I’m curious about the dietary laws. I have a basic understanding, in that the meat of some animals is considered unclean, and never to be eaten. The laws also dictate how clean animals should/should not be slaughtered and/or prepared.
Now, I believe God is neither capricious nor illogical, therefore I must conclude that He has very good reasons for these laws, but I don’t know them. Are there commentaries or other dissertations in Jewish scholarly literature that explain God’s reasoning behind the kosher food laws?
I’d be willing to bet that there are so many it would make your head spin! A good place to find an introduction to the jewish religion is this web site, Judaism 101. Here’s their article on Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws. The “digest” version (ha!) of what they say on the justification of the laws of kashrut:
[ul]
[li]The laws have some beneficial health effects[/li][li]However, many laws have no known health effect[/li][li]You should observe the laws because the Torah says so (some people say that they are in the category of “chukkim”, laws for which there is no reason)[/li][li]The rules serve to emphasize the importance of distinguishing between right and wrong in life.[/li][/ul]
Much of what Arnold says is true. However, the ultimate reason we eat only kosher is because God said so.
Some will tell you, for example, that kashrus laws were designed to prevent the spread of trichinosis. While this may be a side benefit, it is not the reason we keep this commandment. Thus, if we were able to wipe trichinosis off the face of the earth, we would still keep kosher.
The same applies to the other “reasons” Arnold mentioned.
As to the ultimate reason why God gave us the commandments:
Basiclly, Jewish law divides the commandments into two groups:
Chukkim – Laws for which we don’t know the reason
Mishpatim – Laws for which the reason is evident (e.g. Don’t murder)
We can attempt to speculate as to why God gave us the Chukkim. But, in the end, it is speculation. He knows why He gave them to us for His own reasons.
As zev said, we have no way of knowing for certain what the real reason G-d forbid something is. However, there is a recent scientific discovery that has brought about an interesting speculation.
Jews have always maintained that their method of slaughtering mammals, a single slice with a smooth-bladed knife severing both the trachea and esophagus, kills an animal painlessly. By doing so, it completely cuts the flow of blood and oxygen to the animal’s brain, thus rendering the animal incapable of feeling anything.
Most mammals, however, have an additional source of blood flow to the brain: the circle of Willis, in the back of the neck. For such animals, there would indeed be pain.
However, there is one group of animals that does not have the circle of Willis: ruminating mammals…the class of mammals that are kosher. The Jewish dietary laws thus restrict Jews to eating only animals (well, mammals at least; I don’t know if any research has been done on the subject of Kosher birds and fish) to which we have not caused pain.
Is that the reason? No one but G-d himself could say for sure, but it is at least an interesting observation.
Arnold, thank you for the links. I’ll investigate them at my leisure. I’m sure I’ll find them interesting.
Zev, I agree that obedience to God on the basis that He is God supercedes obedience on the basis of seeing the reasoning behind His commands (In fact, Abraham’s faith under such circumstances shows that do so is righteousness). I understand that commentaries re: certain laws (chukkim) would be speculation, rather than “answers” or “reasons”. No skepticism or challenges from me; rather I merely wanted to know what conclusions scholars had arrived at. This is common with New Testament studies as well; read some interpretations of the Book of Revelation sometime!
Chaim, that’s a fascinating and enlightening point you bring up. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I can see logic in commanding the slaughter of animals in a way to minimize their pain and suffering. Of course, it doesn’t explain why clams are off, but…
There’s a saying that when two Jews get together in a room, there are three opinions. Here’s another possible explaination:
In a sense, God couldn’t care less whether or not you eat a pork chop; He could just as well have forbidden peanut butter. The point is to refine human nature. You can’t eat whatever you want; it has to be kosher. You can’t sleep with your spouse whenever you want; it has to be when the wife isn’t having her period. When you’re reminded of God all the time in little everyday acts, and you’re forced to exercise restraint continually, you more likely to restrain yourself when it really matters.
Maybe.
I’ve heard a fairly good reason: the kosher laws are so Jews will eat by themselves, and not intermingle with outsiders, which can lead to intermarriage and other things the bible doesn’t like too much…
Avumede’s explanation is, in fact, given somewhere in the book of Numbers, I think (I’m at the office and don’t have the reference) – don’t eat with the pagans who surround you, lest you intermarry with them and forsake the covenant.
I re-iterate (as usual) zev and CMKeller’s comments, that there is no reason given. There are lots of explanations or attempts at explanations.
Coffeecat’s peanut butter explanation: the purpose of the laws is to be constantly reminded of who you are, of God’s presence, of your task to make the world a better place. Thus, rules are placed around the animal instincts – sex and food. An animal eats what it wants, when it wants; a human striving for holiness restricts what he eats.
