Difference between revisions of "Purpose of the Laws of Kashrut/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
m |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
<category>Health Benefit | <category>Health Benefit | ||
<p>The laws of Kashrut were instituted in order to protect the health of the members of the nation.</p> | <p>The laws of Kashrut were instituted in order to protect the health of the members of the nation.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RashbamVayikra11-3" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamVayikra11-3" data-aht="source">Vayikra 11:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim348" data-aht="source">Rambam | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RashbamVayikra11-3" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamVayikra11-3" data-aht="source">Vayikra 11:3</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim348" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim348" data-aht="source">3 48</a><a href="Rambam Moreh Nevukhim" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim</a></multilink>,<fn>Elsewhere, as discussed below, Rambam also points to the spiritual benefits of the laws, suggesting that the prohibition comes to teach man limits and to control his desires.  That purpose alone, though, would not account for why Hashem decided which specific foods were to be prohibited. This might be what prompts Rambam to note that there are health benefits in not eating those very foods which are proscribed.</fn> <multilink><a href="RambanVayikra11-13" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanVayikra11-13" data-aht="source">Vayikra 11:13</a><a href="RambanDevarim14-3" data-aht="source">Devarim 14:3</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink> #2,<fn>Ramban also points to the spiritual benefits of the laws, as discussed below. </fn> <multilink><a href="SeferHaChinukhCommandment73" data-aht="source">Sefer HaChinukh</a><a href="SeferHaChinukhCommandment73" data-aht="source">Sefer HaChinukh Commandment 73</a><a href="SeferHaChinukhCommandment148" data-aht="source">Sefer HaChinukh Commandment 148</a></multilink><fn>Sefer HaChinukh combines this approach with the one below which speaks of the spiritual benefits of observing the laws of Kashrut.  He claims that the prohibited foods harm the body, but since the body is the platform for the soul, when the body is harmed, the soul is affected as well.</fn></mekorot> |
<point><b>Why these animals?</b> According to this approach, all the prohibited animals are unhealthy, while the permitted animals are not. Rambam notes that pigs are particularly unhygienic,<fn>See <multilink><a href="BavliKiddushin49b" data-aht="source">Bavli Kiddushin</a><a href="BavliKiddushin49b" data-aht="source">Kiddushin 49b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> which claims, "עשרה קבים נגעים ירדו לעולם ט׳ נטלו חזירים".</fn> and if they were permitted to be eaten, they would introduce filth into the community, spreading disease.<fn>See also Bavli Shabbat 86b which states: "דאכלין שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו".</fn></point> | <point><b>Why these animals?</b> According to this approach, all the prohibited animals are unhealthy, while the permitted animals are not. Rambam notes that pigs are particularly unhygienic,<fn>See <multilink><a href="BavliKiddushin49b" data-aht="source">Bavli Kiddushin</a><a href="BavliKiddushin49b" data-aht="source">Kiddushin 49b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> which claims, "עשרה קבים נגעים ירדו לעולם ט׳ נטלו חזירים".</fn> and if they were permitted to be eaten, they would introduce filth into the community, spreading disease.<fn>See also Bavli Shabbat 86b which states: "דאכלין שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו".</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>The signs</b> – Rambam maintains that there is nothing intrinsic in the signs which provide a health benefit to the animal.  They are necessary only so as to differentiate between the various animals.<fn>This is consistent with Rambam's tendency to view the details of laws as not necessarily having intrinsic significance. For instance, he suggests that there might not be any reason why a specific sacrifice necessitates a lamb and another a ram, or why one holiday is one day long and another lasts for seven days. See his discussion in <multilink><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim326" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:26</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim326" data-aht="source">3 26</a><a href="Rambam Moreh Nevukhim" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim</a></multilink>: "שכלל ה׳מצוה׳ יש לה סיבה בהכרח ומפני תועלת אחת צווה בה אבל חלקיה הם אשר נאמר בהם שהם למצוה לבד."