You Shall Not Boil

The instruction begins by saying, "You shall not boil." If we were to accept this translation at face value and take a hyper-literalist approach to the commandment, we might find it perfectly acceptable to place a young goat in a pot of its mother's milk and heat it to 211 degrees Fahrenheit, just below the boiling point. Since it did not reach a full 212 degrees, it did not technically boil.1 Or perhaps we would feel comfortable at an even higher temperature if we employed a different cooking method, for example, if it were fried or baked instead of boiled.

Of course, to be that literal is to place a lot of faith in our translation of the Hebrew as "boil." We would have to bank on the idea that the Hebrew term translated "boil" here has the exact same range of meaning.

The Hebrew verb we translate as "boil" is bishel (בשל).2 There are times when "boil" seems like a fair and reasonable translation. There are other times when it cannot possibly mean "boil." (In the Scriptural quotations below, bold text indicates the translation of the Hebrew word bishel.)

One example where it does mean “boil” is in the commandment of the Passover lamb:

They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled [uvashel mevushal, ובשל מבשל], in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. (Exodus 12:8–9)

We can see from this verse that the Passover lamb cannot be boiled; it must only be roasted. However, we find elsewhere,

You may not offer the Passover sacrifice within any of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, but at the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name dwell in it, there you shall offer the Passover sacrifice, in the evening at sunset, at the time you came out of Egypt. And you shall cook it [uvishalta, ובשלת] and eat it at the place that the LORD your God will choose. And in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents. (Deuteronomy 16:5–7)

In this case, the translators were aware of the discrepancy, so they (appropriately) chose the more generic term "cook" rather than "boil." And yet the term is the same.

In the account of the celebration of Passover during the reign of Josiah, we find a similar usage:

And they roasted [vayevashelu, ויבשלו] the Passover lamb with fire according to the rule; and they boiled [bishelu, בשלו] the holy offerings in pots, in cauldrons, and in pans, and carried them quickly to all the lay people. (2 Chronicles 35:13)

Here we find the same term3 translated both as "roasted" and "boiled" in the same sentence. (In Exodus 12:8–9 cited above, however, the word translated "roasted" [tzali, צלי] is entirely different.)

Yet another use of the term can be found:

So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house, where he was lying down. And she took dough and kneaded it and made cakes in his sight and baked [vatevashel, ותבשל] the cakes. (2 Samuel 13:8)

Shankbone: a Passover Seder plate featuring a roasted shankbone (source)Between all of these uses ("boil," "cook," "roast," and "bake"), it seems fair to say that the verb bishel does not necessarily mean "boil" in a technical, scientific sense. Rather, its versatility is comparable to the English word "cook." As with the word "cook," it certainly suggests that heat is applied. But even so, that might not even be the point. Consider if someone were to say, "My husband will be able to eat with us, as long as you don't cook anything with tomatoes." In this case, "cook" is not the operative word, and the listener would most likely assume that raw tomatoes are as bad as cooked. Likewise, we might say that a person is "cooking" even if they are tossing a green salad, since the point is not the heat involved but the food preparation.4

If we stick to the interpretation of bishel as cooking with heat, then we must ask the question of how much heat constitutes "cooking." And would it really be acceptable to serve a young goat in its mother's milk if the goat had been pre-cooked elsewhere first?

After all, if we were to take this word hyper-literally, it would be entirely permissible to eat a young goat boiled in its mother's milk, if someone else did the preparing, since technically the text does not say, "you shall not eat." But the sages naturally concluded that cooking and eating are both prohibited.

So far, we have shown that the verse prohibits cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. We also must consider that the amount of heat may not be relevant.

Before we continue, I should explain my use of hypothetical situations. I am not suggesting that anyone should or would actually pre-cook a young goat and then serve it in its mother's milk. The purpose of these hypothetical situations is simply to explore the complete parameters of the law at hand. If we are to accuse the traditional interpretation of the commandment of being too broad in scope, then it becomes our duty to flesh out the exact boundary between right and wrong.

