FIRST KASHRUT SOURCES · 4 OF 5
Meat and milk
Read the Torah’s meat-and-milk clause with Rambam, distinguishing prohibited acts and Torah-level and rabbinic law.
In this lesson
From the kind of animal to its preparation
Kashrut, the laws governing what we may eat, concerns more than which animal a food comes from. The earlier readings examined species signs and the knowledge used to identify birds. Now consider meat and milk together: two ingredients can each come from a permitted kind, yet their combination can be forbidden.
We will compare a Torah clause with the Mishneh Torah, Rambam’s organized code of Jewish law. Rambam is Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, also called Maimonides. His section Forbidden Foods explains both the scope of a prohibition and its basis.
Start with the Torah’s words
לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו
Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva; Hebrew shown without vowel marks
A kid here is a young goat. לא תבשל means “do not cook”; בחלב אמו means “in its mother’s milk.” First identify what this clause actually says. Then read how Rambam states its legal scope.
1. Which action does the clause name, and which two ingredients does it picture?
The named action is cooking. The pictured ingredients are a kid and its mother’s milk. Eating and benefit do not appear as separate verbs in this clause. We learn their place in the law from Rambam’s statement below, rather than inserting them into the verse’s wording.
Notice three different acts
בשר בחלב אסור לבשלו ואסור לאכלו מן התורה ואסור בהנאה
Meat with milk is forbidden to cook and forbidden to eat by Torah law, and benefit from it is forbidden.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva
אסור means forbidden. הנאה, benefit, means obtaining use or gain from something. Rambam distinguishes cooking the combination, eating it after it has been cooked, and benefiting from it. His next paragraphs specify which kinds of meat and milk fall under this Torah-level law.
2. A reader says, “I would not eat it, so cooking it is not a separate question.” Repair the reading.
Rambam names cooking and eating separately, and also prohibits benefit. Avoiding one act does not answer whether another act is prohibited. To read the rule accurately, identify both the act and the kinds of meat and milk involved.
Read the scope, not only the example
אין אסור מן התורה אלא בשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה
The Torah-level prohibition applies only to meat of a permitted kind of domestic animal with milk of a permitted kind of domestic animal.
English rendering by Messianic Yeshiva
Behemah, בהמה, is the domestic-animal category here, including cattle, sheep and goats. Tehorah, טהורה, describes a permitted kind in this food-law discussion. It does not establish that a particular piece of meat has been properly prepared.
In the rest of 9:3, Rambam explains that the verse’s gedi, גדי, includes the young of cattle, sheep and goats in this law. He also explains that the Torah speaks through a familiar case: the restriction is not limited to milk from that animal’s actual mother. These are Rambam’s explanations of the verse, not extra words in the verse itself.
3. Why is “only goat meat with its own mother’s milk” too narrow?
It confuses the Torah’s pictured case with the full legal scope Rambam states. He includes cattle and sheep as well as goats, and does not require that the milk come from the meat animal’s actual mother. His opening rule identifies permitted domestic-animal kinds on both sides of the combination.
Read the poultry distinction yourself
Rambam next groups chayah, חיה, the wild-animal category, with of, עוף, birds or poultry. Our comparison will focus on poultry. Use the phrase guide to follow the whole excerpt before opening its English rendering.
וכן בשר חיה ועוף בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה לפיכך מותר לבשלו ומותר בהנייה ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים
English rendering in the comparison below
- וכן בשר חיה ועוף: likewise, wild-animal meat and poultry
- בין בחלב חיה בין בחלב בהמה: whether with milk of a wild animal or of a domestic animal
- אינו אסור באכילה מן התורה: is not forbidden to eat by Torah law
- לפיכך מותר לבשלו ומותר בהנייה: therefore it is permitted to cook and permitted for benefit
- ואסור באכילה מדברי סופרים: and it is forbidden to eat by the enactment of the sages
Your reading. Write two sentences. First distinguish what the excerpt says about eating from what it says about cooking and benefit. Then explain why stopping at “not forbidden … by Torah law” would change its meaning.
4. Compare your account with the full reading.
“Likewise, wild-animal meat and poultry, whether with milk of a wild animal or of a domestic animal, are not forbidden to eat by Torah law. Therefore they are permitted to cook and permitted for benefit, and are forbidden to eat by the enactment of the sages.” This original English rendering follows the selected excerpt. Its final clause makes eating the combination forbidden. Rambam distinguishes that rabbinic eating prohibition from the Torah-level rules of cooking and benefit; the three acts cannot simply be treated as identical.
De’oraita means Torah-level law; derabbanan means law established by our sages. Both bind our practice. Rambam explains the protective purpose of this enactment in the rest of 9:4: it guards against reaching the Torah’s meat-and-milk prohibition.
5. What stays the same, and what differs, between the domestic-meat and poultry cases?
Eating the meat-and-milk combination is forbidden in both cases. For permitted domestic-animal meat with permitted domestic-animal milk cooked together, Rambam states the Torah-level law. For poultry with milk, he states a rabbinic eating prohibition. He also distinguishes the poultry case’s cooking and benefit from the Torah-level case.
6. Repair this conclusion: “Poultry with milk is only rabbinic, so eating it is optional.”
“Rabbinic” names the basis of the prohibition, not permission to ignore it. The source explicitly says ואסור באכילה, “and it is forbidden to eat.” A precise account says both that eating it is forbidden and that Rambam identifies the prohibition as rabbinic.
Classify a source example
Consider two fictional textbook cases. In each, the ingredients are otherwise permitted, and the meat and milk are cooked together: A, beef with cow’s milk; B, chicken with cow’s milk. For each case, name the basis of the eating prohibition and cite the relevant paragraph. Then explain why merely identifying both ingredients as coming from permitted kinds does not answer the question.
7. Compare your classification and evidence.
A illustrates the Torah-level meat-and-milk prohibition in 9:1 and 9:3. B illustrates the rabbinic poultry-and-milk eating prohibition in 9:4. In each, the combination matters even though the ingredients come from permitted kinds. These stated classroom facts let us compare Rambam’s categories; an actual food question also requires reliable information about the food and its preparation.
Return tomorrow
After a day, close the comparisons and name the three acts in 9:1. Explain the difference between de’oraita and derabbanan, then reconstruct the poultry distinction without saying either “everything is identical” or “it is permitted to eat.”
8. Check your recalled distinctions.
The acts are cooking, eating and benefit. De’oraita identifies Torah-level law; derabbanan identifies our sages’ law. Rambam prohibits eating poultry with milk rabbinically while treating cooking and benefit differently from the Torah-level domestic-meat case. If you remembered the category but lost the act, return to the verbs in 9:4.
Continue with a question
The excerpts use Exodus 23:19 and Rambam, Forbidden Foods 9:1, 3–4, in the numbering of the linked edition. English renderings and exercises are by Messianic Yeshiva. Next, read a kashrut question by bringing species, source evidence and preparation together.