I am only a convert, but I consider that Christianity forbids things because people like them, and Judaism forbids breaking commandments. Fake Kosher bacon bits are Kosher, and chicken cordon bleau made with turkey bacon is Kosher.
Another loophole: Sure, don’t cook the kid in ITS mother’s milk, but how about a different cow’s milk?
snfaulkner:
[/quote]
Believe it or not, the Talmud (Chullin, 113-114) actually raises those as possibilties for interpretation, ultimately disproving them (the discussion takes a full page of Talmud) and concluding that the Torah prohibits the meat of any mammal cooked in the milk of any mammal.
carnivorousplant:
True, by Torah law, fowl and dairy are permitted. However, the Rabbis later forbid the combination because it’s too easy to mistake a piece of fowl meat for mammal meat.
The first time I was in Israel, I went to a kosher McDonald’s just for the novelty of eating there. (Israel has both kosher and non-kosher McDonald’s.) It felt weird sitting under those golden arches while eating a hamburger. Now I don’t eat there because it’s just too touristy and expensive.
Oysters eaten straight from the shell are out, then?
Oysters have neither fins nor scales and are non-kosher regardless.
For sure – I was considering matters of “Gentiles may eat all and any creatures, but shouldn’t eat them alive”.
But these are the seven laws that both Jews and non-Jews are expected to follow. Generally, non-Jews aren’t expected to keep Kosher, so the fins and scales part doesn’t matter to them. But do Jews expect non-Jews to refrain from eating oysters on the shell?
I am not familiar with how to eat shellfish, but from the question, I presume that the oysters are still alive when eaten “on the shell”. In which case, yes, it would be an example of this prohibition applying even to non-Jews.
I always figured the most common example was swallowing goldfish. (Or at least, it was a somewhat common example in the 1950s.) Which is actually pretty ironic, because goldfish is a variety of carp, which is kosher, having fins and scales. So live goldfish is an example of a kosher food that even Jews can’t eat (until it is dead).
I understand how the other six could be chosen as important, but is there explanation/discussion in the Talmud or elsewhere how the “don’t eat from a live animal” was chosen?
Apologies in advance if this pushes us into GD, but “eating from a live animal” wouldn’t occur to me as something that needed to be avoided, at least in the same way as murder or blasphemy.
Regards,
Shodan
Good question, which the rabbis DO discuss. Sorry for no cite, but the short answer is: Sensitivity training. Eating an animal that is still alive is an extremely barbaric act. I think of it as the absolute minimum of animal rights legislation, and we are expected to build on it from there.
My only problem with that is that humans should take priority, so why is there nothing about assaulting a fellow person? And the simple answer to that is that it is included in #7, regarding the general legal system.
Do not eat from a live animal?
Couldn’t that be interpreted to be a taboo against drinking milk or eating eggs? Or honey?
It would be just like God to lead his chosen people into a land flowing with milk and honey, and then say, “Ha ha! You can’t have any of this stuff!”
I think there is precedent for that. God created people who loved fruit and put a big fat fruit tree in the middle of their home and told them not to eat from it. He had to have known that was a plan that was doomed to fail.
It will depend on how observant they are. Israel used to have a business of fattening ducks for pate de foie gras for export to France. The government banned the business because the ducks were rendered non kosher by the force feeding machines that broke something in their gullets. I am sure that most very observant Jews would be repelled by the thought of making a Reuben. Of course, you could try subbing tofu for the cheese.
Really kosher restaurants will not have both milk and meat products on the premises.
Exactly. A tiny bit of bacon grease might fall on the counter.
Some people buying items for Passover insist on wiping down the counter before putting the items on it. Who knows if a stray bread crumb might have fallen on it?
I’m not learned in biology; but have the impression that oysters seem pretty “inert” – have doubts as to whether being swallowed alive, would be particularly traumatic for an oyster. The live-goldfish-swallowing thing, though, strikes me as cruel and horrible (whoever, in the 1950s or at any other time, did / does this, and why??). I’m not claiming in all this, to be logical or consistent…
So it seems that, should I have hopes of being regarded by Jews as a righteous Gentile; I’d have to give up our favourite British way of consuming oysters. Am feeling a considerable desire to go to my local oyster outlet tomorrow, and commit the wicked act a couple of times – even if never again, after.
I believe it is the act of eating something that is alive, not the pain caused to the oyster. Fish (and presumably oysters, were they Kosher) don’t require a special butcher, for (more speculation on my part) because they feel no pain.
Some African tribes will slice meat from a live steer, then bind it back. Other drink the blood, mixed with milk.
I imagine some tribes in the Holy Land practiced one or the other of these.
No offense, I hope, but that isn’t exactly what I was asking. I was wondering why that specific prohibition would be applied to Gentiles.
IIUC the command not to boil a kid in its mother’s milk was based on a fertility ritual performed by other groups in the Middle East. I can see how thus it would be forbidden to Jews, to keep them separated from other religious/ethnic groups in the region. I can also see why murder, or setting up a just society, would be equally likely to appear like something that Jews and Gentiles alike would be required to respect. And murder and injustice are common.
But even if there have been instances of eating the flesh of a living animal, why would that stand out as something that is beyond the pale even for Gentiles? It seems oddly specific for a universal injunction.
If it is “because God says so”, that’s fine. If there is anything else, I wonder what it is.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan – I’m wondering along the same lines. Re “eating living creatures”, there seems to be something of a disconnect / discord here, between trying to make sense of, and negotiate about, things; and simple across-the-board “just because”, commands.