September 28, 2010 2:27 pm at 2:27 pm #592469
So I’ve been thinking about this lately, and maybe someone has a good answer.
We start with Lo sivashel g’dee b’chalev emo. Hence we seperate meat and dairy.
We’ve added chicken into the “meat” category. Shouldn’t eggs correspond to the milk aspect of meat? It would seem the same logic to me.
Is this discussed anywhere in halacha seforim or anything?September 28, 2010 3:17 pm at 3:17 pm #698313
In Shulchan Oruch Yoreh Deah in Hilchos Bosur B’Cholov it states that eggs are taken out of the category of meat. Eggs are separate from the actual body of the fowl and as such are not considered as meat. If the eggs are not fully formed then they have a quasi aspect of meat and can’t be cooked with milk. However you can drink milk after eating half formed eggs. Eggs are not a meat concept because although the egg will become a bird, at this point the egg is merely the food that the bird embroyo uses to grow. In fact if an egg has a small blood spot it is ossur since the bird has started to grow.September 28, 2010 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm #698314
I guess I wasn’t clear. I was thinking more along the lines of cooking chicken in eggs (we use it as a binder for breading all the time). I would think meat with milk is assur, chicken with eggs should be too.September 28, 2010 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #698315artchillParticipant
You are still VERY unclear.
But it sounds like you are saying that meat is the male part and milk is the female part and can’t be mixed, similarly chicken can’t be mixed with eggs which is the female part. This is what it sounds like you are saying, explain otherwise if this isn’t what you are saying.
This issue is not the issue of Bassar Bechalav at all. In fact, there are many pages in Shulchan Aruch dealing with how to use the meat of udder as kosher.September 28, 2010 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #698316
OK maybe this is more clear:
cow meat – milk: milk is the byproduct of the cow (food for the child) and we don’t mix the two
chicken – egg: egg is the byproduct of the chicken (food for the growing child) shouldn’t we avoid mixing the too?
Clearly, we don’t. But I’m looking for the why.September 28, 2010 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #698317
The gedi is the main concept and the milk is its food. You should not cook the meat in its food. Chicken can be mixed with eggs because the egg is a separate concept, its not the food of the chicken. The egg itself actually is its own food.September 28, 2010 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #698318
But the egg is the food of the child.
Unless the distinction is that the egg is unfertilized and will not nourish a child?
Although relactation (having nothing to do with the baby) is possible.September 28, 2010 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #698319
The unfertilized egg is not the food of the child (bird embroyo). At the point that we see a possible embroyo, the blood spot or blitz trop, we do not use that egg. Relactation is included because once milk is muttar to drink and ossur to mix with meat, any type of milk is included. That includes relactation that has nothing to do with an actual child.September 28, 2010 5:16 pm at 5:16 pm #698320yitayningwutParticipant
The reason chicken is in the meat category is simply because chicken can be confused with meat. It is a classic gezeira d’rabbanan. No one would confuse an egg with milk.October 3, 2010 1:20 pm at 1:20 pm #698321apushatayidParticipant
Furthermore, male “cows” (technically no such thing, they are called bulls or steer)don’t produce milk, nor do youg female cows that have not had calves (called heifers). Since these do not produce milk, are they permitted to be cooked with milk? Furthermore, according to the logic posed by the question, the question should be limited to chickens not roosters. Why meat and milk to be eaten together (even if not cooked together) or cooked together (even if not eaten) and is assur to have haana from the mixture (even if not eating it or you didn’t cook it) is a chok from the torah. We don’t know the reason.
I think the idea that “one came from the other” is someone mixing up “oso ves bno” and “basar bichalav”.October 3, 2010 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm #698322yitayningwutParticipant
I think the idea that “one came from the other” is someone mixing up “oso ves bno” and “basar bichalav”.
It happens to be Ibn Ezra does give this reason, your points notwithstanding. Regardless, I agree that this is a non-question, ????”?.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.