Purpose of the Laws of Kashrut/2

Purpose of the Laws of Kashrut

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Health Benefit

The laws of Kashrut were instituted in order to protect the health of the members of the nation.

Sources:RashbamVayikra 11:3About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Rambam Moreh Nevukhim3 48About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, RambanVayikra 11:13Devarim 14:3About R. Moshe b. Nachman #2, Sefer HaChinukhSefer HaChinukh Commandment 73Sefer HaChinukh Commandment 148,¹

Why these animals? According to this approach, all the prohibited animals are unhealthy, while the permitted animals are not. For example, Rambam notes that pigs are particularly unhygienic² and if they were permitted to be eaten they would introduce filth into the community, further spreading disease.  Bavli Shabbat 86b states that non-Jews "דאכלין שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו".

The signs – Rambam explains that there is nothing intrinsic in the signs which provide a health benefit to the animal.  They are only necessary so as to differentiate between the various animals.³

Validity of health benefit claims – Many commentators question the above claims:

• Akeidat Yitzchak⁴ argues that this position is not supported by scientific evidence, as many non-Jews eat the forbidden foods with no unfortunate consequences.⁵ 
• 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 unhealthy foods, yet there are many other foods which are detrimental to the body that are not mentioned.

Sefer HaChinukh defends this position, claiming that we can trust Hashem to know better than any scientist which foods are healthy and which are not.

Can laws be utilitarian in nature? Akeidat Yitzchak further questions this position by pointing out that the purpose of Torah is not to teach us 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 Yitchk's fundamental assumption,  that laws cannot be utilitarian in nature, is simply wrong. Rambam, for example, gives practical explanations for the commandments of Shemittah and the incense as well.

Why is the purpose not stated? Sefer HaChinukh claims that had the health reasons been relayed, 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, including the reasoning behind the ordinance would have increased observance, not diminished it.⁶

Context in Vayikra:  laws of purity – Though, at first glance, it is difficult to find a common denominator between the laws of Kashrut and the laws of impurity discussed in the following chapters, it is possible that all are related to disease.  See, for example, Ralbag on Tzara'at.

Context in Devarim:  laws of idolatry – In Devarim, the laws of impure animals follow laws that relate to the abominations of other nations.⁷  If the commandment is health-related it is difficult to see how the two sets of laws are connected and why then appear together. This approach might suggest that actually the directives really are unrelated and no significance should be read into their juxtaposition.

"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – The conclusion of "וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" (Vayikra 11:44-45) suggests that Kashrut laws enable the nation to become holy.  If the purpose of the laws is simply utilitarian (good health), however, it is not clear why, of all laws, these should be said to promote "holiness".  These sources could suggest that the verse is a general statement, not related specifically to the laws of Kashrut, but to general observance of Hashem's ordinances.⁸

Similar prohibitions – 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 fat, pointing out that they are all difficult to digest.⁹  Sefer HaChinukh, following Ramban, also notes that the fact the animal became a "טריפה" proves that the animal was sick and therefore has the potential to transmit its disease to any who eat of it. Nonetheless, these commentators are not consistent in explaining all prohibited foods in this manner. ¹⁰

Spiritual Benefit

The prohibition helps man perfect his character.  This approach subdivides regarding the specific benefit received and how this is achieved:

Preventing Cruelty

The laws of Kashrut elevate the soul and prevent men from becoming cruel.  Since what you eat affects who you are, animals with negative traits are prohibited.

Sources:PhiloThe Special Laws IV 100-104About Philo #2, Ibn EzraVayikra 11:43About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RambanVayikra 11:13Devarim 14:3Devarim 14:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Sefer HaChinukhSefer HaChinukh Commandment 73Sefer HaChinukh Commandment 148, RalbagVayikra 11Vayikra Toalot 11:45About R. Levi b. Gershom, Akeidat YitzchakTorah 60About R. Yitzchak Arama #2, AbarbanelVayikra 11, Question 8Vayikra 11:1Vayikra 11:13About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoVayikra 11:2-46About R. Ovadyah Seforno,¹¹ NetzivVayikra 11:44-45About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin,

Why these animals? Almost all of the animals¹² and birds¹³ which are forbidden are predatory.¹⁴ Since a person's character is developed by what they eat, Hashem prohibited these to ensure that humans don't similarly become beasts of prey.¹⁵ Hashem further prohibited animals whose make-up affects the soul and intellect negatively.¹⁶

The signs

• "מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע"‎¹⁷‎ – Split hooves are signs of herbivores.  Carnivores instead have claws used for killing their prey.
• "מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה" – This, too, is a sign of an herbivorous animal.  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.¹⁸

"וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם" / "וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel¹⁹ assert that the verses use the language of holiness and purity rather than healthy/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:

• Primary focus on contact – Ramban explains that the unit is brought here due to the laws relating to contact with impure animals (which are clearly related to the surrounding discussions of impurity). It was necessary to distinguish between pure and impure animals for those laws, and only tangentially does the Torah share the prohibitions regarding eating.²⁰ 
• Purification of all types necessary in aftermath of sin – Seforno connects these laws to changes that resulted from the Sin of the Golden Calf. In its aftermath, Hashem initially no longer wanted His presence to reside among the nation at all, but when Moshe's prayers attained a compromise which allowed for the Mishkan, it was necessary that the people elevate their souls to be worthy of it.²¹  Thus Hashem introduced laws of Kashrut to purify their souls and the laws relating to emissions and mothering to purify their seed.

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; thus, their placement right after a discussion of other "abominations" is fitting.

Similar prohibitions – Other food prohibitions have also been explained as being related to enhancing man's spiritual or ethical character:

• The original prohibition to eat meat – Several commentators²² assume that before the flood all meat was prohibited,²³ because of its deleterious effects on man's moral fiber.  They assert both that the act of killing an animal for it's meat leads man to become cruel and that the consumption of animals tarnishes the soul and intellect.
• Prohibition of blood – Sefer HaChinukh explains that eating the life-source of an animal instills cruelty into the consumer.

Learning Limits

The dietary laws limit the number of animals one can eat in order to train people to control their desires.

Sources:4 Maccabees4 Maccabees 1:33-34, PhiloThe Special Laws IV 100-104About Philo #1,²⁴ R. BachyaVayikra 11:44About R. Bachya b. Asher²⁵, Akeidat YitzchakTorah 60About R. Yitzchak Arama #1,²⁶ ShadalVayikra 11:1,43HaMishtadel Vayikra 11:1Yesodei HaTorah 42 (p. 48)About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto #2,²⁷

Why these animals and signs? These sources disagree regarding whether there is significance to the list of animals chosen and the signs given to 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.²⁸
• Insignificant – Alternatively, Shadal suggests that there is nothing inherent in the animals chosen to be prohibited²⁹ and really it would not matter if others had been listed in their stead; the purpose was simply to pick a select few to be off-limits for consumption.³⁰

"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – R. Bachya maintains that being holy first and foremost entails controlling one's desires and curbing one's appetite.³¹ The root "קדש" means to separate,³² expressed here by abstaining from luxuries. Practicing abstinence and setting limits enables people to strengthen their rational mind so it can override their natural sensual cravings and impulse to sin.³³ Moreover, such limits make one constantly think of Hashem, instilling fear of Heaven and wariness from transgression.³⁴

Why not prohibit all meat? Philo claims that Hashem looked to find  "a middle path," neither being overly strict in his restrictions, nor excessive in what He permits.

Context in Vayikra:  laws of purity – The laws of impurity as a whole serve a similar function, as they, too, set objects off-limits, restricting contact with defiled objects and movement of the defiled into certain areas.

Context in Devarim:

Similar prohibitions:

• R. Bachya asserts that other laws such as fast days and prohibited sexual similarly serve to curb man's desires.³⁵
• 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.³⁶ 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.

Separation

The laws of Kashrut are intended to distinguish and distance Israel from the other nations.

Sources:ShadalVayikra 11:1,43HaMishtadel Vayikra 11:1Yesodei HaTorah 42 (p. 48)About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto #1,³⁷

"וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים" – This phrase expresses the purpose of the mitzvah – that Israel should be separate from others. Vayikra 20:25-26 says even more explicitly: וִהְיִיתֶם לִי קְדֹשִׁים כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי י"י וָאַבְדִּל אֶתְכֶם מִן הָעַמִּים לִהְיוֹת לִי."

"כִּי אֲנִי י"י הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם" – Hashem might mention taking Israel out from Egypt, specifically in this context, to highlight the need for separation so as to become Hashem's nation.

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 will elevate itself and become "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, does the same.

How does Kashrut serve to separate? The very fact that Jews 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?

• According to Shadal, there is nothing intrinsic in the choice of animals or their signs which led to their being forbidden / permitted.  Any animals that would have been chosen could have achieved the same goal.
• Sacrifices

Similar prohibitions

¹ Sefer HaChinukh emphasizes that these foods can harm the body which is the platform for the soul.

² See Bavli KiddushinKiddushin 49bAbout the Bavli which claims, "עשרה קבים נגעים ירדו לעולם ט׳ נטלו חזירים".

