Parshas Ki Sisa
1. On the verse "ראשית בכורי אדמתך גו׳ לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו" ("The first of the first fruits of your land . . do not cook a kid in its mother's milk"),1 Rashi pauses (in his second comment) on "לא תבשל גדי" ("do not cook a kid") and explains: "אזהרה לבשר בחלב" ("A warning regarding meat in milk") [meaning that the warning is not only about a "kid," but that no kind of meat may be cooked "in milk"2]. Rashi continues: "שלשה פעמים כתיב בתורה אחד לאכילה ואחד להנאה ואחד לאיסור בישול" ("It is written three times in the Torah:3 one for eating, one for benefit, and one for the prohibition of cooking").4
This is not understood:
a) Rashi's explanation "a warning regarding meat" — even though the verse says "do not cook a kid" — cannot be said to derive from logic, on the grounds that there is no reason to differentiate between the meat of a "kid" and another kind of meat. For in that case Rashi would have said so earlier, in Parshas Mishpatim, where the prohibition "do not cook a kid" appears for the first time. Since in Parshas Mishpatim Rashi does not say "a warning regarding meat," it is evident that logically one can indeed make a distinction between a "kid" and other meat.5
We must therefore say that Rashi's proof comes from the fact that "do not cook a kid" in our parsha is already being stated for the second time, by which the verse intends (not "להרבות בלאוין" ("to multiply prohibitions"), but) to add another matter to this prohibition — "a warning regarding meat."
But Rashi himself says in the same comment that the novelty of our verse relative to Parshas Mishpatim consists in its coming to prohibit benefit. So from where does he derive the further novelty of "a warning regarding meat"?
b) The explanation "ושלשה פעמים כו׳" ("And three times, etc.") (that of the three times the Torah writes "do not cook . . ," once is to prohibit eating, once benefit, and once cooking) Rashi has already stated earlier, at the first of the three occurrences, in Parshas Mishpatim.6 Why must Rashi explain it here yet again?
2. Rashi then pauses on "גדי" ("kid") and explains: "כל ולד רך במשמע, ואף עגל וכבש. ממה שהוצרך לפרש בכמה מקומות גדי עזים למדת שגדי סתם כל יונקים במשמע" ("Every tender young animal is implied, even a calf and a lamb. From the fact that it was necessary to specify in several places 'a kid of goats,' you learn that 'kid' without qualification implies all sucklings").7
This is not understood:
a) The explanation that "kid" means "every tender young animal," including a calf and a lamb, as well as the proof from the fact that in several places the verse needs to specify "a kid of goats," Rashi has already stated earlier, in Parshas Mishpatim.8 Why must he repeat it here yet again?
b) On our verse, Rashi in his commentary adds9 something he does not say earlier (in Parshas Mishpatim). There Rashi says "שאין גדי אלא לשון ולד רך" ("for 'kid' is nothing but a term for a tender young animal"), whereas on our verse he adds the matter of "sucklings," which indicates a very young animal. This is not understood: since in his commentary on Parshas Mishpatim (which comes before Parshas Ki Sisa) he does not write "sucklings," it follows that every tender young animal, even one that has already stopped nursing, is called a "kid." So from where is the proof in our verse that it means "sucklings"?
Also: what practical difference does it make (whether tender or suckling) in general, and — in the plain meaning of Scripture — in particular?
3. Rashi then pauses on the words "בחלב אמו" ("in its mother's milk") and explains: "פרט לעוף שאין לו חלב אם, שאין איסורו מן התורה אלא מדברי סופרים" ("To exclude fowl, which has no mother's milk, whose prohibition is not from the Torah but from the words of the Scribes")10 — that with the words "in its mother's milk" the verse comes (not to clarify in which milk one may not cook the meat, but) to define which meat one may not cook in milk: that the prohibition applies specifically to the meat of a creature that has mother's milk [and this meat may not be cooked in any milk, even in milk that is not its mother's milk*10], whereas the prohibition "do not cook" applies to the meat of fowl, which has no mother's milk, only from the words of the Scribes.
