The Gemara brings the possuk, "Lo Sevashel Gedi ba'Chalev Imo" and investigates which species are included in this issur. The Gemara doesn't even entertain that this verse could be taken literally (i.e. that the issur of basar b'chalav would be limited to cooking a kid in it's own mother's milk.) Why is it so pashut that the possuk couldn't be taken literally? Thanks!
Yosef Dovid Rosenberg, Manchester, England
The Gemara explains (top 113b) that the word "Gedi" alone does not mean the kid of a goat. It is only when the phrase "Gedi Izim" (a kid of goats) is used that it means the kid of a goat. This is learned from the fact that the verse (Bereshis 38:20) states, "And Yehudah sent the Gedi ha'Izim," which teaches that it is only when the Torah writes explicitly "Gedi ha'Izim" that it is referring to the kid of a goat, but wherever the Torah writes "Gedi" alone it refers even to the young of a cow or of a sheep. Rashi (to Shemos 23:19) writes that the literal translation of "Gedi" is a soft, tender baby.
Accordingly, the word "Gedi" in the verse, "Lo Sevashel Gedi ba'Chalev Imo," does not mean specifically that the child of that mother cannot be cooked in its mother's milk, but that the flesh of any animal cannot be cooked with milk. (Why, then, does the Torah express this Isur with the word "Gedi"? See Malbim and Torah Temimah, who explain that it was the Derech of the idolaters in ancient days to cook a young animal in the milk of its mother during their festivals, and thus the Torah expresses the Isur in this way. -Y. Shaw)
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Lichvod R' Bloom, shlita,
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to respond to my question. I really appreciate it!
One follow up question on the answer you gave: The fact that "Imo" is in the possessive ("its mother") still sounds like the possuk would mean that only that mother's milk (whether a goat or cow, etc.) would fall under the prohibition. How do the drashos explain the possessive on the word "Imo"?
Thanks again! Kol tuv,
Yosef Dovid Rosenberg
Yosef Dovid, thank you for your very kind words!
1. The Gemara (114a) cites a Beraisa which states that if the Torah would have said only "ba'Chalev Imo," we would have thought that the prohibition applies only when cooking the kid in its mother's milk. The fact that the Torah tells us the same words in an additional verse of "ba'Chalev Imo" teaches that even cooking in the milk of a cow or a sheep is forbidden.
2. The Torah Temimah (Shemos 23, #148 and #150) gives an interesting explanation for the above Derashah. He writes that it is probable that the root of the word "Imo" is in fact from "Umah" -- a nation. This indicates that the goat is being cooked with milk from the same "people," i.e. the same kind as itself.
3. Perhaps support for the Torah Temimah's explanation may be found in the words of Rashi (114a, DH Ein) who writes that if the Torah would have stated "ba'Chalev Imo" only once, this would have meant that one may not cook the kid with the milk of a goat. Why did Rashi change the simple interpretation that "Imo" means literally the mother, and say instead that it refers to any goat? The answer is that Rashi learned that "Imo" means "Umah" and refers to the entire species of goat, not merely to this particular kid's mother.
4. From the second word "Imo" in the Torah we extend the "family" of the kid to include not only goats but the milk of cows or sheep, i.e. all Kosher animals which are also considered the same "family" as the kid.
5. In short, according to this, "Imo" does not have to mean literally the mother but rather any milk from a species similar to that of the kid.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom