Proponents of kashrut state that one of the reasons for kashrut is because it maintains Jewish particularism. Guess what? I agree! Having practices to separate Jew from non-Jew is important. The Torah commands us to "not walk in their customs (Lev. 20:23)" or "not to walk in their ways (Lev. 18:3)." I'm not disputing the Torah here, but here's where it gets tricky: exactly what does it mean to "walk in their ways?" It was something with which I grappled in regards to defining the permissibility of celebrating Thanksgiving as a Jew. Just as a review, Tosafot (Avodah Zara 11a) states that imitating the gentile consists of one of two things: idolatrous customs and foolish customs from the Gentile world, regardless of their origins.
In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides points to two prohibitions within kashrut that illustrate this point:
1) Meat boiled in the milk. Boiling meat in its kid's milk was part of a fertility rite practiced amongst pagans. As such, it is forbidden. (III, xlviii)
2) Not eating the fruit until the third year. Taking the first fruit of the tree was a Babylonian practice to honor the goddess Asherah. As such, one has to wait until the third year. (III, xxxvii)
These practices clearly fit Tosafot's definition, and as such should be forbidden. Judaism has a zero-tolerance for idolatry. But does this mean that we sever all connections with greater society?
This brings me to my next point, which is the very point of the separation between Jew and non-Jew. I was talking with a Chassidic rabbi once, and there was a group of us trying to ascertain the meaning of holiness. It's a lofty word, but the rabbi told us that the word kadosh can be translated as distinct. There's a fine line between being separate and being distinct. Separate means severed from, cut off. In the context of the Jewish people, it means isolated from the rest of the world. Distinct, on the other hand, has a different connotation. It means different, distinguishable. The distinction here is analogous to the "isolation vs. integration" argument that exists within the Orthodox world. The Haredim prefer isolation from the secular world to avoid the "inherent spiritual contamination" supposedly brought on by non-Jews. Then you have the Modern Orthodox. They realize the importance of maintaining their Jewish identity while simultaneously interacting with the greater world. Their identity is distinctively Jewish, but partake in general society.
Ironically enough, I am going to cite the Lubvaticher Rebbe here: "The one and only common factor which has been present with Jews throughout the ages, in all lands, and under all circumstances, is the Torah....Our 'otherness' and indepedence of thought and conduct are not our weakness but our strength. Only in this way can we fulfill our function imposed on us by our Creator, to be unto G-d 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' thereby also being a treasure for all of humanity (L'Chayim Newsletter for All Jews, 9/12/1992)." The Rebbe here is illustrating an important point--our "otherness" and our mission to be a treasure for all of humanity. The priests during the days of animal sacrifices did not cut themselves off from the rest of Israel, and neither should today's Jews cut themselves off from the rest of the world. There is a balance being struck here between the particular and the universal, even if the Rebbe didn't intend for it to come off that way.
Typically, I would focus on the universalist portion of the Mensch-Yisrael dynamic, but today I want to focus on the particularistic facet. Kashrut is an integral part of Jewish identity. Every time I tell people I keep kosher, I unquestionably distinguish myself as a Jew. It usually ends up being a conversation starter, which makes people aware of why I keep kosher and what it means to be Jewish. Just an example of how the balance works--I just came back from visiting my family in Orlando, who has no clue of what kashrut is. But I explained them what the Jewish dietary laws are, how to prepare things, what to buy, the significance behind it, and part of my vacation became a teaching experience. Heck, it went over so well that we even got glatt kosher food at DisneyWorld! My vacation taught me an important lesson: I can retain my Jewishness (by keeping kosher) while interacting with the outside world. In short, I keep kosher because not only does it remind me of my mission of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world), but I also get to say "I'm a Jew and I'm proud!"
Next entry in this series: Does kashrut refine man?
This to me seems the most sensible explanation for kashrut. Kashrut's particularities strengthen Jewish community and commonality because kosher food is bought from Jewish merchants, and its rules make Jews eat together with each other and ONLY with each other; this shores up Jewish bonds and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to socialize with the non-Jew, at least in the context of eating and drinking. This increased Jewish socialization and decreased socialization with non-Jews also acts to preserve Jewish distinctiveness on a larger scale and counter the forces which lead to intermarriage and assimilation. Now, I am definitely not taking some lunatic Haredi view that one bite of treif will lead inexorably to intermarriage. However, I'm enough of a good Italian to realize that many good friendships, as well as intimate relationships, begin over good food, wine and conversation, and that kashrut's exclusion of the non-Jew from such proceedings is a powerful tool toward Jewish singularity. All the other arguments towards kashrut, in my mind, lack force and logic and are secondary to this one.
ReplyDeleteHmm.. while researching this I came across two concepts:
ReplyDelete1. Stam yainam and yayin nesech- which for all intents and purposes can be conflated- is not merely about "kashrut for kashrut's sake". It seems more to be concerned with the prohibition of idolatrous religious practices connected to wine consumption- Avodah Zarah- such as pagan or Greco-Roman rites or the Christian Mass.
2. However, ideas of Cholov Yisrael- and there's another food rule that says even if kosher and prepared according to Jewish law, the food is STILL NOT KOSHER if prepared entirely by a non-Jew when the food is lavish- Bishul Yisrael. These two things existed, according to the rabbis, explicitly to prevent lavish feasting and socializing between Jews and non-Jews and thus to prevent intermarriage, thus bolstering the nationalistic argument for kashrut.
Of course, the American-Jewish spin on this is unique. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most immigrants to the U.S.A.- Jewish and non-came to make money, succeed economically and get ahead in society. Everything else was sort of subordinate to that goal. If your religious practices or language had to be abandoned in the process, that was regrettable of course, but you took it in your stride that certain things would fall by the wayside. After all, if you wanted everything like it always was, you could just stay at home. Even Jews mainly shared this view- Albert Einstein, Irving Berlin and Harry Houdini all married non-Jews. (In Houdini's case, marrying a non-Jew might have seemed like a cakewalk after running away to join the circus. Whatever, haha.)
But after World War II, highly religious Jewish immigrants came to the U.S.A. with the intent of remaining highly religious Jews. Of course, some certainly did so before, but after the War they arguably came in greater numbers, and they couldn't go home or stay home, precisely because there was no home to go back to. Thus in America we have the highly liberal and highly intermarried Jews, and the arch-conservative, never-intermarried Jews. This is reflected in kashrut, like all such matters of observance. Fascinating stuff.
Tension over stam yainam/ yayin nesech was present when I was at a Shabbat dinner with friends recently; they had to take special care to see that the wine was mevushal.