Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rizdek · 11-20-2011, 08:09 PM

Deut 14:21 has a phrase in it:

Quote:

Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

This admonition appears elsewhere in the OT.

I've seen this before and always thought it was just some rude senseless bit of instruction they thought they got from their god. I guess some folks think it is to be taken literally and has to do with humane treatment of animals. This from a god who thinks of all manner of barbaric sacrifices to appease itself. But then I wondered if this phrase was some sort of saying.

We have sayings that are odd, e.g. "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." This has nothing to do with actually discarding infants when you dump water, but has another meaning relating to carefully keeping what is valuable when discarding what isn't of value. Is there any information about what this phrase might actually mean, "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk." In this context, it could mean something like don't let that which is supposed to nurture you destroy you...like these admonitions are supposed to make your life better, not worry you to death.

I checked and apparently it is the basis for Jews not eating dairy and meat together http://www.kolel.org/pages/reb_on_th...lkandmeat.html So they thought it had more meaning than what it says in its face.

Bronzeage · 11-20-2011, 09:07 PM

The literal meaning is "Do not cook a young goat in goat's milk."

Toto · 11-20-2011, 09:51 PM

The standard explanation is that cooking a calf in its mother's milk was part of a pagan ritual, and the purpose of this law was to distinguish Jews from gentiles. I am not sure if this pagan ritual has actually been identified, or if it is just a hypothetical explanation.

From Joseph Lewis

Quote:

The Commandment, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk," offers indisputable evidence that morality was not the governing motive for these Commandments -- for what moral qualities are there in refraining from mixing meat and milk? There was an altogether different reason for such a prohibition, and its presence in the Decalogue, as taught today, only emphasizes the persistence of a superstition long after its origin has been lost and the uselessness of its continuance demonstrated. Despite its elimination from the currently accepted Decalogue, this Commandment is still regarded by orthodox Hebrews as one of the most important of their ritual observances, and has been handed down from generation to generation.

Why were the Biblical Hebrews so much concerned about "seething a kid in its mother's milk" as to make it one of the Commandments of the earlier Decalogues? Because it was the belief in sympathetic magic that if a calf was boiled in its mother's milk it would cause the cow's udder to dry up and develop a disease which would impair her usefulness and destroy her value as a means of subsistence. Since they did not understand the nature and cause of disease, they based their beliefs on superstitions with magical associations. The deceptive forces and manifestations of nature are constantly leading man into devious and false paths. If we are still subject to such delusions, one can understand the pitiful mental subjection which prevailed in primitive times. It was one of these delusive beliefs that led to the taboo of drinking milk and eating meat during the same meal.

Chili · 11-21-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizdek

Deut 14:21 has a phrase in it:

Quote:

Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

This admonition appears elsewhere in the OT.

It just means that righteousness will never get one into heaven but that 'down under' we must go to get there and kind of leave our father[land] and our mother[land] to get there, naked and true.

Edited to add the words of my father who thought 'breeding the devil' was a better way to go.

semiopen · 11-21-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

The literal meaning is "Do not cook a young goat in goat's milk."

The literal meaning might also be "Do not boil a young kosher animal in it's mother's fat."

Hebrew is not the best language for calling a spade a spade.

This phrase is the basis of the laws of

Kashrut separating milk and meat.

The wiki also gives Deuteronomy 14-21 as the basis, which is about 33% true as the same phrase occurs twice in Exodus. (23:19 and 34:26)

Milk_and_meat_in_Jewish_law

Quote:

More recently, a theogonous text, named the birth of the gracious gods, found during the rediscovery of Ugarit, clarified that a Levantine ritual to ensure agricultural fertility involved the cooking of a young goat in its mother's milk, followed by the mixture being sprinkled upon the fields.[11][12]

I didn't know that, sort of mind blowing, but the references to Peake and Wycliff bible commentaries are not completely convincing.

The wiki also discusses the term g'di which sounds like goat but perhaps doesn't exactly mean that.

Regarding the interpretation, the whole point of the Oral Torah is that the Written Torah needs clarification. So the fact that the phrase is interpretted differently than the literal meaning is hardly remarkable.

rizdek · 11-21-2011, 01:15 PM

Seems it is to be taken literally. Thanks for the replies.

Sheshbazzar · 11-21-2011, 11:14 PM

And yet....what is fascinating about the rabbinical 'interpretation' of this prohibition that leads to these meat milk dietary kashrut rulings, is that;

Quote:

1. And YHWH appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre: as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; ......

7. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
8. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
(Genesis 18:1-8)

It seems that it did not bother YHWH at all (Whom is supposedly both perfect and unchanging) to consume meat, milk, and butter all together in the very same meal, and without delay.

Strange thing that; When YHWH Elohim appears in the flesh, and in the form of man (or men) it is acceptable for Him (or them his 'angels') to eat as a common man eats.

