Composite Mitzvot

לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ

You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk (Devarim 14:21)

The prohibition concerning meat and milk appears three times in the Torah, twice in Chumash Shemot and once in Chumash Devarim. Let us pay careful attention to the way the prohibition appears in the Torah on the first two occasions, for only once we have succeeded in understanding the roots of this mitzvah and its essence, will we be able to appreciate the chiddush that occurs within it in “Mishneh Torah” — Chumash Devarim.

Basar B’Chalav in Chumash Shemot

As we mentioned, this mitzvah appears for the first time in Chumash Shemot — a Chumash that does not otherwise contain any discussions dealing with foods that are or are not kosher.[1] It appears in the end of Parshat Mishpatim — a parsha that deals mainly with sugyot of Choshen Mishpat,[2] not Yoreh De’ah.[3] Specifically, it appears in conjunction with the Shalosh Regalim and Bikkurim! The pasuk says (Shemot 23:19):

רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית ה’ אֱלֹקֶיךָ לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ:

The choice first fruit of your land you shall bring to the House of Hashem your God, you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.

This pasuk raises a number of issues in the area of pshuto shel mikra:

1.   What does basar b’chalav have to do with bikkurim?

2.   This issur is mentioned a second time in Chumash Shemot (34:26) in a pasuk that is completely identical to the first, i.e., a lo taaseh that is connected to bikkurim.

3.   Moreover, it seems as if the only reason the mitzvah of Bikkurim is mentioned in these pesukim is purely to serve as an introduction to the issur of Basar B’Chalav, since bikkurim has its own parsha in Chumash Devarim (Perek 26). Indeed, that is the appropriate place for the mitzvah of Bikkurim, since it does not apply until Eretz Yisrael has been conquered and divided up among the shevatim.

4.   In both places in Chumash Shemot where this issur is mentioned, it is at the end of a parsha dealing with the Shalosh Regalim, and specifically in close proximity to pesukim that discuss the issur of chametz and the mitzvah of korban Pesach.

5.   The issur of Basar B’Chalav receives no mention — either explicit or otherwise — in what we would consider its “natural location,” namely, the parsha of Maachalot Asurim in Parshat Shemini! Now, while it is true that in Parshat Re’eh, when it is mentioned for the third and final time, it does appear together with the other maachalot asurim, nonetheless, as we will see, even there it is not really part of the list, but rather seems to be appended to it.

6.   The mentioning of the issur of Basar B’Chalav three times in the Torah is explained by Chazal as constituting three separate issurim d’oraita with regards to meat and milk: cooking, eating, and deriving benefit. This seems quite difficult to understand. In what way is this issur more stringent than other “classic” nonkosher foods, such as pig, where there is an issur to eat them, but no additional issur to derive benefit from them, and certainly no issur to cook them?

That’s quite a list!

The Essence of the Issur of Basar B’Chalav — The Rambam’s Approach

All these questions are dealt with and responded to by the classic mefarshim. For example, Rabbeinu Bachye (Shemot 23:19, s.v. lo tevashel) quotes the opinion of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (3:48):

The Rambam provided a reason for this mitzvah in his discussion of taamei hamitzvot, that since it was the custom of idol worshippers to eat meat and milk when they performed their abominations during their festivals, therefore the Torah forbade it, and the pasuk says, “When you come to the House of Hashem, your God, during the Shalosh Regalim, do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk as is the custom of idol worshippers.” It is for this reason that this pasuk is written in two places within the context of the Chagim, for this is the way of the Torah to forbid things that are part of the rituals of avodah zarah and to command us to do the opposite, in order to uproot avodah zarah and remove it from the world. This is what the Rav (the Rambam), z”l, wrote as the reason for this mitzvah; even though these are not his words, this is his meaning.

According to Rabbeinu Bachye’s understanding of the Rambam’s explanation, the basis of the issur of Basar B’Chalav is a certain form of avodah zarah rite. This explains why the issur, meant to distance us from those practices, is mentioned in the context of Avodat Hashem in the Beit Hamikdash (lehavdil!). It is true that Chazal derived from these pesukim the many halachot that relate to the issur of Basar B’Chalav; nonetheless, we rely on Chazal as well regarding their statement that “ain mikra yotzei midei pshuto,” that the pshat will always have something important to tell us about the mitzvah. Here, the pshat requires that we take note of the context in which the issur is written and leads us to conclude that in essence, Basar B’Chalav is rooted not in the parsha of Maachalot Asurim, but of Avodah Zarah. With this understanding we may answer questions 4 and 5 that we raised above.

