Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

The Dietary Laws through the Prism of Ethnicity

Indeed, Sir James Frazer in his The Golden Bough, c. 21) describes other priestly castes and their unique dietary habits and tabooed foods.  The Jews were neither the first or the last people to develop such a dietary regiment.  Similar theories can be found in W. Robertson Smith (“The Religion of the Semites,” 270) who observes, “In view of the fact that almost every primitive tribe holds certain animals to be tabooed, the contention is that the forbidden or tabooed animal was originally regarded and worshiped as the totem of the clan; but the facts adduced do not sufficiently support the theory, especially in regard to the Semites, to allow it to be more than an ingenious conjecture. . . If the scriptural data are allowed their normal force, the spiritual and hygienic explanations are the correct ones.”

The Babylonian code, The Laws of Manu, also carried a prohibition against the eating of birds of prey, and the Babylonians permitted all animals (with the exception of the camel) that chewed the cud to be eaten because they were ritually “clean.” Likewise, in Egypt, the priests were enjoined against “defiling” themselves by eating fish devouring birds.

The hygienic approach was championed by none other than Maimonides, the great Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages in Spain. The argument, now supported by modern research, was that scaleless fish and the swine tend to produce diseases. Fish with scales and fins are generally better capable of swimming in cleaner waters. By the way, some kosher fish are bottom feeders like carp and perch.

Mary Douglas’s Approach

The term “clean” and “unclean” are simply figures of speech used to describe what is considered to be an acceptable type of sacrifice for the altar.

In historical terms, since the ancient Israelites were a pastoral people, it was only natural they would use various flock animals as their offerings. That, in my honest opinion, seems to be the simplest explanation, but there are certain wild animals that are “clean” in so far as they may be eaten, but are, nevertheless, not to be brought to the altar for ritual sacrifice. The wild ox or the giraffe are obvious and well-known examples. Some commentaries point out the reason for these animals are not to be brought to the altar was due to practical considerations; these creatures are not easily found like the flock animals are.

According to the anthropologist Mary Douglas, the terms “unclean” and “clean” are not to be construed as an indictment against their essential character as God’s creation. Quite the opposite: “Unclean is not a term of psychological horror and disgust, it is a technical term for the cult, as commentators have often pointed out. To import feelings into the translation falsifies, and creates more puzzles. The technique of delayed completion postpones the meanings until chapter 17.

At that point Leviticus commands the people not to eat blood, not to eat an animal that has died an unconsecrated death, i.e.,  an animal that has died of itself, or an animal torn by beasts, presumably with its blood still in it (Lev 17:8-16; see also Deut 14:21). The dietary laws thus support the law against unconsecrated killing. The Leviticus writer’s reverential attitude to life, animal and human, explains the animal corpse pollution rules. ‘Thou shalt not stand upon [profit from] another’s blood’ (Lev. 19:16). The case of the animal’s blood and the case of the human’s blood are parallel. Ritual impurity imposes God’s order on his creation.”