Do Jewish and Islamic dietary laws have anything in common?

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by davidmp *
**I thought the whole point of these ancient dietary laws was to hold down the incidence of food poisoning. In the days before knowledge of microbes and modern hygene, what better way to avoid getting sick than to not eat food that was likely to make you sick? And how to get people to remember what was good and what was not? Societies of the time were largely run by the priests so their warnings and reminders were assigned religeous significance by default. **

Not quite. After all, if the only reason was to prevent food poisioning, then what difference if the animal is slaughtered properly or improperly? But yet, in the former case, the animal is kosher, but in the latter it is not.

The bottom line is that the reason Orthodox Jews keep the kashrus laws is because we believe that God told us to. Any “health benefits” that may come along with it is a side benefit. Thus, if trichinosis were wiped off the face of the earth tomorrow, then we would still be forbidden to eat pork.

BTW, welcome to the boards, davidmp.

Zev Steinhardt

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Yes, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, davidmp, a great first post and we hope to hear more from you.

I thought the whole point of these ancient dietary laws was to hold down the incidence of food poisoning.

I did say in the Staff Report that many people believe health was the rationale behind the dietary laws. However, that reason is not spelled out anywhere, and there are plenty of others who argue against it. The “health” argument tends to be put forward by Reform Jews as somehow meaning that the dietary laws are no longer meaningful since we have better health standards. Conservative and Orthodox Jews reject this notion, for reasons Zev has stated.

Aryeh, the principles you’ve set down don’t look a bit like those of either Maimonedes or Rabbi Yishmael… < grin > And others should remember that the principles of Aryeh reflect his religio-political perspective. Other branches/sects would disagree, especially in terms of the importance of the written word. I would not say, for instance, that the written Torah and Prophets are “irrelevant.” I agree that one cannot go back to the primary written text without understanding the later interpretations (“oral law” et al.) but I would say that the primary texts are the critical underpining, not that they are irrelevant.

And finally, Mehelan, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, glad to have you here. In the Staff Report, I did very carefully describe the Christian rite as symbolic. This did not seem the time or place to get into transubstantiation, whether the wine is magically turned to blood or what. I wanted only to make the comparison that the Christian ceremony is a ritualistic/symbolic drinking of blood. No Jewish or Islamic ceremony would ever involve anything like that.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

BTW, it’s interesting that we have lots of comments on the Jewish dietary laws (and some Christians pooh-poohing them), but we have almost no comments on the Muslim side of the table.

Anyone?

Irishman, do you feel that the Islamic logic is equally “ridiculous” and “stupid”, or is it only the Jewish side of the table that strikes you that way?

[MLS]

*Originally posted by davidmp *
**I thought the whole point of these ancient dietary laws was to hold down the incidence of food poisoning. In the days before knowledge of microbes and modern hygene, what better way to avoid getting sick than to not eat food that was likely to make you sick? And how to get people to remember what was good and what was not? Societies of the time were largely run by the priests so their warnings and reminders were assigned religeous significance by default. **

This very subject was brought up in one of my classes in college. We tried to show how every dietary law was in some way related to a practice that was healthful. The professor had a good response: “So, what have you proven? That God knows what’s good for you?”

[Chronos]

Quoth RedNaxela:

The problem with broccoli and other such vegetables, then, is that there may be bugs (or pieces of them) in the crevices that are too small to notice in situ (especially if they’re the same color as the vegetable itself, as is true of various kinds of thrips, for example), but would be perfectly well visible if they were placed, say, on a sheet of paper.

Are there no other amateur gardeners in this thread? Take my word on it, broccoli can and does get big creepy-crawlies in it. All the broccoli I’ve grown has had worms in it, about a centimeter long and half that wide. But they’re the exact same color as the stems, and very similar in shape, so they’re still very hard to notice in situ. I’m not Jewish, and I don’t squirm over unrecognizeable specks of insects in my food, but the broccoli worms were still enough to put me off of home-grown brocolli for good.