The Seforno — Basar B’Chalav and Bikkurim

Whereas the Rambam discussed the connection between “Lo Tevashel” and the Moadim, the Seforno (Shemot 23:19) deals with the connection between this mitzvah and the one mentioned in the beginning of the pasuk, namely, Bikkurim:

Do not engage in those activities that are performed by idol worshippers in the belief that they will increase fertility; rather, “רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית ה’ אֱלֹקֶיךָ — the choice first fruit of your land you shall bring to the House of Hashem, your God,” as the pasuk states elsewhere (Yechezkel 44:30), “וְרֵאשִׁית כָּל בִּכּוּרֵי כֹל וְכָל תְּרוּמַת כֹּל מִכֹּל תְּרוּמֹתֵיכֶם לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיֶה … לְהָנִיחַ בְּרָכָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ — all the first fruits of every species and all terumah of any kind of all your terumah shall be for the Kohanim … to place blessing within your home.”

According to the Seforno, the two halves of our pasuk make up one unifying message, with each half representing a positive and negative element respectively; if you wish to be recipients of Hashem’s berachah in your endeavors, in the field, and so on, you should bring bikkurim to the Beit Hamikdash and not resort to activities such as cooking a kid in its mother’s milk, which smack of the practices of those who believe in avodah zarah.

According to the peirush of the Seforno we can answer the first three questions that we raised above regarding the connection between “Lo Tevashel” and Bikkurim. Moreover, not only do we understand why the issur of “Lo Tevashel” is written within the context of the Moadim generally and Bikkurim specifically, we also understand why it was not written in its “natural” place, which is together with the maachalot asurim in Parshat Shemini. Both Bikkurim and the Moadim serve to distance Am Yisrael from the rites of those who perform avodah zarah, and to show that it is Hashem who runs His world. The Moadim focus on Hashem’s hashgachah of His People throughout world history, and Bikkurim focuses on His supervision of the laws of nature as they express themselves in the agricultural cycle.

The Synthesis of Pshat and Drash

What emerges from the words of the Rambam, Rabbeinu Bachye, and the Seforno is that the issur of “Lo Tevashel” is rooted in the sugya of Hilchot Avodah Zarah. This is in keeping with the role of pshuto shel mikra, even as the midrash performs its function and derives from these pesukim the halachot of the issur of Basar B’Chalav.

Moreover, we would like to suggest that not only is there no contradiction between the pshat and the midrash of these pesukim, but actually it is only through the pshat that we can fully understand some of the halachot of basar b’chalav, whose foundation lies within the midrash of the pesukim:

As we know, in halachah we do not generally make a gezeirah (protective decree) for another gezeirah,[4] yet when it comes to the issur of Basar B’Chalav we find no less than four gezeirot — protective decrees:

1.   The issur d’oraita applies only to eating meat of a beheimah[5] cooked in milk; Chazal applied it also to meat of a chayah,[6] as a gezeirah to protect against a possible transgression concerning the d’oraita of beheimah.

2.   Chazal further forbade eating poultry cooked in milk.[7]

3.   The issur d’oraita applies only to eating meat and milk that were cooked together; Chazal extended the issur to eating them together even if they were not cooked together. This is also true for meat of a chayah and of poultry.

4.   Even after eating meat, including meat of a chayah and poultry, we are required to wait a number of hours before eating milk products.

In no other area of maachalot asurim do we find anything even remotely like this! Why would Chazal here depart from the norm and apply this many gezeirot to basar b’chalav specifically, as opposed to, for example, the meat of a chazir?

Based on our approach, the matter is clear. When it comes to issues of avodah zarah, the pasuk states (Devarim 12:2), “אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כָּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם — you shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations worshipped,” upon which Chazal expounded (Avodah Zarah 45b), “מִכָאן שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְשָׁרֵשׁ אַחֲרֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים — from here [we see] that we must eradicate any trace of avodah zarah.” Specifically in the area of avodah zarah, where there is a mitzvah to uproot any trace, we can understand why there would be room to enact a gezeirah to protect another gezeirah — and another one! And so, pshuto shel mikra, which reveals for us the issur of Basar B’Chalav as being rooted in Avodah Zarah, serves as the basis for understanding the unusual way in which Chazal related to the halachot of this mitzvah.