This is not understood: the simple meaning of "do not cook a kid in its mother's milk" is that the added word "its mother's" refers to the word "milk," in which meat may not be cooked. Why does Rashi learn that it comes instead to define the meat, while there is no difference as to what kind of milk it is cooked in?
The question is even stronger: in Parshas Mishpatim too it says "in its mother's milk," and there Rashi does not explain "to exclude fowl, etc."
[And there one cannot possibly say that by "in its mother's milk" the verse means to exclude "fowl" — for the warning "do not cook a kid" in Parshas Mishpatim is only about a "kid," the "tender young" of a domesticated animal11 (only in our parsha, where "do not cook a kid" appears for the second time, does it add "a warning regarding meat," every kind of meat), and thus the meat of fowl is in any case excluded from the prohibition, so there is no need for the exclusion of "in its mother's milk."]
This implies that Rashi learns "in its mother's milk" of Parshas Mishpatim in its plain sense: that the prohibition there is only on its mother's milk, not on other milk. So why should he not learn "in its mother's milk" of our parsha in the same way?12
We must also understand why Rashi concludes "whose prohibition is not from the Torah but from the words of the Scribes." How is the fact that the meat of fowl in milk is rabbinically forbidden relevant to the explanation of a verse in the Torah?13
One could answer, in a strained way: since the student already knows (from seeing the conduct of his parents) that the meat of fowl too may not be eaten with milk, he may wonder how Rashi can say "to exclude fowl, etc.," implying that the meat of fowl is permitted. Therefore Rashi says that rabbinically it is indeed forbidden.
But to interpret that Rashi adds a secondary clarification that has nothing to do with the explanation of the verse is very strained.14 It is much smoother to say that the conclusion of Rashi's explanation, "whose prohibition is not from the Torah but from the words of the Scribes," is also connected with the essential explanation of the verse.
4. The explanation of this is as follows:
The difficulty in the verse "do not cook a kid" of our parsha (which Rashi resolves with his explanation "a warning regarding meat, etc.") is:15 since the meaning of the word "תבשל" ("cook") in our verse is not eating, as in Parshas Mishpatim, but benefit (as Rashi already explained earlier in Parshas Mishpatim), why does the Torah use the same expression both times?
Had the wording "do not cook" appeared only in our parsha, there would be no question as to why the verse uses "do not cook" for the prohibition of benefit, since cooking is the first means leading to benefit (which is also why Rashi finds no difficulty in the wording "do not cook" in Parshas Mishpatim, which speaks of eating).16 But since in Parshas Mishpatim the verse speaks about eating and in our verse about benefit, the Torah should have used two different expressions in the two places. Why do both places have the wording "do not cook"?17
Therefore Rashi learns that the Torah says in our verse, regarding the prohibition of benefit, the wording "do not cook" — just as with the other two prohibitions, eating and cooking — because our verse adds (not only the prohibition of benefit, but also) something to the general prohibition of "do not cook," which pertains to all three details: eating, benefit and cooking.
And since the only place where something can be added to the general prohibition is in the cooked item itself, Rashi therefore learns "a warning regarding meat (in milk)": that "do not cook a kid" of our verse (adds and) is a warning regarding every kind of meat18 — of every domesticated animal, wild animal and fowl*18 (except that fowl is immediately excluded here19 by the verse's saying "in its mother's milk," as Rashi explains "in its mother's milk" here).
And on this Rashi continues "one for eating, one for benefit, and one for the prohibition of cooking" — even though he has already explained it in Parshas Mishpatim — in order to explain that the "warning regarding meat" added in our verse (not only concerns the prohibition of benefit, but) belongs to the overall prohibition of "do not cook," in all three of its details: eating, benefit and cooking — that all three of these are forbidden with every kind of meat.