[Aryeh_Gregor]

“Does this prohibition on insect parts only apply to “large chunks”, I guess you would call it? (ie. fly crawls into broccoli and gets squished)” ~Waenara

First of all, as has already been mentioned, if you can’t see it in a high-contrast situation with the naked eye, according to Jewish law it doesn’t exist. If you can see it, it might pose a problem. I believe that eating a whole bug of any size (as long as it’s visible) is forbidden Biblically, whereas body parts of bugs are only forbidden Rabbinically (except in very large amounts). Tiny bugs pose as much of a problem as large bugs. In fact, they’re more troublesome, because you can’t see the things.

"*While reading the column this part immediately reminded me how many food regulatory agencies set out maximum allowable limits on the amount of bug/insect parts allowed in processed foods - I specifically remember this for wheat flour.

How would this affect ultra-orthodox Jews? Would it affect them at all? Or would it fall under the “microscopic too small to bother” explanation for why they aren’t bothered by dust mites?*" ~Waenara

The consumption of bug parts is normally prohibited only Rabbinically, and generally there’s a lot more slack in Rabbinical commandments than in Biblical commandments. I don’t know whether you have to actually know that a particular bug exists for it to be a problem. I also don’t know whether the consumption of a bug whose existence is unknown to you specifically but where you’re sure that there must be some bug there qualifies as accidental or intentional. The application of the laws here is complex, and I’m afraid I’m really not up to the task.

“Waenara, these laws do apply equally well to smaller pieces of insects (such as a leg) as to “large chunks.” The operating criterion is always whether the offending matter is visible to the naked eye, even though it may look like just a dot (and it would take a magnifying glass to resolve it as a bug).” ~RedNaxela

I’m quite certain that bug parts are treated differently from whole bugs.

“Aryeh, the principles you’ve set down don’t look a bit like those of either Maimonedes or Rabbi Yishmael… < grin >” ~C K Dexter Haven

I’m not acquainted with Maimonedes’ principles, but Rabbi Yishmael’s principles set up the method of derivation used in the Talmud. Now those principles aren’t relevant as such, because all the derivation is done already and we just follow the bottom line of the Talmud.

“And others should remember that the principles of Aryeh reflect his religio-political perspective. Other branches/sects would disagree, especially in terms of the importance of the written word.” ~C K Dexter Haven

My religio-political perspective is that of an Orthodox Jew, and I don’t think that very many Orthodox Jews would disagree with what I said (assuming that they fully understand it). I don’t claim to speak for Conservative, Reform, or other Jews.

“I would not say, for instance, that the written Torah and Prophets are “irrelevant.” I agree that one cannot go back to the primary written text without understanding the later interpretations (“oral law” et al.) but I would say that the primary texts are the critical underpining, not that they are irrelevant.” ~C K Dexter Haven

As of right now they are irrelevant to Jewish law. If they disappeared tomorrow, Jewish law would be unaffected. I’m sure that you could find many fallacies throughout the entire Talmud, but that doesn’t mean you can second-guess its conclusions. (I realize that this is not necessarily a view shared by Conservative Jews, who don’t, I believe, accept that Jewish law as stated in the Talmud is entirely sacrosanct. Again, I speak for Orthodoxy only.) The sources and underlying logic of the Talmud don’t generally matter to the law as it exists today. Only the Talmud’s conclusions (and those of later sages, on topics that the Talmud didn’t conclude anything about) do.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

<< I’m not acquainted with Maimonedes’ principles >>

They’re summarized in a li’l tune called Yigdal.

And, although we’re a little far afield here, to answer you comments: yes, Conservative Judaism accepts the Talmud and rabbinic traditions, but does not hold that the Talmud is sacrosanct and unchanging. The Talmud is debates, and those debates continue today, and decisions can be revisited and fine-tuned.

However, I repeat that I think your comments about the irrelevancy of the Pentateuch reflects your particular version of Orthodoxy.

So, back at the ranch, where are the Muslim commentators?

