Seething a Kid in its Mother's Milk
Let us examine the prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk, an idiomatic way of expressing cooking milk and meat together. The statement appears three times across Torah, one of them in Mishpatim (Shemot 23:19).
רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ׃ {פ}
The beginning of the first fruits of your land must be brought to the House of [the Sanctuary of] Adonoy, your God. You must not cook a young animal in the milk of its mother [eat meat with milk].
Rashbam explains (with Eliyahu Munk’s translation):
לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו - דרך העזים ללדת שני גדיים יחד. ורגילים היו לשחוט אחד מהם ומתוך שרוב חלב בעזים. כדכתיב: ודי חלב עזים ללחמך וגו', היו רגילים לבשלו בחלב האם ולפי ההווה דבר הכתוב. וגנאי הוא הדבר ובליעה ורעבתנות לאכול חלב האם עם הבנים. ודוגמא זו: באותו ואת בנו ושילוח הקן. ללמדך דרך תרבות צוה הכתוב ולפי שברגל היו אוכלים בהמות הרבה, הזהיר בפרשת רגלים שלא לבשל ולא לאכול גדי בחלב אמו. והוא הדין לכל בשר בחלב כמו שפירשו רבותינו בשחיטת חולין.
לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו, it is usual for goats to give birth to two kids at the same time, and it was customary for people to slaughter one of them right away. Seeing that mother goats have an abundance of milk (expecting to nurse at least two young kids) they used the excess milk to boil the young kid in after it had been slaughtered. (Proverbs 27,27 “the goat’s milk will suffice for your food, the food of your household and the maintenance of your maids.”) It is something distasteful, revolting, something akin to gluttony, to consume the mother’s milk together with the young animal that this milk was intended to nourish. We find a parallel in the legislation not to slaughter mother animal and her young on the same day, as well as the prohibition not to take the young chicks while the mother bird is present. (Leviticus 22,25 and Deuteronomy 22,6-7) The Torah teaches you these matters as a matter of elementary culture, i.e. respecting life. Seeing that on the festivals many animals are consumed, the Torah included this legislation in the paragraph dealing with other aspects of these festivals. If the consuming of these animals is prohibited under such circumstances, how much more so are mixture of milk and meat prohibited as discussed in Chulin 113.
This is close enough for my taste, except for the closing statement. Rashbam wrote (my translation):
והוא הדין לכל בשר בחלב כמו שפירשו רבותינו בשחיטת חולין.
And the same is true for all meat with milk, as our Sages taught in tractate Shechitat Chullin.
Rashbam is thereby pointing us to the interpretations and derashot in Chullin and why it applies in this fashion. Compare to what Eliyahu Munk wrote:
If the consuming of these animals is prohibited under such circumstances, how much more so are mixture of milk and meat prohibited as discussed in Chulin 113.
Munk introduces a kal vachomer. But והוא הדין does not mean “all the more so”.
What is bothering Eliyahu Munk? Well, Rashbam just gave a persuasive explanation of the prohibition grounded in morality and the training of virtuous traits. That grounding was at least partly based in it being a baby goat and its mother, akin to not slaughtering a mother animal and its young. Why should you then sensibly extend this to other meat and milk? We don’t say that you cannot slaughter an adult female cow and an unrelated baby goat on the same day! One can perhaps answer that there is still more of a mental association of milk (mothers) and meat (animal), or a hearkening to that common practice. But it is a tenuous connection.
Without stating the logic of “how much more so”, Eliyahu Munk establishes that, for Rashbam, there is a “how much more so”. If I had to guess, he’s saying that if, during such circumstances as festivals, these are prohibited, how much more so when it is not such a festival? Regardless, this is wholly invented.
From a surface scan, Eliyahu Munk did not really censors Rashbam in Mishpatim. That is surprising, for here is where Rashbam deviates over and over from halacha. I think the reason is that Rashbam masterfully set up his peirush to assure the reader than he was not saying halacha should be otherwise. Derashot are valid, but he is exploring what the plain sense would be, if not for those derashot. Eliyahu Munk translated that and approved, so generally took a hands-off approach to the extreme literal interpretations. Except in instances like this, where he feels compelled to add the kal vachomer. Note that I did a poor job of reading the commentary. I simply scanned the text to ensure that it was there, and spot-checked a translation here and there. So maybe I missed something.
Here is Rashbam (with Eliyahu Munk’s translation) at the top of the sidra.
ואלה המשפטים - ידעו ויבינו יודעי שכל כי לא באתי לפרש הלכות אף על פי שהם עיקר כמו שפירשתי בבראשית, כי מיתור המקראות נשמעים ההגדות והלכות ומקצתן ימצאו בפירושי רבינו שלמה אבי אמי זצ"ל. ואני לפרש פשוטן של מקראות באתי ואפרש הדינים וההלכות לפי דרך ארץ. ואעפ"כ ההלכות עיקר, כמו שאמרו רבותינו: הלכה עוקרת משנה. לשש שנים יצא ביובל. ויש שנותן חילוק ביניהם.
Everyone endowed with intelligence should know that it is not my purpose to explain halachic rulings as part of my commentary, something I have mentioned already in my commentary at the beginning of Parshat Vayeshev. I explained there that many such rulings are hinted at by variant spellings in the text, missing words or extraneous words. Many of these have been covered in the commentary on the Torah by my grandfather Rashi of blessed memory. I have set myself the task of only explaining the plain meaning of the text as it is before us. When I explain legislation I do so within the context of its contribution to civilised behaviour, דרך ארץ. My explanations notwithstanding, when they conflict with the halachic rulings, the latter are supreme.
