Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Religious Dietary Laws


Tonyfinch

Recommended Posts

Even today, I'm told that for wine to be kosher, it must be made by Jews only, or boiled.

Boiled? :blink:

(Where's the "bleugh" emoticon when you need it?)

Like stefanyb, I am impressed by the level of discourse in this thread. And I need to go off and think about making a more profound statement. Meanwhile, I'll just continue to ponder boiled wine.

Edited by Miss J (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for facetious previous post.

I'm nearly done catching up with this thread and agree with others it's very interesting. Before wading in, however, I have a question: do people generally agree that Jewish dietary laws are substantively more complex/elaborate than those of the other major religions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My limited understanding is that, on the whole, the variety of Hindu regulations are more highly developed, but the issue is extremely complicated and requires much detail for a definitive answer. The source for complexity in the Hindu system derives from caste variations. I believe that certain high Brahmin castes are vegetarians. Within vegetarianism there are further variations, veganism included. Lower caste Hindus will eat lamb.

By the way I have never heard of pig cooking in the subcontinent, is that a Hindu taboo or is it merely because most Euro-American Indian cooking is in fact Mughal (i.e. Muslim) based, prepared by Bengali Muslims and therefore excludes pig-meat? In Kerala State (Goa as well) which has a largely Christian population with significant Portuguese influence there must be an Indian pork cuisine.

While there are variations within kashrut, over time and between different regional communities (i.e. Jews in Muslim countries as opposed to Christian countries), up until recently class and status variation of food taboo within the same geographical area (on the Hindu model) was uncommon. In the past an exception had occurred as a result of migration, for instance when after 1492 Iberian Jews migrated to Italy and the Ottoman Empire whose indigenous communities has slightly different interpretations of the details of ritual slaughtering. In modern Israel however, among the ultra-Orthodox, these minute divergences have become a source of significant economic clout and control for the leadership of small cults. Thus one group of Hassidim does not recognize the kashrut validity of the seal of another.

Among some modern Orthdox the suggestions has been raised that Schneersonite-slaughtered meat (that is Lubavitch) should be declared non-kosher since many Schneersonites espouse a theology of messianism that violates the Jewish tradition.

Hindus, I believe, do have regulations concerning the use of plates and cooking vessels restricted to one use as opposed to another, similar to the traditional Jewish use of milk and meat utensils. However I do not believe they observe a further seasonal distinction as well. Thus for the holiday of Passover yet another set of utensils and plates must be employed that have had no contact with leavened foods. There is a procedure for rendering such utensils ritually pure, but it is arduous and many simply buy additional sets or shut their house up for the duration and repair to the Catskills.

In addition to food taboos there is the related question of purity regulations in general which do affect the preparation of food. Most interpretations of kashrut allow for gentiles to prepare the food as long as it is under the supervision of a a properly trained observant Jew. However within Hinduism and Shiite Islam (particularly as practised in neighboring Iran) the strict interpretation of their elaborate purity regulations can restrict food preparation to members of one's caste or religious community. The Indian Untouchables are a well-known example, but at times in Shiite Iran comparable restrictions against the use of Jewish or Christian kitchen staff prevailed as well.

Imagine the affect upon the Euro-American food industry if similar caste and class restrictions were imposed in their kitchens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I have never heard of pig cooking in the subcontinent, is that a Hindu taboo or is it merely because most Euro-American Indian cooking is in fact Mughal (i.e. Muslim) based, prepared by Bengali Muslims and therefore excludes pig-meat?  In Kerala State (Goa as well) which has a largely Christian population with significant Portuguese influence there must be an Indian pork cuisine.

Yes, I've seen someone very alarmed by the discovery they've been served pork in Goa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A number of Indian cookbooks have pork recipes in them and Pork Vindaloo is a well known dish from Goa. Madhur Jaffrey tells how her father used to buy pork from a special butcher in Delhi and her first book contains several pork recipes as I recall.

I've eaten in a number of restaurants in various parts of India and I've never seen pork or beef on a restaurant menu, not even in Goa.

In contrast we know people(Sikhs) who run an Indian restaurant in Vienna. There the menu is full of pork. When I told the owner that you would never see pork on an Indian restaurant menu in the UK he laughrd and said that if it wasn't on the menu in Vienna no-one would come and eat in his restaurant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In modern Israel however, among the ultra-Orthodox, these minute divergences have become a source of significant economic clout and control for the leadership of small cults. Thus one group of Hassidim does not recognize the kashrut validity of the seal of another.

Now where is Macrosan explaining how this doesn't promote segregation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, most interesting. I preferred the position which I thought Macrosan (and perhaps Fat Bloke) were originally taking, which was that certain religious precepts were to be followed simply because they are God's laws - an entirely sufficient reason for those who have faith. I am convinced this is the most promising position for someone who is religious to take. It's much less promising to start to compare evidence for religious beliefs with evidence for scientific hypotheses, because whatever the evidence for the existence of black holes might be, we (or at least physicists) have some idea of what it would look like. We have no idea what evidence for God's commitment to a particular dietary principle would look like. Best to rely on faith rather than evidence, I would say, if you are a believer.

Of course - and I think this is Steve P.'s point - if one believes it is correct to follow God's law just because it is God's law, one struggles to find a rational position from which to refute the right of some people to do terrible things in the name of God's law; one can contend that they have misinterpreted God, but one cannot demonstrate that contention.