5. Seemingly one could ask: granted that the verse here adds something in the cooked item, which applies to eating, benefit and cooking alike — but in the cooked item there are two components: "kid" and "in its mother's milk." So how does Rashi know that the addition is to the component "kid — a warning regarding meat"? Perhaps the verse wishes to add to "in its mother's milk," and its intent is "אזהרה לחלב" ("a warning regarding milk"), that the prohibition applies to every kind of milk?
The question is even stronger: from Rashi's explanation "in its mother's milk — to exclude fowl, etc." we see that he learns that the prohibition of our verse does indeed apply to all milk (unlike Parshas Mishpatim, from which one knows only of the prohibition on its mother's milk). So he could just as well learn that this is the addition to the overall prohibition of "do not cook."20
The explanation is: the words and the action "do not cook (a kid in its mother's milk)" refer not to "its mother's milk" but to "kid." The words "in its mother's milk" merely clarify in what the "kid" may not be cooked, namely "in its mother's milk." Therefore Rashi learns "a warning regarding meat" and not "a warning regarding milk" — for it stands to reason that the addition to the prohibition, which the verse hints at through the wording "do not cook," belongs to the primary thing on which the warning "do not cook" is stated.21
6. According to what was explained earlier, "a warning regarding meat" can be included in "do not cook a kid" because "kid" here means (not the species of kid, but comes as) a borrowed term for "meat,"22 since meat is the "tender" part relative to the other parts of the body.23
But there is still a difficulty, especially according to the plain meaning of Scripture: why does the verse state "a warning regarding meat" in the wording "do not cook a kid," when the meaning of "kid" in itself is the species of kid? We must say that the word "kid" here carries both matters:24 that it refers to "a tender thing" (with the word "kid" being only a borrowed term);25 and (primarily) that it also means, in its plain sense, the species of kid. But then this is difficult: how can one interpret "kid" in its plain sense when the warning applies to every kind of meat?
To this Rashi explains "'kid' — every tender young animal is implied, even a calf and a lamb, etc., all sucklings are implied": since the verse here speaks of cooking "in its mother's milk," and the usual practice (way) of using "its mother's milk" is primarily in cooking "sucklings" (when one wants to cook the meat of a very young animal — a nursling — in milk, it is natural to cook it in the milk of its mother and not go looking for milk elsewhere26), but not in cooking the meat even of a tender young animal that has already stopped being a suckling (and which, as a result, is generally no longer found together with "its mother") — therefore the verse uses the wording "kid," in which all sucklings are implied, because "דיבר הכתוב בהווה" ("the verse27 speaks of the usual case").28
And this is why Rashi adds here the explanation of "tender young animal" — "sucklings"29 — and is not satisfied with "tender young animal" (as in Parshas Mishpatim): because specifically on "sucklings" rests the entire explanation of the word "kid" written here (although here all kinds of meat are included under "meat"), as explained above.
7. However, the conclusion of the verse, "in its mother's milk," still remains not understood:
In Parshas Mishpatim, where the warning is only about a "kid" — a tender young animal — it is understandable why the prohibition of "cooking" (eating) is specifically in its mother's milk: because cooking a young animal in its mother's milk is cruelty.30 But when it comes to the second "do not cook," where the verse's warning applies to all meat — also the meat of an older animal — one must say that the prohibition of cooking such meat applies in any milk. So why does the Torah say "in its mother's milk"?
And regarding "in its mother's milk" one can no longer answer that this wording is because "the verse speaks of the usual case":31 had the word "kid" here stood on its own, with the prohibition "do not cook" applying only to it, one could say that the wording "in its mother's milk" is because the usual way of cooking a kid in milk is in its mother's milk — the verse speaks of the usual case. But since the word "kid" here appears only because of the subsequent wording "in its mother's milk" (as above, Section 6), there is no room to make the wording "in its mother's milk" dependent on the preceding word "kid."
Therefore Rashi learns "in its mother's milk — to exclude fowl, which has no mother's milk": that with the added word "its mother's" the verse comes to exclude the meat of fowl. But regarding the milk there is indeed no difference, and the prohibition "do not cook" applies to all milk.
