Milk and meat in Jewish law

The mixture ofmeat and dairy(Hebrew:בשר בחלב,romanized:basar bechalav,lit.'meat in milk') is forbidden according toJewish law. This dietary law, basic tokashrut, is based on two verses in theBook of Exodus, which forbid "boiling a (goat) kid in its mother's milk"and a third repetition of this prohibition inDeuteronomy.
The rabbis of the Talmud gave no reason for the prohibition,but later authorities, such asMaimonides, opined that the law was connected to a prohibition ofidolatry in Judaism.Obadiah SfornoandSolomon Luntschitz, rabbinic commentators living in the lateMiddle Ages, both suggested that the law referred to a specific Canaanite religious practice, in which young goats were cooked in their own mothers' milk, aiming to obtain supernatural assistance to increase the yield of their flocks.More recently, atheogonoustext namedthe birth of the gracious gods, found during the rediscovery ofUgarit, has been interpreted as saying that aLevantineritual to ensureagricultural fertilityinvolved the cooking of a young goat in its mother's milk, followed by the mixture being sprinkled upon the fields.Still more recent sources argue that this translation is incorrect.
Some rabbinic commentators saw the law as having anethicalaspect.Rashbamargued that using the milk of an animal to cook its offspring was inhumane, based on a principle similar to that ofShiluach haken.Chaim ibn Attarcompared the practice of cooking animals in their mother's milk to the slaying of nursing infants.
The Talmudic rabbis believed that the biblical text only forbade cooking a mixture of milk and meat,but because the biblical regulation is triplicated they imposed three distinct regulations to represent it:
Jacob ben Asher, an influential medieval rabbi, remarked that thegematriaofdo not boil a kid(Hebrew: לא תבשל גדי) is identical to that ofit is the prohibition of eating, cooking and deriving benefit(Hebrew: ובישול והנאה), a detail that he considered highly significant.Thoughderiving benefitis a superficially vague term, it was later interpreted by medieval writers to include:
The classical rabbis only considered milk and meat cooked together biblically forbidden, but Jewish writers of the Middle Ages also forbade consumption of anything merely containing the mixed tastes of milk and meat.This included, for example, meat that had been soaked in milk for an extended period.The prohibition againstderiving benefit, on the other hand, was seen as being more nuanced, with several early modern authorities (includingMoses IsserlesandTaz) arguing that this restriction only applied to the milk and meat ofg'di, not to the much wider range of milks and meats prohibited by the rabbis; other prominent medieval rabbis, likeSolomon Luria, disagreed, believing that the prohibition ofderiving benefitreferred to mixtures of all meats and milks.
TheBook of Genesisrefers to young goats by the Hebrew phrasegəḏî-‘izzîm(גדי עזים),but the prohibition againstboiling a kid...only uses the termgəḏî(גדי).Rashi, one of the most prominent talmudic commentators, argued that the termgəḏîmust actually have a more general meaning, including calves and lambs, in addition to young goats.Rashi also argued that the meaning ofgəḏîis still narrow enough to exclude birds, all the undomesticatedkosher animals(for example,chevrotainsandantelope), and all of the non-kosher animals.The Talmudic writers had a similar analysis,but believed that since domesticated kosher animals (sheep, goats, and cattle) have similar meat to birds and to the non-domestic kosher land-animals, they should prohibit these latter meats too,creating a general prohibition against mixing milk and meat from any kosher animal, excepting fish.
Consumption of non-kosheranimals (e.g.,pigs,camels, andturtles) is prohibited in general, and questions about the status of mixtures involving their meat and milk would be somewhat academic. Nevertheless, the lack of a classical decision about milk and meat of non-kosher animals gave rise to argument in the late Middle Ages. Some, such asYoel SirkisandJoshua Falk, argued that mixing milk and meat from non-kosher animals should be prohibited,but others, likeShabbatai ben MeirandDavid HaLevi Segal, argued that, excluding the general ban on non-kosher animals, such mixtures should not be prohibited.
