Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

Some of the relevant passages of the Bible:
Genesis 7:1-3 wrote:[font=Georgia]Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time. You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.[/font]

This passage shows that the concept of unclean food comes before the giving of the Law to the Jews. Therefore, dismissing all of the dietary restrictions based on the idea that they were only for the Jews is not valid Biblically.
Leviticus 11 wrote:[font=Georgia]The Lord spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

‘These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you.

‘These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.

‘By these, moreover, you will be made unclean: whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening, and whoever picks up any of their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. Concerning all the animals which divide the hoof but do not make a split hoof, or which do not chew cud, they are unclean to you: whoever touches them becomes unclean. Also whatever walks on its paws, among all the creatures that walk on all fours, are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening, and the one who picks up their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; they are unclean to you.

‘Now these are to you the unclean among the swarming things which swarm on the earth: the mole, and the mouse, and the great lizard in its kinds, and the gecko, and the crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand reptile, and the chameleon. These are to you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead becomes unclean until evening. Also anything on which one of them may fall when they are dead becomes unclean, including any wooden article, or clothing, or a skin, or a sack—any article of which use is made—it shall be put in the water and be unclean until evening, then it becomes clean. As for any earthenware vessel into which one of them may fall, whatever is in it becomes unclean and you shall break the vessel. Any of the food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall become unclean, and any liquid which may be drunk in every vessel shall become unclean. Everything, moreover, on which part of their carcass may fall becomes unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean and shall continue as unclean to you. Nevertheless a spring or a cistern collecting water shall be clean, though the one who touches their carcass shall be unclean. If a part of their carcass falls on any seed for sowing which is to be sown, it is clean. Though if water is put on the seed and a part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

‘Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening. He too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening, and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

‘Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten. Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable. Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.’�

This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.
[/font]
Here they are in some detail. The rules about what is clean and unclean is a whole lot more involved than, "Don't eat pork and shellfish. "
Mark 7:18-19 wrote:[font=Georgia]And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?� (Thus He declared all foods clean.)[/font]

Jesus comes along and says something completely different; something that makes sense.
Acts 10:10-16,28,34-43 wrote:[font=Georgia]But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!� But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.� Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.� This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
[...]
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
[...]
Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.�
[/font]
Admittedly, this passage is not primarily about the removal of food restrictions, but uses that removal as a metaphor of the Christian view of the universality of God. Their God is no longer to be viewed as a tribal god. However, this passage makes no sense if the food restrictions had not been removed.

Paul recapitulates what Jesus said about food, twice.
Romans 14:14 wrote:[font=Georgia]I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.[/font]
1 Timothy 4:4-5 wrote:[font=Georgia]For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.[/font]
Question for debate: In what way does this make sense? Why would God provide dietary restrictions on Noah and his descendents, clarify and perhaps amplify them for Moses then remove them altogether when he comes in person?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

BigRed
Student
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:53 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Post #2

Post by BigRed »

McCulloch wrote:
Question for debate: In what way does this make sense? Why would God provide dietary restrictions on Noah and his descendents, clarify and perhaps amplify them for Moses then remove them altogether when he comes in person?
This is a great question.
Why would God change his mind? It doesn't seem logical for God to make this change.
There is strong evidence that Paul was a great deceiver who claimed Jesus spoke to him but it really didn't happen. He is the one who made all these changes. He changed the Sabbath, circumcision, the dietary rules, the Law, and the festivals.

Of course, I think the OT is just as phony as the NT. None of it makes sense and it's not the word of a God.

BigRed

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Post #3

Post by Zzyzx »

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Of course the dietary rules make little or no sense. They were concocted by humans according to their own agendas (whatever those may have been) in the ignorance characteristic of thousands of years ago.

Not many plants or animals are unfit for human consumption but they are not identified by said rules.

Rules that a wise supernatural being or its appointees could have offered that DO make sense and would reduce ill effects are simple and effective: Cook food thoroughly, boil drinking water, wash your hands, don't share food or utensils with others.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Post #4

Post by 1213 »

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

“What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.�

Maybe God had cleaned it all so that it is not wrong to eat.

