Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Exodus 23:19
The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
19a. Firstfruits to be brought to Jehovah’s house.
the first of the firstripe fruits ] ‘Firstripe fruits’ ( bikkurim) seems to be used here in the wider sense noticed on v. 16; and it is said either (Ges.) that the earliest, or (Kn., Ke.) that the first (i.e. the choicest, best: rshth as Amo 6:1; Amo 6:6), of these are to be presented to Jehovah: comp. esp. Eze 44:30. The rend. the best, (even) the firstripe fruits, of thy ground (Di., Benzinger, EB. iv. 4910, Nowack, Arch. ii. 256, B.) is less natural. As regards the relation of this law to that in v. 16, v. 16 alludes only to the bikkurim to be presented at the Feast of Weeks; the present law is wider, and would include for instance the firstfruits of the grape and olive harvest, which fell later in the year (according to the Mishna, bikkurim were offered on ‘seven kinds,’ viz. wheat, barley, vines, figtrees, pomegranates, oil, and honey: see Gray, Numbers., p. 228). It seems to be a parallel to the law in Exo 22:29; the two laws probably belonged originally to two distinct collections, and both were preserved on account of the difference in their form.
The amount of firstfruits to be offered is not prescribed; and is evidently left to the free will of the individual offerer (cf. v. 15b; Deu 16:17).
the house of Jehovah ] The expression might denote the hkal, or temple, at Shiloh ( Jdg 18:31 , 1Sa 1:7; 1Sa 1:24; 1Sa 3:15), or the Temple of Solomon (1Ki 8:10, and often): it might also, presumably, denote the local sanctuary nearest to the offerer’s own home; for these, or at least the principal ones, had almost certainly ‘houses’ or shrines (cf. 1Ki 12:31, 2Ki 17:32, Amo 7:13; Amo 9:1). The Tent of meeting might also perhaps be spoken of generally as the ‘house,’ or abode, of Jehovah; but the term is not a very natural one to apply to it; and where it does apparently denote the Tent of meeting (Jos 6:2 [but ‘the house of’ omitted in LXX., as in v. 19 in the Heb.], Exo 9:23 end), or the tent erected for the ark by David (2Sa 12:20; cf. 2Sa 6:17), is open to the suspicion of having been used by the writers on account of their familiarity with the Temple of Solomon (in 2Sa 7:6 a ‘tent’ denied to be a ‘house’). The present law must have been formulated it seems natural to think, without any reference to the Tent of meeting.
19b. A kid not to be boiled in its mother’s milk. Repeated verbatim, in the || Exo 34:26 b, and Deu 14:21 b. The law, to judge from its position beside ritual injunctions, will have had not, as might have been supposed, a humanitarian, but a religious motive. Di. and most suppose then it is aimed against some superstitious custom perhaps (Maimonides; Spencer, Legg. Hebr. (1686), II. viii.; al.) that of using milk thus prepared as a charm for rendering fields and orchards more productive. Frazer (‘Folk-lore in the OT.,’ in Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor, Oxford, 1907, p. 151 ff.) quotes examples shewing that among many pastoral tribes in Africa there is a strong aversion to boiling milk, lest (on the principle of ‘sympathetic magic’) it should injure or even kill the cow which yielded it: but this case is not quite the same as the one here. Ibn Ezra (11 cent.) ad loc., and Burckhardt ( Bedouins, i. 63), both mention boiling a lamb or kid in milk as an Arab custom.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The first of the firstfruits of thy land – The best, or chief of the firstfruits, that is, the two wave loaves described Lev 23:17. As the preceding precept appears to refer to the Passover, so it is likely that this refers to Pentecost. They are called in Leviticus, the firstfruits unto the Load; and it is reasonable that they should here be designated the chief of the firstfruits. If, with some, we suppose the precept to relate to the offerings of firstfruits in general, the command is a repetition of Exo 22:29.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk – This precept is repeated. See the marginal references. If we connect the first of the two preceding precepts with the Passover, and the second with Pentecost, it seems reasonable to connect this with the Feast of Tabernacles. The only explanation which accords with this connection is one which refers to a superstitious custom connected with the harvest; in which a kid was seethed in its mothers milk to propitiate in some way the deities, and the milk was sprinkled on the fruit trees, fields and gardens, as a charm to improve the crops of the coming year. Others take it to be a prohibition of a custom of great antiquity among the Arabs, of preparing a gross sort of food by stewing a kid in milk, with the addition of certain ingredients of a stimulating nature: and others take it in connection with the prohibitions to slaughter a cow and a calf, or a ewe and her lamb, on the same day Lev 22:28, or to take a bird along with her young in the nest Deu 22:6. It is thus understood as a protest against cruelty and outraging the order of nature.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Exo 23:19
Thou shalt not seethe a kid.
