Reasons - The Reasons for Kosher
There continues to be a
debate on the purposes and meaning of the laws regarding Kashrut.
In Jewish philosophy it is recognized that many of the 613 mitzvot
cannot be explained rationally. They are categorized as chukim,
comprising such laws as the Red Heifer (Numbers 19). There are three
basic points of view regarding these laws:
* One view holds that these laws do have a reason, but is is not
understood because the ultimate explanation for mitzvot is beyond the
human intellect.
* A second view holds that most of the laws have some historical and/or
dietary significance (such as preventing the consumption of unhealthy
food, or differentiating oneself from non-Jews through dietary
restirctions; and
* A third view holds that these laws have no meaning other than to
instill obedience.
Some Jewish scholars have held that these dietary laws should simply be
categorized with a group of laws that are considered irrational in that
there is no particular explanation for their existence. The reason for
this is that there are some of God's regulations for mankind that the
human mind is not necessarily capable of understanding. Related to this
is the idea that the dietary laws were given as a demonstration of God's
authority and that man should obey without asking for a reason (William
H. Shea, Clean and Unclean Meats, Biblical Research Institute, December
1988).
This view, however, has been rejected by most classical and modern
Jewish authorities, and by modern biblical scholars. For example,
Maimonides holds that all the laws given by God have a reason, that we
are permitted to seek out what these reasons may be, and that we should
feel comfortable in knowing that rational reasons exist for all of God's
laws in the Torah, even if we are not sure of what some of these reasons
are. For Maimonides, the idea that God gave laws without any reason is
anathema.
Ritual purity and holiness
According to the Biblical book of Leviticus, the purpose of the laws is
related to ritual purity and holiness. Indeed, the Hebrew word for
"holiness" is etymologically related to the Hebrew word for
"distinction" or "separation." This idea is generally accepted by most
Jews today, and by many modern biblical scholars. Cultural
anthropologist Mary Douglas has written an important work on just how
the Israelites may have used the idea of distinction as a way to create
holiness. Her seminal work, Purity and Danger (1966), is still studied
today. One theory widely accepted today is that the laws serve as a
distinction between the Israelites and the non-Israelite nations of the
world. Gordon Wenham writes: "The laws reminded Israel what sort of
behaviour was expected of her, that she had been chosen to be holy in an
unclean world."
Similarly, the practice of Kashrut serves as a daily exercise in
self-discipline and self-control, strengthening the practitioner's
ability to choose other difficult paths. The ability to rationally curb
one's most basic appetites can be seen as the prerequisite to living in
a civilized society. Also, the aspects of Kosher slaughter which
emphasize and incorporate the need to avoid unnecessary suffering of the
animal remind the believer that having the power of life and death or to
cause suffering, even to a farm animal born and bred to be eaten, is a
serious responsibility rather than a pleasure to be sought after; and
that to actually indulge in pleasure in the power to cause suffering,
even in so common a practice as hunting, is to damage our own moral
sensibilities. Modern psychology confirms that those who have no empathy
for the suffering or death of animals are greatly at risk for also
having no regard for suffering and death of their fellow humans.
The prohibition against eating the fruits of a tree for the first three
years also represents a capacity for self-discipline and self-denial, as
well as a lengthy period of appreciation for the bounty of God, prior to
losing oneself in its enjoyment. Similarly, the requirement to tithe
one's harvest, aside from the social justice aspect, serves as a
reminder that this material wealth is not purely the result of one's own
efforts, but represents a gift from God; and as such, to share the gift
with one's fellows does not represent a real loss to anyone, even
oneself.
Symbolic purpose
During the first few centuries of the common era some philosophers held
that the laws of kashrut were symbolic in character. In this view,
kosher animals represent virtues, while non-kosher animals represent
vices. The first indication of this view can be found in the 1st century
BCE Letter of Aristeas (par. 145-148, 153). It later reappears in the
writings of Philo of Alexandria, and in the writings of some of the
early Church fathers.
This hypothesis has long since been rejected by most Jewish and
Christian scholars. Modern biblical criticism also has found nothing to
support this hypothesis, although the concept of the pig as a
particularly 'unclean' animal persists among Jews.
Although the symbolic explanation for kashrut has been largely rejected,
a number of authorities maintain that the laws are intended to promote
ethical and moral behaviour. A recent authority who has reexamined the
symbolic/ethical meaning of kashrut is Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch
(Germany, 19th century).
