It is Biblical, or at least Talmudic. The commandment to not boil a kid in its mother’s milk is stated 3 times in the Torah. Because it’s stated 3 times, and Orthodox Jews believe that nothing in the Torah is redundant, the Rabbis of the Talmud concluded that each verse comes to teach us an additional level of prohobition. One tells us the basic law: Do not cook meat in milk. The second adds: don’t eat meat cooked in milk (even if you didn’t cook it yourself). The third adds: do not get any benefit at all from meat cooked in milk (e.g., selling cheeseburgers).
Now that we’ve established the source that says it’s forbidden to eat such a mixture, here’s how it relates to dishes: Dishes absorb the taste of something hot or sharp that’s been placed on it, and they transfer that taste to subsequent hot things that are placed on it. If a hot piece of meat were to be placed on a plate that had previously had milk or cheese on it, the meat would absorb the taste of the dairy product and, because it is hot, will be “cooked” with that taste. Hence, Orthodox Jews keep seperate sets of dishes and pots for milk and meat.
The Passover thing is for the same reason: the taste of the leavened stuff will be transferred to the food, and we can’t eat it.
And yes, most Jewish families will eventually own four sets of dishes, milk regular, meat regular, milk Passover and meat Passover. Personally, my wife and I have so far avoided needing a milk Passover set, but I’m sure we won’t avoid buying one forever.
CM: would you please give me the three verses you mentioned. I can’t find all three, and I’d like to have all my ducks lined up 1st. I use the KJV, but as long as you are using the std OT there sb no prob. Thanks
I find that very interesting. Back when I was involved in a lot of Christian Bible study groups, one of the guiding principles we used was “in the mouth of two or three witnesses is every matter established” (or something like that, it’s been too long, and I don’t remember where that came from). The theory being that deducing anything from a single verse was a dangerous thing to do, but if you found the same principle in several places, you were on safe ground. In other words, the belief was that G-d repeated for emphasis and reinforcement.
How did the Talmudic rabbis vet their commentary? Is it the debate of the rabbis itself? I know enough about it to know that their debate is a large part of the Talmud, but I don’t know anything more, because unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be any such thing as an affordable translation of the Talmud. [/thread hijack]
You are correct: the debate is the thing. However, I should also point out that these derivations were not made in a vacuum. According to Orthodox Jewish beliefs, the Oral Torah (part of which is the Talmud) was told to Moses at Sinai together with the text that it was intended to explain. The Oral Torah was handed down teacher-to-student. When some aspect of the Oral Torah was in question, the students would try to find the scriptural support for what they learned and they’d then debate which version of the tradition was correct.
There are a number of translations of the Talmud available, but I will admit that a full set is pretty expensive. Heck, a full set of the untranslated Talmud is pretty expensive.
But if you’re interested in buying single volumes, the best translation is the Artscroll edition, which go for around $30 a volume. Buy enough of them, and you’ll end up with the whole set, over time.
BTW, your “two or three witnesses quote” is from Deuteronomy 19:15. (Thanks, sdimbert, for the http://www.bibles.net tip!)
CM has, of course, cited the Orthodox (traditional) perspective: that the Oral Laws were given at Sinai along with the Written Law, but that some confusions arose over the centuries (think of the Telephone Whispering Game, stuff gets distorted when passsed along orally). The rabbinic debates that form the Talmud corrected the confusions. Later rabbinic decisions (for example, about electricity) have the full authority of the Law (Written and Oral) behind them.
The Reform perspective is that the laws were not God-given but were rabbinic interpretations over the centuries, and that later rabbinic interpretations can overturn them. Reform would not only question the authenticity of rules of meat/milk (which are developed by the rabbis from the deceptively simple rule about not eating a kid in its mother’s milk) … but Reform also question the no-interpretation Torah (written) law, like not to eat shellfish.
The Conservative perspective is somewhere in between. Rabbinic authority is usually accepted through Talmudic times, but modern interpretations (whether driving a car is the same as driving a horse-drawn vehicle, for instance) are much looser than the Orthodox.
I believe the key distinction between the Conservative and Reform perspective is that Reform allows for personal re-interpretation, Conservative allows for re-interpretation by the rabbinate of the Conservative movement. As a Protestant Christian, I feel more at home with the Reform perspective. The fact that there’s a fair amount of English in the Reform liturgy helps me get something out of it as well.
You know… these last two posts are precisely why I make a distinction between “Orthodox” and “Observant.” CKDextHavn, your descriptions, with JoltSucker’s additions are on the money. But, when I sit down across the table from another Jew, I don’t really care what he believes. He can have whatever “doxy” he wants - I want to know how he lives his life - what he practices.
I guess I would rather be known as an “Ortho-Practice” Jew than an “Orthodox” one… Traditional Jewish Philosophy cares little for what you think…much more about what you do.