³ This is consistent with Rambam's tendency to view the details of laws as not necessarily having intrinsic significance.  See his discussion in Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 3:263 26About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim: "שכלל ה׳מצוה׳ יש לה סיבה בהכרח ומפני תועלת אחת צווה בה אבל חלקיה הם אשר נאמר בהם שהם למצוה לבד."  Thus 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.

⁴ See also Abarbanel who follows him on this point.

⁵ Shadal even notes that the camel's meat is known to be very healthy.

⁶ As such, he brings the lack of reason as a proof against this understanding of the commandment.

⁷ In fact, there, the laws are introduced by the statement, "לֹא תֹאכַל כׇּל תּוֹעֵבָה".

⁸ See R. Yosef KaraVayikra 11:44About R. Yosef Kara who explains the verse this way.

⁹ Rambam also notes that combining meat and milk results in heavy and filling food, not ideal for the best health.

¹⁰ For example, Rashbam on Shemot 23:19 explains the prohibition of cooking a goat in its mother's milk to be related to eliminating cruelty, while Rambam associates it with idolatrous practices.

¹¹ Seforno relates the laws to the sin of the Golden Calf, and suggests they were only needed to perfect the people after they sinned.

¹² Abarbanel notes that even though pigs, camels, and rabbits are herbivores (or omnivores), they have a bad nature, and thus they too are prohibited.

¹³ See Mishnah ChulinChulin 3:6About the Mishna.

¹⁴ See Philo who already notes that Hashem forbade all carnivorous animals, and selected only the herbivorous animals whose nature is tame and feed on gentle food. See several modern scholars such as L. Landau, Olam HaTanakh Devarim (Tel Aviv, 1994): 124, and R"E Samet "פרשת שמיני – בין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תֵאכל" who explain similarly.

¹⁵ R. Bachya points to Yirmeyahu 49:22 where the prophet compares the wicked and cruel to impure birds.

¹⁶ Ralbag writes that certain animals whose material make-up is thick (עב החומר) obscure the intellect, and damage man's character:  מה שהיה עב החומר הוא נותן עכירות לשכל ומכבה אורו.

¹⁷ Chazal add two additional signs that are shared by all the Kosher animals, lack of upper teeth and presence of horns. Pure animals are missing teeth to bite those which try to attack them, and instead they have horns which they use to gore the attackers.

¹⁸ Ralbag asserts that these signs relate to a different set of criteria; as fins help the fish swim, they are an indicator that the fish moves a lot, which correlates with a "thin material make-up".  This is more compatible with man's nature and intellect and thus more appropriate for consumption.

¹⁹ See also Seforno.

²⁰ In other words, the text 's main focus are the ordinances dealing with the status of those who touch impure animals, while the laws regarding Kashrut are secondary.  If so, this could explain why Vayikra suffices with giving the signs of kosher animals, but does not list them individually as does Devarim (whose main focus in the prohibitions of consumption).

²¹ See Purpose of the Mishkan for elaboration.

²² See the opinion of Ibn Kaspi, R"Y Albo, and Tzeror HaMor in Permission to Eat Meat.

²³ They assert that originally man was meant to be vegetarian and that only in the aftermath of the flood was meat permitted.

²⁴ Philo also mentions the idea that the animals might be forbidden because of their carnivorous and cruel nature.

²⁵ In his discussion of forbidden birds, R. Bachya also mentions the aspect of disassociating one's self from cruelty.

²⁶ See above that he also notes that abiding by the laws will improve man's moral character.

²⁷ See below that he also speaks of the role that Kashrut plays in distinguishing Israel from other nations.

²⁸ He only states this explicitly 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.

²⁹ Thus, too, the signs are simply a convenient way to choose a category of animals to be permitted / prohibited.

³⁰ He writes, "כי מה איכפת לנו אם המאכל האסור יהיה זה או זה, אחרי שהמכוון הכללי הוא שיהיו קצת המאכלות אסורות לנו"

³¹ It is, thus, not surprising that the same term introduces the list of forbidden sexual relations in Vayikra 20.

³² See the Sifra20:26About the Sifra Vayikra: "כשם שאני קדוש כך אתם הֶיו קדושים. כשם שאני פרוש כך אתם הֶיו פרושים."

³³ See also 4 Maccabees who points out that practicing the laws of Kashrut trains one's "reason" to "rule over appetites."

³⁴ See Shadal who elaborates on this point.

³⁵ 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.
Shadal notes that the only way for a person to overcome one's urge is by practicing secluding from pleasures, and that is accomplished by having many commandments.

³⁶ 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 statemnet in bereshit rabbah:

³⁷ Shadal notes that this only explains the need for the laws when the rest of the word is idolatrous, had all believed in Hashem there would be no need for separation. Therefore, Shadal writes that there is an additional purpose to the laws, to teach man his limits and constantly remind him of Hashem who commanded them. [See approach above.]