But for men it is (according to the interpretations of the rabbi's) forbidden to eat as common man eats?
Or as YHWH Elohim himself (or His angels) do eat?

Are then men most common then 'holier' than YHWH Elohim Himself? (or than the 'angels' of YHWH?)

Is YHWH Elohim the unchanging Eternal (or His Messengers) to be held as accountable to a lesser standard of discernment, conduct, holiness, and 'purity' than that which is required of mere men?

semiopen · 11-22-2011, 05:20 AM

One of the problems in religious Judaism is that the patriarchs are said to be perfect (at least following the commandments) when this just isn't true.

From Chabad -

Did Abraham Serve His Guests Non-Kosher?

Quote:

A careful look at the verse shows that Abraham did not actually dine with his guests. Rather, he served the butter, milk, and meat to people whom he believed to be traveling gentiles (there were no other Jews back then), and were obviously under no dietary obligations. Abraham saw no reason that his personal stringencies should diminish the enjoyment of his guests.3

Pretty flimsy, an alternate explanation is also flimsy but at least makes some sense -

Quote:

Some commentaries point out that the verse indicates that Abraham first served dairy and then the meat.6

Of course, Abraham is fucking sister Sarah at this time (when he's not selling her to Pharoah) so the whole following the commandments position is bizarre.

Sheshbazzar · 11-22-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

A careful look at the verse shows that Abraham did not actually dine with his guests. Rather, he served the butter, milk, and meat to people whom he believed to be traveling gentiles (there were no other Jews back then), and were obviously under no dietary obligations. Abraham saw no reason that his personal stringencies should diminish the enjoyment of his guests.3

However. The questions that I have raised have very little to do with any personal stringencies that may (or likewise may NOT) have been observed by Abraham.

The text plainly reveals to us, the readers, from the beginning exactly WHOM it was that Abraham was dealing with.

If is expected that the common Hebrew man or (latter -'Jewish'- man) is to keep kashrut, and to refuse any such similar extension of hospitality from strangers under any circumstance.
Why then does not the far holier and all-knowing YHWH an Elohim (or His sent 'angels') likewise refuse or refrain to partake of such an obviously unkosher meal?
One which any Orthodox Jewish man (human) would be expected to refuse, and likely even be offended by?

The question therefore is not at all concerned with any proposed scruples of Abraham But with the revealed conduct and lack of such scruples by Ha-Elohim YHWH.
And with why particularist men regard it as a necessity to be more 'observant', 'set apart' or 'holier' than YHWH Elohim Most Holy is Scripturally portrayed to have been.

As certain ancient sage is alleged to have asked; " And If The Scripture cannot be broken.." The Scripture stands, and those that propose to explain it without breaking it, certainly have some 'splainin to do!"
Thus far the religion of Judaism has done a piss-poor job of doing so.

arnoldo · 11-22-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

A careful look at the verse shows that Abraham did not actually dine with his guests. Rather, he served the butter, milk, and meat to people whom he believed to be traveling gentiles (there were no other Jews back then), and were obviously under no dietary obligations. Abraham saw no reason that his personal stringencies should diminish the enjoyment of his guests.3

However. The questions that I have raised have very little to do with any personal stringencies that may (or likewise may NOT) have been observed by Abraham.

The text plainly reveals to us, the readers, from the beginning exactly WHOM it was that Abraham was dealing with.

If is expected that the common Hebrew man or (latter -'Jewish'- man) is to keep kashrut, and to refuse any such similar extension of hospitality from strangers under any circumstance.
Why then does not the far holier and all-knowing YHWH an Elohim (or His sent 'angels') likewise refuse or refrain to partake of such an obviously unkosher meal?
One which any Orthodox Jewish man (human) would be expected to refuse, and likely even be offended by?

The question therefore is not at all concerned with any proposed scruples of Abraham But with the revealed conduct and lack of such scruples by Ha-Elohim YHWH.
And with why particularist men regard it as a necessity to be more 'observant', 'set apart' or 'holier' than YHWH Elohim Most Holy is Scripturally portrayed to have been.

As certain ancient sage is alleged to have asked; " And If The Scripture cannot be broken.." The Scripture stands, and those that propose to explain it without breaking it, certainly have some 'splainin to do!"
Thus far the religion of Judaism has done a piss-poor job of doing so.

Mike Heiser 'splains the behavior of this messenger sent by G-d in the following powerpoint presentation entitled,

Two Powers in Heaven:Christian Heresy or Theology of the TANAKH?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-20-2011, 09:07 PM	#2
Bronzeage Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Deep South, USA Posts: 7,568	The literal meaning is "Do not cook a young goat in goat's milk."

11-21-2011, 01:15 PM	#6
rizdek Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 1,609	Seems it is to be taken literally. Thanks for the replies.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.