Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 12-05-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Where did you find this information?

I, too, would like a source for this claim.

I posted this above

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, has been interpreted as saying 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] though still more recent sources argue that this translation is incorrect.[13][14

11.^ Peake's commentary on the Bible
12.^ Wycliffe Bible Commentary
13.^ Craigie, P. C. (1981). "Ugarit and the Bible: Progress and Regress in 50 Years of Literary Study". In Young, Gordon D.. Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Eisenbrauns. p. 101. ISBN 0-931464-07-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=1A0OgvXfHlQC&pg=PA101. Retrieved 2011-12-03.
14.^ Sprinkle, Joe M. (1994). The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 194. ISBN 1-85075-467-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=zTvjBAiRMAoC&pg=PA194. Retrieved 2011-12-03.

My browsing suggests that Peake and Wycliffe are not correct.

Duvduv · 12-05-2011, 07:51 AM

There is a great deal of confusion here. Jewish commentaries have explained this in several ways. First of all, the consumption of meat and milk still allows milk to be consumed first (thought not at the same meal), and then meat anytime thereafter. ONLY if meat is eat first must a person wait the prescribed time between meals before eating a milk product as elucidated from the mishnah that discusses this.

In the case at hand we see that Abraham served the mik food first and thereafter the meat, which is perfectly fine under halacha.

A second explanation is that non-Jews are not prohibited from eating meat and milk together, so in this case, why should the visitors be denied that meal because Abraham was? He didn't yet know they were angels. And even if he did know they were angels, why should angels be prohibited from eating kosher meat and milk together?

Thirdly, it is explained that the prohibitions of the Torah (beyond those of the Noahide laws) were not BINDING on Abraham because he lived before the Torah was given. So there was no problem here even if Abraham ate with them.

As a side note, although it is forbidden in the Torah to eat non-kosher meat, a Jew who eats non-kosher meat mixed in permitted milk is not committing a violation of that specific prohibition. He IS committing a sinful act of eating non-kosher meat but is NOT committing the act of eating meat and milk together UNLESS both products are permissible under Torah law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

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?

Duvduv · 12-05-2011, 07:56 AM

Jewish legal commentaries explain that the kid is a generic example of kosher animals that may not be cooked in milk.One might think that if it's cooked in its own mother's milk it would be permissible as part of the same "entity". So the prohibition concerns all kosher animals in any kind of kosher milk, i.e. milk produced by a permitted animal.
Interestingly enough, it is not considered sinful to cook a lamb in camel's milk because camel's milk is not a permitted food anyway.

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.

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.

semiopen · 12-05-2011, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is a great deal of confusion here. Jewish commentaries have explained this in several ways. First of all, the consumption of meat and milk still allows milk to be consumed first (thought not at the same meal), and then meat anytime thereafter. ONLY if meat is eat first must a person wait the prescribed time between meals before eating a milk product as elucidated from the mishnah that discusses this.

In the case at hand we see that Abraham served the mik food first and thereafter the meat, which is perfectly fine under halacha.

A second explanation is that non-Jews are not prohibited from eating meat and milk together, so in this case, why should the visitors be denied that meal because Abraham was? He didn't yet know they were angels. And even if he did know they were angels, why should angels be prohibited from eating kosher meat and milk together?

Thirdly, it is explained that the prohibitions of the Torah (beyond those of the Noahide laws) were not BINDING on Abraham because he lived before the Torah was given. So there was no problem here even if Abraham ate with them.

As a side note, although it is forbidden in the Torah to eat non-kosher meat, a Jew who eats non-kosher meat mixed in permitted milk is not committing a violation of that specific prohibition. He IS committing a sinful act of eating non-kosher meat but is NOT committing the act of eating meat and milk together UNLESS both products are permissible under Torah law.

I also commented on this above -

Did Abraham Serve His Guests Non-Kosher?

You mention several things that are in this link, and the link contains a few things which you may have overlooked.

However, it seems to me that what you (and the link) are doing is a tap dance around the issue. The problem isn't the confusion of other people here, but the confusion of the Rabbis when discussing it.

Duvduv · 12-05-2011, 08:24 AM

No, this is not a tap dance. This is how Jewish halacha works. Everything has its own context and background and environment. This is the context of Judaism. The Torah does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a part of a body of literature.

The Torah does not explicitly tell us every last detail for every historical event and for every legal matter. For example the Torah does not tell us the story of Abraham and his father's idols. It does not tell us the name of his mother. Other sources tell us that.

