The word Mishpatim usually refers to civil laws, meaning the laws that govern society that make sense. Judges shouldn’t take bribes, if you damage someone’s property you should compensate them, etc. While Chokim refer to mitzvahs that have no rational application. Don’t mix wool and linen, put up a mezuzah on your door posts, and don’t mix milk and meat. 

Except that the prohibition of mixing milk and meat (aka basar v’cholov) is given in this week’s parsha named Mishpatim. Why of all places is  basar v’cholov given here?

Few things to note. Basar v’cholov is listed 3 times in the Torah. From that the rabbis derive that not only are we prohibited from cooking a calf in its mother’s milk, but we’re prohibited from cooking or eating any milk with any meat, and we’re prohibited from deriving any benefit from mixing milk with meat. At least, if I ended up with a pork sandwich, I could sell it to a non-Jew. Not the case with a cheeseburger!

Another thing to note, basar v’cholov is not the only choke (irrational mitzvah) in parsha Mispatim. But given that it is such a prominent mitzvah that has no rational reason, I find it very peculiar that it is given here. 

According to Rabbi Moshe Kestenbaum, cholov, milk is an act of giving by the mother to her offspring. She’s literally giving from her own body to nourish her young. This is quite possibly the purest form of giving (aka chessed.) While to get basar, meat from an animal for us to eat, we have to slaughter it. This is the ultimate form of taking, you’re literally taking the animal’s life. 

The idea of not mixing milk and meat, then in essence might be implying that giving and taking shouldn’t be mixed. If you give a stranded person a ride home, as a kindness, is it right for you to then ask them for gas money? Is it right for you to ask them for a favor later? What if they’re not comfortable with doing that favor? You’ve put them in a difficult situation. 

What if you donate a large sum of money to an organization every year? Then one year they do something you don’t like, so you decide to stop funding them. You’ve got the right to do that, it’s your money. But now the organization is reconsidering their decision. Which is what you probably wanted. But then, you’re not really a giver, you’re essentially a board member because the donation has become dependent on your agenda. 

Corporations influence universities, news outlets, and political candidates. This is known as a conflict of interest. Because even if those entities declare that they won’t change their practices despite the risk of losing donors, it is impossible for them to not be influenced. This may be why basar v’cholov forbids deriving any benefit from the mixture. To derive benefit from giving chessed essentially corrupts the act and creates conflicts of interest. 

If you work for a not-for-profit company, that’s okay.  And I’m not saying that if you support an organization you have to keep supporting them if they change their policy. But perhaps, if you really want to do the most meaningful and pure chessed, consider the mother who gives so selflessly to her calf. She endures discomfort, pain, and worry but as the Talmud (Pesachim 112a) says, “more than the calf wants to suckle, the cow wants to nurse.” 

Don’t mix your personal agenda and expectations with acts of kindness. Because to live in a world where help comes only with strings attached and expectations of favors being returned, it means people can never feel comfortable asking for the help they need. If that’s not a logical, rational, benefit for society, I don’t know what is.