I think Jesus takes the meaning that the food could be spiritually unclean or that the food itself could cause spiritual harm.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Post #5

Post by Zzyzx »

1213 wrote:
“What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.�

Maybe God had cleaned it all so that it is not wrong to eat.
"Clean" and "unclean" as used here are nothing more than religious opinion, tradition, dogma and folktale.
I think Jesus takes the meaning that the food could be spiritually unclean or that the food itself could cause spiritual harm.
What, exactly, is "spiritually unclean?" How can a plant or animal be spiritually unclean? What makes them so?

Isn't it just as reasonable (or more reasonable) to suggest that ancient religion promoters who knew nothing of the causes of disease made up rules and attributed them to "god?"

Of course, if one "just believes" the ancient tales they not need to apply reasoning to the matter.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #6

Post by bluethread »

It is interesting how those who out right reject something are the first to consider themselves experts on what it means.

Lets' look at these things in order, and in context.

Gen. 7:1-3. Here we see the use of the terms clean(tahowr) and unclean(huw)first used. What can theses terms mean. At this point, there is no way of knowing, without an understanding of the term at the time of Moshe'. So, let's continue. In Gen. 8:20 we get a clue.

"And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar."

These terms must therefore refer to what one uses for sacrifice. It could not have referred to food because in these passages it only talks about animals and we know from Gen. 1:29 that animals were not food. We then see something interesting in Chapter 9.

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

So just as the herb was food before, every moving thing is now acceptable to eat. What is interesting is that the terms clean(tahowr) and unclean(huw) are not used here. So, at this point, it appears to only apply to what can and can not be sacrificed. That said, why is there a change in what can and can not be eaten? Has Adonai changed? No. Has Man changed? No. Has man's environment changed? Yes. So, it appears that the change in diet has to do with the change in the environment.

Next we see Ya'akov using the term.

Gen. 35:2 "Then Ya'akov said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:"

How can one be clean, this has previously referred to what is acceptable for sacrifice. What appears to make Ya'akov and his household clean is removing strange gods and changing cloths. What is the context? Well Ya'akov is going to Beit-el to make a sacrifice. So, again we see a reference to sacrifices. So, to make a proper sacrifice one must offer a "clean" animal, have removed strange god and changed one's cloths.

This is all we know about the concepts of "clean and "unclean" prior to the establishment of Israel as a nation. So, before we proceed any further, are there any questions or comments?

cnorman18

Post #7

Post by cnorman18 »

A post of mine from 2007, exactly as it appeared then -- and, interestingly, as a response to a similar OP from the same member. I've reposted the portion about the "Kosher Laws" before, but I thought this time I'd just repost the whole thing. It might be of interest.
cnorman18 wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:Not incidentally, nowhere in the OT does it say, "Don't eat pork." The kosher laws are derived indirectly from the Torah, for the most part, and seem to be primarily about minimizing the shedding and consumption of blood, and of remaining humbly aware that the meat on one's plate required the death of another creature. They are neither as arbitrary nor as random as they might appear at first glance.
Is there any reason to believe that the rules (the Law) derived from the Torah (the Old Testament) are not arbitrary?
Yes.

First, a few details: the Torah is the first five books of the Bible, not the entire Old Testament. The Law is sometimes used as a synonym for the Torah, though the word actually translates as "Teaching," not "Law."

The Law I would guess that you're referring to would be Jewish Law, or Halakhah in Hebrew, which translates literally as "Walk," as in "Path." Those laws are derived from the Torah by the consensus of sages and rabbis in the Talmud, though some are matters of oral tradition that were never written until modern times.

An enormous proportion of the laws are truly obsolete; they have to do with ritual and procedure in the Temple, and of course there is no Temple and hasn't been since 70 CE. The rabbis continued to debate and refine those laws long after the fact anyway, more as a devotional procedure than anything else; besides, much of Jewish liturgy, even today, derives from rites in the Temple. The times of prayer, for instance--shaharit, mincha and maariv, or morning, afternoon and evening--are based on the times of sacrifices in the Temple.