Cherish the finer instinct
The prohibition suggests the duty of cherishing the finer instincts of our nature. The act here forbidden could hardly be called cruelty, the kid being dead, but it was unnatural. It is beautiful to see the ancient Law inculcating this rare and delicate fineness of feeling. The lesson is that everything is to be avoided which would tend to blunt our moral sensibilities. (J. Orr.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 19. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.] This passage has greatly perplexed commentators; but Dr. Cudworth is supposed to have given it its true meaning by quoting a MS. comment of a Karaite Jew, which he met with, on this passage. “It was a custom of the ancient heathens, when they had gathered in all their fruits, to take a kid and boil it in the milk of its dam; and then, in a magical way, to go about and besprinkle with it all their trees and fields, gardens and orchards; thinking by these means to make them fruitful, that they might bring forth more abundantly in the following year.” – Cudworth on the Lord’s Supper, 4to.
I give this comment as I find it, and add that Spenser has shown that the Zabii used this kind of magical milk to sprinkle their trees and fields, in order to make them fruitful. Others understand it of eating flesh and milk together; others of a lamb or a kid while it is sucking its mother, and that the paschal lamb is here intended, which it was not lawful to offer while sucking.
After all the learned labour which critics have bestowed on this passage, and by which the obscurity in some cases is become more intense, the simple object of the precept seems to be this: “Thou shalt do nothing that may have any tendency to blunt thy moral feelings, or teach thee hardness of heart.” Even human nature shudders at the thought of causing the mother to lend her milk to seethe the flesh of her young one! We need go no farther for the delicate, tender, humane, and impressive meaning of this precept.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This seems to be a general rule, extending to all the fruits which the earth first produced; in every kind of which the very first are here enjoined to be offered unto God, before they should presume to eat any of them. It may seem to be repeated here, where the year of rest is mentioned to leach them the first-fruits were to be given to God of all that the earth produced, not only by their labour and seed, as might be thought from Exo 23:16, but also of its own accord, as is here implied.
He names one kind, under which he understands a lamb, or a calf, &c., according to the use of Scripture style. This law many understand literally, and that it is forbidden to them, because the idolaters had such a custom, whereof yet there seems to be no sufficient proof; nor, if there were, doth it seem to be a rite of that importance or probability to entice the Israelites to imitate it, that there needed a particular law against this, more than against a hundred such ridiculous usages which were among the heathen, and are not taken notice of in the book of Gods laws. The words may be rendered thus,
Thou shalt not seethe, or roast, (for the word bashal signifies to roast as well as to boil, as it is evident from Deu 16:7)
a kid, being, or whilst it is (which is to be understood, there being nothing more common than an ellipsis of the verb substantive)
in his mothers milk; which it may be said to be, either,
1. Whilst it sucks its mothers milk; and so it may admit of a twofold interpretation:
(1.) That this is to be understood of the passover, of which most conceive he had now spoken, Exo 23:18, in which they used either a lamb or a kid, Exo 12:5, and then the word bashal must be rendered roast.