</fn></point> | <point><b>The signs</b> – Rambam maintains that there is nothing intrinsic in the signs which provide a health benefit to the animal.  They are necessary only so as to differentiate between the various animals.<fn>This is consistent with Rambam's tendency to view the details of laws as not necessarily having intrinsic significance. For instance, he suggests that there might not be any reason why a specific sacrifice necessitates a lamb and another a ram, or why one holiday is one day long and another lasts for seven days. See his discussion in <multilink><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim326" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:26</a><a href="RambamMorehNevukhim326" data-aht="source">3 26</a><a href="Rambam Moreh Nevukhim" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim</a></multilink>: "שכלל ה׳מצוה׳ יש לה סיבה בהכרח ומפני תועלת אחת צווה בה אבל חלקיה הם אשר נאמר בהם שהם למצוה לבד."</fn></point> | ||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Limits Inculcate Self Control | Limits Inculcate Self Control | ||
<p>The dietary laws limit the number of animals one can eat in order to train people to control their desires.</p> | <p>The dietary laws limit the number of animals one can eat in order to train people to control their desires.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="4Maccabees1-33-34" data-aht="source">4 Maccabees</a><a href="4Maccabees1-33-34" data-aht="source">4 Maccabees 1:33-34</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="PhiloTheSpecialLawsIV100-104" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloTheSpecialLawsIV100-104" data-aht="source">The Special Laws IV 100-104</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> #1,<fn>Philo also mentions the idea that the animals might be forbidden because of their carnivorous and cruel nature.</fn> <multilink><a href=" | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="4Maccabees1-33-34" data-aht="source">4 Maccabees</a><a href="4Maccabees1-33-34" data-aht="source">4 Maccabees 1:33-34</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="PhiloTheSpecialLawsIV100-104" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloTheSpecialLawsIV100-104" data-aht="source">The Special Laws IV 100-104</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> #1,<fn>Philo also mentions the idea that the animals might be forbidden because of their carnivorous and cruel nature.</fn> <multilink><a href="MorehNevukhim3-35" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamCommentaryontheMishnaAvotIntroduction" data-aht="source">Commentary on the Mishna Avot Introduction</a><a href="MorehNevukhim3-35" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim 3:35</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Maimon</a></multilink>,<fn>Elsewhere, as discussed above, Rambam also notes the health benefits of observing the laws of Kashrut.  As the suggestion that the prohibition comes to teach man limits and to control his desires does not sufficiently explain why Hashem decided which specific foods were to be prohibited, Rambam might have been prompted to look for  another reason for the law, noting that there are health benefits in not eating those very foods which are proscribed.</fn> <multilink><a href="RBachyaVayikra11-44" data-aht="source">R. Bachya</a><a href="RBachyaVayikra11-44" data-aht="source">Vayikra 11:44</a><a href="R. Bachya b. Asher" data-aht="parshan">About R. Bachya b. Asher</a></multilink>,<fn>In his discussion of forbidden birds, R. Bachya mentions also the aspect of disassociating one's self from cruelty.</fn> <multilink><a href="AkeidatYitzchakTorah60" data-aht="source">Akeidat Yitzchak</a><a href="AkeidatYitzchakTorah60" data-aht="source">Torah 60</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Arama (Akeidat Yitzchak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Arama</a></multilink> #1,<fn>See above that he also notes that abiding by the laws will improve man's moral character.</fn> <multilink><a href="HaMishtadelVayikra11-1" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalVayikra11-143" data-aht="source">Vayikra 11:1,43</a><a href="HaMishtadelVayikra11-1" data-aht="source">HaMishtadel Vayikra 11:1</a><a href="ShadalYesodeiHaTorah42p48" data-aht="source">Yesodei HaTorah 42 (p. 48)</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> #2,<fn>See below that he also speaks of the role that Kashrut plays in distinguishing Israel from other nations.</fn></mekorot> |