Basar B’Chalav in Chumash Devarim

As we move from Chumash Shemot, where the first two mentions of basar b’chalav occur, to Chumash Devarim, where it is mentioned the final time, we sense a certain “change in direction”; the mitzvah seems to detach itself from Bikkurim and attach itself instead to its “natural” location, namely, the halachot of Kashrut. The list in Parshat Re’eh of all the foods that we may or may not eat concludes with two additional issurim (14:21):

לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה … כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה’ אֱלֹקֶיךָ, לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ:

You shall not eat any neveilah[8] … for you are a holy nation unto Hashem your God, you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.

This is quite a remarkable situation. Initially, in Parshat Shemini, there was no mention whatsoever of Basar B’Chalav together with the other maachalot asurim, and now it has come to join them!

Yet, having noted the inclusion of basar b’chalav among the other maachalot asurim, if we look carefully at the above pasuk we will see that it doesn’t seem to have been completely included in the list: The pasuk begins with the issur of Neveilah, then says “כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה’ אֱלֹקֶיךָ,” and then mentions the issur of Basar B’Chalav. However, the words “כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ וגו'“ are essentially words of conclusion and summation, and it is only after these words that the pasuk mentions Basar B’Chalav! Why would the pasuk conclude the list of maachalot asurim before mentioning everything that is on it?

Torat HaMurkavut — Mitzvot as Composite Entities

It appears that we have before us a wonderful example of “Torat HaMurkavut” regarding the mitzvot of the Torah, as we shall explain. A mitzvah is a composite entity, comprised of numerous different elements. Every mitzvah has a dominant element that determines the essence of the mitzvah. This element is analogous to the “head” or “heart” of the mitzvah. However, this does not mean that there are no other, secondary, elements within the mitzvah, similar to a limb, or perhaps a finger. Indeed, the Netziv in Parshat Yitro (Shemot 20:12) explains that every mitzvah contains within it details that are in the category of “chok.” However, that is only in relation to the primary reason for the mitzvah that is understood as a “mishpat.” According to our approach, we can understand why one cannot give a reason for the details of a mitzvah based on the reason for the mitzvah as a whole, for those details may represent a different element altogether. In our opinion, this is the deeper understanding of the Rambam’s words (Moreh Nevuchim 3:36), that one cannot give reasons for the details of a mitzvah, and one who tries to do so “is engaged in one long delusion.”

Dynamic Movement within Mitzvot

In this case we see that the mitzvah of “Lo Tevashel” has “moved” from the “family” of Avodah Zarah (in Chumash Shemot) to that of Maachalot Asurim (in Chumash Devarim). We have discussed elsewhere[9] that the Seforno has an approach, which we have called “לפני ואחרי — before and after,” in which he contends that the mitzvot of the Torah changed, or in some cases were even introduced, as a result of the Chet Ha’Egel on the one hand, and the Chet HaMeraglim on the other. This is parallel to the way the laws of nature changed as a result of the chet of the generations of the Mabul and of HaPalagah, and primarily as a result of the Chet of Adam HaRishon. Similarly, here, we would like to suggest that the function of the issur of Basar B’Chalav underwent a change as a result of the chata’im of B’nei Yisrael in the Midbar: of the Egel, the Meraglim, and the ten nisyonot with which they tested Hashem. In the same way as the maachalot asurim were introduced only after the spiritual decline that took place as a result of the Chet Ha’Egel,[10] so too a new type of maachalot asurim known as Basar B’Chalav was introduced as a result of the further spiritual decline that took place in the ensuing thirty‑nine years. “Lo Tevashel” left the category of Avodah Zarah and entered the category of Maachalot Asurim. Before the period of the forty years in the Midbar, the dominant element within the mitzvah was that of avodah zarah, with the element of maachalot asurim possibly joining it in a secondary capacity. Now, at the end of the forty years, with B’nei Yisrael having tested Hashem on numerous other occasions, the element of avodah zarah stepped down from its dominant position, and in its place came the element of maachalot asurim. Therefore, at this point it is appropriate for it to be mentioned in a list together with the other maachalot asurim.