Rashi expressed the opinion that the reference tomother's milkmust excludefowlfrom the regulation, since onlymammalsproduce milk.According toShabbethai Bass, Rashi was expressing the opinion that the reference to amotherwas only present to ensure that birds were clearly excluded from the prohibition;Bass argued that Rashi regarded the ban on boiling meatin its mother's milkto really be a more general ban on boiling meat in milk, regardless of the relationship between the source of the meat and that of the milk.
Substances derived from milk, such ascheeseandwhey, have traditionally been considered to fall under the prohibition,but milk substitutes, created from non-dairy sources, do not. However, the classical rabbis were worried that Jews using artificial milk might be misinterpreted, so they insisted that the milk be clearly marked to indicate its source. In the classical era, the main form of artificial milk wasalmond milk, so the classical rabbis imposed the rule thatalmondsmust be placed around such milk; in the Middle Ages, there was some debate about whether this had to be done during cooking as well as eating,or whether it was sufficient to merely do this during the meal.
Although the biblical regulation literally only mentionsboiling(Hebrew:bishul, בישול), there were questions raised in the late Middle Ages about whether this should instead be translated ascooking, and hence be interpreted as a reference to activities likebroiling,baking,roasting, andfrying. Lenient figures likeJacob of Lissaand Chaim ibn Attar argued that such a prohibition would only be a rabbinic addition, and not the biblical intent,but others likeAbraham DanzigandHezekiah da Silvaargued that the biblical term itself had this wider meaning.
Thoughradiativecooking of meat with dairy produce is not listed by the classical rabbis as being among the biblically prohibited forms ofcookingsuch mixtures, a controversy remains about using amicrowave ovento cook these mixtures.
The classical rabbis interpretedLeviticus 18:30to mean that they should (metaphorically) create a protective fence around the biblical laws,and this was one of the three principal teachings of theGreat Assembly.Mixing of milk and meat is one area of halacha where a particularly large number of "fences" have been added. Nevertheless, the rabbis of the classical and Middle Ages also introduced a number of leniencies.
The classical rabbis expressed the opinion that each of the food rules could be waived if the portion of food violating the regulations was less than a certain size, known as ashiur(Hebrew:שיעור,lit.'size'), unless it was still possible to taste or smell it;for the "milk and meat" regulations, this minimal size was ake'zayit(כזית), literally meaning anything "similar to an olive" in size.However, theshiuris merely the minimum amount that leads to formal punishment in the classical era, but even "half ashiuris prohibited by the Torah".
Many rabbis followed the premise that "taste is principal" (Hebrew:ta'am k'ikar,טעם כעיקר): in the event of an accidental mixing of milk and meat, the food could be eaten if there was no detectable change in taste.Others argued that forbidden ingredients could constitute up to half of the mixture before being disallowed.Today the rabbis apply the principle ofbatel b'shishim('nullified in sixty'), that is, permissible so long as forbidden ingredients constitute no more than1⁄60of the whole.
Due to the premise that "taste is principal",parve(i.e. 'neutral') foods are considered to take on the same "meat/dairy produce" classification as anything they are cooked with.
Prominent rabbis of the Middle Ages insisted that milk should not be placed on a table where people are eating meat, to avoid accidentally consuming milk while eating meat, and vice versa.Tzvi Hirsch Spira, an early 20th-century rabbi, argued that when this rule was created, the tables commonly in use were only large enough for one individual;Spira concludes that the rule would not apply if the table being used was large, and the milk was out of reach of the person eating meat (and vice versa).
The rabbis of the Middle Ages discussed the issue of people eating milk and meat at the same table. Jacob ben Asher suggested that each individual should eat from different tablecloths,while Moses Isserles argued that a large and obviously unusual item should be placed between the individuals, as a reminder to avoid sharing the foods.Later rabbinic writers pointed out exceptions to the rule. Chaim ibn Attar, an 18th-century kabbalist, ruled that sitting at the same table as a non-Jew eating non-kosher food was permissible;Yechiel Michel Epstein, a 19th-century rabbi, argued that the risk was sufficiently reduced if individuals sat far enough apart that the only way to share food was to leave the table.