<point><b>Why these animals and signs?</b> These sources disagree regarding whether or not there is significance to the list of animals chosen and the signs which identify them:<br/> | <point><b>Why these animals and signs?</b> These sources disagree regarding whether or not there is significance to the list of animals chosen and the signs which identify them:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Significant</b> – Philo notes that swine is considered to be the "nicest of all meats", and fish which lack scales are the "most delicate" of fish, suggesting that Hashem chose to prohibit the most desired of animals.  The signs are perhaps indicative of how palatable the food is.<fn>He states this explicitly only with regards to the signs of fish, but the idea could theoretically be applied to animals and birds as well. That said, it is difficult to see why an animal with split hooves and who chews its cud should be less tasty than one without these signs.</fn></li> | <li><b>Significant</b> – Philo notes that swine is considered to be the "nicest of all meats", and fish which lack scales are the "most delicate" of fish, suggesting that Hashem chose to prohibit the most desired of animals.  The signs are perhaps indicative of how palatable the food is.<fn>He states this explicitly only with regards to the signs of fish, but the idea could theoretically be applied to animals and birds as well. That said, it is difficult to see why an animal with split hooves and who chews its cud should be less tasty than one without these signs.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Insignificant</b> – Alternatively, Shadal suggests that there is nothing unique about the animals selected to be prohibited,<fn>The signs, too, are simply a convenient way to choose a category of animals to be permitted or prohibited.</fn> and it would not have mattered if others had been listed in their stead; the purpose was simply to have some be off-limits for consumption.<fn>He writes, "כי מה איכפת לנו אם המאכל האסור יהיה זה או זה, אחרי שהמכוון הכללי הוא שיהיו קצת המאכלות אסורות לנו".</fn></li> | <li><b>Insignificant</b> – Alternatively, Shadal suggests that there is nothing unique about the animals selected to be prohibited,<fn>The signs, too, are simply a convenient way to choose a category of animals to be permitted or prohibited.</fn> and it would not have mattered if others had been listed in their stead; the purpose was simply to have some be off-limits for consumption.<fn>He writes, "כי מה איכפת לנו אם המאכל האסור יהיה זה או זה, אחרי שהמכוון הכללי הוא שיהיו קצת המאכלות אסורות לנו".</fn></li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Dual goal</b> – Rambam, who suggests that there are also health benefits in observing the laws of prohibited foods, might suggest that though Hashem could have accomplished the goal of limiting desire by proscribing the eating of any animal, He purposefully forbade those which were unhealthy, thereby accomplishing two goals at once.. </li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים"</b> – R. Bachya maintains that being holy entails controlling one's desires and curbing one's appetite.<fn>It is, thus, not surprising that the same term introduces the list of forbidden sexual relations in <a href="Vayikra20-7-12" data-aht="source">Vayikra 20</a>.</fn> The root "קדש" means to separate,<fn>See the <multilink><a href="SifraVayikra20-26" data-aht="source">Sifra</a><a href="SifraVayikra20-26" data-aht="source">20:26</a><a href="Sifra Vayikra" data-aht="parshan">About the Sifra Vayikra</a></multilink>: "כשם שאני קדוש כך אתם הֶיו קדושים. כשם שאני פרוש כך אתם הֶיו פרושים."</fn> expressed here by abstaining from certain foods. Practicing abstinence and setting limits enables people to strengthen the rational mind so it can override one's natural sensual cravings and impulse to sin.<fn>See also 4 Maccabees who points out that practicing the laws of Kashrut trains one's "reason" to "rule over appetites."</fn> Moreover, such limits make one constantly think of Hashem, instilling fear of Heaven and wariness from transgression.<fn>See Shadal who elaborates on this point.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים"</b> – R. Bachya maintains that being holy entails controlling one's desires and curbing one's appetite.<fn>It is, thus, not surprising that the same term introduces the list of forbidden sexual relations in <a href="Vayikra20-7-12" data-aht="source">Vayikra 20</a>.</fn> The root "קדש" means to separate,<fn>See the <multilink><a href="SifraVayikra20-26" data-aht="source">Sifra</a><a href="SifraVayikra20-26" data-aht="source">20:26</a><a href="Sifra Vayikra" data-aht="parshan">About the Sifra Vayikra</a></multilink>: "כשם שאני קדוש כך אתם הֶיו קדושים. כשם שאני פרוש כך אתם הֶיו פרושים."