1. 1. Since milk contains a large percentage of water, the boiling point is nearly the same, although the precise temperature would depend on atmospheric pressure.
2. 2. This is the root form. In context of the verse ("You shall not boil") it is written lo tevashel (לא תבשל). In each verse, the exact permutation might vary, although the verb itself and its basic meaning is the same. In each verse, notice the root letters (ב-ש-ל).
3. 3. In different permutations, only because of their relative positions in the sentence. Nonetheless, the same verb is used in both.
4. 4. Here is another example of a verb with both a general and a specific meaning. Suppose you heard that your favorite author "wrote" a new novel. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word originates from "Middle English, from Old English wrītan to scratch, draw, inscribe." The first definition of the word is "to form (as characters or symbols) on a surface with an instrument (as a pen)." Does this mean that the author scrawled it with a pen or pencil, rather than typing it on a computer or even dictating it? Again, the point of the statement is not the method of transcription, but that the person authored the book, one of the broader definitions of the term.

A Young Goat

Goats: a mountain goat with its young (source)The next term to consider is the word translated "a young goat." The Hebrew word is gedi (גדי).

The English phrase "a young goat" is quite specific. If we assume our translation has razor sharp precision, then it should be perfectly acceptable to cook a young lamb in its mother's milk.

The term gedi is used a total of sixteen times in the Hebrew Scriptures, including the three verses that contain the commandment not to cook a gedi in it's mother's milk. Ten of the remaining thirteen instances (including all of the other instances in the five books of the Torah) occur in a two-word construct: "a gedi of goats" (gedi izzim, גדי עזים).

If gedi only means "young goat," then what would be the point of modifying the word gedi with the specific term "of goats"? The fact that the phrase "a gedi of goats" is so common indicates that gedi alone would not necessarily refer to a goat in specific.

When we look at the other three passages in which gedi stands alone,1 we find that in these cases the exact species of animal is not of great consequence.

If the exact animal species was important in the case of cooking in its mother's milk, we would have expected the Torah to use the specific form. The fact that in this commandment the Torah deviates from the conventional construct in order to leave gedi unmodified shows that the species of the animal is not the main concern. It seems that this word was chosen to refer to the young of any livestock.

The Greek of the LXX supports a loose interpretation as well. In each of the three instances of this commandment in the Torah, the LXX renders the Hebrew word gedi as the Greek aren (αρήν), which does not mean "kid" but "lamb."2

But if "goat" is not the point of the verse, why did the Torah choose the term gedi, a word that is frequently paired with goats?

To understand this, let's consider one of the ways in which the culture of the Ancient Near East was different from our own. In our world, cows are the main producers of milk for drinking. It is rare that milk would come from any other source. When someone just says "milk," they nearly always mean cow milk. If you were to ask a child, "Where does milk come from?" the answer would likely be "cows," even though a more complete answer is "mammals."

Suppose your friend said, "I never drink milk if the cows were treated with antibiotics." What if your friend was offered milk from a goat that was treated with antibiotics instead? Your friend would probably not want it either. Your friend only mentioned cows because they are the most common source of milk.

In the Ancient Near East, milk from cows was rarely used for drinking. Vamosh writes, "Goats, therefore, and to a lesser extent sheep, were a much more common source of milk than cows."3 When someone thought of milk, they thought of goats, not cows.

For someone who lives in a culture that strongly associates milk with goats, it would be perfectly natural to use the term gedi in place of any milk-producing animal. This is especially true because gedi can refer to other animals as well as goats. Because of this, the term that might be understood in a specific sense nonetheless stands in for the general category.4

But what about the "young" aspect of gedi? Would it really be permissible to cook a mature goat in its mother's milk? After all, it would not be uncommon to find a goat that still produced milk and had mature offspring.

But again, animals were typically slaughtered for meat while they were still young. It makes sense to refer to butchered animals in general as "younglings," just as it is natural to refer to motor vehicles in general as "cars."