[Steven_G]

The posted question asked about logical (health) related reasons behind the dietery laws. This has not ben addresed in the spirit in which ( I think) the question was asked.
An answer to this does not challenge exising religious practice. As has been stated several times, what is in the rules are the rules i.e. the word of god or the prophet, and they are followed regardless.

However, 3000 years ago either these rules were passed to the people by a deity, or developed out of tradition and social practice (depends upon your view of religion). In any case, can we look at the current rules, draw on the main principles and examine if these might have been created as a response to the then situation?

An earlier comment on the focus on animal husbandry and agriculture as opposed to the “hunter gatherer” model is also interesting; another potential basis for the develpment of such rules.

[vjmurphy]

*Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven *
[Irishman, do you feel that the Islamic logic is equally “ridiculous” and “stupid”, or is it only the Jewish side of the table that strikes you that way?

I’m not Irishman, but I’ll take a stab at this and weather the flames. I see dietary restrictions, religious observances, etc, as two things: for those involved, it is their way of life: something they do automatically, with, perhaps, many of them really not knowing why. It does promote an “otherness” that makes the members of those religions less desirable as mates to those outside their religious system. It also can foster togetherness, friendship, solidarity within that group.

However, to those outside the system, the rules seem more like a control mechanism that serves no real purpose (beyond, of course, control). The arbitrary (perhaps dense might be a better word) rules make little or no sense to most people, since they don’t have the same traditions. When I see a Jewish/Islamic woman wearing black, skin covering clothing in the humid summer, my mind boggles at religions that have such weird rules. Then I recall my good old Roman Catholic upbringing, with its weird rules, and think “Hmmm: all religions have to have something that controls their members.”

Now, I know people will get annoyed at that statement, but I think I’ll stick to it. Religions attempt to control the behavior of their believers: that’s NOT a bad thing, at times. Government attempts the same thing. And I certainly don’t mind religious rules that promote the common good.

However, I do fail to see how eating or dressing differently does anything other that make the affected groups seem “weird” or “different” to others.

Complete religious control, though, can lead to groups like the Heaven’s Gate cult, when the control becomes more heavy-handed or rules become even more arbitrary. But I would argue that many religions are moving towards a more cult-like state (at least to outside observers). And certainly during the Reagan administration when many key decision makers seemed to be under the belief that we are in the “end-times” didn’t make me any happier about religious extremes from the Christian end.

Anyhow, I think I’ve probably given enough flamebait for the day. So, to answer the question: I think the Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Mormon, Hindu, etc logic is really anything but. Now I’ll duck and cover.

[Aryeh_Gregor]

“They’re summarized in a li’l tune called Yigdal. ” ~C K Dexter Haven

Oh, those principles! Oops. But again, those aren’t really relevant. A few of them deal with the truth of the words of the prophets, the fact that the Torah we have today is the same one as was given on Sinai, and so forth, but none really have anything to do with halakha.

“However, I repeat that I think your comments about the irrelevancy of the Pentateuch reflects your particular version of Orthodoxy.” ~C K Dexter Haven

The fundamental difference between Orthodox Judaism and other branches is our acceptance of the traditional laws without regard to any underlying logic or basis. Since no Orthodox Jew can challenge a law on the basis of its origins, wherever these laws originated – including the Pentateuch – isn’t really relevant to Orthodox Jewish law as practiced today. I would classify anyone who believes that Jewish law does depend on its origins and can be modified based on new analyses as Conservative.

“So, to answer the question: I think the Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Mormon, Hindu, etc logic is really anything but.” ~vjmurphy

I certainly don’t claim that there is any identifiable logic behind the rules. I think that few people would. They are basically arbitrary laws, whose basis we can’t really understand (if there is one). If there is no logical basis to the individual laws, then they’re just to test our faith. Regardless, we are bound to follow them. No one said they have to be reasonable.

[RedNaxela]

*Originally posted by Aryeh Gregor *
I believe that eating a whole bug of any size (as long as it’s visible) is forbidden Biblically, whereas body parts of bugs are only forbidden Rabbinically (except in very large amounts).

