That's not how it works in Judaism. The full set of laws were given to Moses.
In the Torah is only a hint to the laws, that's why the line looks so unspecific to you. It's just a reminder to check the oral tradition for the details.
Do you have something I can read with more information on this? I've searched in the past and only found arguments based on the line, not saying it actually existed in oral tradition.
Let me be more clear with my question, since that's just information on the oral tradition in general.
I am looking for a source that the specific rule against putting meat and milk together was given to Moses, or that it's a direct implication of the written Torah.
As far as I have understood it, it's a ruling that the rabbis made once upon a time, and it has since become part of the oral tradition, but it was not originally a rule. This would imply that it is not unimpeachable. For example, you could argue against the two hour buffer zone in your link with modern omnipresent accurate clocks[0].
[0] Yes, time zones, I know, let's not actually argue that point.
In reply to your question as to whether a rabbinic decree could be revoked, there is a concept in Jewish law that prescribes that once a rabbinic decree is accepted by the Jewish nation (I.e. Widely practiced) it becomes law. So even if you would maintain the two hour buffer is no longer necessary, it would remain as law in order to uphold tradition.
As an example, the rabbis decreed that Jewish holidays outside the land of Israel should be celebrated for a second day. The reason being that the court which established the new month (based on witnesses who had seen the new moon) was based in Jerusalem, and the Jews outside the land of Israel would not know when to celebrate the holiday, so out of doubt they celebrated the day after as well (in case the month was a day longer)[0]. When the time came that the court foresaw that they would soon no longer be able to establish the new month (due to the exile of the Jews from the land of Israel) they established a calendar by which the new month was to be determined. At this point, the Jews in the land of Israel and outside had the same calendar, and knew exactly when to celebrate the holidays. Nevertheless, the rabbs maintained a distinction between inside the land of Israel, and outside, where holidays are celebrated for a second day until this day.
> As far as I have understood it, it's a ruling that the rabbis made once upon a time, and it has since become part of the oral tradition, but it was not originally a rule.
No, that is definitely not correct. The Talmud is very clear about Biblical vs Rabbinical rules and Meat and Milk is unquestionably Biblical.
But Fowl (chicken) and Milk is Rabbinical. So perhaps that's what you were thinking of.
No, I wasn't confusing those. Let me put this way. Unless what I'm reading is blatantly wrong, the claims of rabbis about what is "biblically" prohibited have been under dispute and changed over the centuries. So it may not be a "rabbinical" rule but it came from rabbis and didn't directly follow from the bible and the rules for interpreting the words of the bible. (Unless a huge series of rabbis were just flat-out wrong.)
There are indeed things that are disputed if they are biblically prohibited or rabbinically. Usually it's not the nature of the item that is disputed but the degree.
But not meat and milk. That has not changed. So if what you are reading is saying that, then yes, it's blatantly wrong.
For example the time delay in between eating meat and milk: That's in dispute. It's a multi level dispute, of: what delay is biblically required (if any), and what how much of a delay is rabbinically required (the two numbers are not the same), and how large a delay is required depending on which food was eaten first, and the type of food (aged cheese, young cheese, or milk).
But eating them together? Absolutely no dispute.
Just as a side note, there is a tendency to say "Rabbinically required, oh that's not as important." But the requirement to obey rabbinical prohibitions is itself biblical. So once a rabbinical edict is accepted it has total and complete force of law with virtually no distinctions between it and biblical edicts.
Well, not very. The usual agricultural practice for dairy cows is to take the calves away so that they're not consuming the mother's milk (because you want the milk; that's why you're keeping them in the first place). Female calves become more dairy cows, but male calves are pretty much useless, so you eat them.
So chances are you'll have prepared veal from the male calf at the same time as its mother is producing milk.
I've never been certain what this law was for. Most religious food practices stem from food hygiene laws; unclean animals are usually riddled with parasites, kosher and halal killing practices codify particular (safe) ways of slaughtering animals because otherwise people wouldn't do it properly --- but this one? Dunno.
Just as a sidenote, the Rabbis determine that a fetal calf does not count as meat, so one could actually cook a calf in its mother's milk, according to Jewish law.
A fetal calf is meat. But it does not require ritual slaughter - the slaughter of the mother is considered sufficient. (This rule actually has implications for the abortion debate.)
You have it reversed.
If you find milk inside the udder of the cow after slaughter that milk is considered meat, not milk. However it's prohibited rabbinically because it looks like milk and can lead to confusion.