To some degree, the prohibition on combining milk with meat represents a
symbolic separation between death, represented by the flesh of a dead
animal, and life, represented by the milk required to sustain a newborn
creature. The often-quoted humane component to this law is also of
symbolic value; the Torah prohibits us from 'seething the kid in its
mother's milk', a practice cruel only in concept, which would not be
understood as cruelty by either the kid or its mother and would not
cause them additional suffering; but which could still potentially
inflame a human's taste for ultimate power over those creatures who are
weaker. Thus, Kashrut prohibits the practice itself, even if the
resulting mixture is to be discarded.
Similarly, the prohibition against consuming carnivorous mammals and
birds, 'loathsome crawling creatures', and scavengers, as well as the
prohibition against consuming sick or diseased animals, would seem to
rely, at least in part, on their perceived symbolic character.
Maintenance of a separate culture
Related to the concept of kashrut being one aspect of Judaism as a
separate people is the practical outcome of maintaining a specific
national diet, similar to the concept of reproductive isolation in
speciation. Just as two species who can interbreed will merge into one,
the theory of cultural evolution requires a degree of social separation
for two cultures to remain distinct entities. The laws of Kashrut had
the effect of preventing socialization and intermarriage with non-Jews,
helping the Jewish community maintain its identity. Wenham writes that
"circumcision was a private matter, but the food laws made one's Jewish
faith a public affair. Observance of the food laws was one of the
outward marks of a practising Jew, and this in turn enhanced Jewish
attachment to them as a reminder of their special status" (Gordon J.
Wenham, "The Theology of Unclean Food," The Evangelical Quarterly 53,
January March 1981, p.6-15).
Hygiene
The laws of kashrut were once thought to have been based on hygiene. It
was believed by some that kosher animals were healthier to eat than
non-kosher animals. It was also noted that the laws of purity (Leviticus
11–15) not only describe the difference between clean and unclean
animals, but also describe other phenomena that appear to be related to
health. For instance, glatt, the requirement that lungs be checked to be
free of adhesions, would prevent consumption of animals who had been
infected with tuberculosis; similarly, the ban on slaughtering of an
unconscious animal would eliminate many sick and possibly infectious
animals from being consumed. Such a rationale seems reasonable when
considering the laws prohibiting the consumption of carrion birds or
birds of prey (which are advantageous scavengers), as they may carry
disease from the carrion they consume; shellfish, which as filter
feeders can accumulate harmful parasites or toxins; or pork, which can
harbor trichinosis if not properly cooked. Thus, it was natural for many
to assume that all the laws of kashrut were merely hygienic in intent
and origin. One of the rabbinical authorities that mention the hygiene
hypothesis is Maimonides (in his Guide for the Perplexed).
For a number of reasons, however, this idea has fallen out of favor
among biblical scholars. Fruits and vegetables may be eaten without
prohibition even though there are many poisonous herbs, seeds, berries
and fruits. Additionally, this hypothesis does not explain other parts
of the Jewish dietary laws; for instance forbidding the consumption of
fish without true scales, such as sharks, fruit from trees which are
less than four years old, or residual blood in meat.
This is not to say that there could be no connection between the
priestly laws of kashrut and hygiene. As in the dietary codes of many
societies, it only makes sense that, over time, hygiene would likely
play some role in the development of the dietary laws of Leviticus. The
process of cultural evolution would eventually favor such a society over
one that persisted in consumption of unhealthy foods.
Other reasons
There is also the suggestion of a practical aspect to some of the laws
of Kashrut; for instance, the pig would not be a wise choice of domestic
animal for a nation which was, at the time, a nomadic desert tribe.
The laws of Kashrut also conform to a general rule that human societies
tend to separate food animals from companion animals, whether pets or
working animals. For instance, where dogs are kept as pets, they are not
eaten; in most countries, where horses are used as draft animals they
are not eaten, but in countries where oxen and cows are used as draft
animals, such as India, they are not eaten.
Like the laws for the slaughter of animals, laws against shellfish could
actually be for the good of the creature. There is no painless method
for the preparation of "bottom feeding" lobster and crab.
In probability, there are multiple reasons for the laws of Kashrut, with
each law serving one or more than one purpose.
Back to Kosher
|
|