I’m not sure that this is correct. It’s true that one is not chayav (liable to any kind of penalty for a deliberate violation, or required to bring a sin-offering for an unintentional one) unless the amount eaten was either (a) the size of an olive, or (b) a whole bug. However, halachah follows the opinion that even smaller amounts - of any kind of forbidden food - are Biblically prohibited (see Yoma 73b-74a and Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 612:1).

[Candlemas]

They are basically arbitrary laws, whose basis we can’t really understand…

The origins of these dietary laws are not arbitrary, they did not appear out of thin air, and they were not originally created by divine edict and adhered to for religious reasons. The origins of these laws can be found in the complex purity systems of the societies that created them. Most likely, versions of these laws existed in one form or another long before any religious significance was applied to them.

Purity systems are interesting things. They’re pervasive, influential and if they are applied correctly, you don’t even notice they are in place. How they come about is often a mystery - but their existence is undeniable and their effect on the perception of individual beings is astounding. For instance, if I were to tell you that while I am typing this I am biting my toenails, many of you would cringe in revulsion. This is because our society considers this an impure act and your perception of me would be negatively altered by knowing that I am committing such an act. However, if I told you that while I am writing this I am performing a pure act such as brushing my teeth, your perception of me would be positively altered by this knowledge. A person always wants to be perceived as pure, so a person tries to adhere to the system.

Purity systems exist everywhere in society today and have been around most likely since the dawn of man. Purity systems allow you to instantly recognize one of your own, they set standards for membership in your community, and serve to bind groups together through an unspoken but agreed upon code. Often differing purity systems butt heads. Here’s a good example. I just read how a particular group of Native Americans were disgusted by the Marquette party’s use of handkerchiefs. They couldn’t figure out why anyone would want to keep that stuff. When they had a runny nose, they closed one nostril and blew it on the ground. Two purity systems. One believes it is more pure to discreetly blow their nose in a small towel and retain that towel for future use, the other believes that this action is impure and the pure thing to do is honk fat snot on the ground in front of anyone that cares to see. You can imagine how these differing views of purity must have altered the perceptions of the individuals interacting with one another.

These systems extend into every facet of life, even occupation. Today it is considered more pure to be a fireman or a teacher then to be…say…a used car salesman, sanitation worker, or a politician. They are all legitimate ways of making a living, but they have been assigned different levels of purity in our society. For the purposes of this discussion, it is not hard to imagine a society were being a hunter was considered impure, while being a farmer was considered pure.

Purity systems even exist on a much smaller scale. In my family, for instance, gum chewing is considered rude and improper. It is therefore an impure action. As a result, I don’t chew gum. Not coincidentally, I’ve also chosen a wife that doesn’t chew gum. Most likely, our children won’t chew gum. We’re perpetuating our own little purity system. If my family became the ruling family of our neighborhood, we might impose our purity system on the neighborhood by forbidding gum chewing. I might even back it up by saying that God came down and told me that He/She was pleased by my family’s lack of gum chewing. As a result, my neighborhood might have really bad breath - which could disgust and confound folks visiting my neighborhood - but in my neighborhood having bad breath is more pure than chewing gum.

The Hebrew dietary laws are most likely ancient familial systems of purity that became locally prevalent, were given religious significance, literally codified in the written Torah, and subsequently altered over time as the systems of purity changed.

[Polka]

someone called for a Muslim commentator so here i am… before i say anything i want to mention that my views are those of a Muslim not of Islam as a whole and that i do make mistakes. the report was mostly correct as far as i know, but there are certain things that are disagreed upon by different groups of Muslims.
one difference between the Islamic method of slaughter and the Jewish method of slaughter that was not mentioned is the cutting of the neck. in Islam, the neck is slit from the underside, but the spinal chord must remain attached so that the heart pumps out as much of the blood as it can. in Judaism it is done differently, but since i am not sure exactly how it is done, i will leave it up to someone else to explain.
vjmurphy made a comment about Jewish or Muslim women wearing black and covering up even in the heat. in Islam, there are no rules that say a woman must wear black or any other color. sometimes women do wear black as a sign of mourning or because they simply like the color. as a person who covers up according to Islamic laws, i can tell you that in the sun i am often more comfortable than women who are in shorts and tank tops. i get sunburned less, and the hot sun does not hit my head directly. when it is hot outside i often see people holding papers above their heads or putting their shirts/ jackets/other articles of clothing over their heads to deflect the sunlight, my head covering does the same thing even though that is not its purpose. when i do have the misfortune of wearing black on hot days, i really feel the heat, but as long as i pay attention to the weather forcasts i am perfectly fine.