To prevent the consumption of forbidden mixtures, foods are divided into three categories.
Food in theparvecategory includes fish, fruit, vegetables, salt, etc.; among theKaraitesandEthiopian Jewsit also includespoultry.  TheTalmudstates that the Biblical prohibition applies only to meat and milk of domesticated kosher mammals; that is, cattle, goats, and sheep.It adds that according to the view of Rabbi Akiva, the Rabbis instituted a protective decree extending the law to the meat and milk of wild kosher mammals, such as deer, as well as the meat of kosher poultry, such as chickens.TheShulchan Aruchfollows this approach.
Classical Jewish authorities argue that foods loseparvestatus if treated in such a way that they absorb the taste of milk or meat during cooking,soaking,or salting.
TosafistSamuel ben Meir,  argued that infused tastes could endure in a cooking vessel or utensil for up to 24 hours;his suggestion led to the principle, known asben yomo(Hebrew:son of the day, בן יומו), that vessels and utensils should not be used to cook milk within 24 hours of being used to cook meat (and vice versa).Although, after 24 hours, some residual flavour may still reside in porous cooking vessels and utensils, somerabbis hold the opinion that such residue would become stale and fetid, hence onlyinfusing taste for the worse(Hebrew:nosen taam lifgam, נותן טעם לפגם), which they do not regard as violating the ban against mixing the tastes of milk and meat.
Sinceparvefood is reclassified if it takes on the flavour of meat or dairy produce,Ashkenazi Jewstraditionally forbid eatingparvecontents of a pot that has been used within 24 hours to cook meat, if theparvecontents would be eaten with dairy produce. Their tradition similarly forbids eatingparvefoods with meat if the cooking vessel was used to cook dairy produce within the previous 24 hours. According toJoseph Caro, theSephardictradition was more lenient about such things,butMoses Isserlesargued that such leniency was unreliable.
In light of these issues, kashrut-observant Jews can take the precaution of maintaining two distinct sets ofcrockeryandcutlery; one set (known in Yiddish asmilchigand in Hebrew ashalavi) is for food containing dairy produce, while the other (known in Yiddish asfleishig/fleishedikand in Hebrew asbesari) is for food containing meat.
Shelomo Dov Goiteinwrites, “the dichotomy of the kitchen into a meat and a milk section, so basic in an observant Jewish household, is … never mentioned in theGeniza."Goitein believed that in the early Middle Ages Jewish families kept only one set of cutlery and cooking ware. According toDavid C. Kraemerthe practice of keeping separate sets of dishes developed only in the late 14th or 15th centuries.In earlier times, the household's one set of cooking ware waskasheredbetween dairy and meat (and vice versa).Alternatively, users waited overnight for the meat or dairy gravy absorbed in a pot's walls to become insignificant (lifgam) before using the pot for the other species (meat or dairy).
Rashistated that meat leaves a fatty residue in the throat and on the palateandMaimonidesnoted that meat stuck between the teeth might not degrade for several hours.Feivel Cohen maintained that hard cheese leaves a lingering taste in the mouth.Generally, rabbinic literature considers the collective impact of each of these issues.
The Talmud reports thatMar Ukva, a respected rabbi, would not eat dairy after eating meat at the same meal, and had a father who would wait an entire day after eating meat before eating dairy produce.Jacob ben Meir speculated that Mar Ukva's behaviour was merely a personal choice, rather than an example he expected others to follow, but prominent rabbis of the Middle Ages argued that Mar Ukva's practice must be treated as a minimum standard of behaviour.
Maimonides argued that time was required between meat and dairy produce because meat can become stuck in the teeth, a problem he suggested would last forabout six hoursafter eating it;this interpretation was shared bySolomon ben Aderet,a prominent pupil of his, andAsher ben Jehiel,who gained entry to therabbinateby Solomon ben Aderet's approval, as well as by the laterShulchan Aruch.By contrast,tosafistsargued that the key detail was just the avoidance of dairy produce appearing at the same meal as meat. Therefore, it was sufficient to just wait until anew meal—which to them simply meant clearing the table, recitinga particular blessing, and cleaning their mouths.Some later rabbinic writers, likeMoses Isserles,and significant texts, like theZohar(as noted byVilna GaonandDaniel Josiah Pinto), argued that a meal still did not qualify asnewunless at least an hour had passed since the previous meal.
