Talk:Milk and meat in Jewish law

Illustration by opposite?

Why is this article indicating the opposite of what it is about? Is it part of the Jewish dietary guidelines to favor combinations of milk and meat, or is it the opposite? Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The caption "Cheeseburgers are prohibited in Jewish law" makes it very clear what the law dictates. The image shows a practical application of a culinary instance of milk and meat found in one dish. Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it just "cheeseburgers" that are are prohibited under the concept that is being written about in the article? The illustration seems gratuitous and a little inane. I'm wondering what justification can be found. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The image shows a common example and is quite acceptable for the infobox. Chesdovi (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a joke - and disgraceful.--Gilabrand (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it any different from the image in Shaving in Judaism, which also shows the forbidden action? It looks like there is a difference of opinion on the matter of such photos. I think maybe you have an issue with the fact that it portrays Junk food which has a negative connotation. Why else do you consider it a joke/disgraceful? Chesdovi (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That photo is almost as stupid as this one. If these are the kind of images that accompany serious texts, Jewish law becomes a joke. Should we illustrate an article about the Ten Commandments with a photo of someone being murdered or committing adultery? Should the page on Kashrut have a large photo of a roast pig in the lead? Wikipedia is not a comic book. It is not Mad Magazine. If there is no appropriate photo, there should be no photo. I can't believe this is even an issue. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained why it is a stupid image. Why is this image not fit to accompany a serious text? Why is the image on Shiluach haken, and all the others, considered appropriate? Kosher animals features non-kosher animal images. I have yet to understand yout point here. Chesdovi (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a "stupid" image; it is an irreverent image. Bus stop (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What could be more relevant than an image actually featuring a mixture of milk and meat on a page about the consumption of Milk with Meat in Jewish law?? Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you thought I said "irrelevant." I wrote "irreverent." Bus stop (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why so? if this image was used would it be acceptable? Why does a cheeseburger make a mockery of this article? Is it because you associate it with Ronald the clown? Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish dietary concerns have a serious purpose, do they not? Or do Jewish people just avoid milk and meat combinations "for the fun of it?" Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the cheeseburger image "not serious"? Chesdovi (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"What Fools these Mortals Be" - Shakespeare Amnd 3:2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.68.92 (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Translation of source titles?

Why are some source titles translated to English? It seems to me none are avaialble in English under those titles. According to Wikipedia guidelines they should be given in original language, transliterated, and translation offered in brackets. At least thats been the practice elsewhere. 58.178.163.234 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Some missing text

a phrase seems to have been lost in the editing process.

"this principle is known as ).[62]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danchall (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC) 

Whatever this was, it appears to be fixed now. Ar2332 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Early Example

I'm not sure where this would go, but I feel that of particular interest to the matter would be an incedent occuring early in the Torah involving Abraham. At the time that Abraham was visited by the three angels to be told that they would have a child, the meal they served specifically included a calf, milk, and butter. This is particularly interesting in that these angel do not appear to be ordinary angels. In fact, the unspeakable name is used here. Nothing was mentioned here that would in any way infringe on the Biblical law, that is simply seething a calf in it's mother's milk, however it certainly violates conventional wisdom on the matter. The section in question is Genesis 18, specifically verse 8. I'm not certain how to fit this in, so I'll give some time in case anybody wants to try first. Kainosnous (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point. I see that this is a 10 year old comment, but that just means that not many contributors are willing or available for discussion of the idea. They no doubt would rather be inflamed over pictures of cheeseburgers. Personally I believe this is one of the many examples of revisionism through literalism, and in this case, literalism can not even be cited. There is an obvious disconnect between the clarity and absolute wording of the previous verse and the specific nature of the verse in question that makes one wonder if a conclusion that meat and dairy must never be taken together, and that large clumsy items should be placed to separate diners of the two food groups is a reasonable inference at all.

"Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself; thou mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner; for thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk."

In the first case no doubt is risked; the words not any thing are chosen one would think to avoid any confusion.

So why do we doubt that boiling a kid in its mother's milk refers to any other animal but a young goat and any dairy product other than the milk of said offspring's maternal relation? We do not revise the general into the specific, so why be so bold as to revise the specific to the general? There would seem to be a predisposition to assume that the authors of our religious texts spoke in metaphors with an aim to institute the widest possible prohibitions, in spite of the evidence that they were perfectly able to say "no" "no way" and "not ever" when that was the intended meaning. APDEF (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

One may imply from Gen 18:8, that goat's milk was used to serve with the calf, the latter of which, most likely, was broiled in some fashion, so, technically speaking, the calf was not boiled or cooked in its mother's milk. However, the fact that the word "calf" is accepted in, virtually, all translations, but, the source of the milk was not specified, so, it could be implied that it was the milk of a cow. Regardless, the calf was not boiled, as far as we know (n.b., only Catholic translations use the word "boil," so, we may, safely, ignore those!), which would have taken far longer to cook as opposed to being broiled or on a spit, etc., and who likes to keep angels (Gen 18:6) waiting! ;) Skaizun (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)