8. But it still remains difficult:
a) The style and flow of the verse: that by the word "its mother's" — added to "in milk" — the verse intends to define not what kind of milk this is, but the type of meat?
b) Why does the verse indicate the exclusion "to exclude fowl" through the word "its mother's," which leaves room for the mistake that since the word relates to "in milk," it does not mean to exclude (the meat of) fowl? It should have hinted at the exclusion "to exclude fowl" by adding a word to "kid" or the like.
Therefore Rashi adds "whose prohibition is not from the Torah but from the words of the Scribes": that from the words of the Scribes, cooking the meat of fowl in milk is indeed forbidden.
And this is why the verse indicates the exclusion "to exclude fowl" through the word "its mother's"32 — precisely because it leaves room to learn that it does not come to exclude the meat of fowl, in order thereby to hint at the prohibition from the words of the Scribes, which also exists regarding fowl.33
9. Rashi's commentary contains matters of halachah as well as matters of Pnimiyus HaTorah. Among the matters of halachah34 in our Rashi:
Regarding the rabbinic prohibition of the meat of fowl in milk there are two opinions: one opinion holds that the Rabbis forbade the meat of fowl in milk only in eating;35 the second opinion holds that it is forbidden also in benefit and in cooking.36
Now according to Rashi's explanation that the Torah hints at the prohibition from the words of the Scribes on the meat of fowl in milk in "do not cook a kid, etc." of Parshas Ki Sisa, which speaks of the prohibition of benefit, it is understood that — according to Rashi — this prohibition applies not only in eating but also in benefit.
But in truth it emerges further that according to Rashi the meat of fowl in milk is forbidden also in cooking:
Since the Torah hints at the prohibition from the words of the Scribes on the meat of fowl in milk in the verse that introduces "a warning regarding meat," it follows that this warning contains two matters: as it is from the Torah — that with "in its mother's milk" the verse reveals about "a warning regarding meat" that this general rule does not include the meat of fowl; and as it is from the words of the Scribes — that "a warning regarding meat" includes the meat of fowl as well (the verse itself hinting that from the words of the Scribes, "in its mother's milk" does not exclude the meat of fowl).
It is therefore understood that just as "a warning regarding meat" of our verse applies to the prohibition "do not cook" in general, including all three details — eating, benefit and cooking — and the Torah forbids all meat (except fowl) also in cooking, so too "a warning regarding meat," as it is from the words of the Scribes to forbid the meat of fowl, applies to all three details, and cooking the meat of fowl too is forbidden from the words of the Scribes.
10. From the matters of "יינה של תורה" ("the wine of the Torah") in our Rashi:
The Torah states "a warning regarding meat in milk" (in Parshas Ki Sisa) with the words "do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." And although by way of pshat one learns that "its mother's" comes to exclude the meat of fowl, yet since it is known that all matters in the Torah are utterly precise, we must say that in the inner dimension of the matter, "a kid in its mother's milk" is the root and the cause of all meat in milk, which is on account of cruelty.
And this shows us even further37 how careful one must be regarding cruelty and regarding "צער בעלי חיים" ("causing pain to living creatures"). From this one can infer how great the care must be regarding the pain of a human being, and all the more so regarding the pain of a Jew. For we see here that because of the trace of cruelty in eating (and benefiting from) "a kid in its mother's milk," the Torah forbade not only "a kid in its mother's milk" itself, but all meat in milk — and not only in eating and benefit, but also in cooking — in order to distance oneself from actions that can lead to cruelty, may G‑d spare us.
And on the other hand, it gives an idea of how precious "אהבת הבריות" ("love of one's fellow creatures") is in general, and "אהבת ישראל" ("love of a fellow Jew") — "בנים אתם לה׳ אלקיכם" ("You are children of the L‑rd your G‑d")38 — all the more so.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Ki Sisa, 5728)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 34:26.
