More Food and Religion: Kosher Diet

It's crazy how much different subjects overlap…

Again in my Nutritional Anthropology class we talked about food and religion. (If you haven't already, you should read my earlier post on religion and obesity…and please comment…I'm quite curious). This time, though we talked about religious dietary restrictions, specifically the kosher diet for Judaism, and its possible motivation. We looked at a couple different interpretations, including symbolic and ecological. But, adding a perspective from religious studies on why we have religion and how religions survive, I've come to an encompassing conclusion of my own.

The symbolic interpretation says that the dietary restrictions, or laws on which animals are clean or unclean for consumption, are allegorical for social order and moral codes. It likens the body to a temple—only pure things may enter each. Only the physically pure (those without physical deformities) may enter the temple. Also, those who have touched or eaten unclean foods may not enter the temple. Pigs and camels are seen as unclean because they do not fit into the category of clean animals—"Whosoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat." The pig is not allowed because he "cheweth not the cud," or in other words is not a rudiment. The camel is not allowed because he "divideth not the hoof; he is unclean to you." This is also seen as symbolic of the social hierarchy and staying within one's own class. Those who don't are seen as not whole, and thus unclean. The pig and camel symbolize this because while they fit part of the clean definition, they do not fit the entire definition, and thus are not actually in a category. This non-classification is seen as abominable, both between human classes and animal classes. Thus, by creating written dietary laws, they strengthen moral and social codes.

The ecological interpretation explains that the dietary laws were based on cost and benefit survival schemes that were already in place at the time, and therefore did not impose a burden upon the Israelites when the laws were codified. The land in the Middle East was, and is more-so today, better suited to raise cattle, sheep, and goats. These animals have four stomachs, allowing them to digest cellulose-dense foods such as shrubs and grasses, which made up most of the landscape in the Israeli area. Pigs have stomachs much more like humans (they cannot digest those cellulose-dense foods), and are better suited to forest landscapes which were sparse in the region. Also, pigs put another burden on those who wished to raise them—pigs demanded foods that humans needed to eat themselves. So, raising pigs was much more costly than raising ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats. The same types of analysis can be applied to other animals which the kosher diet forbids, and the results will likely be that it was more beneficial at the time to follow the dietary laws anyway.

While there is truth to the different interpretations, there's got to be some motivation from those in charge of the religion to make these dietary laws. When making new laws, it would not go over well to forbid eating any of the ruminants—the result would be too-high priced food, and likely not enough to go around. A law like this would overturn the entire society. People would have learn entirely new ways of raising livestock (most of which would be costly and unsuitable to the environment), or else revert to hunting. This complete change in a way of life would also affect social and economic status—some who previously were doing well raising ruminants might not still be the best when raising animals like pigs. Adding a law that did not fit with the current way of life would have effectively caused a major lens shift for the Israelites, one through which the religion might not have survived. No, if the religious leaders were to make dietary laws, they would not ban the very foods the society depended upon.

But why make dietary laws at all? If we look at what "wrong" laws could do to the society, we can imagine what the "right" laws would do. Dietary laws that fit with the best strategy of life, while at the same time strengthening moral and social codes already in place would create a stronger society. First, by encouraging the most beneficial livestock-raising strategy, it would create a better economy. The strengthening of moral and social codes would reduce dispute between people. This is done through the elimination, or reduction of the amount of people and behaviors occupying the "unclean" space in between different classifications: it would give people an easier-to-read more black-and-white view of the world. Lastly, it creates cohesion throughout the entire group by distinguishing the Israelites from others around them. Thus, the kosher dietary laws, at the time, created a better whole society.

References: Harris, Marvin. Food and Culture: A Reader. "The Abominable Pig". New York and London. Routledge. 1997