You’ve answered a question I’ve wondered about, not plates but the kitchen sink and the refrigerator. But then why can’t you put cold meat on a cold dairy plate?
The Lubavitch Rabbi told my Wife that she can feed meat and dairy to her dogs. “Your animals are not required to keep Kosher.” It seems to me that this is like selling cheeseburgers. What is your opinion on this?
And speaking of the Lubavitchers, why don’t they like for children to have non-kosher pets? Are they afraid that hair or skin flakes would somehow be ingested?
CMK: ok I’m ready now. All 3 say the same thing “thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk”. Now in much of the Law, there are lots of laws about mixing blood, relationships between relatives, etc. So I beleive that that Law means only & excatly what it says-- do not cook a baby animal in the milk from its own mother. Sounds like a kinda creepy thing to do, anyway, take the milk that was intended to nourish the young animal, and instead cook it in it. This is a very typical type of OT Law. It does NOT say you cannot take a COW milk product and cook it with meat from a goat. It says NOTHING about separate dishes. (please note, I understand you are following a “tradition”, and I do not want you to think I am attacking that “tradition”). I do not believe that the “separate” dairy/meat tradition is a “Biblical” Law.
Back to my previous thread hijack, I did the concordance search at the bibles.net site, and found two references in Deuteronomy about the 2-3 witnesses concept, and four references in the Christian New Testament. It makes me wonder if the self-referencing thing is more of a Christian thing than a Jewish thing.
What I mean is that if you do rigorous Christian bible study, one of the central tenets is that a principle is repeated over and over, and the fact that it is validates the principle. On the other hand, you have the Orthodox tradition that cmkeller brought up, that nothing in Torah is redundant. Yet obviously some things are, as in Deuteronomy 17:6 and Deuteronomy 19:15. Thoughts?
Daniel: the Torah (written Bible) Law is, as you say, not clear. One could argue philosophically that a mixture of meat (red blood-like = symbolic of death) and milk (white semen-like = life) is inelegant. But there is nothing directly in the written Bible about separate dishes, or why not milk with chicken (after all, a chicken’s mother doesn’t have milk) or…
CMKeller’s response may have been unclear, and I tried to comment before. The traditional perspective is that, along with the written Law was an Oral Law, given at Mount Sinai, and equally binding as the written Law. The traditional response therefore would call the Oral Law “Biblical”, meaning Biblical in validity. The traditional response (whether Orthodox or Conservative) would also say that you are not free to re-interpret on a personal level.
This happens in a broader range than just dietary. The Written Law says “Thou shalt not murder.” It does not say, how about during war time? How about in self-defense? How about euthanasia? How about public execution? Those are all covered in the Oral Law.
SDibert: I agree with you, the practice is more important than the label. However, it is difficult to understand some of the differences between schools-of-thought and practices without some sort of labelling, and the Orthodox/Conservative/Reform labels work as well as, or better than, others.
My first trip to Israel, the guide was secular Israeli, the rabbi leading was modern orthodox American, and the scholar tagging along was modern orthodox Israeli. On the bus, the three of them would entertain us with discussions – sometimes the orthodox vs the secular, sometimes the Israelis vs the American. Between the three, there was always a rousing and informative discussion. The labels could shift fairly easily, but the thoughts behind the labels were fascinating.
two questions…
being the resident Jews with the most pertinent 411 on Judaism, a couple of things… 1.) referring to redundancy, i remember there being two creation stories in b’reshit, one referring to God creating only adam and then later chava, (where does eve come from chava???) and one referring to God creating mankind in the plural as in there were many to begin with… am i remembering correctly? if so, what does the talmud say about this? 2.) why aren’t watermelons kosher on shabbat? i can’t figure that one out.
The only time that food every stops being Kosher is on Passover - and even then, the food is still Kosher, it’s just not Kosher for Passover. (I’m not sure I made that any simpler…)
Look - watermelon is usually not eaten on Shabbat for a reason that has nothing to do with the laws of Kosher food: the seeds. You see, Judaism proscribes 39 categories of activity on Shabbat. They stem from the fact that, in the Book of Leviticus, the story of the construction of the Tabernacle is interrupted by the Instruction to “Keep the Sabbath Holy.” The Rabbis interpret this juxtaposition to mean that no activity, even the construction of the House of God, is important enough to disrupt the Sabbath. Thus, any activity done in the construction of the Tabernacle is forbidden on the Sabbath; they make up those 39 categories of forbidden activities.
One of those activities is “Bo-rair,” separating. The specific rules are: If a Jew is presented with a mixture of items, the separation of those items is prohibited on Shabbat, unless that sepatation is done:
[ul]
[li]by hand (not through the use of a tool designed to seperate (like a sieve),[/li][li]AND for immediate use (as opposed to getting something ready before lunch to serve as dessert),[/li][li]AND in such a way that the GOOD is taken out from the BAD.[/li][/ul]
This last condition is where watermelon becomes a problem. How do you eat watermelon? I (and, I think, most people) pick the seeds out of each slice, as we eat it, before we take each bite. This is forbidden, as it is Borer (see rule #3).
