MILK. The Hebrew word for milk, thalab, is from the same root as 1-1, theleb, fat ness,' and is properly restricted to new milk, there being a distinct term, riNnti, chemah, for milk when curdled. Milk, and the preparations from it, butter and cheese, are often mentioned in Scrip ture. Milk, in its fresh state, appears to have been used very largely among the Hebrews, as is usual among people who have much cattle, and yet make but sparing use of their flesh for food. The proportion which fresh milk held in the dietary of the Hebrews, must not, however, be measured by the comparative frequency with which the word occurs ; because, in the greater number of examples, it is employed figuratively to denote great abundance, and in many instances it is used as a general term for all or any of the preparations from it.
In its figurative use, the word occurs sometimes simply as the sign of abundance (Gen. xlix. 12 ; Ezek. xxv. 4; Joel iii. 18, etc.) ; hut more fre quently in combination with honey—' milk and honey,' being a phrase which occurs about twenty times in Scripture. Thus a rich and fertile soil is described as a 'land flowing with milk and honey :' which, although usually said of Palestine, is also applied to other fruitful-countries, as Egypt (Num. xvi. 13). This figure is by no means peculiar to the Hebrews, but is frequently met with in classi cal writers. A beautiful example occurs in Euri pides (Batch. 142). Hence its use to denote the food of children. Milk is almost constantly em. ployed as a symbol of the elementary parts or rudiments of doctrine (1 Cor. iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12, 13) ; and from its purity and simplicity, it is also made to symbolize the unadulterated word of God (I Pet. ii. 2 ; comp. Is. Iv. I).
In reading of milk in Scripture, the milk of cows naturally presents itself to the mind of the Euro pean reader ; but in Western Asia, and especially among the pastoral and semi-pastoral people, not only cows, but goats, sheep, and camels, are made to give their milk for the sustenance of man. That this was also the case among the Hebrews may be clearly inferred even from the slight inti mations which the Scriptures afford. Thus we read of butter of kine, and milk of sheep' (Dent. xxxii. 14) ; and in Prov. xxvii. 27, the emphatic intimation, 'Thou shalt have goats' milk for food,' seems to imply that this was considered the best for use in the simple state. Thirty milch camels • were among the cattle which Jacob presented to his brother Esau (Gen. xxxii. 15), implying the use of camels' milk.
The word for curdled milk (nstnr) is always translated butter' in the A. V. It seems to mean both butter and curdled milk, but most generally the latter ; and the context will, in most cases, suggest the distinction, which has been neglected by our translators. It was this curdled milk, highly esteemed as a refreshment in the East, that Abraham set before the angels (Gen. xviii. 8), and which Jael gave to Sisera, instead of the water which he asked (Judg. v. 25). In this state milk acquires a slightly inebriating power, if kept long enough. Is. vii. 22, where it is rendered butter,' is the only text in which the word is coupled with honey,' and there it is a sign of scarcity, not of plenty, as when honey is coupled fresh milk. It means that there being no fruit or grain, the remnant would have to live on milk and honey ; and, perhaps, that milk itself would be so scarce, that it would be needful to use it with economy ; and hence to curdle it, as fresh milk cannot be preserved for daily use. Although, however, this word properly denotes curdled milk, it seems also to be sometimes used for milk in general (Deut. xxxii. 14 ; Job xx. i5 ; Is. vii. 15).