The Torah does not tell us that Joseph's wife Osenat was his niece, the daughter of Dina but was adopted by Potiphar after Osenat was brought to Egypt after Joseph's brothers considered her unwanted because she was the product of a rape. But the Midrash does tell us about that. The Torah does not tell us that when Esau sold his birthright in exchange for a plate of lentils it was during the 7 day mourning period for Abraham, but the midrash does tell us that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is a great deal of confusion here. Jewish commentaries have explained this in several ways. First of all, the consumption of meat and milk still allows milk to be consumed first (thought not at the same meal), and then meat anytime thereafter. ONLY if meat is eat first must a person wait the prescribed time between meals before eating a milk product as elucidated from the mishnah that discusses this.

In the case at hand we see that Abraham served the mik food first and thereafter the meat, which is perfectly fine under halacha.

A second explanation is that non-Jews are not prohibited from eating meat and milk together, so in this case, why should the visitors be denied that meal because Abraham was? He didn't yet know they were angels. And even if he did know they were angels, why should angels be prohibited from eating kosher meat and milk together?

Thirdly, it is explained that the prohibitions of the Torah (beyond those of the Noahide laws) were not BINDING on Abraham because he lived before the Torah was given. So there was no problem here even if Abraham ate with them.

As a side note, although it is forbidden in the Torah to eat non-kosher meat, a Jew who eats non-kosher meat mixed in permitted milk is not committing a violation of that specific prohibition. He IS committing a sinful act of eating non-kosher meat but is NOT committing the act of eating meat and milk together UNLESS both products are permissible under Torah law.

I also commented on this above -

Did Abraham Serve His Guests Non-Kosher?

You mention several things that are in this link, and the link contains a few things which you may have overlooked.

However, it seems to me that what you (and the link) are doing is simply doing a tap dance around the issue. The problem isn't the confusion of other people here, but the confusion of the Rabbis when discussing it.

Sheshbazzar · 12-05-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There is a great deal of confusion here. Jewish commentaries have explained this in several ways. First of all, the consumption of meat and milk still allows milk to be consumed first (thought not at the same meal), and then meat anytime thereafter. ONLY if meat is eat first must a person wait the prescribed time between meals before eating a milk product as elucidated from the mishnah that discusses this.

In the case at hand we see that Abraham served the mik food first and thereafter the meat, which is perfectly fine under halacha.

Quote:

Gen 18:7. And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht 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.

Reading the text, I see that Abraham served 'butter, and milk, and the calf' all at one time and in one and the same the same meal.
Nothing within the text indicates any waiting period or any sign of a second or seperate meal,
Only ONE preperation and ONE eating of it, ALL of it consumed together while Abraham 'stood by them under the tree'.Which certainly does not suggest any six hour or three hour waiting period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

A second explanation is that non-Jews are not prohibited from eating meat and milk together, so in this case, why should the visitors be denied that meal because Abraham was? He didn't yet know they were angels. And even if he did know they were angels, why should angels be prohibited from eating kosher meat and milk together?

True that YHWH Elohim was/is a non-Jew.
But this same YHWH IS (allegedly) omniscent. That means the YHWH (and there is only ONE YHWH) knew perfectly every single Jewish kosher ruling that would ever be made, and here showed no sign of respect or deference to any of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Thirdly, it is explained that the prohibitions of the Torah (beyond those of the Noahide laws) were not BINDING on Abraham because he lived before the Torah was given. So there was no problem here even if Abraham ate with them.

A non-issue in these verses, where YHWH did the eating and Abraham only 'stood by them under the tree'.

And I would call hooey on this claim for myrid other reasons, for example Noah's much earlier ability to distinguish between the 'clean' and the 'unclean' beasts, which would require a working knowledge of those distinctions that are only explicated within Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
So the rabbi's that fall back on this flakey claim, must also accept that Noah could not have known 'clean' from 'unclean' because the Torah was not yet given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

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 · 12-05-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

No, this is not a tap dance. This is how Jewish halacha works. Everything has its own context and background and environment. This is the context of Judaism. The Torah does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a part of a body of literature.

The Torah does not explicitly tell us every last detail for every historical event and for every legal matter. For example the Torah does not tell us the story of Abraham and his father's idols. It does not tell us the name of his mother. Other sources tell us that.

The Torah does not tell us that Joseph's wife Osenat was his niece, the daughter of Dina but was adopted by Potiphar after Osenat was brought to Egypt after Joseph's brothers considered her unwanted because she was the product of a rape. But the Midrash does tell us about that. The Torah does not tell us that when Esau sold his birthright in exchange for a plate of lentils it was during the 7 day mourning period for Abraham, but the midrash does tell us that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I also commented on this above -

Did Abraham Serve His Guests Non-Kosher?

