Nazarene Space

 

The Torah commands us three times (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21) 
not to cook a kid in its mother's milk.

Mishna Hullin 8:1 says:
EVERY KIND OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN TO BE COOKED IN MILK,
EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS; \
AND IT IS ALSO FORBIDDEN TO PLACE UPON THE TABLE [FLESH] WITH CHEESE,
EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS.
IF A PERSON VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FLESH.
HE MAY PARTAKE OF THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS.

The Gemara (b.Hullin 104a-104b)

GEMARA. It follows [from our Mishnah] that the flesh of fowls is prohibited by the law of the Torah;2 now in accordance with whose view would this be? It surely is not in accordance with R. Akiba's view, for R. Akiba maintains that the flesh of wild animals and of fowls is not prohibited by the law of the Torah. Consider now the final clause: IF A PERSON VOWED TO ABSTAIN FROM FLESH, HE MAY PARTAKE OF THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS. It follows however that he is forbidden the flesh of fowl, which is in accordance with R. Akiba's view, namely, that any variation concerning which the agent would ask for special instructions is deemed to be of the same species.3 For we have learnt:4 If a person vowed to abstain from vegetables, he is permitted gourds; R. Akiba forbids them. They said to R. Akiba: Is it not a fact that when a man says to his agent. ‘Bring me vegetables’, the other might [come back and] say. ‘I can only obtain gourds’?5 He replied. Exactly so; for he surely would not come back and say. ‘I can only obtain pulse’.6 This proves that gourds are included among vegetables and pulse is not included among vegetables. [Must it then be that] the first clause of our Mishnah is in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, and the second clause is in accordance with R. Akiba's view? — R. Joseph said: The author [of our Mishnah] is Rabbi who incorporated the views of various Tannaim: with regard to vows he adopted the view of R. Akiba, and with regard to flesh [cooked] in milk he adopted the view of the Rabbis. R. Ashi said: The whole of our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Akiba's view, for this is what it means, EVERY KIND OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN TO BE COOKED IN MILK: some7 being forbidden by the law of the Torah and others8 by the enactment of the Scribes, EXCEPTING THE FLESH OF FISH AND OF LOCUSTS, which are neither prohibited by the law of the Torah nor by the enactment of the Scribes.9 AND IT IS ALSO FORBIDDEN TO PLACE etc. R. Joseph said: You can infer from this that the flesh of fowl [cooked] in milk is prohibited by the law of the Torah, for were it only [prohibited by the enactment] of the Rabbis, seeing that the actual eating thereof is [prohibited only as] a precautionary measure, would we forbid the placing [of them together upon the table] as a safeguard against the eating thereof?10 And whence do you derive the rule that we do not impose a precautionary measure upon a precautionary measure? — From the following [Mishnah] which we have learnt:11 The dough-offering12 [of produce grown] outside the Land [of Israel]
may be eaten [by a priest] in company with a non-priest at the table,1 and may be given to any priest one likes.2 Said Abaye to him, I grant you, if we were told that the dough-offering [of produce grown] outside the Land [may be eaten] in the Land3 [in company with a non-priest at the table], in which case there would be good cause to enact a precautionary measure on account of the dough-offering [of produce grown] in the Land which is ordained by the Torah, and yet we do not take this precaution, that the inference can be made. But outside the Land of Israel [it is allowed] surely because there is no reason to take any precautionary measure.4 In the case [of our Mishnah], however, if you permit one to place [upon the table] fowl and cheese, one might even place [upon the table] flesh and cheese, and so come to eat flesh with milk which is prohibited by the law of the Torah.5

R. Shesheth demurred saying: Yet after all6 it is but cold [food] with cold [food]! — Abaye answered: It is prohibited lest it be placed upon the table in a boiling pot. But even In that case it is only in a ‘second vessel’7 and a second vessel cannot bring anything to the boil! — It is only prohibited lest it be placed upon the table in the ‘first vessel’.8

Views: 672

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Midrash Mekhilta to Exodus (2nd century halachic midrash attributed to Rabbi Ishmael)

 

Philo writes on this subject:

 

(141) Moreover, let wicked sycophants calumniate the whole nation as one given to inhumanity, and our laws as enjoining unsociable and inhuman observances, while the laws do thus openly show compassion on even the herds of cattle, and while the whole nation from its earliest youth is, as far as the disobedient nature of their souls will admit of, brought over by the honest admonitions of the law to a peaceable disposition. (142) And our lawgiver endeavours 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 commands that one shall not take an animal from the mother, whether it be a lamb, or a kid, or any other creature 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 particularity of his injunctions, adding this also, "Thou shalt not seethe a lamb in his mother's Milk."{22}{exodus 23:19.} (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 regular 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 reproach 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 solidify, 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 exhibiting 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.

