Vayikra 11:2-23 records the list and/ or criteria of which animals can be eaten (are kosher). The reasons for these lists and criteria have been debated for centuries. Drazin (2006, pp. 124-128) presents a brief review of this question and he notes that the Rama (16th century, Krakow) relates it to the concept of kedusha since the verses at the end of the chapter, 11:44,45, record that the Jewish people are to be kadosh. While one could understand that the term kedusha in 11:44 and 11:45 as both refer to not becoming tamei, it is also possible to understand that only 11:44 refers to tumah, while 11:45 refers to kedusha from not eating the various creatures listed in the chapter. This duality accords with the double nature of the chapter of referring both to the creatures that cannot or cannot be eaten and the tumah relating to animals, see the concluding sentence to the chapter 11:47.
If the non-eating of certain creatures generates kedusha, the question is how? One possibility is that eating of the forbidden foods themselves causes a person's kedusha to be diminished in some way, see Abarbanel, 2005, p. 127, and comments of the Shach, Yoreh Deah, 81:26 (on the Rama). A different possibility is that act of not eating certain animals causes one to separate between the animals and it is this separation that generates the kedusha. The idea is that kedusha means to separate (see our discussion on chapters 11-25 "To separate") and in the final verse of chapter 11, 11:47. the Torah refers to this act of separation between tumah and taharah and the animals that can be eaten and those that cannot.
A possible underlying idea of the relationship between the act of separating and the dietary laws was articulated by Jean Solar (1979) who wrote, "Here (the prohibition of mixing various items together, such as meat and milk) as elsewhere, it is a matter of upholding the separation between the two classes or two types of relationships. To abolish distinction by means of a sexual or culinary act is to subvert the order of the world. Everybody belongs to one species only, one people, one sex, one category. And in the same manner, everyone has only one G-d… The keynote of this order is the principle of identity, instituted in the law of every being."
Even if the point of not eating certain creatures is just to make a separation, still there might be some benefits that accrue from the non-eating of certain creatures. Luzzatto (footnote on comments to 11:1) suggests three reasons. One, that it causes the Jewish people to be separate from non-Jews, and this stops assimilation. (Drazin writes that this reason was first suggested in the book of Tobit.) Nehama Leibowitz (1980, pp. 83, 85) notes that this idea was rejected by David Hoffmann since he argues that the laws of not eating certain animals is because G-d had separated the Jewish people and it is not the laws of which animals can be eaten causes this separation. However, from my personal experiences, I see that the dietary laws definitely cause a separation between people who keep these laws and people who do not, though still maybe this was not the reason for the laws.
Luzzatto second reason is that by being conscious of which animals a person can eat, this leads to a greater awareness of G-d in one's life, and his third reason is that the fact that some foods are forbidden increases one's self-control. While Luzzatto might have only intended that the benefits of self-control were to help people fulfill the commandments, Mischel (2014) based on his marshmallow test of whether young children can withstand the temptation to eat a marshmallow for a certain period of time, has shown that having self-control enables a person to be more successful in life. (N. Leibowitz seems to like Luzzatto's second and third reasons. Bamberger, 1981, p. 810 notes that Luzzatto's third reason is not novel as he writes that Philo had written that "the dietary laws are to control our bodily appetites" and he claims that the Rambam also understood them this way in the Moreh 3:33.)
If the main point of not eating certain creatures is to make a separation, then the designation of which animals can be eaten and which not is not the crucial issue since with this logic there had to be some animals that are forbidden. Yet, this does not imply that the choice of which creatures are forbidden to be eaten is completely arbitrary since still there can be some reasons, even trivial, for why one animal is forbidden and one is not. My guess is that these reasons also relate to the idea of separation.
The first type of animals is the animals that move on land, 11:2-8. The only animals that can be eaten in this group are animals that are classified as ungulates, hoofed animals, and they must also have split hoofs and chew their cud. The hoof serves to separate the animals from the ground, and the split literally shows the idea of separation. If they walk on their paws, 11:27 or if they crawl on the ground, 11:42, then they are not separated from the ground and they cannot be eaten.
The chewing of the cud has nothing to do with separation, but it has been suggested that this sign was specifically to make the pig a non-kosher animal even though it has split hoofs. Maybe the problem with the pig is that even though it has split hoofs, still its body barely remains above the ground, and this is not enough of a separation from the ground.
The next type of animals is those that move in the water, 11:9-12, and they can be eaten if they have fins and scales, i.e. fish, which means that they do not crawl in the water. Thus, clams are not kosher since they live on the ocean floor. According to this idea, sharks, whales and dolphins should be kosher since they swim and do not live on the bottom of the ocean floor, but they are not kosher since they do not have fins. Yet, why are fins the criteria and not swimming in the water? Maybe these are specific reasons for each one that makes them forbidden. Sharks are part of class of fish called cartilaginous who most of the members inhabit the ocean depths, and hence are not separate from the bottom of the ocean. With regard to whales and dolphins, they are the opposite since they are tied to the surface since they have to breathe. Thus all three are not considered as truly moving in the water.
The next type of animal is animals that fly, such as birds and insects, 11:13-23. According to this idea, all birds that fly should be kosher since by flying they are separated from the land. In fact, all birds except the 20 mentioned in the Torah are kosher. No reason is given for why the particular 20 are forbidden and since we do not know exactly which birds are being described it is hard to guess reasons for their prohibition.
Most likely, the twenty birds were chosen was in order that not all birds would be allowed since this forces one to separate between birds, see 20:25. This logic could apply to the other two categories of animals as well. Maybe the pig is forbidden since then even within animals that have hoofs one must make a separation. Also, maybe then sharks, whales and dolphins are forbidden in order that one has to make a separation even within animals that move in the water.
Finally with regard to insects once they have four legs they are considered land animals, and hence not kosher. (They actually have six legs, see our discussion on 11:19,20 "Do the locomotion.") Also, relative to birds, the insects are land animals since they do not get as high in the air as birds. The exception is grasshoppers, which jump off the ground, and hence they are classified by their movement in air and considered like birds. Also, maybe they can be eaten to be merciful in times when there is a plague of locusts since then at least people can eat the grasshoppers.
No comments:
Post a Comment