicken parmesan for dinner, but the third family would say that a chicken is incapable of producing milk, and as such, it cannot bathe nor be bathed in its mother’s milk, thereby avoiding transgression. What biblical verses are we talking about? Is it all three, only two, or just one of the times it’s written? This article intends to analyze the biblical verses used as a foundation of kashrut’s laws of mixing meat and dairy, propose an alternate reading, and explore the consequences of such a reading.

The Biblical Text

Language

The entirety of the Hebrew Bible that exists today, the Tanakh, is the amalgamation of Jewish Scripture. Ancient Hebrew, the language in which these texts were written, is written in an abjad writing system – these texts, ranging from the Pentateuch to the Prophets and Writings, were originally written without vowels. It was only circa 600 C.E., around the time of the final redaction of the Talmud (the Jewish compendium of law), that vowels were incorporated into the text. As a result, there have existed debates regarding whether the consonants were given the appropriate vowels at the time. An example of such debates includes one regarding this very phrase. The traditional reading of the phrase is “[y]ou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” In Hebrew, the consonants for the word “milk” (chalav or chaleiv) can be read with different vowels and mean “fat” (cheilev). Therefore, if the vowels added later were wrong, the prohibition might be “[y]ou shall not boil a kid in its mother’s fat,” potentially limiting one’s ability to cook with meat and fat from related animals. The Oral Torah, passed down alongside the Written Torah, sets the record straight by explaining that the intended subject was indeed milk.

Spirit

The phrase analyzed appears twice in the Book of Exodus and once in the Book of Deuteronomy. In the Book of Exodus, the verse in which the phrase is found is part of a series of rules governing the celebrations of festivals (and then a repetition of these rules following the smashing of the first two tablets), whereas, in Deuteronomy, the verse is found at the end of a list of dietary restrictions placed on the Jewish people. Rashi, the most widely-read biblical commentator, explains that the verse is mentioned three times to signify three different prohibitions: 1) mixing meat and dairy, 2) deriving benefit from the mixture (besides eating), and 3) cooking meat with dairy. However, this raises the question of why such a restriction would be written twice in the context of rules governing festivals (namely, the bringing of sacrifices). 

A Proposed Reading

A New Perspective

There is a concept in Jewish understanding termed chazakah (best understood as “strengthen”), which suggests when a word, phrase, or the like is repeated or otherwise supported three times, it becomes stronger – or more permanent. In turn, a commandment such as this must have some great significance if it appears three times in the Torah. It makes sense, therefore, that Rashi suggested an explanation that establishes three layers of distance from the mixing of meat and dairy (a common non-Jewish practice) and Jewish practice, pushing Jews so far away from the occurrence as to restrict them from selling non-kosher food. However, Rashi’s understanding is based on the notion that the verse was written three times – all in the same way. 

Beyond the lack of vowels in the Torah’s text until 600 C.E. and questions regarding whether the proper vowels were added to the consonants that form both milk and fat, there exists more ambiguity within the phrase. Traditionally, the term תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל (pronounced “te’vashel”) has been interpreted to mean “cook” or “boil.” With different vowels, the same consonants can form the word תַּבְשִׁל (pronounced “tavshil”), best interpreted as “to ripen” or “mature.” The phrase would thus read, “[y]ou shall not ripen a kid in its mother’s milk.” Under this interpretation, the phrase’s use in Exodus is no longer confusing. 

In full, the traditional translation of Exodus 34:26 reads:

רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽו
The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of your God יהוה. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

The new proposed interpretation reads:

The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of your God יהוה; [y]ou shall not ripen a kid in its mother’s milk.

Here, the proposed interpretation of the verse carries a message applying to the portion of the verse directly preceding it – namely, that bringing the first fruits of the soil be done expeditiously. The new interpretation would compel one to move quickly to bring the first fruits and not wait for their baby goats to fully mature on the mother goat’s milk (an arbitrary measure of a long time). Such an interpretation provides an understanding of the phrase that would otherwise render it seemingly out of place. 