2) The Re'em here (and so too the Sifsei Chachamim) says: "גם לא בחלב אמו דוקא אלא כל . . חלב במשמע ואפילו בחלב של עצמו כו׳" ("Also, not specifically 'in its mother's milk'; rather, all . . milk is implied, even its own milk, etc."). But if Rashi's intent here were to explain that "in its mother's milk" is not meant specifically, he should also have quoted the words "in its mother's milk." From the fact that (before his explanation) he quotes only "do not cook a kid" (and not even "etc." — as in the verse before us), it is evident that he comes to explain only the words "do not cook a kid" — and the explanation is that they come to introduce that the warning applies to all meat and not only to a "kid." Only after explaining "a warning regarding meat" does he also quote the word "in milk" from the verse,* because the words "a warning regarding meat" on their own have no meaning, since the warning is specifically about meat in milk (and not about meat itself).
*) See similarly Rashi on Vayakhel (35:4) and in many places. One cannot say that the word "in milk" is Rashi's own wording in explaining the verse, for then he should have quoted the word "in milk" from the verse (at the beginning of the comment).
3) Mishpatim 23:19. Our parsha, here. See Re'eh 14:21, and see above, second sicha on Parshas Mishpatim (p. 143ff.).
4) So it is in all the printings of Rashi I have seen (including the first printing), in the Re'em, etc. But in Chullin (115b): "אחד לאיסור אכילה ואחד לאיסור הנאה ואחד לאיסור בישול" ("one for the prohibition of eating, one for the prohibition of benefit, and one for the prohibition of cooking"). And so too in Rashi on Mishpatim, there.
5) As below, Section 7. See also above, p. 149ff.
6) See above, p. 148, note 28.
7) Ibid.
8) So it is in Chullin 113b, except that in Chullin there it says "פרה ורחל" ("a cow and a ewe"), and in Rashi here "a calf and a lamb." See above, p. 143, note 5.
9) However, one should not ask why Rashi here writes "in several places" without qualification and does not list them (as in Parshas Mishpatim) — for he relies on what he has already explained previously in Parshas Mishpatim (as is Rashi's way in many places: even when he explains one matter twice (for some reason), the second time he is brief).
10) In accordance with the view of Rabbi Yose HaGlili in Chullin, there, קע"א [OCR unclear].
*10) See Likkutei Sichos, vol. 27, p. 42, note 35 (באורא [OCR unclear]).
11) See above, pp. 144–145, and in note 17.
12) In the Rosh and the Gur Aryeh here, that this follows from what Rashi says before it, "a warning regarding meat in milk" [since all milk is forbidden, the words "in its mother's milk" were difficult for him]. But see above, note 2, that Rashi's novelty is only "a warning regarding meat."
13) Especially since according to the "איבעית אימא" ("if you prefer, say") in Chullin (115a), according to the explanation (the view of Rabbi Yose HaGlili) "בחלב אמו יצא עוף כו׳" ("'in its mother's milk' excludes fowl, etc."), "עוף אפילו מדרבנן נמי לא אסור" ("fowl is not forbidden even rabbinically"). And from what they said there, "תניא נמי הכי כו׳ במקומו של ריה"ג היו אוכלין בשר עוף בחלב" ("It was also taught so, etc.: in the place of Rabbi Yose HaGlili they would eat the meat of fowl in milk"), it is evident that this is the conclusion (according to Rabbi Yose HaGlili).
14) Additionally: in Parshas Mishpatim — according to Rashi's explanation there — we know of the prohibition only regarding a "kid," which excludes the meat of [a wild animal,] fowl [and also the meat of a domesticated animal that is not a "kid — a tender young animal"], as above in the text. If so, Rashi should have explained in Parshas Mishpatim (which comes before our parsha) that (from the words of the Scribes) the prohibition applies to all meat.
15) However, the reason the verse needed to state here once again the overall warning of "do not cook a kid," even though it was already stated in Parshas Mishpatim, Rashi has already explained above in the aforementioned parsha.
16) See above, there.