Meat-eating is wrong altogether. It is clear from the creation and flood stories, that before the Flood, God expected people to eat vegetables ("…from every tree…"). After the Flood, God gives mankind permission to eat meat, but not to eat/drink the blood. Thus, the dietary laws are a sort of divine compromise – God would like us to be vegetarians, but that’s too high a standard to set, and so instead the meat we eat is restricted to certain animals, drained entirely of blood.
There is inelegance in the combination of meat/red/flowing-blood/death and milk/white/semen/life. The two ideas are opposites, and the Bible tends to dislike combinations of unlikes.
Thanks for your offerings. I hope you didn’t misinterpret my OP as asking for “THE REASON”. I’m fully aware that many things religious do not have explicit reasons that are given, or that man can see. This is just as true in Christianity as in Judaism (if you don’t believe me, come to a Business Meeting at my church sometime).
I just wondered what explanations might have been offered through the centuries by scholars, and I find all the reasons offered in this thread to contain grains of truth and a lot of logic. Even the explanation that there is no explanation doesn’t bother me. Is it in Isaiah? “Just as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are above yours.” A lame paraphrase, I’m sure, but the meaning is there: Let God be God.
The Talmud states in Tractate Sanhedrin that meat eating (or more specifically, killing animals) was prohibited before the Flood. Biblical commentators (some, anyway) say that when the world was saved due to the efforts of Noah, people got the right to kill animals, who owed their existence to them.
I don’t have my Bible handy but the vegetarianism thing is fairly self-evident from the text. Adam and Eve are told they may eat any fruit, from any tree… nothing is said about meat. After the flood, Noah and family are told they may eat meat but not drink the blood. It’s pretty explicit. Get your copy of Genesis and check it out.
One reason why this is such an incredibly rediculous idea is that there is nothing uniquely unkosher about pork. Pigs are but one of many examples listed in the Bible of animals that have only one of the two signs of a kosher animal. The reason for pork being so associated in the public mind with unkosher is because it happens to be widely used as food by non-jews, more than say, camels, which are equally unkosher.
Actually, Harris’ argument is more about why pigs are considered unclean, in contrast to India, where cows are not eaten but are revered instead of despised. But IIRC, many of the other nonkosher foods are also noneconomic - it would be equally unlikely for nomadic desert dwellers to attempt to live on shellfish. And the only insect specifically exempted from the rule is also the only insect with any significant food value that tended to appear in the region. Camels actually probably can be grouped with cows in India - animals that are forbidden to eat because they are more useful alive.
I certainly agree that some of the kosher rules cannot be explained in “functional” terms (e.g., the meat and milk rule). But it is not reasonable to dismiss an argument about one aspect of the laws as ridiculous because it does not explain all of the laws.
Beg to differ. If the laws proscribing the various forbidden animals are unrelated (as for exemple, in the case of forbidden birds) it makes sense to look at individual reasons for each one. In this case, one general rule was handed down. To look for separate reasons for the different members of the one forbidden group is a tremendous stretch.
I can’t remember the details of the argument well enough to actually quote it. I do suggest you take a look at some of Harris’ work, if for no other reason than that it makes fascinating reading. If the part about kosher bothers you, start with his picking apart Christianity and messiahs in Cannibals and Kings.
My (possibly flawed) memory is that he started by looking at the class of “meat animals” - animals large enough to be practical for agriculture under some circumstances and known to the tribes of Israel. There was no single rule that adequately separated out the economically viable from the inviable, but “divided hoof” came very close, except that it left in the pig. By adding in “cud-chewing,” you get rid of the awkward exception, but none of the “good” animals.
I am not trying to convince any of you that the rules of kosher are not handed down by God. I’m not even particularly pushing Harris’ argument, although I couldn’t pick holes in it when I read it. It doesn’t seem fantastic to me that God could pick a rule that had the effect of making his people eat better, by discouraging them from trying to farm things that don’t thrive in the land he had chosen for them.
Dex, I agree that the meaning of those two Genesis stories is straightforward. I was looking for further commentary by Jewish scholars.
Thanks for the reference, IzzyR.
I suppose that’s one way of looking at it, although it’s somewhat less than convincing if you’re an animal. I mean, human wickedness was responsible for bringing on the Flood in the first place, right? I’d be grateful if someone rescued me if my house caught fire, but if I later found out that my hero was actually the arsonist who set the fire, I don’t know that I’d feel like I owe him my existence.
Here’s another possible explaination: