• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

You shall not boil a kid in its mother's ?????


דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
What about boiling a lamb in the milk of a sheep that is not its mother? Why is that prohibited?

Because the relationship is prohibited as a unit. It's the same relationship for any milk with any meat. It is conflicting. It is not in harmony.

@Jayhawker Soule , there's no discord in the relationship between fat and meat. They are harmonious.

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I'm a volunteer teacher of English to a group of well educated (in agricultural sciences) Mexicans that are in the US working on industrialized hog farms for Smithfield Foods. Many, if not most, are veterinarians so I suppose that helps in accepting those conditions. Even so, they speak of Mondays as being tough days. That's the day they load for shipping. But, overall they don't speak much about their work. I'm sure I couldn't do what they do and this is just breeding farms. The processing plants are a whole different kind of story.
I know I couldn't. I had a friend who gave it a try at that Tyson plant but once he noticed he grew desensitized to what he was doing, he saw himself doing it to a human and that was it for him.
Me? I'd probably still be crying and I wouldn't have actually gotten far enough to kill anything. I'd be too upset over it.


דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Unity without division is a concept within Buddhism too
In Buddhism it's nothing?

Abraham's God is absolutely everything and more. So, they're opposites.

"Nothingness" can't be a unity without division. It's a very special case.

I'm not sure if u understand what I meant, tho. Based on what I wrote, and perhaps your own insight, would u plz indulge me and offer the reasons why you think boiling a kid in its mother's milk is a conflict? I understand that for you any meat for consumption is murder. But, for my own edification, would you please help to confirm that I communicated adequately?


aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Buddhist approach to nothingness means that no thing is a standalone entity, or so it appears.


דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No, why do you say that? - I didn't say "nothing."

I'm either thinking of something else, remembering incorrectly, or I've misunderstood. Please disregard?

I suppose, if I were to try to answer the question "why?", my answer would be:

"I am rather sensitive, perhaps overly sensitive, when it comes to comparisons between other religions and Judaism. I wrote that Abraham rediscovered a unique unity without any division. You replied: We have that too in buddhism. I reacted to that negatively. Negatively meaning: No. They're not the same concept. If they were, then buddhists would believe in the God of Abraham, and I think we both agree that's not true.

I didn't say it was a conflict.

I know. Please forgive me for what may have sounded like an odd question? My struggle right now is trying to determine how much I need to explain to answer your question. You've asked for a rational explanation. For me, what I've written is more than enough already. To me it is obvious, like a bright blinking neon sign: "Obviously... don't boil a kid in its mother's milk. It's wrong y'all."

Your explanation iro Judaism I thought I understood.

What's "iro"?

Anyway, I suppose I'll continue with the explanation.

We left off with the following conclusion: Some relationships are harmonious. Some relationships are conflicting. The nature of these relationships ( mixtures ) is defined by the one which is creating everything. Hopefully this makes sense without too many additional words?

Illustrating Example: The one who is making the bicycle, designs the chain to fit over the gears. The chain's relationship to the gears when they are joined ( mixed ) is harmonious. The purpose of the bicycle is forward motion. The designer is making the chain, and is making the gears, such that when the two are brought together ( mixed ), the chain's relationship to the gears is in harmony with the forward motion of the bicycle.

Conversely, the chain's relationship to the spokes on the wheels are conflicting when they are mixed. If the chain is mixed with the spokes, the bicycle's forward motion is either greatly hampered or entirely prevented depending on how the chain is wrapping around the spokes or interfering with them. The intention of the designer is not to interfere with the forward motion or to prevent it entirely. The intention of the design is opposite of that. Therefore, the relationship of the chain to the spokes when they are mixed is conflicting or clashing. Get it?

These concepts, once understood, seem to me to be very simple. The same principles apply in all manner of day to day life. Fashion, music, even and especially interpersonal relationships. There are few members of RF who almost always clash with me, and I almost always clash with them. Best practice? We should avoid each other. We should not be mixing with each other. I try to do that. It's not always easy because of limitations on the forum software. But I digress.

So. In regard to prohibited mixtures in Judaism, we believe ( or at least the Jewish folks who believe in God and Torah believe ) that each and everything was designed by a consciousness much much higher than our own. The method for Jewish living in harmony with each other, the planet, and all of God's creation, is recorded in our Torah. ( Thank you, God. ) We don't need rational reasons for each and every rule, because we have rational reasons to believe that the Torah came from God, Almighty. Nothing else needs rationalizing. That's it. We are confident that we know it came from God at Sinai. Because of the unique qualities of our God, and because of the unique history as a Jewish people, we can accept the Torah and all of its rules prior to even knowing what they are. The rational explanations are utterly insignificant. They're fun to talk about, because it offers a window into the mysteries of life. However. Even though the rational explanations are completely insignificant, there are Jewish people who absolutely need them. For them, our God is leaving signs so that the majority of the law can be derived rationally.