</fn> expressed here by abstaining from certain foods. Practicing abstinence and setting limits enables people to strengthen the rational mind so it can override one's natural sensual cravings and impulse to sin.<fn>See also 4 Maccabees who points out that practicing the laws of Kashrut trains one's "reason" to "rule over appetites."</fn> Moreover, such limits make one constantly think of Hashem, instilling fear of Heaven and wariness from transgression.<fn>See Shadal who elaborates on this point.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Why not prohibit all meat?</b> Philo | + | <point><b>Why not prohibit all meat?</b> Philo and Rambam claim that Hashem looked to find  "a middle path," being neither overly strict in His restrictions nor excessive in what He permits.</point> |
<point><b>Context in Vayikra:  laws of purity</b> – The laws of impurity serve a similar function to the laws of Kashrut, as they, too, set certain objects to be off-limits, restricting contact with defiled objects and prohibiting the defiled from entering certain areas.</point> | <point><b>Context in Vayikra:  laws of purity</b> – The laws of impurity serve a similar function to the laws of Kashrut, as they, too, set certain objects to be off-limits, restricting contact with defiled objects and prohibiting the defiled from entering certain areas.</point> | ||
<point><b>Similar prohibitions</b><ul> | <point><b>Similar prohibitions</b><ul> | ||
− | <li>R. Bachya | + | <li>Rambam and R. Bachya assert that other laws, such as fast days and prohibited sexual relations, similarly serve to curb man's desires.<fn>R. Bachya also says that prayer, charity, and other acts of kindness further curb one's lust.  Perhaps the act of giving counters the desire to consume.</fn></li> |
<li>Akeidat Yitzchak goes a step further to suggest that all laws whose reason is unclear (such as the prohibition to wear linen and wool together) need have no other purpose other than the fact that they restrict man.<fn>Even if one can find no innate value in the law, the very fact that it is limiting gives it value.  This might be the meaning behind the statement in <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbah44-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbah44-1" data-aht="source">44:1</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>: "לא נתנו המצוות אלא לצרוף בהן את הבריות".</fn> The very existence of guiding laws forces man to control himself and recognize that he is meant to live according to Hashem's desires and not his own.<fn>See Shadal who similarly notes that having many commandments accustoms man to rule over his spirit.</fn></li> | <li>Akeidat Yitzchak goes a step further to suggest that all laws whose reason is unclear (such as the prohibition to wear linen and wool together) need have no other purpose other than the fact that they restrict man.<fn>Even if one can find no innate value in the law, the very fact that it is limiting gives it value.  This might be the meaning behind the statement in <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbah44-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbah44-1" data-aht="source">44:1</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>: "לא נתנו המצוות אלא לצרוף בהן את הבריות".</fn> The very existence of guiding laws forces man to control himself and recognize that he is meant to live according to Hashem's desires and not his own.<fn>See Shadal who similarly notes that having many commandments accustoms man to rule over his spirit.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> |
Latest revision as of 11:13, 7 April 2024
Purpose of the Laws of Kashrut
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators debate whether the laws of Kashrut were instituted for their physical or spiritual benefits. Rashbam maintains that their purpose is purely utilitarian, and they serve to ensure the health of the nation. Akeidat Yitzchak vehemently disagrees that a commandment would be instituted for such mundane reasons, claiming that the laws must somehow elevate man. He, thus, asserts that Hashem forbade the eating of all predatory animals since ingesting such an animal can detrimentally affect the character of the consumer. Moreover, regardless of the nature of the forbidden foods, setting limits helps man to control his desires. A final approach suggests that the goal of the laws is to separate Israel from her neighbors. Having a unique diet distinguishes Israel from others, both minimizing contact and marking her as a "kingdom of priests."Health Benefit
The laws of Kashrut were instituted in order to protect the health of the members of the nation.