17) One cannot say that the wording "do not cook" in both places is only to teach us that the prohibition of eating and benefit applies specifically by way of cooking (see above, there, note 8*). For since the main reason the verse expressed the prohibition of eating and benefit in the wording "do not cook" is [not because the prohibition of eating and benefit applies by way of cooking — for the plain sense of the wording "do not cook" indicates that the warning is about the cooking itself and not about some other matter that comes by way of cooking — but rather] because cooking pertains to eating and benefit themselves, being a preparation for them (as explained in the aforementioned note), one must necessarily say that the use of "do not cook" regarding the prohibition of benefit — the same wording stated regarding the prohibition of eating — is (not only because the prohibition in both is by way of cooking, but) because the wording "do not cook" hints at the prohibition of eating, of benefit and of cooking, as below in the text.
18) Seemingly one could ask: since Rashi must necessarily explain that the novelty of "do not cook" in our parsha is (also) "a warning regarding meat" (that is, all meat and not only a "kid"), from where does he derive that this verse comes to introduce also the prohibition of benefit? But this is not so. For since the wording of the verse is "do not cook a kid," it is impossible to say that the verse's whole main intent is to introduce "a warning regarding meat" — that is, not (only) a "kid." Therefore one must say that the main intent of the verse is to introduce the prohibition of benefit, and only incidentally does it also teach us "a warning regarding meat."
*18) Seemingly one could ask: since the verse says "a kid in its mother's milk," it seemingly stands to reason that the verse adds here only the tender young of a wild animal [because (a) it is closer to a "kid" (and some of the reason of cruelty also applies to it), and (b) it can be cooked "in its mother's milk"]. From where, then, does Rashi know that the verse adds "meat," which includes (a) domesticated and wild animals that are not tender young, and also (b) fowl, which has no mother's milk at all (except that regarding this there is the derivation "in its mother's milk," to exclude fowl)? But this is not so. For on the contrary: the domesticated species, even when not tender, is closer to a "kid" (which is the tender young specifically of the domesticated species) than the tender young of a wild animal. And since with a non-tender domesticated animal — whose prohibition is certainly learned from the verse of our parsha — the reason of cruelty does not apply (see below, Section 7), the verse thereby teaches us that the prohibition applies even where there is no room for this reason. Consequently, one cannot differentiate: a) between all domesticated and wild animals (and the verse says "kid" only because the verse speaks of the usual case, as below, Section 6 (and similar to Rashi, Mishpatim 23:28)); b) between its mother's milk and milk in general (as below, Section 7). And consequently the meat of fowl too is forbidden.
19) And to exclude wild animals, etc. — we derive this from the verse in Parshas Re'eh, as Rashi explains there (14:21). See there.
20) And although these two matters — "a warning regarding meat" and "a warning regarding milk" — necessitate each other [for since the matter of cruelty applies only to "a kid in its mother's milk," the explanation "a warning regarding meat," not specifically a kid, necessitates that "in its mother's milk" is also not meant specifically (see above, note *18; below, Section 7); and likewise conversely: if we explain that the verse's intent is to introduce "a warning regarding milk" of any kind, it will necessarily follow that "kid" is not meant specifically], nevertheless, from the fact that Rashi writes his explanation "a warning regarding meat in milk" on the words "do not cook a kid" and does not quote "in its mother's milk," it is evident that he explains that the verse's intent is to introduce "a warning regarding meat" and not "a warning regarding milk," as above, note 2 [except that from "a warning regarding meat" we understand automatically that the prohibition applies also to all milk]. On this comes the question in the sicha: from where does Rashi explain that the verse's intent is "a warning regarding meat" (from which one also knows that all milk is forbidden) and not that the verse's intent is "a warning regarding milk" of any kind (from which they would know that the prohibition applies also to all meat)? Or let him write that there are two equally weighted explanations here. — Although in a strained way one could explain that since meat comes first in the verse, Rashi chose the explanation "a warning regarding meat." The practical difference between the two approaches: according to the first explanation, "a warning regarding meat" (that is not a kid) has the status of a prohibition explicit in the Torah (for, as above, "do not cook" of our parsha was written to teach us this prohibition), which is not the case for milk that is not its mother's milk. And the reverse according to the second explanation. And there are a number of practical differences in this matter (see Rambam, Laws of Shechitah 5:3 (and its commentators, and likewise Pri Megadim on Yoreh De'ah, siman 57, Mishbetzos Zahav, sub-par. 14), and elsewhere).