I do sometimes eat watermelon on Shabbat, by taking each bite and then spitting the seeds out of my mouth (into my hand, not across the table!). But, since this is impolite (or revolting, depending on whom you ask) many Jews avoid the eating of said watermelon on the Sabbath altogether.
You know, I should have expected this. OK, here goes:
sdimbert:
Not bad music per se…but I usually have the radio playing on my RealPlayer, and going to a URL that automatically starts loading sound is annoying to me. I wish web pages wouldn’t do that.
Now, now…the point here is to answer questions, not to stroke my ego. Please, feel free to interject when you have something to say. Often enough, I’ve seen your responses to Judaism questions and just not bothered posting to those threads because I have nothing more to add.
Probably “Orthodox”…as you said in a later post, Jews of all sorts consider themselves to observe the laws as they see them. However, “Torah-observant” is pretty much synonymous with “Orthodox.”
CKDextHavn:
Sorry if it didn’t seem clear that my responses are from the Orthodox perspective; I guess I just assumed it was obvious since the other branches don’t necessarily consider those laws binding.
carnivorousplant:
In theory, you can. But who’s going to be so careful as to make sure that certain plates are used only for cold food, and are therefore usable both with meat and milk? In practice, it’s just simpler to separate the milk from the meat completely.
I find it extremely curious. While most prohibited food, such as pork, shellfish and improperly slaughtered kosher animals are permitted to get benefit from, the meat-milk mixture (and leavened stuff on Passover) are not in that category. Are you sure he explicitly said milk and meat? Or is it possible that he merely said your animals are not required to keep kosher and you figured on your own that that included the milk-meat mixture?
Danielinthewolvesden:
There’s a sect called the Karaites who believe that and eschew all Talmudic derivation. Sounds like the type of thing you’re describing.
That’s what the Rabbis say is at the root of that law. To do something like that is an act of cruelty. Granted, the animal in question is already dead, but by being sensitive to such ironies, it sensitizes us to not be cruel to those in genuine need of compassion.
This is, in fact, true. The prohibition technically only applies to milk and meat of the same species. However, this is what the Rabbis call “a fence around the law.” If one gets used to cooking (for example) goat meat in cow milk, it is easy for an observer to think he’s boiling it in goat’s milk and come to the conclusion that it’s permissible after all.
I explained in the Original Post how things can get “cooked together” through dishes. This is one of those things that the Written Torah writes the broad outline of the law (i.e., “don’t cook”) and the Oral Torah explains it ("This is what is included in the category of “cooking”).
JoltSucker:
Well, the quote in 17:6 is specifically referring to a death sentence. 19:15 refers to monetary issues and marital issues (the word “matters” in the translated verse is “davar” in Hebrew, and different verses which use the word “davar” tell us what that term covers). So it’s not really redundant.
But other verses are less obviously “not redundant.” This is where the Oral Torah steps in and explains why something had been repeated, as in the original example.
soulsling:
The implication that both were created simultaneously comes from Gensis 1:27, “male and female he created them.” The Talmud says that G-d originally created man and woman in a single body, which was known as “Adam,” then (as per the story in Genesis 2) the male and female parts were separated, with the male retaining the “Adam” identity and the female later called “Chava,” or “Eve” (and I don’t know just how “Chava” became Latinized as “Eve.”)
They are kosher on Shabbos. My family eats them.
However, here’s the reason some people might not eat them on Shabbos: One of the forbidden categories of work on Shabbos is “Borer”, translated as “selecting,” i.e., removing undesirable pieces from a mixture of stuff. An example of this as applied to genuine work would be a farmer going through his newly-threshed wheat to remove the bad kernels. Included in this category (although it doesn’t seem like work, it is by the Biblical shabbos-definition) would be removing pits from a watermelon.
However, this is only true if the pits are removed by hand or by untensil (e.g., fork). If one takes a bite of watermelon and then spits the pits out, that is not forbidden. And, of course, seedless watermelon doesn’t have the problem to begin with.
I’m guessing that you were with an Orthodox family in which a parent told the child that watermelon isn’t kosher on Shabbos. The child would probably be too young to properly spit out the pits after taking a while bite, and therefore giving the kid watermelon would have to involve the forbidden work of removing the pits by hand beforehand. Naturally, the kid doesn’t understand such nuances, so the parent told him or her that watermelon simply wasn’t kosher on Shabbos.
Or perhaps you were talking to an adult whose parent told him or her that…unbeknownst to him or her, for the above reason.