OK, we’ve done Rashbam. I’ve gotten in the habit of spot-checking Chizkuni and Seforno, both to see what they say and to check whether Eliyahu Munk’s translation is accurate.
Here is Chizkuni on Mishpatim:
Image because of Hebrew right-to-left formatting issues. Generally speaking, this is a fair translation. A mere nitpick is that Hizhir means warning, not “reminding”, and this is the first occurrence in the Torah. I would say that Chizkuni means that this was the reason for the placement of the azhara in Mishpatim.
It is also fair that he didn’t translate the bracketed phrases. As usual, Eliyahu Munk presumably did not encounter these in the Hebrew edition from which he translated. The first reason was the character traits, found also in Rashbam, and the hachanat ochel is interesting, as Chizkuni is taking it past its most literal meaning of boiling to mean preparing of food. This is halachic in hinting to the issur han’ah and achila; it is non-halachic in that it might include other means of food preparation.
The real area of concern is the second time the phrase is repeated, towards the end of Ki Tisa, also in sefer Shemot. Shemot 34:26:
רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ׃ {פ}
The first fruits of your land, you shall bring to the House [of the Sanctuary] of Adonoy, your God. You must not cook a kid in its mother’s milk [eat meat with milk].
Chizkuni writes (Eliyahu Munk’s translation):
This is more or less accurate, except for the major act of censorship. Namely, Eliyahu Munk begins translating this as “do not boil a kid in the milk of its mother.” But, as is clear from the end of the comment, Chizkuni does NOT take תבשל as boil, but “ripen”.
So too, at the end, Chizkuni wrote (my translation)
בשול לשון גמר כמו הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים
bishul is a language of completion, such as [from the butler’s dream in Bereishit 40:10) הִבְשִׁ֥ילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶ֖יהָ עֲנָבִֽים, “and its clusters ripening into grapes.”
Thus, Chizkuni is redefining the basic meaning of tevashel so that it does not mean boil. And Eliyahu Munk omit it.
I would guess that this is because of the heretical impact. If this is what lo tevashel means, you shouldn’t let the calf “ripen” while consuming its mother’s milk, then there was no intent towards meat preparation! Best to avoid it.
I tried to ask ChatGPT’s o1 reasoning model if it detected any censorship here, and it succeeded. Though it does not realize the full why of the censorship. Thus:
What Chizkuni Actually Does
Chizkuni is offering a non‐standard (or at least non‐literal/halakhic) reading of “לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו” by explaining:
The verb בשל (b‑sh‑l) here refers to “completing” or “ripening,” rather than “cooking.”
“In its mother’s milk” is read as “under its mother’s nursing,” i.e., letting the kid stay with its mother until it is fully grown.
Just as one should bring the first fruits rather than waiting until they are fully ripe, so too one should bring the animal at the beginning of its development, rather than waiting until it is “complete” or “fully grown” in its mother’s milk.
Hence, on the peshat level (the straightforward, contextual level), Chizkuni reads the verse as: “Don’t let the kid keep nursing until it is grown—bring it earlier, just as you bring first fruits at the earliest stage.”
What the Translator’s Version Omits or Changes
Elimination of the “milk”/“ripening” parallel:
Chizkuni explicitly ties בשול (bishul) to ripening and says this is also how we read the neighboring command to bring first fruits. The translation you quoted leaves out these linguistic and exegetical details. It simply says, “This is a warning not to wait...until it has been fully weaned.”Replacing Chizkuni’s explanation with a standard halakhic rule (8 days / weaning):
Chizkuni’s words never mention “seven days” or “eight days” or “fully weaned” at all. Chizkuni’s gloss is playing on the root בשל = “to ripen/mature,” not on the halakhic rule that “an animal is fit for the altar only after day eight.”
In other words, Chizkuni is explaining the peshat of the verse in a way that contrasts with the typical halakhic or culinary reading of “do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” The translator, however, inserts standard halakhic language—turning Chizkuni’s comment into: “Once it passes seven days, it is fit for sacrifice.”Ignoring the analogy to first fruits:
Chizkuni explicitly draws a parallel to “The first of the first fruits of your land…” and says “From the time they first begin to ripen, bring them (as Bikkurim).” That analogy is crucial to his whole reading (“milk” = “nursing,” “cooking/ripening” = “waiting until it is fully developed”). The translator leaves that entire analogy out.Is This “Censorship”?
Accuracy: Strictly speaking, the translation is not faithful to what Chizkuni wrote. Chizkuni’s central exegetical move—understanding בשול not as “cooking” but as “completing” or “ripening”—is not reflected at all.
Why might someone omit it?
Often, traditional publishers or translators have felt uneasy presenting commentaries that give a reading of “לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו” other than the classic prohibition on mixing meat and milk. Or they prefer to align commentaries with standard halakhic rules (e.g., that an animal is unfit as an offering before eight days). In those contexts, some translators “smooth over” or omit peshat explanations that seem to conflict with the usual halakhic understanding.Does it amount to censorship?
In many cases, yes. Anytime a translator silently deletes, reshapes, or rewrites an exegete’s original words—especially to avoid “awkward” or “contradictory” readings vis-à-vis halakhah—this is a form of censorship (or at least “selective editing”). At minimum, it misrepresents the commentator’s intent by collapsing a nuanced, text-based peshat reading into a simple halakhic note about age requirements for offerings.Hence, one could fairly say the translator here is engaging in some degree of censorship or at least selective omission. They have replaced Chizkuni’s entire linguistic/interpretive point (that בשל = “ripen” and חלב אמו = “mother’s milk” in a non-culinary sense) with a straightforward halakhic remark that the kid becomes “fit for the altar after seven days.” That is not what Chizkuni actually says, and it suppresses the very peshat–style insight Chizkuni was trying to highlight.