Virtually all of the "purity" laws that declare things or people "clean" or "unclean" are laws of this type, e.g., the laws that declare a person "unclean" after contact with the dead. These laws have nothing to do with sin or a person being guilty of anything in any sense; they have to do with some sort of ritual unsuitability for entering the Temple. The very word "unclean" is an unfortunate translation; the Hebrew word is tamei, and there is no cognate for it in any language I know. It carries no negative connotation whatever in Hebrew.

It would make no sense to associate this word with any kind of guilt or sin; for instance, a man was tamei after a seminal emission (including during intercourse), and a woman was tamei during her menses. These are normal conditions; for a woman every month, and all men, even the High Priest, were expected to father children and have families. Everyone was expected to prepare and bury their dead, and so on. Everyone was tamei at one time or another. Furthermore, since becoming ritually pure again generally required a rite of "cleansing" at the Temple, everyone is tamei today, with no way to become un-tamei.

It had nothing to do with hygiene, either; excrement was not tamei, nor did contact with it render one tamei, though it is clearly regarded as unhygienic and "dirty" in the modern sense.

There are some odd laws here; the skin disease called "leprosy" rendered one tamei, but if the whiteness covered the entire body, one was no longer tamei. (This disease apparently no longer exists; whatever it was, it certainly wasn't Hansen's disease, which is what we call "leprosy" today.) There is clearly something going on here that we no longer understand.

As for the rest of the laws, most are just commonsense corollaries of commandments in the Torah that most would agree with anyway. Laws about property, the payment of wages, boundaries between tracts of land, and so on.

As to the laws of kashrut, or the kosher laws; they are not arbitrary either. The Jewish ideal is vegetarianism, and many Jews are vegetarians. This is deduced from the reference in the Torah that "if you have a craving for meat..." implying that it ought to be resisted if possible, but if not, certain procedures are required. These all seem to be concerned with minimizing pain and the shedding of blood as far as possible, as I was quoted above.

First, only certain animals may be eaten. These are all ruminants, that is, plant-eaters. No animal that kills other creatures to live is permitted. This is clearest in the case of birds; the forbidden birds are actually specified, and they are all raptors--hawks, owls, and the like. Eating an animal that is a predator would mean that one is benefiting from and partaking of the killing done by the creature one is eating; and so it is forbidden. Pigs have fangs, like dogs; they are naturally omnivores, both plant- and meat-eaters, and in the wild they do indeed eat both plants and small animals.

Scavengers are also forbidden; thus, no vultures or shellfish. Though they may not kill (crabs and lobsters do, thus the claws), they still eat dead flesh.

Once a permitted animal is chosen, it must be killed in a particular way; not for ritual purposes, but to minimize the creature's pain. The prescribed method has always been the same: one swift, deep stroke across the throat with a literally razor-sharp knife. If you have ever cut yourself with an extremely sharp blade, you know that there is often no pain; one notices the blood, and only then finds the cut. The animal is instantly rendered unconscious, since one of the arteries cut is the one supplying blood to the brain.

Concern and respect for the animal's "feelings," as it were, is made clear in the Torah; a kid or calf is not to be slaughtered in the presence of its mother. There can be no other interpretation of this law.

The animal is then allowed to bleed out. This is essential, since the consumption of blood of any kind is absolutely forbidden; the carcass must be totally drained. This is why the animal may not be killed, for instance, by shooting it in the head; that might be more painless (though that is doubtful), but it stops the heart instantly. The heart must keep beating till all the blood is pumped out. All blood must be poured out on the ground and covered with earth in respect.

After inspection to make sure the animal is free of disease (a complex procedure that is very old, but even today is considered scientifically thorough) and butchering, the meat is then packed in salt to draw out all moisture, especially the blood. The meat is now kosher and fit to eat.