Why these animals? According to this approach, all the prohibited animals are unhealthy, while the permitted animals are not. Rambam notes that pigs are particularly unhygienic,4 and if they were permitted to be eaten, they would introduce filth into the community, spreading disease.5
The signs – Rambam maintains that there is nothing intrinsic in the signs which provide a health benefit to the animal. They are necessary only so as to differentiate between the various animals.6
Validity of health benefit claims – Many commentators question the above claims:
- Akeidat Yitzchak7 argues that this position is not supported by empirical evidence, as many non-Jews eat the forbidden foods with no harmful consequences.8
- Abarbanel further notes that if the Torah's goal was to keep the nation healthy, one would expect it to include a complete list of damaging foods. Yet, there are many other foods which are detrimental to the body that are not mentioned.
Can laws be utilitarian in nature? Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel further question this position, pointing out that the purpose of Torah is not to teach medicine but rather to instill good character and deeds. As such, it does not make sense that the laws of Kashrut would have been instituted for their health advantages. These sources would argue that Akeidat Yitzchak's fundamental assumption, that laws cannot be utilitarian in nature, is simply wrong. Rambam, for example, gives practical explanations for several commandments, including Shemittah and the Incense Altar.9
Why is the purpose not stated? Sefer HaChinukh claims that had the health benefits been made explicit, individuals would assume that they have enough knowledge to decide for themselves what is healthy and what is not, rather than relying on Hashem's list. R. D"Z Hoffmann argues against this logic, asserting that since people tend to want to observe commandments which are beneficial to them, making the reasoning for the ordinance explicit would have increased observance, not diminished it.10
Context in Vayikra: laws of purity – Though, at first glance, it is difficult to find a common denominator between this understanding of the laws of Kashrut and the other laws of impurity, it is possible that this approach might view all forms of impurity as related to disease. See, for example, Ralbag on Tzara'at.
Context in Devarim: תועבות הגויים – In Devarim, the laws of impure animals follow laws that relate to the abominations of other nations. If the commandment is health-related it is difficult to see how the two sets of laws are connected and why they appear together. This approach might suggest that the directives really are unrelated, and no significance should be read into their juxtaposition.11
"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – The conclusion of "וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" (Vayikra 11:44-45) suggests that Kashrut laws enable the nation to become holy. However, if the purpose of the laws is simply utilitarian (good health), it is not clear why, of all laws, these should be said to promote "holiness". This approach could suggest that the verse is not related specifically to the laws of Kashrut, but rather to the general observance of Hashem's ordinances.12
Comparison to laws of other prohibited foods – The Rambam explicitly writes that the same reasoning applies to the similar prohibitions of eating an unslaughtered animal (נבילה), a torn beast of prey (טריפה), and the fat of the animal (חלב), pointing out that they are all difficult to digest.13 Sefer HaChinukh, following Ramban, also notes that the fact that the animal became a "טריפה" proves that the animal was sick and has the potential to transmit disease to any who eat of it.14 Ramban suggests that the prohibition to eat of the fruit of a tree in its first three years might also be related to health concerns (See Purpose of Orlah).
Polemical motivations? Rashbam prefaces his explanation of the laws of Kashrut by writing: "ולפי פשוטו של מקרא ותשובת המינים," suggesting that his words are a response to non-believers. M. Lockshin15 explains that Christian claims that dietary restrictions were unnecessary16 are what led Rashbam to defend them and point to their utility. This might have also motivated him to offer an explanation that displays the laws' universal benefit, rather than one limited exclusively to Jews.17
Spiritual Benefit
The prohibition helps man perfect his character and elevate his soul. This approach subdivides regarding the specific benefit received and how this is achieved:
You Are What You Eat
Since what we eat affects who we are, Hashem forbade Israel from consuming animals with negative traits. The laws of Kashrut thereby serve to both purify the soul and prevent men from becoming cruel.