21) According to this, it will be further appreciated why Rashi writes his explanation "a warning regarding meat, etc." on the words "do not cook a kid," even though he explains that the warning applies to all meat — for (aside from the need to quote this word as well, since he explains that (kid) is not meant specifically, as is his way in several places) his explanation "a warning regarding meat" stems from the fact that the prohibition "do not cook" is on a "kid."
22) According to this one can answer (in addition to the above, Section 5) why Rashi explains "a warning regarding meat" and not "a warning regarding milk": for the explanation "a warning regarding meat" does not contradict "kid," since "kid" here is (also) a borrowed term. The explanation "a warning regarding milk," however, contradicts "in its mother's milk" (whose plain intent is that the prohibition "do not cook" is specifically in its mother's milk, and not that "its mother's" comes to exclude fowl). And although the explanation "a warning regarding meat" also necessitates that "in its mother's milk" is not meant specifically, nevertheless, since according to the explanation "a warning regarding meat" the prohibition in milk that is not its mother's milk is not like a prohibition explicit in the verse (it is only learned from "a warning regarding meat"), as above, note 20, there is no question on the wording "in its mother's milk," for with the word "its mother's" it teaches us to exclude fowl, etc. But were we to explain that the verse teaches us "a warning regarding milk" of any kind, it would be contrary to the plain sense of the wording "in its mother's milk."
23) Similar to what the Chinuch writes, Mitzvah 92 — quoted above, p. 143, in the gloss to note 5.
24) Similar to the wording "do not cook" (in which "a warning regarding meat" is hinted, as above, Section 4), which here refers primarily to the prohibition of benefit, only that it also hints at the matter of cooking in "do not cook," which includes eating and cooking as well.
25) Even according to what is explained below, that the verse says "kid" here because the verse speaks of the usual case, one must say that "kid" here comes also as a borrowed term. For since the intent of the verse is to introduce "a warning regarding meat," it must be that "do not cook a kid" also bears the meaning "do not cook meat." (And this is not similar to what is written earlier (Mishpatim 21:28), "וכי יגח שור" ("and if an ox gores") — for there, there is no logic to distinguish between an ox and other domesticated animals, wild animals and fowl, whereas in our case, "do not cook a kid" in Parshas Mishpatim applies only to a kid, and the verse here introduces "a warning regarding meat.")
26) See similarly Rashbam, Mishpatim 23:19; Perishah on Yoreh De'ah, siman 87, sub-par. 3.
27) For this rule in explaining verses Rashi has already made known several times: Mishpatim 21:28; 22:17, 22, 30.
28) Therefore he writes here once again "even a calf and a lamb," although he already wrote it in Parshas Mishpatim — for if "kid" meant only "a kid of goats," one could not say that the verse used "kid" because "the verse speaks of the usual case," since the cooking of any suckling (including that of a calf and a lamb) is also in its mother's milk.
29) And although "kid" includes every tender young animal, even when it has ceased being a suckling* (as is seemingly evident from the kid of goats that Yehudah sent, for he did not send its mother with it), nevertheless the verse says "sucklings" in the wording "kid," for "sucklings" are certainly still tender and are called "kid." One can go further and say that "tender" among living creatures** — according to Rashi's explanation — is specifically as long as it is nursing [for (a) this seems evident from experience; (b) what other measure and sign is there by which to know that it is tender (with practical relevance for buying and selling); (c) it is understood and also simple that the tenderness of a creature's meat depends on the quality of its food; (d) a semblance of a proof from what is stated earlier, "רכים גו׳ עלות" ("tender . . nursing") (Vayishlach 33:13)]. Only that in Parshas Mishpatim this is not relevant to the explanation of the verse (as in the text), and therefore he does not explain it there, unlike here.