That is not all; meat may not be served at the same meal as a milk product, and Jews who "keep kosher" will almost always have two sets of dishes and cookware to make sure that meat and milk dishes are kept entirely separate. This law comes from the admonition, repeated three times in the Torah, that "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk; it is an abomination." No explicit reason is given for this, but it might be inferred that, since milk is a substance meant to nourish new life, it is inappropriate and wrong to mix it with meat, which requires a death. Life and death are to be kept separate, just as one was not to enter the Temple after being in contact with the dead.

All kosher fish (those with both fins and scales), all eggs, and all plant products are considered "pareve," that is, neither meat nor milk, and may be cooked and served with both.

There is, of course, much more; but these are the basics. They reflect a time when people were much more aware of where their food came from and were much closer to its sources. They also reflect a certain awareness of one's responsibilities toward and respect for other creatures, even the creatures one kills and eats, and a certain humility associated with that practice. One is never permitted to forget that one's meat meal required a death, and one is required to take that fact seriously.

We are, most of us, rather far from that kind of awareness and humility today. Chicken McNuggets and hamburger patties do not grow on bushes; they were once part of living beings that walked and ate and breathed and had, or were, "children" themselves.

There are some laws that seem brutal and unreasonable given in the Torah, like the various offenses that carry the death penalty; cursing one's parents, desecrating the. Sabbath, and so on. The derivations in Halakhah of those laws are interesting; the sages loaded them down with so many layers of conditions, qualifications, exceptions, and other requirements that they were virtually never imposed.

For instance: Suppose a man were charged with cutting down a tree on the Sabbath, an unambiguous act that was supposed to be punished by stoning. Here are the conditions that must be met before that penalty was imposed:

There must be at least two witnesses, neither of whom were personally acquainted with the man, to ensure that there were no maliciously false charges at work. The man must have been warned before the fact, in precise language from the Torah, that what he was about to do was a violation of the law, including a specific warning about the consequences of doing it in graphic terms. The man must then have specifically announced his intention, not just to cut down the tree, but to violate that specific law, again using the precise words from the Torah, and he must include a description of the penalty he would be made to suffer. He must then immediately carry out the act, swinging the ax or whatever. If he stops after his statement to do anything--take a drink of water, wipe his brow, or pick up the ax before swinging it--all bets are off and the case is thrown out of court.

And what if all these conditions are fulfilled? It will come as no surprise that the man would then be declared insane and not responsible for his actions--a reasonable conclusion, considering.

There were other conditions. Even in a case of murder--virtually the only kind of case where a death sentence was ever actually imposed--if the entire assembly voted unanimously to convict, the case was thrown out; some kind of prejudice against the defendant was assumed. If anyone in the assembly was absent for any portion of the trial, the case was thrown out. If no one at all spoke in the man's defense, the case was thrown out.

And so on. The Talmud records that a court that imposed the death penalty more than once in ten years was called a "bloody-handed court."--and as far as we know, none ever was.

Some laws, notably the prohibition against "lying with a man as with a woman," probably did not then have the same significance that we give them today--in that case, a prohibition against homosexuality. The Torah does not seem to be aware, so to speak, of homosexuality as a sexual orientation or a lifestyle choice as we are today; there is no indication of that anywhere. The reference most probably was referring to homosexual anal rape as a kind of formal degradation and humiliation of an enemy after defeating him, in war or perhaps in personal combat. Certainly there doesn't seem to have ever been a prosecution under that statute.

There are a few--a very few--laws in the Torah that make no sense at all to us today, and which even seem to have puzzled the sages of old. Most famous is the very peculiar business of the "Red Heifer," which involved making a potion to be given to a woman suspected of adultery. If guilty, she was supposed to suffer pain and swelling of various kinds; if innocent, nothing would happen. We have no idea how this was supposed to work or if it ever did, or even if it was ever actually done. It was proposed very long ago that it was never intended as anything more than a mere sham, intended to inevitably acquit the woman and put the doubts of the suspicious husband to rest with a ritual show. Of course, it's also possible that the effects could have been produced psychosomatically in a woman conscious of guilt. We have no way of knowing today.