(2.) That this speaks not of sacrifice to God, wherein sucking creatures were allowed, Exo 22:30; Lev 22:27; 1Sa 7:9, but of mans use; and so God ordained this, partly because this was unwholesome food, and principally to restrain cruelty, even towards brute creatures, and luxury in the use of them. Or rather,
2. Whilst it is very tender and young, rather of a milky than of a fleshy substance, like that young kid of which Juvenal thus speaks, Qui plus lactis habet quam sanguinis, i.e. which hath more milk than blood in it. And it may he said to be in its mothers milk, by a usual hypallage, when its mothers milk is in it, i.e. whilst the milk it sucks as it were, remains in it undigested and unconverted into flesh, even as a man is oft said to be in the Spirit, when indeed the Spirit is in him. And what is here indefinitely prohibited, is elsewhere particularly explained, and the time defined, to wit, that it be not offered to God before it was eight days old. And this interpretation may receive light and strength from hence, that the law of the firstfruits, which both here and Exo 34:26 goes immediately before this law, doth in Exo 22:30 immediately go before that law of not offering them before the eighth day, which implies, that both of them speak concerning the same thing, to wit, the first-fruits or first-born of the cattle, which were not to be offered to God while they were in their mothers milk, saith this place, or till they were eight days old, saith that place. And consequently, if they might not be offered to God, they might not be used by men for food.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
19. Thou shalt not seethe a kid inhis mother’s milkA prohibition against imitating thesuperstitious rites of the idolaters in Egypt, who, at the end oftheir harvest, seethed a kid in its mother’s milk and sprinkled thebroth as a magical charm on their gardens and fields, to render themmore productive the following season. [See on De14:21].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The first of the first fruits of thy land,…. Both of the barley and wheat harvest, and of the wine and oil; yea, Jarchi says, the seventh year was obliged to first fruits; and Josephus d relates, that the Jews were so tenacious of this law, that even in the famine in the time of Claudius Caesar, the first fruits were brought to the temple, and were not meddled with:
thou shall bring into the house of the Lord thy God; to the tabernacle, during the standing of that, and the temple when that was built; which were the perquisites of the priests who officiated in the house and service of God: so Pliny says e of the ancient Romans, that they tasted not of the new fruits or wines before the first fruits were offered to the priests, which seems to have been borrowed from hence:
thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk: and so a calf, or a lamb f, as Jarchi interprets it; which some understand of slaying a young kid and its dam together, and so is a law against cruelty, like that law of not taking the dam with the young, on finding a bird’s nest, De 22:6 others, of killing, dressing, and eating a kid, while it sucks the milk of its mother, before it is eight days old, and so a law against luxury; but the Jews generally understand it of boiling, or eating the flesh of any creature and milk together g: so the Targum of Onkelos paraphrases it,
“ye shall not eat flesh with milk;”
and the Targum of Jonathan is,
“ye shall neither boil nor eat the flesh and the milk mixed together:”
hence, according to the rules they give, the flesh of any beast, or of a fowl, is not to be set upon a table on which cheese is (being made of milk), lest they should be eaten together; nor may cheese be eaten after flesh until some considerable time, and then, if there is any flesh sticks between a man’s teeth, he must remove it, and wash and cleanse his mouth; nor may cheese be eaten on a table cloth on which meat is, nor be cut with a knife that flesh is cut with h: so careful are they of breaking this law, as they understand it: but the words are, doubtless, to be taken literally, of not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk; and is thought by many to refer to some custom of this kind, either among the Israelites, which they had somewhere learnt, or among the idolatrous Heathens, and therefore cautioned against; Maimonides and Abarbinel both suppose it was an idolatrous rite, but are not able to produce an instance of it out of any writer of theirs or others: but Dr. Cudworth has produced a passage out of a Karaite author i, who affirms,
“it was a custom of the Heathens at the ingathering of their fruits to take a kid and seethe it in the milk of the dam, and then, in a magical way, go about and besprinkle all their trees, fields, gardens, and orchards, thinking by this means they should make them fructify, and bring forth fruit again more abundantly the next year:”
and the Targum of Jonathan on Ex 34:26 seems to have respect to this, where, having paraphrased the words as here quoted above, adds,
“lest I should destroy the fruit of your trees with the unripe grape, the shoots and leaves together:”
and if this may be depended upon, the law comes in here very aptly, after the feast of ingathering, and the bringing in the first fruits of the land into the Lord’s house.
d Antiqu. l. 3. c. 15. sect. 3. e Nat. Hist. l. 18. c. 2. f Vid. T. Bab. Cholin. fol. 114. 1. g Tikkune Zohar, Correct. 14. fol. 26. 1. h Schulchan Aruch, par. 2. Yore Deah, Hilchot Bashar Bechaleb, c. 88. sect. 1. & 89. sect. 1. 4. i Apud Gregory’s Notes & Observ. c. 19. p. 97, 98.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
19. Thou shalt not seethe a kid. The threefold repetition of the command reminds us that a serious matter is spoken of, whereas it would be a light and almost frivolous one, if, as some suppose, it is merely the prohibition of a somewhat unwholesome food. But the Jews, not considering its intent, and affecting sanctity, as they do, in trifling puerilities, dare not taste of cheese together with kid, or lamb’s flesh, until they have well cleaned their teeth. I have no doubt, however, but that this prohibition relates to the sacrifices, for in the first passage quoted, it is added in connection with the offering of the first-fruits; and in the second, we read as follows: “The first of the first-fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God. Nor shalt thou seethe a kid in his mother’s milk;” and so also in the third passage: “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself, etc., for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; nor shalt thou seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.” I allow indeed that Moses sometimes mixes together precepts respecting different things; but this running context shews that this precept is delivered among the ceremonies, and must therefore be reckoned to be a part of the legal service. Whence I conclude, that the people are not only interdicted from eating this sort of food, as if they were to partake of flesh steeped in blood; but that they should not pollute the sacrifices by the carnal mixture. It is however probable, that meat seasoned with milk was accounted a delicacy; but inasmuch as they might grow cruel, if they ate of a lamb or kid in its mother’s milk, God forbade to be offered to Himself, what was not allowable even in their common meals. The exposition of some, that kids were excluded from their tables until they were weaned, is not agreeable to reason; because they then begin to have a goatish flavor. But the reason is a very appropriate one, i.e., that God would not admit a monstrous thing in His sacrifices, that the flesh of the young should be cooked in its mother’s milk, and thus, as it were, in its own blood.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(19) The first of the firstfruitsi.e., the very first that ripen. There was a natural tendency to delay the offering (Exo. 22:29) until a considerable part of the harvest had been got in. True gratitude makes a return for benefits received as soon as it, can. Bis dat qui cito dat.