[MHand]

*Originally posted by Polka *
vjmurphy made a comment about Jewish or Muslim women wearing black and covering up even in the heat. in Islam, there are no rules that say a woman must wear black or any other color.

For the record, Jewish women are not required to wear black etiher, and in my experience, usually do not. They also do no “cover up” in the same sense that Muslim women do.

A married women must cover her hair. All women above a certain age cover certain parts of their body, but the covering is not as restrictive as Muslim law, and does not include covering the face.

There are certain colors people don’t wear (red?), but I’m not familiar with the source or details of these laws.

Some men have a tradition of wearing black coats. Tradition is, in many ways, almost like law, under Jewish law.

[Irishman]

Regarding the movie, it was A Stranger Among Us, with Melanie Griffith. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0105483 Took me some thinking to recall - actually, I had to think up Antonio Banderas’s name before I could chain my way back and then look up Melanie on IMDB. Anyway, I have no idea of the accuracy of that particular tidbit, and it was a Hollywood movie, however the intent of the movie was to show the Hassidic culture in a positive light. I suppose they did focus on some of the stricter elements to create the juxtaposition of the differences before working toward the understanding part. I make no claim about that practice applying to all Jews or even all Hassidim, but only that it was shown as an example of the extent that some Jews take the dietary laws.

Aryeh Gregor, I appreciate your attempt to provide some explanation of how the system works, and how the current results were arrived at. However, it really doesn’t make it make more sense because the decisions along the way seem stretched. For instance, the step between the Torah (1) and the Talmud (2) in your post does not explain where the injunction against mixing dairy and meat comes from. If the source of that injuction is the statement in the Torah, then the justification is lax, IMO. Ergo, Hurculean jump number 1.

Now I really don’t have a problem with the Jews deciding that mixing dairy and meat is wrong. I just find it ridiculous that the justification for that position is that one passage in the Torah. If no one claims that the injunction is based solely or heavily on that one passage, then a large part of my criticism subsides. But that is the impression I was given.

Dex, what I most objected to wasn’t the existence of dietary restrictions themselves, but the particular justification and the extent to which it was carried from such a thin starting point. I suppose in general I find religious dietary restrictions silly, but don’t think it worth mentioning. Religions have lots of silly practices associated with them. Cultures have lots of silly practices associated with them, and I’m sure I have my share.

I will say I thought it was a good column and well-written.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

<< If no one claims that the injunction is based solely or heavily on that one passage, then a large part of my criticism subsides. >>

Then rest assured, no one claims the prohibition against mixing milk and meat comes solely or heavily from that one passage.

The Pentateuch is written very sparsely, words are not wasted (whether you think it was written by God or by humans, it’s a very terse document.) As a legal document, it’s entirely unsatisfactory. For instance, a simple “Thou shalt not murder” has no elaboration – what about warfare? what about self-defense? what about suicide? As a law code (which is what most of the Pentateuch is), it’s hopelessly inadequate.

Thus, an Oral Tradition accompanied the original text. Again, whether you think that Oral Tradition was God-given or was developed by the society over centuries, the written word clearly condensed and codified the broader law code that the society “knew.” Thus, the written word says, “Thou shalt not murder” and the Oral Tradition defined the circumstances that were and were not “murder”, such as self-defense.

Similarly with the simple biblical statement about not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk. The concept that this prohibition included mixing any meat and any milk was part of the Oral Tradition.