Since most OrthodoxSephardi Jewsconsider the Shulchan Aruch authoritative, they regard its suggestion of waiting six hours as mandatory.Ashkenazi Jews, however, have various customs. Orthodox Jews of Eastern European background who followMinhag Polinusually wait for six hours,although those ofGerman ancestrywho followMinhag Ashkenaztraditionally wait for only three hours,and those ofDutch ancestryhave a tradition of waiting only for the one hour. The medieval tosafists stated that the practice does not apply to infants,but 18th and 19th-century rabbis, such as Abraham Danzig and Yechiel Michel Epstein, criticised those who followed lenient practices that were not traditional in their region.In the 20th century, many rabbis were in favor of leniency. Moses Stern ruled that all young children were excluded from these strictures,Obadiah Josephmade an exception for the ill,andJoseph Chaim Sonnenfeldexempted nursing women.
It has traditionally been considered less problematic to eat dairy products before meat, on the assumption that dairy products leave neither fatty residue in the throat, nor fragments between the teeth. Many 20th century Orthodox rabbis say that washing the mouth out between eating dairy and meat is sufficient. Some argue that there should also be recitation of a closing blessing before the meat is eaten,and others view this as unnecessary.Ashkenazi Jewsfollowingkabbalistictraditions, based on theZohar, additionally ensure that about half an hour passes after consuming dairy produce before eating meat.
Some rabbis of the Middle Ages argued that after eating solid dairy products such as cheese, the hands should be washed. Shabbatai ben Meir even argues that this is necessary if utensils such as forks were used and the cheese never touched by hands.Other rabbis of that time, likeJoseph Caro, thought that if it was possible to visually verify that hands were clean, then they need not be washed;Tzvi Hirsch Spira argued that washing the hands should also be practiced for milk.
Jacob ben Asher thought that washing the mouth was not sufficient to remove all residue of cheese, and suggested that eating some additional solid food is required to clean the mouth.Hard and aged cheese has long been rabbinically considered to need extra precaution,on the basis that it might have a much stronger and longer lasting taste;the risk of it leaving a fattier residue has more recently been raised as a concern.According to these rabbinic opinions, the same precautions (including a pause of up to six hours) apply to eating hard cheese before meat as apply to eating meat in a meal when the meat is eaten first.Judah ben Simeon, a 17th-centuryphysicianinFrankfurt, argued that hard cheese is not problematic if melted.Binyomin Forstargues that leniency is proper only for cooked cheese dishes and not dishes topped with cheese.
TheKaraites, completely rejecting theTalmud, where the stringency of the law is strongest, have few qualms about the general mixing of meat and milk.  It is only the cooking of an animal in the milk of its actual mother that is banned.
While it is generally banned for theBeta Israelcommunity ofEthiopiato prepare general mixtures of meat and milk, poultry is not included in this prohibition.However, since the movement of almost the entire Beta Israel community to Israel in the 1990s, the community has generally abandoned its old traditions and adopted the broad meat and milk ban followed by Rabbinical Judaism.
InExodus 23:19, theSamaritanPentateuchadds the following passage after the prohibition: [כי עשה זאת כזבח שכח ועברה היא לאלהי יעקב] which translates, "For he who does such as that is like a forbidden offering. And this is a transgression to God of Jacob".
Samaritans do not eat meat, including poultry, with dairy. They wait 6 hours after eating meat before eating dairy and 3 hours after eating dairy before eating meat.
These restrictions remove certain dishes from Jewish cuisine, and induce alterations in others.
For example, while traditional or authenticshawarmahas lamb or beef with a yogurt sauce,in Israel, most shawarma is made with dark turkey meat and is commonly served withtahinisauce.
Another effect isJewish American Chinese restaurant patronage, specially amongNew York Jews, who can choose among several Chineserestaurants that follow kosher rules.