The most striking Scriptural allusion to milk is that which forbids a kid to be seethed in. its mother's milk, and its importance is attested by its being thrice repeated (Exod. xxiii. 19 ; xxxiv. 26 ; Deut. xiv. 21). There is, perhaps, no pre cept of Scripture which has been more variously interpreted than this, and we may state the most remarkable views respecting it :—I. That it pro hibits the eating of the foetus of the goat as a deli cacy : but there is not the least evidence that the Jews were ever attached to this disgusting luxury. 2. That it forbids the kid to be killed till it is eight days old, when, it is said, it might subsist without the milk of its mother. 3. This ground is ad mitted by those who deduce a further reason from the fact, that a kid was not, until the eighth day, fit for sacrifice. But there appears no good reason why a kid should be described as in its mother's milk,' in those days, more than in any other days of the period during which it is suckled. 4. Others,
therefore, maintain that the eating of a sucking kid is altogether and absolutely prohibited. But a goat suckles its kid for three months, and it is not likely that the Jews were so long forbidden the use of it for food. No food is forbidden but as unclean, and a kid ceased to be unclean on the eighth day, when it was fit for sacrifice ; andiwhat was fit for sacrifice could not be unfit for food. 5. That the prohibition was meant to prevent the dam and kid from being slain at the same time. But this is forbidden with reference to the goat and other animals in express terms, and there seems no reason why it should be repeated in this remark able form with reference to the goat only. 6. Others understand it literally, as a precept designed to encourage human feelings. But, as Michaelis asks, how came the Israelites to hit upon the strange whim of boiling a kid in milk, and just in the milk of its own mother ? 7. Still, understand ing the text literally, it is possible that this was not a common act of cookery, but an idolatrous or magical rite. Maimonides, in his More Nevochim, urges this opinion. He says, Flesh eaten with milk, or in milk, appears to me to have been pro hibited, not only because it affords gross nourish ment, but because it savoured of idolatry, some of the idolaters probably doing it in their worship, or at their festivals ; and I am the more inclined to this opinion from observing that the law, in notic ing this practice, does so twice, immediately after having spoken of the three great annual feasts (Exod. xxiii. 57, 59 ; xxxiv. 23, 26). Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk' As if it had been said, When ye appear before me in your feasts, ye shall not cook your food after the manner of the idolaters, who are accustomed to this practice.' This reason appears to me of great weight, although I have not yet been able to find it in the Zabian books.' This is confirmed by an extract which Cudworth (Discourses concerning the Thee Notion of the Lord's Supper, p. 30) gives from an ancient Karaite commentary on the Pentateuch. ' It was a custom of the ancient heathen, 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 besprinkle with it all their trees, and fields, and gardens, and orchards, thinking that by this means they should make them fructify, and bring forth more abundantly the following year.' Some such rite as this is supposed to be the one interdicted by the prohibition. This opinion is supported by Spencer (De Legibus LTebr. ii. 9, sec. 2), and has been advocated by Le Clerc, Dathe, and other able writers. It is also corroborated by the addition in the Samaritan copy, and in some degree by the Targum. The former has, For he who doth this is like a man. who sacrificeth an abomination, and it is a trespass against the God of Jacob :' and the latter, 0 my people, house of Israel, it is not lawful for you to boil or eat flesh and milk mixed together, lest my wrath be en kindled, and I boil your products, corn and straw, together.' 8. Michaelis, however, advances a quite new opinion of his own. He takes it for granted that 5t11, rendered seethe,' may signify to roast as well as to boil, which is hardly disputable ; that the kid's mother is not here limited to the real mother, but applies to any goat that has kidded ; th:?: thri here denotes not milk but butter; and that the precept is not restricted to kids, but ex tends not only to lambs (which is generally granted), but to all other not forbidden animals. Having erected these props, Michaelis builds upon them the conjecture, that the motive of the precept was to endear to the Israelites the land of Canaan, which abounded in oil, and to make them forget their Egyptian butter. Moses, therefore, to prevent their having any longing desire to return to that country, enjoins them to use oil in cooking their victuals, as well as in seasoning their sacrifices (illosaisches Recht, pt. iv., p. 250). This is in genious, but it is open to objection. The postu lates cannot readily be granted ; and if granted, the conclusion deduced from them is scarcely just, seeing that, as Geddes remarks, ' there was no need nor temptation for the Israelites to return to Egypt on account of its butter, when they pos sessed a country that flowed with milk and honey' (Critical Remarks, p. 257).