Grotesque oversimplification: Somewhere around, say 100 BC, there was a need to codify the Oral Tradition. Depending on when you think the Pentateuch was written, the Oral Tradition had been floating around for 1000 years (perhaps as few as 500 years, but it’s still a lonnnnng time) and different regions or authorities had different versions. The ol’ game of “telephone”, operating over centuries. Thus, the Talmud reflects the different debates over exactly what the Oral Tradition was, and resolved disagreements.

To the Orthodox, the Oral Tradition was unchanged, transmitted from God to Moses and so down the generations, with a few “false” interpretations that clogged up the system along the way, and the writers of the Talmud discussed away the alternatives and thus we have the unbroken Oral Tradition. Conservative and Reform tend to take a less strict viewpoint, but Conservative also hold the Talmud and rabbinic decisions to be binding.

Thus, this is a long-winded way of saying, no, the elaborate rules of meat/dairy do not come solely from the single line of Pentateuch text.

[Aryeh_Gregor]

“I’m not sure that this is correct. It’s true that one is not chayav (liable to any kind of penalty for a deliberate violation, or required to bring a sin-offering for an unintentional one) unless the amount eaten was either (a) the size of an olive, or (b) a whole bug. However, halachah follows the opinion that even smaller amounts - of any kind of forbidden food - are Biblically prohibited (see Yoma 73b-74a and Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 612:1).” ~Red Naxela

Okay, then. I hardly qualify as a learned person. I think I can understand where my confusion came from.

“[insert post about purity system]” ~Candlemas

Interesting. I have to say, however, that if you said you were brushing your teeth while reading this I would think you pretty weird.

“For instance, the step between the Torah (1) and the Talmud (2) in your post does not explain where the injunction against mixing dairy and meat comes from. If the source of that injuction is the statement in the Torah, then the justification is lax, IMO.” ~Irishman

As Dex said, that isn’t the source for it. There is an entirely seperate oral tradition that includes those laws. It wasn’t directly derived from the verse.

“To the Orthodox, the Oral Tradition was unchanged, transmitted from God to Moses and so down the generations, with a few “false” interpretations that clogged up the system along the way, and the writers of the Talmud discussed away the alternatives and thus we have the unbroken Oral Tradition.” ~C K Dexter Haven

There are many Orthodox Jews who believe that, true, but they tend to be the more right-wing sort. There is definitely a very significant portion of Orthodox Jews that believes something closer to what I said – that the oral tradition is probably significantly different from that given to Moses on Sinai, but it’s still binding regardless of the original law.

[Rocket]

Hats off to Dex, extremely informative summary for a very complex topic.

I have a vague recollection of a professor expounding on the reasoning for dietary restrictions on pork from ancient times having to do with the fat content and humans craving for it, or something like that.

Or maybe it was the amount of resources required to raise hogs vs. other domestic animals.

Does anyone else have information on this?

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I think, Rocket, that there have been any number of theories speculating on “explanations” of these rules, relating to health, to shunning pagan rituals, to domestication in a nomadic life, etc. There is no evidence or proof of one such speculative rationale over another.

[swstephe]

As a Muslim, I never heard the one about shrimp and shellfish until just now. I did some research and found that to be only the Hanafi school, (one of 4 “official” schools of thought and interpretation). I think the majority would accept anything that came from the sea. Some teachings even allow for “carrion”, (something you found floating around), based on one story, and even whales.

I posed the same question to some Muslim scholars about wether there was any prohibition at all about consuming human flesh, and therefore cannibilism. It was relevant because I happened to be in an area of South East Asia that had people who practiced that until recently. They were stumped and finally decided that the question was so “unthinkable” as to not even merit a decision.

I recently saw some articles that tried to persuade against dairy products and breads in western countries because of some stories that the Vitamin D added to those products was derived from human hair(! – another article for SD?). But couldn’t find any confirmation of that story or the prohibition from consuming something derived from discarded human tissue like hair.

But after some thought, I realized there is still some indirect prohibition. After all, how does one come about getting the human flesh in the first place? butchering a human would be murder and eating accident victims like those soccer players would be considered carrion and would also be prohibited. So, for now, I guess they got that one covered.