(Philo, On the Virtues)

I find no reference to any conflict between Hillel and Shammai or their houses over any issue surrounding the separation of milk end meat.  And with all of their discussion of purity issues about which they felt others were lax, the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls never bring up the issue.  Our only Jewish source to speak of the issue at a time contemporary to Yeshua interprets "Thou shalt not seethe a lamb in his mother's Milk." to refer to "the man who seethes the flesh of any one of them in the milk of its own mother." 

 


oops found a Hillel Shammai dispute in Hullin 8:1 ... looking deeper


Well I think this is a late sispute between the Houses, and not from the time of Hillerl and/or Shammai.

 

It appears the prohibition on EATING them together rather than just SEETHING them together goes back to Simeon b. Yohai  (Mekhilta LXXX:II:6) (traditional author of the Zohar) who was a student of Rabbi Akiva.  He was active AFTER the Temple was destroyed. 

 

You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21).

Simeon b. Yohai says, "On what account is this matter repeated three times?"

"One serves to prohibit eating it, one to derive benefit from it, and the third to cooking it under any circumstances"

 

This is the origin of the halacha against eating meat and milk together and its hermeneutic basis is scant.

 

 

James Trimm said:

oops found a Hillel Shammai dispute in Hullin 8:1 ... looking deeper
Logic doesn't matter to those who've already decided to blindly obey the "infallible rabbis".

I think that this mitza is commanded because the animal gets life and energy from the milk of his mother, so it will be wrong to use that what the animal ate and believed it was used to obtain life for himself to cook him in it. And, by saying this, i think that the animal or the kid is Israel and the milk is the Torah, where we get chesed (altruism), because some rabbis says that milk represents chesed -altruism- (See Zohar for example in many commentaries). So someone that is keeping Torá has eternal life (believing in Yeshúa as the Mashiach is Torá), so it will be wrong to be cook in something that we believed and ate (keeped Torá) with certainty (emuná) that was going to give us life. :-)

 

 

It is my understanding that the mitzva applies as is stated, that is ,,,to not cook the offspring of the mother's animal in it's own mothers milk. Nazarene Judaism does not advocate this process. It does however think the traditional rabbinic interpretation adds to the mitzva by requiring it's adherents to abstain from even "mixing" the 2 by either eating a cheeseburger or washing dishes separately for example. I like your analogy.

Cheeseburgers are not a sin. Sin is transgression of the Torah. The Torah is the Bible. Not commentaries like talmud.

Cursed is anyone who adds...(Jews). They made antichrist rabbinic commentary equal with Torah.

Cursed is anyone who takes away...(Christians). They made the Torah obsolete.

1Jn 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (Orthodox Jews).

Saint John compiled the Holy Scriptures and if he wanted the talmud in the Bible he would have added it. And don't try and say the Catholics compiled the Bible or anyone else. It was John.

Wow this is silly, lets start with the fact that the Talmud was compiled 400 years after the time of "John" so he could not have included it even if he wanted to, not that that invalidates any pof the traditions or arguments made in it.

Why do you assume that all Orthodox Jews deny?  Of course they should deny the "Jesus who came to free you from the bondage of the Law" (as required by Deut. 13).  Most of them are unfamiliar with the real Yeshua, but many who hear of him are accepting him.

Christopher Hernandez said:

Cheeseburgers are not a sin. Sin is transgression of the Torah. The Torah is the Bible. Not commentaries like talmud.

Cursed is anyone who adds...(Jews). They made antichrist rabbinic commentary equal with Torah.

Cursed is anyone who takes away...(Christians). They made the Torah obsolete.

1Jn 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (Orthodox Jews).

Saint John compiled the Holy Scriptures and if he wanted the talmud in the Bible he would have added it. And don't try and say the Catholics compiled the Bible or anyone else. It was John.

You could say the same about most people.
Most of them are unfamiliar with the real Yeshua, whether they're atheists, antinomians or muslims.

As for Orthodox Jews, if they accept Yeshua, they are no longer called Orthodox Jews (f.ex you don't call yourself an Orthodox Jew.)


James Trimm said:

Why do you assume that all Orthodox Jews deny?  Of course they should deny the "Jesus who came to free you from the bondage of the Law" (as required by Deut. 13).  Most of them are unfamiliar with the real Yeshua, but many who hear of him are accepting him.

Christopher Hernandez said:

Cheeseburgers are not a sin. Sin is transgression of the Torah. The Torah is the Bible. Not commentaries like talmud.

Cursed is anyone who adds...(Jews). They made antichrist rabbinic commentary equal with Torah.

Cursed is anyone who takes away...(Christians). They made the Torah obsolete.

1Jn 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (Orthodox Jews).

Saint John compiled the Holy Scriptures and if he wanted the talmud in the Bible he would have added it. And don't try and say the Catholics compiled the Bible or anyone else. It was John.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service