All animals were young at some point. The use of a term that implies youth could possibly serve more of a purpose relating to the symbolic significance of the prohibition, rather than to denote an age limit.

Can we take a commandment that sounds so specific and expand it to something general? As it was shown, the original Hebrew words already support a broader interpretation. In addition, this could be considered one of several laws in which a specific instance is used to illustrate a general principle.

For example, the Torah speaks of an ox that gores a person:

When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. (Exodus 21:28)

But what if a person was gored by a ram or goat? Suppose it was a dog that bit him. Since the Torah is silent regarding these species, is there no recourse for the victim?

Rather, here is a prime example of a type of law in the Torah where a specific example is cited to illustrate a general principle. The point of this law is not the type of animal involved, but an ox was chosen as an example because it represents a typical case.

Finally, the phrase "boil a young goat in its mother's milk" might evoke the mental image of a whole animal lying in the pot. But had a dish such as this been served, the goat would have been fully slaughtered and processed, leaving not "a goat" in the pot but small cuts of goat meat.

Thus, we can see how the term gedi, in the context of this verse, could reasonably be understood as "meat." So far, we can see that it is reasonable to interpret the verse as "you shall not cook meat in its mother's milk."

1. 1. Judges 14:6; 1 Samuel 10:3; Isaiah 11:6.
2. 2. In most other places the LXX uses the word erifos, which does mean "kid."
3. 3. Miriam Feinberg Vamosh, Food at the Time of the Bible, p. 67.
4. 4. Here is another example of a specific noun standing in for its general category. Suppose a sign posted in a store reads, "No shirt, no shoes, no service." If a man walks in wearing boots rather than shoes, he will not be asked to leave. Even though boots are not technically shoes, the point of the policy does have anything to do with the specific type of footwear. (Archaeologists thousands of years in the future that uncover this sign may have a hard time decoding its terse language.)

In the Milk

Pizza: a Middle Eastern pizza with lamb and yogurtOur English translation reads, "in its mother's milk," but the word order in Hebrew is more like "in the milk of its mother," so let's deal with "in the milk" first and then "of its mother" afterward.

First off, the word translated "in" is a simple one-letter prefix (be, ב). One might think that boiling the goat meat immersed in its mother's milk would be prohibited, but adding a small amount of milk to a meat dish would be acceptable. However, the preposition be has a broad range of meanings, including "in," "on," and "with." It would be equally accurate to translate "with its mother's milk" instead of "in its mother's milk."

Next, we should discuss the idea of "milk." Sure, cooking a young goat in its mother's milk is prohibited, but what about if the milk has been processed into yogurt or cheese? Does the prohibition apply only to the type of milk we get in cartons at the grocery store, or does it apply to all kinds of dairy?

The word translated "milk" here is chalav (חלב). Vamosh seems to have a different idea about what this term means:

Not all biblical translations agree on the meaning of the Hebrew words for the various milk products in Scripture. In its simplest form, the Hebrew word halav could simply mean milk as we know it. But in the hot climate of the Holy Land, this liquid would not have remained fresh for long.1

In the Ancient Near East, it seems likely that nearly all milk was processed and fermented into a form that could be used over longer periods of time.

In modern Hebrew, chalav can mean "milk" specifically, but it can also refer to "dairy" in general. For example, cheese that is produced with only Jews involved in the production is labeled chalav Yisra'el (חלב ישראל).

But this is not simply a modern Hebrew phenomenon. The broad semantic range of the word chalav can be seen in the Tanach:

Also take these ten cheeses to the commander of their thousand. See if your brothers are well, and bring some token from them. (1 Samuel 17:18)

The term translated "cheeses" here is the Hebrew charitzei he-chalav (חריצי החלב), very literally translated, "cuts of milk." Thus, any dairy food can be considered chalav. This means that it would not be permissible to boil a young goat in its mother's yogurt or melt a slice of cheese made from the mother's milk on a cut of meat. We can now interpret the verse, "You shall not cook meat with its mother's dairy."