*) In Avos DeRabbi Nosson, version 2, ch. 45 — cited in Torah Sheleimah, Vayeira 18:7: "רך בן שתים" ("tender, two years old").
**) Unlike with human beings, as it says "tender" (Vayishlach 33:13), and the youngest of the children (Yosef) was six years old (it is strained to say that it refers to the children of Yaakov's servants, for they are not mentioned at all in the verse). See also Devarim (28:54) and elsewhere. One can suggest a reason for this distinction: with animals the description "tender" is (primarily) with regard to eating; with human beings, with regard to strength and the like.
30) As explained above, p. 149ff.
31) Seemingly one could say that the rule "the verse speaks of the usual case" applies specifically when the verse must in any case add some word [as with "and if an ox gores" (Mishpatim 21:28), where some word must necessarily be written after "and if . . gores," and since goring is more common with an ox, it says "and if an ox gores"], but it is not applicable that the verse would add a superfluous word ("its mother's") in order to speak of the "usual" case. — But this is not so, for also on "ובשר בשדה טריפה" ("and meat torn in the field") (ibid. 22:30) Rashi explains "אף בבית כן אלא שדבר הכתוב בהוה" ("even in the house it is so, only that the verse speaks of the usual case"), although the word "field" is superfluous.*
*) According to this distinction it is understood why Rashi needed to explain there "the verse speaks of the usual case" (although he had explained it three times before — and see at length above, p. 130ff.), and also to bring an example from "אשר לא יהי׳ טהור מקרה לילה" ("who will not be pure by reason of a nocturnal occurrence") in Parshas Seitzei (23:11). For since the word "field" is superfluous, he needed to introduce that even in such a case the rule "the verse speaks of the usual case" applies, and since it is a novelty he brings proof — "מצאתי לו חבר" ("I found a companion for it") — from "who will not be pure by reason of a nocturnal occurrence," where the words "nocturnal occurrence" are likewise superfluous, only that the verse speaks of the usual case.
32) As Rashi explained earlier (Beshalach 16:29): "אל יצא איש ממקומו — אלו אלפים אמה . . מדברי סופרים ועיקרו של מקרא על לוקטי המן נאמר" ("'Let no man go out of his place' — these are two thousand cubits . . from the words of the Scribes, and the essence of the verse was stated about the gatherers of the manna"). On why Rashi had to explain there that "let no man go out of his place" comes also to hint at a matter from the words of the Scribes, see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 13, p. 6, gloss to note 38.
33) It appears to me that Rashi (in his commentary on the Torah) holds (similar to the view of the Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Keilim, ch. 17, Mishnah 2; Sefer HaMitzvos, Second Principle) that "the words of the Scribes" too are from the Torah, except that this is not the main plain meaning of the verse (and accordingly one can further appreciate Rashi's wording in Beshalach there, "from the words of the Scribes," although in ברש"ה [OCR unclear] and before it he writes "Sages"). This is similar to how in many places in Rashi's commentary on the Torah, where the explanation by way of pshat is not so settled, Rashi adds an explanation by way of drash, etc. (meaning that this drash too can be said within the plain meaning of Scripture, only that it is not the main pshat, which he brought before it). So too regarding the laws in Scripture: some are the essence of (the plain meaning of) the verse, and some are from the words of the Scribes, who learned so in explaining this Torah scroll. See along these lines Likkutei Sichos, vol. 27, p. 38ff.
34) See also above, note 20.
35) Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah, siman 87.
36) Bach, there.
37) In addition to what is explained above, p. 151.
38) Re'eh 14:1.
Key Lesson
This Sicha shows that because of even a trace of cruelty in "a kid in its mother's milk," the Torah forbade all meat in milk, in eating, benefit and cooking alike, to keep a person far from anything that can lead to cruelty. How much more careful must one be, then, about the pain of another human being, and all the more so of a fellow Jew. And by the same measure, it teaches how precious love of one's fellow creatures and Ahavas Yisrael truly are.