I like Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor’s interpretation. It’s far from being accepted in Judaism - probably because it makes so much sense.
The interpretation is based on the fact that the passage originally appears in Exodus twice - but not in a section about Kosher laws. It appears in sections about Bikurim - bringing offerings to the temple:
The very same verse that contains that law also contains a law about Bikkurim:
Bring the best firstfruits of your land to the house of the Lord your God.
You must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.
Because these two laws seem so unrelated, Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor suggests a different way to read the second part.
In Hebrew, the root of the word “cook”/“boil” is B-SH-L - and this is also the root of the word “ripe”/“mature”. Because of that, it’s possible to read
“you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk” as “you must not let a young goat mature while drinking its mother’s milk”.
This makes the second part of the verse a repetition of the first part - a pattern very common in the Old Testament as a (vain) attempt to prevent misinterpretations. Reading it like so, both parts mean “the offerings should be as young and as fresh as possible”.
That reading is a little bit odd - but not too odd in biblical language standards, and it makes so much more sense in the context where the passage appears.
You know what also doesn’t make sense? Not boiling chicken in milk. I can guarantee you that’s not the milk of the chicken’s mother. The “don’t boil a young goat in the milk of its mother” thing at least has a proper interpretation in the sense of “there were some people who did that and God came and God said ‘yo that’s nasty, stop it’”. Something about not using sacrifice as an opportunity to practice transgression.
In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.
I don’t think this word means what you think it means… what is “copium” about discussing possible origins of dogma?
OP is literally saying “this widespread institutionally-reinforced religious practice/dietary restriction could all be due to a mistranslation”, what exactly are they coping with?
The copium is coming up for excuses for why religious stuff doesn’t make sense. There is no one on the face of the earth that can reconcile passages from religious texts such as these. Sometimes data and dogma can not be reconciled and you just need to take things in faith.
Who is coping here? With what? It’s… an athiest coping with a lack of faith? A jewish person coping with flaws in their religious law?
There is no one on the face of the earth that can reconcile passages from religious texts such as these.
Uh… way to just miss the point of the entire religion.
All of Judaism - down to their goddamn rite of manhood - is built upon literacy. Reading and interpreting the will of God. Scholarly analysis of their own texts - reconciling the word with the world - is literally the foundation of their entire religion.
Given how many homographs and other homonyms English has (and presumably other languages, I’ve definitely seen one Hebrew homograph when vowels are removed), it doesn’t sound like a complete stretch for this to be a similar homonym situation.
I like Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor’s interpretation. It’s far from being accepted in Judaism - probably because it makes so much sense.
The interpretation is based on the fact that the passage originally appears in Exodus twice - but not in a section about Kosher laws. It appears in sections about Bikurim - bringing offerings to the temple:
The very same verse that contains that law also contains a law about Bikkurim:
Because these two laws seem so unrelated, Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor suggests a different way to read the second part.
In Hebrew, the root of the word “cook”/“boil” is B-SH-L - and this is also the root of the word “ripe”/“mature”. Because of that, it’s possible to read “you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk” as “you must not let a young goat mature while drinking its mother’s milk”.
This makes the second part of the verse a repetition of the first part - a pattern very common in the Old Testament as a (vain) attempt to prevent misinterpretations. Reading it like so, both parts mean “the offerings should be as young and as fresh as possible”.
That reading is a little bit odd - but not too odd in biblical language standards, and it makes so much more sense in the context where the passage appears.
You know what also doesn’t make sense? Not boiling chicken in milk. I can guarantee you that’s not the milk of the chicken’s mother. The “don’t boil a young goat in the milk of its mother” thing at least has a proper interpretation in the sense of “there were some people who did that and God came and God said ‘yo that’s nasty, stop it’”. Something about not using sacrifice as an opportunity to practice transgression.
In the end I think scripture is just a tool for Jews to have something to argue about endlessly.
Considering how that’s the main way to gain fame in Judaism - you’re not wrong.
Copium at its finest.
I don’t think this word means what you think it means… what is “copium” about discussing possible origins of dogma?
OP is literally saying “this widespread institutionally-reinforced religious practice/dietary restriction could all be due to a mistranslation”, what exactly are they coping with?
The copium is coming up for excuses for why religious stuff doesn’t make sense. There is no one on the face of the earth that can reconcile passages from religious texts such as these. Sometimes data and dogma can not be reconciled and you just need to take things in faith.
I… uh… what? This still isn’t how words work.
I repeat:
Who is coping here? With what? It’s… an athiest coping with a lack of faith? A jewish person coping with flaws in their religious law?
Uh… way to just miss the point of the entire religion.
All of Judaism - down to their goddamn rite of manhood - is built upon literacy. Reading and interpreting the will of God. Scholarly analysis of their own texts - reconciling the word with the world - is literally the foundation of their entire religion.
You’re not following what I’m saying and it’s fine. It’s not that deep. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Given how many homographs and other homonyms English has (and presumably other languages, I’ve definitely seen one Hebrew homograph when vowels are removed), it doesn’t sound like a complete stretch for this to be a similar homonym situation.