YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

PARASHAT SHEMINI

The Laws of Kashrut, Part 1
By Rav Michael Hattin

INTRODUCTION

Parashat Shemini begins with the service of the Eighth Day that marks the completion of the week-long sacrificial ceremonies associated with the dedication of the Mishkan, or Tabernacle.  The unfortunate and untimely demise of Aharon's two eldest sons, who presented an unauthorized offering of incense before God, is then described, followed by a Divine injunction proscribing the consumption of intoxicants by the ministering priests.  Some details of sacrificial law, made pertinent by Aharon's state of mourning, are then spelled out, before the Torah moves on to introduce the laws of permitted animals, birds, and fish (11:1-47).

OBSERVING KASHRUT IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS RATIONALE

These latter laws, known in the vernacular as the rules of "Kashrut," have henceforth occupied a central position in Jewish ritual observance and have become to this day one of the defining marks of a traditional Jewish home.  Surprisingly, though, the text of the Torah itself provides scant if any rationale for the performance of these laws, and is content to simply state them as a Divine fiat.  This week, we will consider some attempts of the early commentaries to comprehend these provisions.  But as we do so, we must bear in mind the following sensible caveat: though many streams in our tradition encourage the exercise of human intelligence and wisdom in the worthy attempt to plumb the profundity of the Divine laws of the Torah, none of them make one's OBSERVANCE of the laws conditional upon one's UNDERSTANDING of the laws.  Observance is a function of one's spiritual commitment to God's commands that ultimately stands independent of any humanly assigned rational content.  In other words, I observe Kashrut – though I may legitimately seek and perhaps even be enjoined to understand that observance – because the Torah demands it, not because I have ascertained through the exercise of my mind that it is reasonable.

When one discusses the rationale of the mitzvot, one necessarily must begin with the Rambam (12th century, Egypt).  Perhaps more than any other scholar, the Rambam stressed the central role of human reason in the forging of a connection with the Creator and in the attendant fostering of one's spiritual development.  He himself also went farther than any other traditional thinker in applying the logic of the mind to the matter of the mitzvot, sometimes arriving at conclusions that were not only novel but quite often controversial.  His noble attempt to wed the Torah's provisions with classic Aristotelian constructs aroused admiration in some Jewish circles but enmity and antipathy in others.  Nevertheless, in retrospect, no serious discussion of the rationale of the mitzvot can begin from any other point of reference, because the influence of the Rambam on all subsequent discussion was profound.  All those that came after him either adopted and amplified his theories or else consciously reacted against and rejected them.

A BRIEF OUTLINE

Before we consider the words of the Rambam, let us briefly outline the laws of forbidden foods as the Torah describes.  We may divide the matter of forbidden foods into a number of sub-categories.  The land animals, in order to be fit for consumption, must possess two qualities: they must have wholly split hooves and they must chew their cud.  These two provisions effectively limit the matter to herbivores, for they alone have the complex, multi-chambered stomach that allows for rumination.  There are, however, four notable exceptions to this rule, four creatures that the Torah singles out as possessing one but not both of these qualities and hence forbidden for consumption: the camel, rock badger and hare that chew their cud but do not possess split hooves, and the pig that possesses split hooves but does not chew its cud.  

With respect to sea creatures, only those that have fins and scales be eaten.  This effectively limits the matter to certain species of fish and excludes all of the shelled creatures, the aquatic mammals, and the cartilaginous species such as sharks.

Concerning the birds, the Torah spells out twenty specific kinds that may not be consumed.  The common denominator of them all is that they are birds of prey.  Based upon this list, the Oral Tradition attempted to provide a series of features that could be said to characterize the permitted kosher birds, namely that they possess an extra talon above the others, a crop, and a gizzard whose skin can be easily peeled off (Mishna Chullin 3:6).

As for the insects, while the Torah permits a limited number of species from the grasshopper/locust family, they are generally eschewed by most Jews due to uncertainties concerning their proper identification.

THE FORMULATION OF THE RAMBAM

It is in his philosophic Guide of the Perplexed that the Rambam sets out his views concerning Kashrut:

I would say that all of those things that the Torah forbade us to consume are nutritionally harmful.  Only the pig and the fats may be imagined to not be detrimental, but this is not so.  The flesh of the pig is more humid than is beneficial and contains much superfluous matter.  But even more than that, the Torah abhorred its consumption because of its great filth and because it feeds on filthy things.  You are well aware of the Torah's strictness concerning the visibility of filth even during the period of the wilderness encampments (see Devarim 23:10-15), all the more so within the cities.  If we would raise pigs for consumption, then the marketplaces and even the houses would become filthier than the latrine, as may be seen at present in the lands of the Franks.  You are well aware of the Sages' statement that "the snout of the pig is like walking excrement".  Similarly, the fat of the intestines is overfilling and difficult to digest, producing cold and thick blood.  It is therefore much better to burn it ( upon the altar).  Blood on the one hand and carcasses of dead animals on the other, are difficult to digest and nutritionally poor, and it is well known that a beast possessing a congenital defect is akin to a carcass.  

Therefore, concerning the signs that mark a permitted animal – chewing the cud and split hooves for the land animals, and fins and scales for the fish – REALIZE THAT THEIR EXISTENCE IS NOT THE REASON FOR THEIR PERMITTED STATUS, NOR THEIR ABSENCE THE REASON FOR THEIR FORBIDDEN STATUS.  RATHER, THEY ARE SIGNS BY WHICH ONE MAY DISTINGUISH THE HEALTHY SPECIES FROM THE UNHEALTHY SPECIES (Moreh HaNevukhim, 3:46).

THE CENTRALITY OF PHYSICAL HEALTH

In essence, Rambam understands that the rationale that stands behind the Torah's involved legislation concerning consumption is the physical health of the human body.  Many foods are wholesome, some are harmful, but all of the various species proscribed by the Torah are nutritionally poor and deleterious to human health.  The various signs that the Torah provides that effectively allow us to separate those species that we may eat from those that we may not, are just that: signs.  There are no magic qualities associated with split hooves and rumination or else fins and scales, as if creatures possessed of these things are permitted to us BECAUSE of them.  Actually, these features are meant to provide us with a convenient mechanism for readily recognizing those species that are good for us physically, while avoiding those creatures whose consumption is liable to bring us harm.

The advantages of the Rambam's thesis are apparent.  First of all, it is eminently reasonable.  Living as we do in such health-conscious times, who among us could argue that physical health is an important matter that deserves Divine attention as much as anything else?  After all, in the case of most people only a healthy body can sustain and nurture a healthy mind.  As the Rambam himself points out elsewhere: "when a person is preoccupied in this world with illness, warfare, or hunger, then he cannot devote himself to the acquisition of wisdom and to the performance of the mitzvot by which one merits life everlasting in the world to come" (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Teshuva 9:1).

Second of all, Rambam's theory is able to explain the entire gamut of Kashrut laws with a single, underlying principle.  Whether we are speaking of the non-kosher species of animals, fish and birds, whether we are addressing some constituents of the permitted animal species such as their blood and their intestinal fat, or whether we are considering even kosher animals in various states of decline ("tereifa" – congenital defect) or decay ("neveila" – carcass), the rationale for the proscription of all of them is the same: they are unhealthy and therefore injurious to our physical well-being. 

At the same time, the primary drawback of the Rambam's explanation is a function of this very reasonableness.  If it is the case that the non-kosher species are curtailed because they are deleterious to our physical health, then such effects ought to be easily demonstrable in the laboratory.  It should be obvious to all and empirically verifiable that those individuals that are attentive to the dictates of Kashrut are physically healthier than those that are not, yet as we all know SUCH IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE.  Numerous are those that do not subscribe to the constraints of Kashrut and yet are physically healthy, active and fit.  Surely as well there are those who are punctilious in their observance of these laws and yet suffer form physical infirmity and illness.

RESCUING THE RAMBAM

It is the Sefer HaChinukh, a 14th century champion of reason and of the Rambam, that comes to the latter's defense.  Discussing the matter from a perspective that was clearly drawn from the Rambam's theory, the Sefer HaChinukh relates:

At the foundation of this mitzva is to realize that the body is an instrument for the soul, for through its agency the soul can execute its mission, and in its absence its objective can never be completed.  After all, truly the soul entered the body for its benefit and not for its detriment, for God does good to all…if the body is deficient in any respect, then the ability of the mind to fulfill its task is curtailed to a corresponding degree, and therefore the Torah distanced us from all things that bring the body ruin.  In a straightforward way, then, we may argue that this is the underlying rationale for all of the forbidden foods.  But if there are some things among these laws whose detrimental effects are not known neither us nor to the physicians, do not be perturbed, FOR THE FAITHFUL PHYSICIAN WHO FORBADE THEM TO US IS MORE WISE THAN EITHER US OR THEM.  HOW FOOLISH IS THE ONE WHO THINKS THAT A THING'S INJURIOUS OR BENEFICIAL QUALITIES ARE A FUNCTION SOLELY OF WHAT HE HAS UNDERSTOOD CONCERNING THEM! (Sefer HaChinukh, Mitzva #73).

In other words, the fact that Rambam's thesis may not be demonstrable need not necessarily unnerve us.  If THE Physician (with a definite article – i.e. God) indicates to us that certain foods are injurious to our health, then we can rely on His assessment more than on that of any earthbound doctor.  After all, God's laws are given to us from His perspective of absoluteness.  Our human view, on the other hand, though it may be sharply focused by great and perceptive minds, cannot hope to possibly match the Divine Mind for acuity.  As an illustration of this premise, one need not look any farther than the various remedies, cures and diets that were once regarded by medical science as healthy and yet now may be considered to be otherwise.  Hasn't the ubiquitous Food Pyramid, for example, evolved over the decades, not only as an function of the various agricultural lobbies that underwrote its development but also as a function of updated data?  It was not that the opinion of the medical practitioners abruptly and inexplicably changed, but rather that new information and knowledge brought new insight and understanding to the discussion.

Next time, we will continue our investigation by considering the views of those who vehemently disagreed with the Rambam, and instead sought the meaning of these laws elsewhere.  We will then consider the matter from a more general perspective that should assist us in arriving at a more profound appreciation of Kashrut.

Shabbat Shalom