1. 1. Vamosh, op. cit., 69.

Of Its Mother

Sheep: an ewe with two lambs (source)Finally, we are presented with the phrase "its mother," which in Hebrew is imo (אמו).

Hebrew frequently uses familial terms in an idiomatic sense. Quite frequently, words like "brother," "father," "son," and "daughter" are used in a different way from their literal meaning. In Hebrew, "brother" can refer to a person's "kinsman," "countryman," or "friend." "Father" can be used to speak of a "source" or "originator." "Son" is a way to say that a person is characterized by something (such as a "son of peace"). "Daughters" can mean "women" or "inhabitants." Thus, there is a real possibility that the familial relationship spoken of here is also idiomatic. However, the main difficulty with a face-value translation of this term is practical, rather than linguistic.

Imagine you were the owner of a large flock of goats in ancient Israel. At a given time, you had several goats giving milk. After milking each of your goats, would you have kept each goat's milk in separate, labeled containers? Will you have a warehouse full of jugs labeled "Bessy," "Henrietta," "Stella," "Millie," and "Sugarplum"? How would you tell one goat's milk from the next? First of all, once the milk is removed from the goat, it is indistinguishable from any other milk. Second, all of your goats' milk would be pooled into one place.

If a man had only one goat, then he would not be able to cook any of its young in milk, since the milk would be from that one goat. If a man had two or more goats, the milk would be combined together into a single vessel, and still none of it could be used to cook with the young goats.

On the one hand, the Torah specifically mentions the milk "of its mother." On the other hand, it would never be possible to separate out milk that came from a particular animal. The original livestock owners who received this law would find themselves in a situation where they were unable to use any of their milk to cook with meat. But as a result, the phrase "of its mother" served no practical purpose to the people who first saw the Torah. To them, it might as well have just said, "in milk." This leaves us to ask if "of its mother" might have a meaning beyond its face value.

The sages dealt with this question, and their conclusion is that the phrase "its mother's milk" teaches us that the prohibition only applies to animals of a species that gives milk. Apparently, the sages felt that the term gedi was so broad in meaning that someone might not know to limit it to sheep, goats, cows, and the like, also applying it, for example, to birds. But since the phrase "its mother's milk" is included, we can see that only milk-bearing animals would apply. In other words, we must not cook the meat of a mammal in the milk of a mammal. While it might seem far-fetched to an English speaker, this interpretation fits well into a Hebraic context.

Bringing this perspective into our interpretive translation, we should then limit the type of meat involved only to that of mammals. A fair way to do so would be to call it "red meat." Thus, the passage could be translated, "You shall not cook red meat with dairy."

Poultry With Dairy

Chicken parmesan: (source)Even though the biblical commandment specifically limits the prohibition to animals that give milk, the sages saw fit to extend the prohibition also to poultry. This is a case where we can draw a clear line of distinction between biblical and rabbinic kosher laws. Whereas the prohibition of cooking red meat with dairy arises directly from the biblical text, the sages openly admit that the separation of poultry from dairy is a rabbinic safeguard. Although there is dispute in the Talmud about the separation of poultry from dairy,1 the rabbinic prohibition is almost universally observed throughout the Jewish world. (There is no dispute, however, about the separation of red meat from dairy.)

Thus, one who keeps red meat separate from dairy but chooses to combine poultry with dairy can legitimately claim to observe biblical kosher laws.

But to be fair, the idea of safeguarding the Torah is biblical as well.2

1. 1. b.Shabbat 130a.
2. 2. The Hebrew word shamar (שמר), often translated "keep" (as in "keep the commandments"), literally means "protect." A literal translation of Proverbs 7:2 says, "protect my commandments and live; [protect] my Torah like [it is] the pupil of your eye." Of sin, personified as an adulterous woman, it says, "do not stray into her paths" (Proverbs 7:26). "Whoever keeps the commandment keeps his life" (Proverbs 19:16).