The house of the Lord. Comp. Exo. 34:26 and Deu. 23:18. It is known to Moses that the place which God will choose to put his name there is to be a house, or temple.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid.A fanciful exegesis connects the four precepts of Exo. 23:18-19 with the three feaststhe two of Exo. 23:18 with the Paschal festival, that concerning firstfruits in Exo. 23:19 with the feast of ingathering, and this concerning kids with the feast of tabernacles. To support this theory it is suggested that the command has reference to a superstitious practice customary at the close of the harvesta kid being then boiled in its mothers milk with magic rites, and the milk used to sprinkle plantations, fields, and gardens, in order to render them more productive the next year. But Deu. 14:21, which attaches the precept to a list of unclean meats, is sufficient to show that the kid spoken of was boiled to be eaten. The best explanation of the passage is that of Bochart (Hierozoic. pt. 1, bk. 2, Exo. 52), that there was a sort of cruelty in making the milk of the mother, intended for the kids sustenance, the means of its destruction.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. House of the Lord thy God Observe that here, in this oldest Sinaitic legislation, one common sanctuary is contemplated for all the people .
Seethe a kid in his mother’s milk Compare chap . 34:26, and Deu 14:21. The boiling of a young kid in the milk of its own mother would seem an outrage upon the laws of nature, in violating the sacred relationship of parent and offspring. Some writers have, not without reason, supposed that a contemporary superstitious practice of this kind existed among the heathen, and led to the enactment of this law. Thomson says that the Arabs are nowgiven to the practice of stewing a young kid in milk, mixed with onions and hot spices, and they call it “kid in his mother’s milk.” He observes, as the opinion of the Jews, “that it is unnatural and barbarous to cook a poor kid in that from which it derives its life. Many of the Mosaic precepts are evidently designed to cultivate gentle and humane feelings; but the ‘kid in his mother’s milk’ is a gross, unwholesome dish, calculated also to kindle up animal and ferocious passions.” The Land and the Book, vol. i, p. 135.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Exo 23:19. The first of the first-fruits, &c See ch. Exo 22:29. This command refers to the first-fruits to be offered at the several festivals, when they were settled in the land of Canaan.
Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk This extraordinary command is repeated, ch. Exo 34:26 and Deu 14:21 and in the same connexion as here, with the payment of first-fruits; which would naturally lead one to suppose, that it has some reference to the payment of those fruits, and to some superstitious practices which the pagans might have used on these occasions. Agreeably to this conjecture, Dr. Cudworth, in his treatise on the Lord’s Supper, informs us, that he learnt, from the comment of an ancient Karaite upon the Pentateuch, that a superstitious rite prevailed among the ancient idolaters, of seething a kid in its mother’s milk, when they had gathered in all their fruits; and sprinkling the trees, and fields, and gardens, with the broth, after a magical manner, to make them more fruitful for the following year. Spenser observes on this passage, that “the Zabii use this kind of magical milk, to sprinkle their trees and fields, in hopes of plenty.” Some are, moreover, of opinion, that this is a precept of humanity, and, like many other of the divine laws, intended to prevent all cruelty, and to inculcate a mild and tender disposition. See Lev 22:28. Deu 22:6-7 which last law, respecting a bird and her young, is evidently a law of humanity, as well as many others in that same chapter.
