“You shall bring the first of the first fruits of your ground to the house of Yahweh your God. “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
Not to eat meat cooked in milk
The cited verse
The Hebrew (Masoretic Text)
לֹא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ
In Maimonides’ words
How Maimonides defines this commandment in his Sefer HaMitzvot — his own words, shown as a primary source.
הזהירנו מאכול בשר בחלב. והוא אמרו גם כן לא תבשל וגו' פעם שניה רוצה לומר איסור אכילה, ובחולין (דף קי"ד) אמרו בשר בחלב לוקה על בישולו ולוקה על אכילתו. ובגמרא מכות (דף כ"א:) אמרו המבשל גיד הנשה ביום טוב בחלב ואכלו לוקה חמש מלקיות משום אוכל גיד ומשום מבשל ביום טוב ומשום מבשל בשר וחלב ומשום אוכל בשר בחלב ומשום הבערה. ושם אמרו אפיק הבערה ועייל עצי הקדש ואזהרתיה מהכא ואשריהם תשרפון באש לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם. ובגמרא חולין (דף קי"ד) אמרו אפקיה רחמנא לאכילה בלשון בישול דכי היכי דאי בשיל לקי אאכילה נמי לוקה. ובשני מפסחים (דף כ"ה) אמרו להכי לא כתב רחמנא בבשר בחלב אכילה להדיא לומר שלוקים עליו אפילו שלא כדרך הנאתו, וזכור זה. ובכאן ראוי לי שארמוז על שרש גדול שלא קדם לי זכרו, וזה שאמרו לא תבשל גדי נכפל בתורה שלש פעמים ואמר מלמד שכל לאו מהם לענין אמרו אחד לאכילה ואחד לבישול ואחד להנאה, ולמקשה שיקשה ויאמר לאיזה דבר מנית איסור אכילתו ובשולו שתי מצות ולא תמנה איסור הנאתו מצוה בפני עצמה, ידע המקשה כי איסור הנאה אין ראוי למנותו מצוה בפני עצמה מפני שהיא והאכילה ענין אחד כי האכילה מין ממיני הנאה, ואמרו בדבר שהוא לא יאכל אמנם הוא דמיון מדמיוני הנאה והכוונה שהוא לא יהנה בו לא באכילה ולא בזולתו, והוא אמרו כל מקום שנאמר לא תאכלו לא יאכל אחד איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה במשמע עד שיפרט לך הכתוב כדרך שפרט לך בנבילה שבאר בה הכתוב התועלת בה והוא אמרו לגר אשר בשעריך תתננה ואכלה, ולפי זה השרש אין ראוי למנות איסור אכילה והנאה שתי מצות ואילו מנינו שתי מצות בבשר בחלב היה ראוי כמו כן בחמץ ובערלה ובכלאי הכרם שיהיה בכל אחד מאלו שתי מצות אם איסור הנאה מצוה בפני עצמה ומצד שנפל מאלו ולא מנה זולת הלאו שבא באכילתה לבד ובכלל זה איסור הנאה שהנחנו כמו כן יפול בבשר בחלב. ונשאר בכאן שאלה אחת לבד והיא כי יש לאומר שיאמר אחר שאיסור הנאה יגיע מאיסור אכילה לאיזה דבר היה צריך הכתוב אל לאו בבשר בחלב לאסור הנאתו כמו שבארנו. הנה תשובת זה שהוא הוצרך אל זה מפני שלא כתב לא תאכל ממנו שממנו יאסרו האכילה וההנאה לפיכך הוצרך לאו אחד לאסור הנאה. וכבר זכרנו הסבה שבעבורה לא כתב אכילת בשר בחלב שכל מה שנזכר אכילה אינו חייב עד שיהנה בגרונו אמנם אם פתח פיו ובלע מן האיסור והוא חם עד שישרוף גרונו פטור חוץ מבשר בחלב שהוא חייב על אכילתו ואפילו לא יהנה כמו שזכרנו, וכמו כן כלאי הכרם כמו שנבאר אחר זה, והבן כל אלו השרשים וזכרם. וכבר התבארו משפטי מצוה זו בפ"ח מחולין. (משפטים, כי תשא, שם):
He prohibited [us] from eating meat with milk. And that is His also saying, "you shall not cook, etc.," a second time (Exodus 34:26) - meaning to say, the prohibition of eating [it]. And in Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, "Milk and meat - one is lashed for its cooking, and lashed for its eating." And in the Gemara, Makkot (Makkot 21b), they said, "One who cooks a sciatic nerve in milk on a holiday and eats it is lashed five [sets of] lashes: On account of eating a [sciatic] nerve; on account of cooking on a holiday; on account of cooking meat and milk; on account of eating meat cooked with milk; and on account of kindling [a fire]." And there (Makkot 22a), they said, "Remove kindling, and insert [the use of] consecrated wood - the prohibition of which is from here: 'And their tree-gods you shall burn in fire […] you shall not do so to the Lord, your God' (Deuteronomy 12:3–4)." And in the Gemara, Chullin (Chullin 114a), they said, "The [Torah] expressed eating with a term of cooking, so that like if he cooked, he is lashed; he is also lashed for eating." And in the second [chapter] of Pesachim (Pesachim 21b), they said, "Because of this did [the Torah] not write about eating meat with milk explicitly - to say that we give lashes for it even when [consumed] not according to the way of its enjoyment." And remember this. And here it is appropriate for me to note an important principle that I have not yet mentioned. And that is His saying, "you shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" three times; and the Teachers have said that each one of the negative statements is for [specific] content: And they said (Chullin 115b), "One is for eating, one is for cooking and one is for benefit." But the questioner will ask and say, "For what reason did you count the prohibition of its eating and its cooking as two commandments, yet you do not count the prohibition of its benefit as a separate commandment?" The questioner should know that it is inappropriate to count its benefit as a separate commandment, since it and its eating are the same matter. And His saying about something that is forbidden to eat is indeed one of several examples of benefit. But the intention is that he not benefit from it, not by eating and not by anything else. And that is their saying (Pesachim 21b), "Wherever it is stated, 'You shall not eat'; 'It shall not be eaten' - both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit are implied; until the verse specifies that one may benefit, in the manner that it specified with regard to a carcass." As Scripture explained the use of that, and that is His saying, "you may give it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it" (Deuteronomy 14:21). And according to this principle, it is inappropriate to count the prohibition of eating and benefit as two commandments. And if we had counted them [as] two commandments with meat with milk, it would have likewise been appropriate with chametz, with orlah (fruit