Sources:Philo #2,18 Ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Ramban #1,19 Sefer HaChinukh,20 Ralbag,21 Akeidat Yitzchak #2,22 Abarbanel, Sforno, Netziv,
Why these animals? These sources offer several reasons why these particular animals were selected:
- Invite cruelty – Almost all of the animals23 and birds24 which are forbidden are predatory.25 Since people's characters are influenced by what they eat,26 Hashem prohibited these carnivores to ensure that humans don't similarly become beasts of prey.27
- Defile the soul / intellect – Ramban and Ralbag28 assert that Hashem further prohibited repulsive animals whose material make-up affects the soul and intellect negatively. They explain that animals who are "עב החומר" (lit. of thick material) tarnish the soul / intellect, making it difficult to attain holiness and comprehend Hashem.29
- Used for idolatrous rites – Abarbanel additionally suggests that the prohibited animals were eaten by idolaters as part of their worship of foreign gods.30 As such, Hashem distanced the practice from Israel.
The signs – The signs of the animals are indicative of their nature:31
- "מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע"32 – Split hooves signify that an animal is herbivorous. Carnivores, instead, have claws used for killing their prey.
- "מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה" – This, too, is a sign of an herbivore. Since plants are not easy to digest, such animals regurgitate their food so as to chew it a second time.
- "סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת" – As many scaled fish are still carnivorous, the permitted status of such fish is somewhat inconsistent with this approach.33
Can laws be utilitarian in nature? Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel reject utilitarian understandings of the dietary laws, claiming that the Torah's purpose is to perfect man's nature. As such, they claim that the restrictions must provide a spiritual benefit to the nation.
"וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם" / "וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel34 assert that the verses use the language of "holiness" and "purity" rather than "healthy" and "unhealthy" because they speak of a spiritual state rather than a physical one. Hence, too, the emphasis on the law's effects on the soul: "וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם".
Context in Vayikra: laws of impurity – These sources offer two different explanations to understand the placement of the unit:
- Sub-unit of impurity laws – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Sforno35 view the laws of Kashrut as a sub-unit of the other laws of purity and holiness discussed in the surrounding chapters. R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that all the laws delineate those who are not worthy of approaching Hashem due to their contaminated state. Since eating "detested" species defiles the soul, a person who does not abide by the laws of Kashrut has a status similar to that of other impure people.
- Tangential unit – Ramban explains that the laws of Kashrut appear here only tangentially. The main focus of the chapter is the ordinances dealing with the status of those who come in contact with impure animals36 (which are clearly related to the surrounding discussions of impurity), while the laws regarding Kashrut are only secondary.37
Laws necessary only after the Sin of the Golden Calf – According to Sforno, the laws of Kashrut were introduced only in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf. After the sin, Hashem initially no longer wanted His presence to reside among the nation at all. However, when Moshe's prayers achieved a compromise which allowed for Hashem's presence to dwell in the Mishkan,38 it was necessary that the people elevate their souls to be worthy of it.39 Thus, Hashem introduced the laws of Kashrut to purify the people (and the laws of emissions and a birthing mother to purify their seed).40
Context in Devarim: תועבות הגויים – Ramban points out that the verse states: "לֹא תֹאכַל כׇּל תּוֹעֵבָה" because impure animals are an abomination for the soul. As such, their placement immediately following a discussion of other "abominations" is fitting. According to Abarbanel who associates the non-kosher animals with idolatrous rites, the juxtaposition of the two sets of laws is even more understandable.
Comparison to other prohibited foods – Other foods are similarly understood to be prohibited to ensure spiritual health:
- The original prohibition to eat meat – Several commentators41 assume that before the Flood, all meat was prohibited42 because its consumption has deleterious effects on man's moral fiber.43 After the Flood, Hashem made concessions to human nature, allowing them to eat meat, but He nonetheless limited its consumption to the least harmful of species.
- Prohibition of milk and meat – This approach could follow the Rambam who suggests that the practice of cooking a goat in its mother's milk has idolatrous roots and was thus forbidden. Alternatively, it could agree with R. Bachya who asserts that the combination of meat and milk fats muddles the heart and introduces coarseness into the soul.44
- Prohibition of blood – Sefer HaChinukh explains that eating the life-source of an animal tarnishes a person and leads to cruelty.45
Limits Inculcate Self Control
The dietary laws limit the number of animals one can eat in order to train people to control their desires.
