Misva #113: Not to Eat Milk With Meat

Three times, the Torah issues the command, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Shemot 23:19 & 34:26, Debarim 14:21), forbidding cooking meat with milk. The Rabbis understood that these three verses establish three prohibitions – cooking meat with milk, even without the intention of eating it; eating meat with milk; and deriving other forms of benefit from meat that had bene cooked with milk, such as selling it. Although the Torah introduces three separate commands, the Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that these are to be counted as only two of the Torah’s 613 Misvot, because the prohibitions against eating and deriving benefit are essentially a single law. Anything which the Torah forbids for consumption is forbidden also for other forms of benefit, and thus the prohibition against eating meat with milk and the prohibition against deriving benefit from such a mixture compromise a single Biblical command. The Gemara raises the question of why the Torah did not explicitly forbid eating meat with milk, and instead alluded to this prohibition by repeating the command against cooking meat with milk. The answer, the Gemara explains, is that the Torah wanted to instruct that eating meat with milk is forbidden even if one eats in a manner that does not provide any enjoyment. Normally, Torah law forbids eating prohibited food only “Derech Hana’a” – in an enjoyable manner, as the verb “A.Ch.L.” (“eat”) indicates. The Torah does not use this verb in reference to the prohibition of “Basar Be’halab” to teach that one transgresses this prohibition even if one eats in a non-enjoyable manner. For example, if one eats meat that has been cooked with milk and is still scalding hot, such that it burns his mouth and throat, and he receives no enjoyment whatsoever, he has nevertheless violated the Biblical command of “Basar Be’halab.” The Sefer Ha’hinuch mentions numerous different laws that apply with regard to this prohibition: 1) It applies only to kosher species of animal; cooking meat from a non-kosher species with milk does not transgress this prohibition. 2) It applies only to domesticated animals (Behemot), not to non-domesticated animals (Hayot). Cooking meat of a non-domesticated animal with milk does not transgress this Biblical prohibition. Likewise, this prohibition does not include poultry. As we know, however, the Sages enacted a provision requiring treating poultry as meat in this regard, such that one may not cook chicken with milk, or partake of such a mixture. 3) The Sages forbade even putting meat and milk on the same table at the same time, even if one plans on eating only one and not the other. 4) Another law enacted by the Sages forbids consuming milk after eating meat. It is thus customary to wait six hours after eating meat before partaking of milk or dairy products. The Sages extended this prohibition to require waiting even after eating poultry. 5) The Sages did not forbid eating fish or kosher species of grasshoppers with milk. 6) There is an extraordinary law which applies specifically to the prohibition of “Basar Be’halab” known as “Haticha Na’aset Nebela.” This refers to the case of a piece of meat which had absorbed some milk, and was then added to a pot of kosher meat. In such a case, the food in the pot is permissible only if the piece of meat which had been mixed with milk constitutes one-sixtieth or less of the food. Even though it was mixed with only a small amount of milk, nevertheless, the entire piece of meat is regarded as forbidden – like a piece of Nebela (meat from an animal which was not properly slaughtered) – and thus a ratio of 60:1 against the entire piece of meat is needed to permit the food. This situation differs from the case of a piece of meat that had been mixed with a small amount of other forbidden food – such as Heleb (forbidden fat) – and was then added to a pot of kosher meat. In that case, the contents of the pot are permissible if the quantity of forbidden food comprises one-sixtieth or less of all the food in the pot; a 60:1 ratio is needed only against the forbidden food, not against the entire piece of meat. Due to the unique severity of “Basar Be’halab,” however, a piece of meat which had been cooked with milk is treated as a piece of forbidden meat, such that a ratio of 60:1 is needed against the entire piece, and not just against the milk it had absorbed. 7) If one burned meat that had been cooked with milk, the ashes are forbidden for any sort of benefit. 8) Milk taken from a dead animal is not included in the Torah prohibition against cooking meat with milk. Therefore, on the level of Torah law, after a female animal is slaughtered, it is permissible to cook its udder with its milk and then eat it. However, the Sages enacted a requirement to first extract the milk from the udder in order for it to become permissible for consumption. However, milk found in the animal’s stomach after slaughtering is permissible to be consumed with meat, for two reasons – it was taken from a dead animal, and, milk in the stomach is not considered milk, as it has already decayed and no longer resembles milk. 9) An animal embryo is considered meat with regard to this prohibition, and it thus may not be cooked with milk. However, an animal’s skin, sinews, bones, hoofs and horns are not considered “meat” with regard to this prohibition, and thus the prohibition of “Basar Be’halab” does not apply to them. Of course, this prohibition applies at all times, in all places, and to both males and females. One who eats a Ke’zayit of a mixture of meat and milk has transgressed this command and is liable to Malkut. However, the Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that if someone derives some other form of benefit from “Basar Be’halab,” then he does not receive Malkut. The reason, the Sefer Ha’hinuch explains, is because it is possible to receive benefit from “Basar Be’halab” without performing action – such as by warming oneself with the heat of a piece of meat that had just been cooked with milk. Therefore, the Sefer Ha’hinuch writes, since this prohibition can be violated without an action, one is not liable to Malkut even if he violates it by committing an action, such as selling meat that had been cooked with milk.