of trees during their first three years) and with forbidden mixtures of the vineyard - that each one of them be two commandments - if the prohibition of benefit is its own commandment. But since these were not counted, but rather only the negative commandment of eating, alone, was counted - and the prohibition of benefit was included in this prohibition - the same should occur regarding meat with milk. And only one question remains about this. And that is that one could say, "Since the prohibition of benefit ensues from the prohibition of eating, for what purpose did Scripture need a negative statement about meat and milk, to forbid its benefit, as we explained?" Behold the answer to this is that it is needed regarding this because it is not written, "Do not eat from this" - from which eating and benefit would have been forbidden. Hence a negative statement to forbid benefit was required. And we have already mentioned the reason for which the eating of meat with milk was not mentioned: For anything about which it mentions eating is only liable when his throat derives enjoyment from it. However, if he open his mouth and swallows what is forbidden, or it is [so] hot as to burn his throat, he is exempt - except for meat with milk, about which one is liable for its eating even if he did not derive enjoyment from it, as we mentioned. And likewise [is the case with] forbidden mixtures of the vineyard, as we will explain after this (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 193). And understand all of these principles and remember them. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 8 of Chullin. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 9.)
Hebrew: Sefer HaMitzvot, Warsaw 1883 (public domain). English: Sefaria Edition, trans. Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2021 (CC0). Via Sefaria; translator’s footnotes omitted.
Literary form: a prohibition
Applicability
How the catalog describes where and when this commandment applies. These are independent descriptions, not a verdict on which laws still count.
- Recorded as practiced today
Classical halakhic consequences
The consequences the classical halakhah attaches to this commandment, grouped by who imposes them. Where a category has none recorded, that absence is itself meaningful.
Imposed by a court
- Lashes (malkot)
At the hands of Heaven
No divinely-imposed consequence is recorded.
Ritual remedy
No ritual remedy is recorded.
How the streams of Judaism treat this commandment
The streams of Judaism read the same commandment differently — an ongoing plurality, not a ranking. Each position below is reported as the catalog records it; none is presented as the correct one.
- Orthodox Binding
- Conservative Binding
- Reform Not binding
- Reconstructionist Not binding
- Karaite Rejected
24 of 613 commandments have been examined in depth so far — this one is queued.
How later traditions received this commandment
How later traditions read or reworked this commandment, each attributed to its own voice. The catalog’s own classification of each reception is shown as it records it, never adopted as GEBible’s.
Philo of Alexandria
- De Virtutibus 142-144 rationalized it
Beside the older legal codes of its world
The commandment set beside the ancient Near-Eastern legal collections scholars compare it to — a descriptive comparison, not a claim of dependence.
- ugaritic texts the line was read by Albright and Ginsberg as attesting a Canaanite rite involving cooking a kid in milk, proposed as the polemical target of Exodus 34:26; the reading has been substantially challenged by Ratner-Zuckerman's photographic re-examination and Pardee's textual analysis, rendering this the primary proposed but now largely disputed ANE parallel for the prohibition Relationship to the parallel: apparent borrowing direction uncertain KTU 1.23 (Birth of the Gracious Gods), line 14 Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBL, 2002); Ratner and Zuckerman, HUCA 57 (1986)
Where this commandment meets modern human-rights frameworks
One modern normative lens, attributed to it — not GEBible’s assessment. Each row names the framework it measures against and the catalog’s own classification of the relation.
This framework catalogues tensions; it records agreement in only one of its entries. The near-total tension rate is the shape of the instrument, not a finding.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
The commandment prescribes flogging (malkot) for eating meat that has been cooked in milk; post-Enlightenment norms treat corporal punishment as an incompatible method.
-
Article 7
This framework classifies the relation as an incompatible method.
Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment; the imposition of thirty-nine lashes for consuming a combination of meat and dairy falls within the class of physical punishments that international human-rights law designates as degrading treatment.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as a direct contradiction.
Modern penal proportionality doctrine holds that punishment must be commensurate with the harm caused; corporal punishment for eating a particular food combination exceeds any proportionate response under contemporary penal theory.
-
general principle
This framework classifies the relation as abrogated in practice.
Rabbinic tradition holds that lashes may only be imposed by a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges, an institution that has not functioned since the destruction of the Second Temple; the malkot sanction is therefore de jure but not de facto enforceable.