Mishnah and Gemara

I hope this is the right place to share and get feedback on a theory of mine in regards to the history and evolution of Judaism.

One of the main points of conflict between Reform and Conservative approaches to religious customs is “chicken parmesean”, which is to say, the notion that consuming poultry alongside dairy might be kosher. The event which created this schism was the famous “trafe banquet”, and I think that dietary preferences are a relevant reason for someone to embrace the Reform movement.

What’s interesting is that if you read the relevant section of the Mishnah (Hullin 8) it looks as though the rules surrounding milk and flesh actually changed over time. The first section reads:

Every flesh is prohibited to cook in milk, except for the flesh of fish and locusts.
And it is prohibited to serve it up onto the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and locusts. He who swears against flesh is permitted the flesh of fish and locusts.

And what I conclude from reading this passage is that the first version of this rule is so old that back then people used to consider locusts kosher (edit: apparently some still do).

“Fowl goes up onto the table with cheese, but it is not eaten,” the words of the House of Shammai.
And the House of Hillel say, “It does not go up, and it is not eaten.”
[…]
He who serves up fowl with cheese on the table does not transgress a negative commandment.

I’m skipping the lengthy discussion here – what happens next in the evolution of this rule is that poultry is raised as a possible exception, and we see two differing policies which appear to be in conflict with one another. Shammai wants to put poultry and cheese on the table but not eat them together, and Hillel wants to prohibit them on the table. The Mishnah’s ruling is phrased in such a way that Shammai’s custom is permitted but not commanded.

The meat of clean cattle with the milk of clean cattle – it is prohibited to cook or to derive benefit.

And the next section begins with a discussion of the final version of this rule – the version written in the Torah. We immediately see a question about this rule, and are directed to refer to the Torah for clarification:

The meat of clean cattle with the milk of unclean cattle, the meat of unclean cattle with the milk of clean cattle, it is permitted to cook and permitted to derive benefit?
Rabbi Akiva says, “A wild beast and fowl – not by the Torah! For it is said, You will not boil a kid in its mother’s milk three times, excluding the wild beast, the bird, and unclean cattle.

The point here is that for those thinkers who are very logical and would conclude that a statement implies its contrapositive, the symbolic meaning of the repetition of the phrase three times is to cover the three instances in which it might apply.

Rabbi Yosei the Galileean says, “It is said You will not eat any sort of carrion, and it is said You will not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. What is prohibited on the grounds of carrion is prohibited to be cooked in milk. Fowl, which is prohibited on the grounds of carrion, is it possible that it is prohibited to be seethed in milk? Scripture says, In its mother’s milk – excluding fowl, the mother of which does not have milk.”

The point here is that the symbolic meaning of the wording “mother’s milk” is to establish that this rule only applies to the flesh of mammals.

The conclusion that I have reached about this rule is that it evolved over time, and that the rule written into the Torah was specifically about including poultry in the same category as fish. And reading the Mishnah without the Gemara, it seems like these two Rabbis offer really straightforward explanations of the way in which the final version of this rule written into the Torah is meant to be understood.

Now here’s the pickle – the perspective upheld in the Gemara is that none of these changes ever happened. And from that perspective, the commentary (Hullin 104a) which follows the very first section reads:

Consequently birds prohibited by Torah law.
In accordance with whose opinion? Not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, as, if Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say wild beasts and birds is not by Torah law?
Says the latter clause of the Mishnah – One who swears off of flesh is permitted the flesh of fish and locusts. Consequently, birds are prohibited.

And so the logic by which it is concluded that the unchanging rule (as per the Gemara’s perspective) treats poultry similarly to mammalian flesh as opposed to fish is that the original rule (as per my perspective) didn’t mention poultry, which is entirely accurate.