Let's get into specifics.

The prohibition is: don't boil a kid in its mother's milk. Let's break this down. Imagine you're a shepherd. In the middle of the night a baby goat is born. The next day, you wake up, isolate the new born baby goat, a kid, from its mother. Then you milk all the female goats collecting the milk in a vessel. Instead of taking the milk and feeding the new born baby goat, which is obviously the intended purpose of goat milk, you make a fire, place the vessel with the milk on top of the fire, and place the baby goat into the vessel boiling it to death. What do you think about that? The precious, nutritious, miracle which is milk, is being used in a manner which is completely, 100%, contrasting with its intended purpose. Agreed? Therefore, we Jews, don't do that. The milk mixed with the meat in this manner is antithetical to God's design for milk and meat.

Now do you see the conflict? It's the relationship. There's nothing wrong with the milk. There's nothing wrong with the meat. But they are simply not intended to go together in that way. Milk is not intended to be a murder weapon, to make it into an extreme analogy.. How much more so if it the milk is coming from the mother? The milk is obviously intended for nourishing its offspring, not for cooking and killing it.

Last edited:


דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I have to ask where you got that idea. It's just wrong.

Either I misheard, or misunderstood. But there is another forum on which I participate from time to time. There's a couple of buddhists there, with whom I have on occasion argued. One of which is a sort of non-duality self-appointed expert. He is a member of a Sangha in SF area I think, teaches online, was ordained as a priest, finished his robes, two or three years ago, if I recall.

If you would like to correct my misconception, please, it would be wonderful to start a thread on it ( buddhist non-duality ). Tag me. I'll check it out as time permits :)

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
For me, what I've written is more than enough already.
It is and thank you.

"Obviously... don't boil a kid in its mother's milk. It's wrong y'all."
I agree.

What's "iro"?
in respect of. Sorry.

What do you think about that? The precious, nutritious, miracle which is milk, is being used in a manner which is completely, 100%, contrasting with its intended purpose. Agreed?
Yes, I agree.

Now do you see the conflict? It's the relationship. There's nothing wrong with the milk. There's nothing wrong with the meat.

I do. An excellent explanation! (Of course, the meat being "right" bit is contrary to my viewpoint).

The rational explanations are utterly insignificant.

I don't think all things are covered by "rationality", for instance the arts (and of course religion). I was looking for a Jewish perspective, which you have covered well.

No, I think you've explained what I was interested in finding out. Cheers.


דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
the meat being "right" bit is contrary to my viewpoint).

Of course. It's important, I think, to clearly assert that there is nothing inherently "wrong" with either of the individual components. One of the most common mixtures which is prohibited in Jewish law involves male+female relationships. Perhaps one of the most harmful, virulent, misconceptions of Jewish law is that the restrictions placed on male+female relationships are instituted because the female is inherently "dirty" or "wrong" in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth.


הרב יונה בן זכריה
You shall not boil a kid in its mother's ?????

Since Torah was compiled by the clergy, as I understand, so such weird stuff is there, right, please?

Putting aside for the moment that I am not commenting on your supposition as to how the Torah came to be, it does not change the fact that the conclusion you’ve arrived makes absolutely no sense. The only reason I can discern for your response was that you saw another opportunity to make mean spirited, disparaging remarks about Jews and Judaism and you were not going let an opportunity pass.


New Member
I guess one reason I can't ascribe fully to Judaism is because I'm too weak in conviction to give up cheese-burgers.

I'm curious as to the health and safety issue behind this law. I'm a firm believer that all biblical laws were for the good of humankind, such as the unlawfulness of pork and shellfish -- probably due to the dangers of eating these undercooked.
Shellfish and swine are the garbage collectors of the earth.


Shellfish and swine are the garbage collectors of the earth.
No more so than many other creatures, IMV. I don't know about the shellfish, but recently the anatomy of kosher vs. non-kosher mammals was shared and it made great sense that the positioning of the arteries had a great deal to do with believed pain of slaughter, and therefore the affecting the allowable choices in meat.

BTW, welcome. I anticipate enjoying your participation. I don't believe we have an active member of your faith. Your insights should be refreshing.


aged ecumenical anthropologist
Baruch Spinoza did not believe that Jewish Law was from God but what it did was to create discipline so as not to cave in to any impulse.