Meat, Milk and Babies

You are here:
< Back

Dear Rabbi Simon,

I have a few (related) questions about whether the meat-milk laws are applicable to babies. My friends with babies are buying highchairs with two trays so I got a bit worried since we bought a normal one with a single tray. I prepared some pureed chicken yesterday for the baby and used an electric mixer to blend it. The chicken was cold when I did that. Is the mixer now to be considered meaty? Same question about his bowls and cutlery, although he always has cold food at the moment.

Many thanks, Rachel

Unknown Object

Dear Rachel,

A high chair with one tray is perfectly adequate. Until the age of two you may give the baby milk after meat, if he (or you) would like it. Until the age of nine, it is sufficient for him to wait one hour between the two.

Blender: Since the chicken was cold, once it is cleaned the blender may be considered parve.

Bowls and cutlery: Even though the baby does not yet eat hot food, it would be proper for you to designate separate bowls, plates, cutlery (even tippy cups) for meat and dairy. If he is eating something parve, you may use either type. There is no need for a separate parve set.



Questions & Answers
this week

Questions and Answers

Ask the Rabbi: Easy as א-ב-ג?
Dear Rabbi Simon,
I hope you fasted well yesterday.
Thank you for the insights into the Kinnot, making them easier to understand.
In the afternoon, I was listening to a shiur on Eichah on Torahanytime.  As an aside, the speaker mentioned that the 1st perek of Eichah is the source for the order of the alef bet as we know it.  Other chapters also follow the alef bet chronology but with ayin en peh interchanged.
He quoted Rabbi Shimon Schwab as his source.
Although he did not elaborate on this, surely Sefer Tehillim predates Megillat Eichah by centuries.  Several psalms are written in the alef bet order (e.g.
psalm 119).
Can you please clarify?
Thank you & best wishes.
PhilippeHi Philippe
TY for your sophisticated Q.
I have also heard that the question of the sequence of samekh and 'ayin is subject to dispute. It seems that there are indications that in Paleo-Hebrew the order is reversed from what we know. It is alleged that chapters 2, 3 and 4 of Eichah (chapter 5 is not alphabetical) reflect the original order. Of course, as you say, ch 1 conforms to the order with which we are family.
You are right that Tehillim predates Eichah, however a critic can claim that the order was redacted to bring it in line with the accepted/preferred sequence. This is particularly true for ch. 119, where each of the 8 vv per letter are their own group, and each set of 8 vv. can easily be repositioned. The question is in Ps. 34 or 145, if the internal logic of the passage sheds light on the correct sequence. In Ps. 34, some claim that the v. starting with the letter peh makes more sense to follow the verse starting with samekh (due to the common appearance of the word ra'). I am not convinced that this argument is compelling.
I will stick with the mesorah, that 'ayin belongs before peh. Best to look before speaking.
Rabbi Rashi Simon
Events / Calendar