In any case; the laws of the Torah, and the laws of Halakhah derived from them, are virtually never purely arbitrary, though some reflect a world, and a world-view, very different from our own. After 3,000 years or so, it would be very surprising indeed if they all seemed familiar and sensible today.

They weren't written just because God, or the rabbis, got bored one day and decided to make up some fraternity-initiation hoops for people to jump through. They are all there for a reason, though sometimes we're not entirely clear about what that reason may have been.

User avatar
scourge99
Guru
Posts: 2060
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:07 am
Location: The Wild West

Post #8

Post by scourge99 »

cnorman18 wrote: As to the laws of kashrut, or the kosher laws; they are not arbitrary either. The Jewish ideal is vegetarianism, and many Jews are vegetarians. This is deduced from the reference in the Torah that "if you have a craving for meat..." implying that it ought to be resisted if possible, but if not, certain procedures are required. These all seem to be concerned with minimizing pain and the shedding of blood as far as possible, as I was quoted above.

First, only certain animals may be eaten. These are all ruminants, that is, plant-eaters. No animal that kills other creatures to live is permitted. This is clearest in the case of birds; the forbidden birds are actually specified, and they are all raptors--hawks, owls, and the like. Eating an animal that is a predator would mean that one is benefiting from and partaking of the killing done by the creature one is eating; and so it is forbidden. Pigs have fangs, like dogs; they are naturally omnivores, both plant- and meat-eaters, and in the wild they do indeed eat both plants and small animals.

Scavengers are also forbidden; thus, no vultures or shellfish. Though they may not kill (crabs and lobsters do, thus the claws), they still eat dead flesh.

Once a permitted animal is chosen, it must be killed in a particular way; not for ritual purposes, but to minimize the creature's pain. The prescribed method has always been the same: one swift, deep stroke across the throat with a literally razor-sharp knife. If you have ever cut yourself with an extremely sharp blade, you know that there is often no pain; one notices the blood, and only then finds the cut. The animal is instantly rendered unconscious, since one of the arteries cut is the one supplying blood to the brain.

Concern and respect for the animal's "feelings," as it were, is made clear in the Torah; a kid or calf is not to be slaughtered in the presence of its mother. There can be no other interpretation of this law.

The animal is then allowed to bleed out. This is essential, since the consumption of blood of any kind is absolutely forbidden; the carcass must be totally drained. This is why the animal may not be killed, for instance, by shooting it in the head; that might be more painless (though that is doubtful), but it stops the heart instantly. The heart must keep beating till all the blood is pumped out. All blood must be poured out on the ground and covered with earth in respect.

After inspection to make sure the animal is free of disease (a complex procedure that is very old, but even today is considered scientifically thorough) and butchering, the meat is then packed in salt to draw out all moisture, especially the blood. The meat is now kosher and fit to eat.

That is not all; meat may not be served at the same meal as a milk product, and Jews who "keep kosher" will almost always have two sets of dishes and cookware to make sure that meat and milk dishes are kept entirely separate. This law comes from the admonition, repeated three times in the Torah, that "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk; it is an abomination." No explicit reason is given for this, but it might be inferred that, since milk is a substance meant to nourish new life, it is inappropriate and wrong to mix it with meat, which requires a death. Life and death are to be kept separate, just as one was not to enter the Temple after being in contact with the dead.

All kosher fish (those with both fins and scales), all eggs, and all plant products are considered "pareve," that is, neither meat nor milk, and may be cooked and served with both.
From everything i have read about kashrut, there isn't this certainty about the reasons for its existence as you seem to propose (for example, animal cruelty and vegetarianism). From what i read, if there is any consensus, it is that they are to be obeyed because "god said so". (faith).

Here is the information i found. Perhaps you have different sources of information or these are competing lines of Jewish thought.


http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
Why Do We Observe the Laws of Kashrut?