Ancient Practice

One might ask: is the separation of meat and dairy an ancient custom? Was this the original interpretation of the passage, or did it develop later? Specifically, was this the custom in the first century, and would our master Yeshua have interpreted it that way?

Mishnah

The Temple: a model of the Jerusalem Temple in the First Century (source)This interpretation was already firmly in place at the time that the Mishnah was codified (c. 200 CE).1 Hillel and Shammai were famous sages who lived in the generation just prior to our master Yeshua. The school of Hillel had a reputation for being more lenient than the school of Shammai in most areas of Jewish law. On the separation of meat and dairy, however, Hillel was more strict than Shammai, prohibiting even placing poultry and dairy on the same table. (Shammai prohibited placing red meat and dairy on the same table and eating poultry with dairy, but he allowed poultry to be on the same table as dairy.) There are numerous parallels between Hillel and our master Yeshua, and his rulings overwhelmingly seem to match those of Hillel.

The schools of Hillel and Shammai differed on many points of Jewish law, but on the basics of meat and dairy, they are in complete agreement. Both held that red meat and dairy must be kept separate as a matter of biblical law, and poultry and dairy must be kept separate as a matter of rabbinic law. The fact that these two schools agreed on these points suggests that the interpretation pre-dates the division of the two schools, placing it at least as early as the beginning of the first century CE.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz writes:

The biblical passage "Thou shalt not cook the kid in its mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19) was understood from very ancient times, and, at least in the middle of the Second Temple era, as a ban on cooking any animal flesh in milk. Over the centuries it was extended until (from about the time of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai) it encompassed birds as well.2

Targumim

Another helpful source of information is the targumim. The targumim are ancient translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into Aramaic. They were used alongside the Hebrew in places where Aramaic was better understood. These translations were quite interpretive, making them more of a commentary or exposition. This is helpful because it teaches us some of the scriptural interpretations that were common at the time that the targumim were written.

The most famous of the targumim on the Torah is Targum Onkelos. This targum is attributed to a man named Onkelos (or Aquilas in Greek), who lived about 35-120 CE.3

As far as targumim go, Onkelos tends to be more literal than most. Yet, note how Onkelos translates the passages in question:

English Standard Version	Targum Onkelos4
The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. (Exodus 23:19)	The beginning of the first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the sanctuary of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not eat flesh with milk.
The best of the firstfruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. (Exodus 34:26)	The chief of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring to the sanctuary of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not eat flesh with milk.
You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk. (Deuteronomy 14:21)	You shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou mayest give it to the uncircumcised stranger who is in thy city, and he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it to the outward people; for thou art to be a holy people to the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not eat flesh with the milk.

Samaritans

Samaritans are an example of a group well outside the realm of rabbinic interpretation.5 Their appearances in the Gospels frequently reflect the posture of hostility between the Samaritans and the Jewish community. And yet, Samaritans also practice the separation of meat and dairy. In fact, they are even more strict when it comes to cheese. Cheese is typically made from rennet, an enzyme extracted from the stomach lining of an animal. Jewish law permits this if the animal is properly slaughtered, but Samaritans require that the enzymes come from plant sources.6 The fact that Samaritans observe this prohibition suggests that it is of ancient origin, since Samaritan practice originated at the time of the first exile.

No Dairy Offerings

The Torah repeatedly praises the land of Israel by speaking of it as a "land flowing with milk and honey," even during the declaration of first fruits, as a person brings gifts from their harvest to God.7 One would expect that since milk was something that symbolized the bounty of the land, it would be prescribed as an offering in the Temple. Fruit, grain, oil, and meat were presented before God, but why do we not find milk, cheese, or other dairy offerings?

One possibility is that dairy was not brought into the Tabernacle in order to prevent the combination of meat and dairy. If this is true, then the separation of meat and dairy dates back to the Torah itself.

Yeshua and Separation of Meat and Dairy

Did our master Yeshua separate meat and dairy? Consider these factors:

• Separation of meat and dairy was standard practice in the first century.
• The Master never raises any objection to the separation of meat and dairy.
• His contemporaries never accused him of eating meat and dairy together, even though in the Talmudic era combining poultry with dairy was enough to merit excommunication.8
• No examples of combined meat and dairy foods can be found in the New Testament.
• The Master was invited into the inner circle of Pharisaic meals.9 Since this was an exclusive group with strict standards, it suggests that his standards of kosher were reasonably similar to theirs.

1. 1. m.Chullin 8.1.
2. 2. Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud. Chaya Galai (Trans). (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976), 189.
3. 3. Another important targum is commonly called Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, although its date of origin is probably much later, so I have not included it as an example here. Nonetheless Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is even more emphatic about the separation of meat and dairy.
4. 4. Translation from J. W. Etheridge, M.A. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel: On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee
5. 5. The Samaritans do not even accept the books of the Prophets and Writings, let alone Oral Law.
6. 6. Vered, Ronit. "8 days on Mount Gerizim" Haaretz August 16, 2007 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/891943.html
7. 7. Deuteronomy 26:9.
8. 8. b.Shabbat 130a.
9. 9. Luke 7:36, 11:37, 14:1

Abraham's Guests

Abraham: a fanciful representation by Tomasso DolabellaThe primary biblical source of opposition to the separation of meat and dairy comes from Genesis 18:8:

Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.

In this narrative, Abraham shows hospitality to angelic visitors. Does this suffice as proof of the permissibility of meat and dairy together?

We should note, first of all, that the text does not suggest that the curds and milk were combined with the calf in a single dish. Nor does it say that they ate them both at the same time.

Selecting, slaughtering, and cooking a calf takes considerable time, even when done hastily. If the curds and milk were already prepared, it would make sense not to have his guests wait, but to serve the meal in courses. A long drawn-out meal in courses would be more extravagant and in keeping with the culture. (Even though our translation begins the verse with "then," which implies a strict succession of events, the underlying Hebrew is simply a conversive vav, which is normally translated "and," if it is represented in English at all.)

The text is silent about how the meat and dairy were prepared and served. We might speculate that the foods were served together. We might speculate that they were served separately. Both positions are equally speculative, so from a strictly biblical viewpoint, this passage cannot be used as proof of either position.

Even if Genesis 18 were an example of meat and dairy served together, it does not give us license to do so. This narrative is not given in a legislative context. It is a recounting of what actually happened in the real world, not a set of instructions for us to follow. We cannot look at the events in Abraham's life and say, "Since he did it, so can I." That would be a misuse of those stories. After all, the main point in this narrative is the hospitality of Abraham, not his recipes.

Although Abraham obeyed God and kept the Torah to the extent that it was revealed to him, it is not clear what he knew about the commandment in question. Perhaps this instruction would not be made known until the revelation at Sinai.

Genesis also describes how Jacob married two sisters,1 which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah.2 And yet, Jacob is never criticized by God or anyone for doing so, and even Jewish tradition sees him as extraordinarily righteous. But the fact that Jacob married two sisters does not prove that it is sanctioned by Torah or that we have license to do the same. Nor does it play into how we interpret the Torah's prohibition.

1. 1. Genesis 29:21–28.
2. 2. Leviticus 18:18.

Significance

Cows: a source of both meat and dairyThe Bible offers absolutely no reason or explanation whatsoever for the commandment not to "boil a young goat in its mother's milk." We are naturally curious as to the significance of this mysterious commandment. However, if our goal is to stay biblical, we must recognize that any explanation for the restriction is human in origin, and it probably falls short of the complete truth. If we mistakenly believe that we know the reason for a commandment, then we will be tempted to break it.