We note that the situation with “Lo Tevashel” is a little different than that of the maachalot asurim of Parshat Shemini. In their case, the issur itself was introduced — according to the Seforno — as a result of chet, so that something that was previously permissible to eat is now forbidden. In the case of “Lo Tevashel,” what has been introduced is not the fact that it is assur to eat — which it already was — but rather the essence and function of this issur, for it has moved from one area of issurim d’oraita to another. It seems clear that the problem of avodah zarah was greater immediately upon leaving Mitzrayim — the world center of avodah zarah — than it was forty years later, since B’nei Yisrael witnessed hashgachah pratit on a level of which the world had never seen or heard (the manna, water from Miriam’s Well, the Ananei HaKavod, and so on). As B’nei Yisrael are just about to enter Eretz Yisrael, the dominant theme is no longer avodah zarah, but recognizing the direct hashgachah of Hashem.

If it were possible to apportion one hundred points to every mitzvah in the Torah, we might say that in the period of Parshat Mishpatim, the mitzvah of “Lo Tevashel” was comprised of eighty percent issur Avodah Zarah and twenty percent Maachalot Asurim. Now, in Chumash Devarim, as they are about to enter Eretz Yisrael, the internal composition has shifted, so that eighty percent is now of Maachalot Asurim and only twenty percent is of Avodah Zarah. We should emphasize, and we will presently see, that the element of Avodah Zarah did not disappear altogether, but became diminished and assumed secondary status within the mitzvah.

Included, Yet Distinct

This brings us back to the point mentioned before. The sensitive eye that carefully observes the way the Torah is written will note that the transition from Avodah Zarah to Maachalot Asurim is not complete — the issur of “Lo Tevashel” never became an integral part of the list of maachalot asurim. Not only does it appear at the very end of the list, from a certain point of view it is not on the list at all! The section of Maachalot Asurim concludes with the wonderful words “כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה’ אֱלֹקֶיךָ — For you are a holy nation unto Hashem your God.” Maachalot Asurim are certainly connected with the kedushah of Am Yisrael. Why, then, is the issur of Basar B’Chalav to be found on “the other side of the fence,” after the words “כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ וגו' “?

Evidently, although a change has taken place in the function of the mitzvah of “Lo Tevashel,” it is not a total change. While it is true that it is no longer primarily connected to Bikkurim or Avodah Zarah, but rather to Maachalot Asurim, nonetheless, it still retains a secondary element of avoiding avodah zarah rites. The way the Torah communicates this significant — but not total — transition is to move this mitzvah to the parsha of Maachalot Asurim, but then to “formally” conclude that parsha before mentioning it. This informs us that it has not been fully absorbed in the new parsha; rather, it still contains elements of the “root mitzvah,” Avodah Zarah, as indeed we noted above that Chazal applied “a gezeirah to a gezeirah” in keeping with the Avodah Zarah element within the mitzvah that still remains.

Reverberations in Rashi

The unusual way in which the Torah listed “Lo Tevashel” in Parshat Re’eh was also noted by “Parshandata” — that is, Rashi. The following section in the parsha (Devarim 14:22) opens with “עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר,” the mitzvah of taking Maaser from produce in the field. Rashi comments (s.v. aser):

מַה עִנְיָּן זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, אָמַר לָהֶם הקב”ה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תִּגְרְמוּ לִי לְבַשֵּׁל גְּדָיִין שֶׁל תְּבוּאָה עַד שֶׁהֵן בִּמְעֵי אִמוֹתֵיהֶן, שֶׁאִם אֵין אַתֶּם מְעַשְׂרִים מַעֲשְׂרוֹת כָּרָאוּי, כְּשֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְהִתְבַּשֵּׁל אֲנִי מוֹצִיא רוּחַ קָדִים וּהִיא מְשַׁדַפתָּן.

What does one matter have to do with the other? Said Hashem to Yisrael, “Do not cause Me to ‘cook’ the young grain while it is still in its ‘mother’s womb.’ For if you do not take maasrot properly, I will produce an easterly wind when the grain is about to ripen, which will scorch it.”

The Be’er Yitzchak[11] explains that the scorching of the grain while it is still on its stalk through an easterly wind is the equivalent of cooking it while it is still “with its mother.” In order to teach that this punishment will occur for one who does not take maasrot properly, the Torah juxtaposed the mitzvah of maasrot with that of “cooking a kid in its mother’s milk.”

However, the entire matter seems problematic from the outset! Why did Rashi see fit to comment on the juxtaposition of the parsha of Basar B’Chalav with that of Maasrot? We have been taught a klal gadol by the greatest of the mefarshei Rashi, Rabbeinu Eliyahu Mizrachi, regarding Rashi’s approach in his peirush on the Torah — namely, that he will only comment on semichut haparshiyot (juxtaposed sections) if that semichut appears in conflict with pshuto shel mikra.[12] Yet in our case there does not seem to be any difficulty in the juxtaposition of a section dealing with food that is assur to eat (Basar B’Chalav) and one of commanding how to render food permissible to eat (Maasrot). This being the case, what problem did Rashi see here in pshuto shel mikra that caused him to comment on the semichut?