Many modern Jews think that the laws of kashrut are simply primitive health regulations that have become obsolete with modern methods of food preparation. There is no question that some of the dietary laws have some beneficial health effects. For example, the laws regarding kosher slaughter are so sanitary that kosher butchers and slaughterhouses have been exempted from many USDA regulations.

However, health is not the only reason for Jewish dietary laws. Many of the laws of kashrut have no known connection with health. To the best of our modern scientific knowledge, there is no reason why camel or rabbit meat (both treif) is any less healthy than cow or goat meat. In addition, some of the health benefits to be derived from kashrut were not made obsolete by the refrigerator. For example, there is some evidence that eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, and no modern food preparation technique reproduces the health benefit of the kosher law of eating them separately.

In recent years, several secular sources that have seriously looked into this matter have acknowledged that health does not explain these prohibitions. Some have suggested that the prohibitions are instead derived from environmental considerations. For example, a camel (which is not kosher) is more useful as a beast of burden than as a source of food. In the Middle Eastern climate, the pig consumes a quantity of food that is disproportional to its value as a food source. But again, these are not reasons that come from Jewish tradition.

The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason. Some have suggested that the laws of kashrut fall into the category of "chukkim," laws for which there is no reason. We show our obedience to G-d by following these laws even though we do not know the reason. Others, however, have tried to ascertain G-d's reason for imposing these laws.

In his book "To Be a Jew" (an excellent resource on traditional Judaism), Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests that the dietary laws are designed as a call to holiness. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, requiring us to learn to control even our most basic, primal instincts.

Donin also points out that the laws of kashrut elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. The Jewish dinner table is often compared to the Temple altar in rabbinic literature. A Jew who observes the laws of kashrut cannot eat a meal without being reminded of the fact that he is a Jew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut
Philosophical explanations

Jewish philosophy divides the 613 mitzvot into three groups—laws that have a rational explanation and would probably be enacted by most orderly societies (mishpatim), laws that are understood after being explained but would not be legislated without the Torah's command (edot), and laws that do not have a rational explanation (chukim). Some Jewish scholars say that kashrut should be categorized as laws for which there is no particular explanation, since the human mind is not always capable of understanding divine intentions. In this line of thinking, the dietary laws were given as a demonstration of God's authority, and man must obey without asking why.[1] However, Maimonides believed that Jews were permitted to seek out reasons for the laws of the Torah.[2]

Some theologians have said that the laws of kashrut are symbolic in character: Kosher animals represent virtues, while non-kosher animals represent vices. The 1st century BCE Letter of Aristeas argues that the laws "have been given ... to awake pious thoughts and to form the character".[3] This view reappears in the work of the 19th century Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.[4]

The Torah prohibits "seething the kid (goat, sheep, calf) in its mother's milk". While the Bible does not provide a reason, it has been suggested that the practice was perceived as cruel and insensitive.[5][6]

Hasidism believes that everyday life is imbued with channels connecting with Divinity, the activation of which it sees as helping the Divine Presence to be drawn into the physical world;[7] Hasidism argues that the food laws are related to the way such channels, termed sparks of holiness, interact with various animals. These sparks of Holiness are released whenever a Jew manipulates any object for a holy reason (which includes eating);[8] however, not all animal products are capable of releasing their sparks of holiness.[9] The Hasidic argument is that animals are imbued with signs that reveal the release of these sparks, and the signs are expressed in the biblical categorization of ritually clean and ritually unclean.[10]

According to Christian theologian Gordon J. Wenham, the purpose of kashrut was to help Jews maintain a distinct and separate existence from other peoples; he says that the effect of the laws was to prevent socialization and intermarriage with non-Jews, preventing Jewish identity from being diluted.[11] Wenham argued that since the impact of the food laws was a public affair, this would have enhanced Jewish attachment to them as a reminder of their distinct status as Jews.[11]
Health explanations