Interestingly, when looking at the context in which the verse sits in the Book of Deuteronomy, the proposed interpretation sits as oddly as the traditional interpretation fits in Exodus. In a list of restrictions and allowances of Jewish dietary practice, the traditional reading of Deuteronomy 14:22 is:

לֹ֣א תֹאכְל֣וּ כׇל־נְ֠בֵלָ֠ה לַגֵּ֨ר אֲשֶׁר־בִּשְׁעָרֶ֜יךָ תִּתְּנֶ֣נָּה וַאֲכָלָ֗הּ א֤וֹ מָכֹר֙ לְנׇכְרִ֔י כִּ֣י עַ֤ם קָדוֹשׁ֙ אַתָּ֔ה לַיהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ

You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to your God יהוה. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

The new proposed interpretation reads:

You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to your God יהוה. You shall not ripen a kid in its mother’s milk.

This verse is more clearly understood with the traditional interpretation than the proposed interpretation. In the traditional interpretation, understanding the phrase as part of a list, the restriction operates as an item on the list. On the contrary, understanding the phrase to mean “move quickly” or “make haste” would render it seemingly misplaced in a list of restrictions and allowances.

It is generally understood that the Torah does not waste words and that words that appear more than once are there to teach some detail that we would not have known otherwise. In the words of Rabbenu Avraham ben HaRambam, “There is no repetition in the Torah.” Perhaps the proper reading of the text was meant to be the “proposed interpretation” when reading Exodus and the “traditional interpretation” when reading Deuteronomy. Although such a reading could be seen as a separation of the chazakah given to the repetition of the verse, it can be argued that the repetition of the consonants (as vowels are absent from the Scripture itself) is chazakah for both commandments – one ought to make haste to provide sacrifices and one ought to not derive benefit from mixing meat and dairy. Such a reading would establish clarity in the text without undermining the legitimacy of the dietary restriction.

Practical Consequences

Attempting to urge the adoption of this interpretation would likely confront significant hurdles. First and foremost, any attempt at large-scale restructuring of Jewish understanding is unlikely to take hold as a practical matter. The consequences of adopting this view range from denying that the vowels, said to have been transmitted along with the Oral Torah, were properly transmitted – thus calling into question the validity of other interpretations – to changing libraries of Torah tikkunim (a written version of the Torah where the vowels are included). Additionally, this argument runs the risk of falling to its own sword. Following the proposed interpretation could render the generally accepted obligation to complete commandments promptly redundant. However, this interpretation would merely grant this norm biblical foundation. In sum, it is likely a viable possibility but highly unlikely to take any hold absent Messianic or Divine word.

The proposed interpretation would not affect dietary restrictions. As mentioned above, this interpretation does not attempt to subvert or alter the understanding of the verse in Deuteronomy but is limited to proffering a new interpretation of the verses in Exodus. For the purposes of chazakah, the reuse of the exact characters three times likely holds sufficient weight to suggest that both commandments are of utmost importance, thus avoiding stripping the prohibition on mixing meat and dairy of its veracity. Additionally, outside of the academic pursuit of Jewish knowledge and the fringe possibility of alteration of Passover practice (as Passover is mentioned in the verse prior), altering the contemporary reading of the text would have little impact on a secularized Jew’s day-to-day life. However, the acceptance of positions that attempt to ascribe different vowels to the words of the Torah as it is currently known could cause a seismic fissure in Jewish law, the extremes of which being an undoing of centuries of societal law and a resurgence of modern-day commentators. In fact, the commentators in Sanhedrin 4a-b, conclude that the vocalization of the Torah is more authoritative than the letters themselves. As a practical matter, this interpretation holds together a common understanding of Jewish law and avoids the seismic fissures that could result from interpretations such as the one espoused herein.

Conclusion

Recordation using an abjad system of characters opens the door to increased skepticism about the words’ true nature if vowels are not added soon after. The current interpretation of the language of the Torah, only having been filled with vowels around 600 C.E. after having been finalized by Ezra HaSofer approximately a thousand years prior, could be subject to debate. When analyzed with regards to the verses commonly understood to be those from which the dietary restriction on mixing meat and dairy is derived, the verse seems out of place when used in the book of Exodus yet properly placed in the book of Deuteronomy. There exists an interpretation of the text that allows for both readings to exist in contemporary understanding, but the idea is unlikely to gain any significant support or agreement within the Jewish community. However, this unlikelihood does not and should not restrict the Jewish community from, at the very least, gaining new understanding from a fresh exegetical perspective and those that may follow. ♦

---

---

Recommended Citation

Malka, Atid. “Boiling a Kid in its Mother’s Milk: Norms and Interpretations of Kashrut.” Canopy Forum, March 7, 2025. https://canopyforum.org/2025/03/07/thanksgiving-and-traditional-jewish-life/.

Recent Posts