Consider this illustration: a teenage son asks his father if he can take the family car. The father replies, "No," offering no further explanation. The son reasons that he was not given permission to use the car because someone else would need to use it soon. This was a perfectly reasonable inference, which perhaps had even been true in the past. With that in mind, he figures that it should be fine to use it for a quick errand, so he takes it for a spin anyway. But this time, the actual reason his father refused was because the car had faulty brakes that needed immediate repair.

A Pagan Fertility Ritual?

One common idea is that the prohibition is related to Canaanite ritual practices. This idea was suggested by Rambam in the twelfth century:

Meat in milk is undoubtedly gross food, and makes overfull; but I think that most probably it is also prohibited because it is somehow connected with idolatry, forming perhaps part of the service, or being used on some festival of the heathen. I find a support for this view in the circumstance that the Law mentions the prohibition twice after the commandment given concerning the festivals "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God" (Exodus 23:17, and 34:73), as if to say, "When you come before me on your festivals, do not seethe your food in the manner as the heathen used to do." This I consider as the best reason for the prohibition: but as far as I have seen the books on Sabean rites, nothing is mentioned of this custom.1

Thus, Rambam weakly offers this explanation, even though he finds no support for this in his knowledge of pagan ritual. Notably, Rambam does not specifically identify the potential pagan practice as "boiling a young goat in its mother's milk," but just the general idea of "meat in milk."

Baal: an image found at Ras Shamra (Ugarit)In 1929, a Ugaritic2 text was discovered that appeared to support this theory. A scholar reconstructed one damaged line in the text to say, "cook a kid in milk, and a lamb in butter." This reconstructed text quickly permeated scholarship and made its way into many commentaries. It is notable that it does not speak of "its mother's milk," only "milk." The inclusion of lamb and butter is also remarkable, since it would suggest that the supposed pagan practice extended to other combinations of meat and dairy. However, recent scholarship has completely shattered the originally reconstructed reading, rendering all of that irrelevant. The actual reading is probably speaking of herbs, rather than "kid" and "lamb." Jack Sasson explains:

The connection has proven too good to be true. With a better grasp of how Ugaritic poetry works, it is now understood that the string of letters involved contains parts of different phrases, resulting in a passage about pleasing voices that chant about coriander in milk. There’s no mention of a goat at all.3

To this date, although claims abound, real evidence of a pagan Canaanite ritual is non-existent.4

But suppose Rambam was correct that meat with milk was a Canaanite ritual. Does that make it acceptable, just because it is a pagan custom?

Plenty of Other Explanations

And yet, this is not the only reasonable explanation of the prohibition. Others have suggested that it is meant as a sustainable farming practice (not killing the offspring at too young an age), to avoid something that might be perceived as cruel or inhumane, or as a discreet way of speaking against incest.

The most common view in Judaism today is that milk, which sustains the life of a young animal, is a symbol for life. Meat, on the other hand, can only be procured by killing an animal, so it is a symbol of death. If we consider how it is the nature of God to separate things (light from darkness, the waters below from the waters above, the dry land from the seas, each plant and each animal according to its kind, etc.) and the commandments about separation (an ox and a donkey plowing together, two kinds of seed in a field, wool and linen in the same garment, etc.), then perhaps the separation of meat from dairy is along the same lines. But again, this explanation is not made explicit in the biblical text.

1. 1. Rambam, Friedländer (translator), Guide to the Perplexed 3:48. Note: the original translation began "Meat boiled in milk," but the term "boiled" is supplied by the translator, so I have removed it here to avoid confusion. Rambam just says "meat in milk" (basar bechalav).
2. 2. Ugarit is the site of an ancient city-state located on the Mediterranean coast.
3. 3. Jack M. Sasson. "Should Cheeseburgers Be Kosher?." Bible Review, Dec 2003. http://www.basarchive.org/sample/bswbBrowse.asp?PubID=BSBR&Volume=19&Iss...(accessed 11/9/2009)
4. 4. See Milgrom, Jacob. "You Shall Not Boil A Kid In Its Mother's Milk" Bible Review Fall, 1985.