There have been attempts to provide empirical support for the view that Jewish food laws have an overarching health benefit or purpose, one of the earliest being from Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed. In 1953, David Macht, an Orthodox Jew and proponent of the theory of biblical scientific foresight, conducted toxicity experiments on many kinds of animals and fish.[12] His experiment involved lupin seedlings being supplied with extracts from the meat of various animals; Macht reported that in 100% of cases, extracts from ritually unclean meat inhibited the seedling's growth more than that from ritually clean meats.[13] At the same time, these explanations are controversial. Scholar Lester L. Grabbe, writing in the Oxford Bible Commentary on Leviticus, states that "[a]n explanation now almost universally rejected is that the laws in this section [Leviticus 11-15] have hygiene as their basis. Although some of the laws of ritual purity roughly correspond to modern ideas of physical cleanliness, many of them have little to do with hygiene. For example, there is no evidence that the 'unclean' animals are intrinsically bad to eat or to be avoided in a Mediterranean climate, as is sometimes asserted."[14]

http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/pr ... kosher.htm
The Torah offers no explanation for the dietary laws other than the holiness of God and his chosen people. "You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own" (Lev. 20:26). Nonetheless, various other speculations have been offered by Jews and non-Jews alike.

Many believe the Jewish dietary laws to be primitive health regulations. This theory is supported by the fact that obeying the kashrut offers many health benefits. Some are obvious: rodents and insects are notorious as disease-carriers, and a discovered carcass is likely to be rotting and unsanitary. Some benefits have only come to light recently: the parasitic disease trichinosis has been linked to pork, the method of ritual slaughter is so sanitary that kosher slaughterhouses have been exempted from many USDA regulations, and there is even evidence that consuming meat with dairy products interferes with digestion. However, health benefits do not explain all the laws of kashrut. There are no known health problems associated with eating camel and rabbit, for example.

One definite benefit of the kashrut is that it serves to keep the Jewish people separate and distinct from their surrounding culture. From a religious perspective, the dietary laws were God's way of unifying his chosen people and preserving them from assimilation. This notion is suggested by the Torah, as seen in the verse quoted above. From a secular perspective, the dietary laws provide a sense of unity and force Jews to rely on one another, which contributes to the survival of the group.

Kashrut also cultivates self-control and discipline, and encourages mindful eating. The great Jewish philosophy Maimonides wrote that the dietary laws "train us to master our appetites, to accustom us to restrain our desires, and to avoid considering the pleasure of eating and drinking as the goal of man's existence."

Given its regulations for humane slaughter and the many restrictions on meat-eating, many Jews have concluded that the kashrut teaches reverence for animal life. Some say it even encourages vegetarianism, which is given as the ideal in Genesis 1:29 and will again prevail in the messianic age.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, keeping kosher is an act of faith and obedience to God. Jews may not understand why God has given these regulations, but he has done so, and he is to be trusted and obeyed. The laws of kashrut thus provide the opportunity to incorporate religious ritual and the sacred into a necessary daily activity.ˆ
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #9

Post by Zzyzx »

bluethread wrote: It is interesting how those who out right reject something are the first to consider themselves experts on what it means.
It might be prudent to consider that those who reject an idea or ideology may know far more about it than those who accept or believe it.

Things that appear true with limited knowledge are often shown to be questionable or false with further study. There is no assurance that the in-group have knowledge of their belief beyond the superficial (and perhaps a few bible quotations) -- with notable exceptions (including Cnorman)

Therein lies a danger when accepting ideas or ideologies without due diligence (defined as: prudence, responsibility, and diligence that is expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances.)
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11342
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Post #10

Post by 1213 »

Zzyzx wrote: What, exactly, is "spiritually unclean?" How can a plant or animal be spiritually unclean? What makes them so?
I think people thought at some point that by eating some animals it could cause them to turn evil inside. And with that I mean, their mind would start to form bad ideas like murders and lies etc. That is why I think Jesus told: “Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart� (Mark 7:18-19). And from that Jesus continued and said: "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.". And so, no food can really cause man to do bad things and therefore they are clean in that sense and that I meant with spiritually clean or unclean.

Post Reply