Why these animals and signs? These sources disagree regarding whether or not there is significance to the list of animals chosen and the signs which identify them:
- Significant – Philo notes that swine is considered to be the "nicest of all meats", and fish which lack scales are the "most delicate" of fish, suggesting that Hashem chose to prohibit the most desired of animals. The signs are perhaps indicative of how palatable the food is.51
- Insignificant – Alternatively, Shadal suggests that there is nothing unique about the animals selected to be prohibited,52 and it would not have mattered if others had been listed in their stead; the purpose was simply to have some be off-limits for consumption.53
- Dual goal – Rambam, who suggests that there are also health benefits in observing the laws of prohibited foods, might suggest that though Hashem could have accomplished the goal of limiting desire by proscribing the eating of any animal, He purposefully forbade those which were unhealthy, thereby accomplishing two goals at once..
"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – R. Bachya maintains that being holy entails controlling one's desires and curbing one's appetite.54 The root "קדש" means to separate,55 expressed here by abstaining from certain foods. Practicing abstinence and setting limits enables people to strengthen the rational mind so it can override one's natural sensual cravings and impulse to sin.56 Moreover, such limits make one constantly think of Hashem, instilling fear of Heaven and wariness from transgression.57
Why not prohibit all meat? Philo and Rambam claim that Hashem looked to find "a middle path," being neither overly strict in His restrictions nor excessive in what He permits.
Context in Vayikra: laws of purity – The laws of impurity serve a similar function to the laws of Kashrut, as they, too, set certain objects to be off-limits, restricting contact with defiled objects and prohibiting the defiled from entering certain areas.
Similar prohibitions
- Rambam and R. Bachya assert that other laws, such as fast days and prohibited sexual relations, similarly serve to curb man's desires.58
- Akeidat Yitzchak goes a step further to suggest that all laws whose reason is unclear (such as the prohibition to wear linen and wool together) need have no other purpose other than the fact that they restrict man.59 The very existence of guiding laws forces man to control himself and recognize that he is meant to live according to Hashem's desires and not his own.60
Separation
The laws of Kashrut are intended to distinguish and distance Israel from the other nations.
"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – This phrase expresses the purpose of the mitzvah – that Israel should be separate from others, by virtue of its special relationship to Hashem. Vayikra 20:25-26 says even more explicitly: "וִהְיִיתֶם לִי קְדֹשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי י"י וָאַבְדִּל אֶתְכֶם מִן הָעַמִּים לִהְיוֹת לִי".
Context in Devarim – The introductory verses to the unit in Sefer Devarim similarly emphasize Israel's distinct status: "בְךָ בָּחַר י"י לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים", further supporting this reading of the purpose of the commandment.
Attaining priesthood – Shadal points out that in abiding by the laws of Kashrut, the nation elevates itself and becomes "a kingdom of priests". In other cultures, too, the priests had certain individual restrictions which distinguished them from laymen. Israel, being the priest among the nations, thus, has the same.
Relationship to other laws of impurity – If these laws are a means of transforming the whole nation into priests, the placement of the unit in Sefer Vayikra (תורת כהנים) among other laws dealing with purity, holiness, and entry into the Mikdash, is easily understandable.62
How does Kashrut serve to separate? The very fact that Israelites have a unique diet, not shared by their neighbors, marks them as different. In addition, from a practical perspective, the dietary restrictions make it more difficult to socialize and celebrate with Gentiles, as many aspects of people's interactions revolve around food.
Why these animals and signs?
- No significance – According to Shadal, there is nothing intrinsic in the choice of animals or their signs which led to their being forbidden or permitted. Any animals that would have been chosen could have achieved the same goal of differentiating the people.
- Unworthy of priests – Alternatively, since the nation is a "kingdom of priests," it is possible that only those animals which are worthy of being sacrificed were also permitted to be eaten.63 This would explain the choice to refer to these animals as "pure" and impure" rather than "permitted" and "forbidden".64 The forbidden birds and fish, on the other hand, might instead be prohibited since "שֶׁקֶץ הֵם לָכֶם"; they are "detestable" and, thus, unworthy of those of higher stature.65