REFLECTIONS.Three solemn feasts are enjoined, the passover, pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles. They must at these seasons all appear, not empty-handed, but with their oblations, and rejoice together before the Lord. Note; 1. God will have his people happy. 2. Grateful acknowledgments of God’s mercies are our bounden duty. 3. All superstitious usages, such as that mentioned, Exo 23:19 must be banished.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Sweet presentation to the Lord as much as to say, Lord, it is all thine, and of thine own do I offer thee. – Perhaps this precept of not seething a kid in its mother’s milk was added to prevent that heathenish custom, which, it is said some nations observed, who, at their harvest feast, performed this cruel and superstitious deed, by way of being lucky, as they called it, in the next year’s harvest. I stop the Reader to ask , whether the idle and sinful practice, among some of our countrymen, of drinking to the apple-trees at Christmas, until, not unfrequently, many of them are drunk at the revel, did not originate from such a Pagan institution?
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Exo 23:19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.
Ver. 19. The first of the firstfruits. ] The best of the best is not to be held too good for God. His “soul hath desired the first ripe fruits.” Mic 7:1
Thou shalt not seethe a kid.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
mother’s: i.e. in the milk of its dam. Repeated, Exo 84:26 and Deu 14:21. For similar consideration compare Deu 22:6. Lev 22:28.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
first of the: Exo 22:29, Exo 34:26, Lev 23:10-17, Num 18:12, Num 18:13, Deu 12:5-7, Deu 26:10, Neh 10:35, 1Co 15:20, Rev 14:4
Thou shalt not seethe a kid: The true sense of this passage seems to be that assigned by Dr. Cudworth, from a manuscript comment of a Karaite Jew. “It was a custom with the ancient heathens, when they had gathered in all their fruits, to take a kid, and boil it in the dam’s milk; and then in a magical way, to go about and sprinkle all their trees, and fields, and gardens, and orchards with it, thinking by these means, that they should make them fruitful, and bring forth more abundantly in the following year. Wherefore, God forbad his people, the Jews, at the time of their in-gathering, to use any such superstitious or idolatrous rite.” Exo 34:26, Deu 14:21, Pro 12:10, Jer 10:3
Reciprocal: Exo 13:2 – Sanctify Lev 2:12 – the oblation Lev 22:28 – ye shall not kill it Lev 23:17 – the firstfruits Num 15:20 – a cake Deu 18:4 – firstfruit Deu 26:2 – That thou shalt 2Ch 31:5 – came abroad Pro 3:9 – General Isa 65:4 – broth Eze 44:30 – all the firstfruits Rom 11:16 – if the firstfruit
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Exo 23:19. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mothers milk It is remarkable that this command, extraordinary as it is, is repeated Exo 34:26, and Deu 14:21, and that, as here, in connection with the offering of the first-fruits. Hence it has been conjectured that it has a reference to the payment of these fruits, and to some superstitious practices which the Pagans used on these occasions, who were wont, it seems, when they had gathered in all the fruits of the earth, to boil a kid in its mothers milk, and to sprinkle the trees, and fields, and gardens, with the broth in a magical manner, to make them more fruitful the following year. See Dr. Cudworth, On the Lords Supper, page 14. Some, however, with an appearance of probability, take this for a prohibition against offering any animal in sacrifice when it was milky and unformed, or before it was eight days old, till which time it was to be left with its dam, Exo 22:30. And others, again, consider the precept as being chiefly intended, like many other of Gods laws, to prevent cruelty toward the creatures, and to inculcate a mild and tender disposition.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
23:19 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his {l} mother’s milk.
(l) Meaning, that no fruit should be taken before just time: and by this all cruel and wanton appetites are controlled.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The commentators have accounted for the prohibition against boiling a kid (young lamb) in its mother’s milk in many different ways. Some scholars believe it was the opposition to commingling life and death, a source of life and its product, or Israel and the nations, that was the basis for this prohibition (cf. Lev 22:27-28; Deu 22:6). [Note: Jacob Milgrom, "’You Shall Not Boil a Kid in It’s Mother’s Milk,’" Bible Review 1:3 (Fall 1985):48-55; Merrill, in The Old . . ., p. 63.] Another view is that it was a way of specifying that only weaned animals were acceptable as sacrifices (cf. Exo 34:18-26). [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 294.] The most popular explanation is that this was a pagan practice that showed disrespect for the God-given relationship between parent and offspring. [Note: E.g., Meyer, p. 270.] The Ras Shamra tablets have shown that boiling sacrificial kids in their mother’s milk was a common ritual practice among the Canaanites. [Note: See Charles F. Pfeiffer, Ras Shamra and the Bible. For other views, see Kaiser, "Exodus," p. 445.] This ordinance is the basis for the separation strict Jews make in their diet by not mixing dairy and meat products. Observant Jews even provide separate equipment and kitchens for the preparation of these dishes.