However, based on our discussion, the matter is readily understood. Rashi is responding, in his way, to the very point that we mentioned earlier — that the issur of “Lo Tevashel” was not placed together with the other maachalot asurim, but rather was mentioned after the concluding words “כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה.” Rashi is bothered by the fact that this mitzvah was seemingly “removed” from being inside the parsha and was placed on the outside! To this Rashi responds by saying that the intention of the Torah was not to remove it from the first parsha, but rather to connect it to the following parsha of Maasrot, in order to teach us the lesson that Rashi proceeds to quote.[13]

Rashi’s Concluding Words

Moreover, if this approach is correct, it will also help us understand the final three words of Rashi, which we did not mention until now, “וְכֵן לְעִנְיָּן בִּכוּרִים — And so too with regards to bikkurim,” i.e., this punishment of the grain being scorched while in its stalks will also occur with one who withholds bikkurim. At first glance, these words are utterly astounding; who brought bikkurim into this discussion? It is not the way of Rashi to teach us halachot that are not relevant to the issue at hand! Here, the two matters being spoken about are “Lo Tevashel” and Maasrot. Why does Rashi feel the need to “enlighten us” regarding the additional halachah of bikkurim when it has no direct bearing on the discussion at hand? The matter becomes even more difficult when we notice that in the source of Rashi’s comment, the Midrash Tanchuma (Re’eh, siman 17), there is no mention of bikkurim whatsoever!

However, with our approach, the words of Rashi are “a delight for the eyes.” While “Lo Tevashel” has found its place among the maachalot asurim in Sefer Devarim, it has not totally shed its original avodah zarah element. That element remains, albeit to a diminished degree. It is this dual essence of the mitzvah that allows it to be placed on the “other side” of the words “כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה” without violating its integrity as one of the maachalot asurim. Given that this element remains, if semichut haparshiyot teaches us that not taking maasrot can lead to a punishment along the lines of “a kid in its mother’s womb,” then this will certainly be the case if one does not bring bikkurim, for that mitzvah was bound up with “Lo Tevashel” from the outset, and the essential connection between them remains! Hence, Rashi’s concluding words “and so too with regards to bikkurim.”

It is appropriate to mention here that the peirush Levush Ha’Orah on Rashi, which is the only one among the classic mefarshei Rashi who addresses the problem that we raised, may have had our understanding in mind when he wrote, “And so too regarding bikkurim, and it is for this reason the Torah juxtaposed, both in Parshat Mishpatim and in Parshat Ki Tisa, the words ‘lo tevashel gedi’ with the words ‘reishit bikkurei admat’cha.’”

[1] [With the exception of the prohibition against consuming “an animal torn apart in the field,” mentioned in Shemot 22:30.]

[2] [Mitzvot pertaining to money.].

[3] [Mitzvot such as kashrut.].

[4] See, for example, Yerushalmi Terumot 9:1.

[5] [Domesticated animals such as cattle and sheep.].

[6] [Undomesticated animals such as deer.].

[7] [Chayah is much more similar to beheimah than is poultry, and hence, it would have been sufficient to prohibit chayah meat to protect the issur d’oraita of beheimah. Nonetheless, Chazal extended the issur to poultry as well. The Rav sees this extension as a separate gezeirah.].

[8] [An animal that died by any means other than kosher shechitah.].

[9] See Parshat Shemini, Chapter 63, Parshat Acharei-Mot, Chapter 67, Parshat Shelach, Chapter 83 and Parshat Pinchas, Chapter 92.

[10] As the Seforno explains. See Parshat Shemini, Chapter 63.

[11] A classic commentary on Peirush Rashi by R’ Yitzchak Hurwitz of Jaroslaw, Poland.

[12] [See e.g. peirush of the Mizrachi to Shemot 21:1 s.v. ve’eleh.]

[13] Based on the sefer Maskil LeDavid on peirush Rashi. We should note that it is possible to suggest that there is more leeway to be doresh semichut haparshiyot in Chumash Devarim than in the earlier Chumashim; see our discussion in Parshat Devarim (Chapter 95) regarding the nature of Chumash Devarim.