You mention several things that are in this link, and the link contains a few things which you may have overlooked.

However, it seems to me that what you (and the link) are doing is simply doing a tap dance around the issue. The problem isn't the confusion of other people here, but the confusion of the Rabbis when discussing it.

My impression is that the discussion revolves around and

Aggadah as oppposed to

Halakha.

Quote:

Aggadah (Aramaic אגדה: tales, lore; pl. Aggadot or (Ashkenazi) Aggados; Also known as Aggad or Aggadh.) refers to the homiletic and non-legalistic exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, particularly as recorded in the Talmud and Midrash. In general, Aggadah is a compendium of rabbinic homilies that incorporates folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations, and practical advice in various spheres, from business to medicine.

Note the mention of non-legalistic.

Note also

Quote:

"We are told to use our common sense to decide whether an aggada is to be taken literally or not"

Quote:

Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה‎) — also transliterated Halocho (Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation), or Halacha — is the collective body of Jewish law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions.

In this case, the Halakhic prohibition of mixing meat and dairy is well known. What we have is an apparent violation of the law by Abraham. The sages were smart enough to know that this was a problem and they engaged in exercises to try to explain it.

It appears that the sages attempts to explain this do not seem to have been successful. Personally, this doesn't bother me, howver it seems that this is a major problem for you, where you are calling people here confused rather than admit that it is an issue.

The simplest explanation for this is that (as Tony Montana says in Scarface) someone fucked up. Not only were you tap dancing around this question, but your reply begins a completely different one.

Duvduv · 12-05-2011, 11:02 AM

Gosh, so what you mean is that no one could have altered the text a bit along the way to make it easier than to think up "excuses"? Especially since the overall prohibition of a kid and its mother's milk might already have provided a red flag?!
I don't think you read through my reply thoroughly. Please do so again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

No, this is not a tap dance. This is how Jewish halacha works. Everything has its own context and background and environment. This is the context of Judaism. The Torah does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as a part of a body of literature.

The Torah does not explicitly tell us every last detail for every historical event and for every legal matter. For example the Torah does not tell us the story of Abraham and his father's idols. It does not tell us the name of his mother. Other sources tell us that.

The Torah does not tell us that Joseph's wife Osenat was his niece, the daughter of Dina but was adopted by Potiphar after Osenat was brought to Egypt after Joseph's brothers considered her unwanted because she was the product of a rape. But the Midrash does tell us about that. The Torah does not tell us that when Esau sold his birthright in exchange for a plate of lentils it was during the 7 day mourning period for Abraham, but the midrash does tell us that.

My impression is that the discussion revolves around and

Aggadah as oppposed to

Halakha.

Note the mention of non-legalistic.

Note also

Quote:

Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה‎) — also transliterated Halocho (Ashkenazic Hebrew pronunciation), or Halacha — is the collective body of Jewish law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions.

In this case, the Halakhic prohibition of mixing meat and dairy is well known. What we have is an apparent violation of the law by Abraham. The sages were smart enough to know that this was a problem and they engaged in exercises to try to explain it.

It appears that the sages attempts to explain this do not seem to have been successful. Personally, this doesn't bother me, howver it seems that this is a major problem for you, where you are calling people here confused rather than admit that it is an issue.

The simplest explanation for this is that (as Tony Montana says in Scarface) someone fucked up. Not only were you tap dancing around this question, but your reply begins a completely different one.

semiopen · 12-05-2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Gosh, so what you mean is that no one could have altered the text a bit along the way to make it easier than to think up "excuses"? Especially since the overall prohibition of a kid and its mother's milk might already have provided a red flag?!
I don't think you read through my reply thoroughly. Please do so again.

It's possible that I missed something, but I don't see it.

Your replies continue to get more obscure. Here you are saying that "someone" would have altered the text of the Torah if there was some logical problem.

Sheshbazzar · 12-05-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Gosh, so what you mean is that no one could have altered the text a bit along the way to make it easier than to think up "excuses"?

One might expect that the text of the Torah was well established long before these rabbinic 'commentators' and their screwy Halakha interpretations and consequent silly rulings came along.
Unless you seriously wish to posit that these rabbinic commentators not only made the rulings but also wrote, or were able to 'revise' the words of The Torah at will?
I seriously doubt that you are going to find much support for that position, even among the atheist Jews, much less the religious.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.