I hope no-one misinterprets what I'm saying as hostility to the peacable practice of religious faith. I am simply convinced that the advantage of a secular position is that one can say to someone bent on some religiously-inspired course of action - "Sorry, it isn't sufficient that God wants you to do it; whatever it is must also be harmless and legal!"

Edited by Wilfrid (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wilfrid,

I once did a bit of Philosophy of Science and isn't there a chap called Feyerabend (sp?) who argues quite convincingly that science relies just as much on faith as voodoo? It does at least challenge one's belief in science as disinterested logical progression, and I found it fascinating (as, incidentally, a science grad and a Christian).

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now where is Macrosan explaining how this doesn't promote segregation?

My impression of Macrosan is that he is a kind and good man without malice for whom the benefits of faith are real. If it works for him, why should he not make it part of his life? I'm sure he is not personally cutting people out of his life because of their dietary restrictions. You (and I) are more willing to recognize the societal harm done and the hypocrisy behind what poses as righteousness. I discovered a book on a search of kashruth that exposes the extortionary aspect of selling the seal to food companies, and how it is a huge con game. I'll see if I can relocate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winot, you're absolutely right. Feyerabend argues this position about as well as it could be argued; namely, that when one looks hard at the choices and decisions scientists make, one cannot find a strictly rational basis for them. He draws the conclusion that research programs might as well be organized by rolling dice or shaking chicken bones as thinking about the issues. It has to be said that, while Feyerabend's intellectual firepower is widely respected, few people agree with him. Lakatos is a good antidote.

I know Professor Johnson has some interesting views on Feyerabend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out today's NYTimes article on the lettuce shunning Yazidis of Iraq. Now that would be a politically correct method for avoiding rabbit-food.

The article is more supercilious than sympathetic and lettuce-avoidance is not the essence of Yazidi faith and practice, but the substance is relevant to our theme.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/internat...nt&position=top

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of religions, from my limited knowledge, would argue that faith is rather like a stool built on three legs all of which support the whole

1) The teachings of the founder/deity as found in texts that are agreed to be holy. This process in itself leads to schism as the Chalceadon proclamations prove

2) The teachings of the priestly elite on whom the deity has bestowed understanding of the principle laws and the duty of ensuring adherence

3) Individual morality based on prayer and contact with the deity.

now, the fundemental dynamic in all religions is which of these should take precedence and that has led to the majority of conflicts.

if you look to the subject of dietary laws and, in this instance, the Jewish faith, you can see where problems have arisen

Initially, in Leviticus, these teachings were explicit. But if one looks at the Apocryphal texts, there is not even agreement, so you are immediately putting your faith in the interpretation of god's law at a point in time by one person.

Over time and with a pragmatic change in circumstances certain dispensations crept in. Exiles in Babylon were allowed, by their priests to eat pork and meat that had been offered to the altar of Baal. There was a suitable explanation. The exiles would know in their heart that their was one true god and so eating idol meat had no effect and could save their lives. Such pragmatism exists now among less orthodox schools.

Finally, individuals have ( I would argue with the decline in influence of the priestly class ) begun to look to their own morals and thoughts. I know one Jewish woman who searched high and low for a Dreidl (sp? ) for Channuka, but felt no conflcit in buying huge slabs of pork shoulder to cook for her supper. She saw no relationship between an ancient law and her current circumsatnces

At the risk of offering a very bad theology lesson, what I am trying to say is that ALL religions are based around these three "legs' of the stool and that within that people make a decison as to which is foremost.

This would be true about those who choose to do terrible things in god's name.

I have a father who was brough up a Hindu, loves beef, still has his sacred thread and crys when he sees the actions of the fundamentalist Hindu parties in India

Go figure

S

Edited by Simon Majumdar (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at radical groups like the Klu Klux Klan, Jewish Defense League and Al Qaeda, just to name three, and how their actions are based on a perverted interpetations of "god's writings." Why is Macrosan justified to follow god's words and they aren't? Because we like his definitions better? Well believe it or not that happens to be the case. We allow people to follow god's words providing they do not violate the rights of others or do not break any laws. But what about rituals and customs that have a negative impact on society but do not break laws? Should we just tolerate them? Or should we point out their negative impact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, here's a couple of bones for contention.

1. The discussion seems to me to be substantially preoccupied with dead-end questions, such as how dietary laws came into existence. This smacks of authorial intention. The various causal explanations being advanced (divine intervention, Darwinian evolution of public health policy) are all well and good but they're not going anywhere.

2. On the other hand, not enough attention is being paid to the more productive investigation of how dietary laws function in terms of the ongoing construction of religions and religious identity.

3. In this respect, no little credit is due to SteveP, because his harping on segregation as an effect of laws is at least connected to the above.

4. In fact, it seems to me that segregation has to be part of the answer, even if the word choice is a bit emotive. Or at least: dietary law is an important part of constructing a religious identity in opposition to the other. To make any sense, it has to assume a context in which it's possible to eat without reference to itself.

5. Dietary law functions to individual members of a religion as one of a number of ways of constantly renegotiating their own place vis-a-viz that religion (viz. the endless variations of positions on kashrut expressed by individuals above). That is, the working through of an individual's relationship to dietary law is every bit as much a part of the experiencing of that religion as the actual (perhaps optional) following thereof.

6. Thus dietary law helps you negotiate your position vis-a-viz not only members of other religions (and people without religion), but also members of your own.

7. In kashrut, for example, the explicit invocation of the Other (e.g. in laws concerning the keeping separate of utensils that have been used with non-kosher food) makes this fairly clear.

8. I'm curious to know whether there's any sense in suggesting a link between the relative complexity of kashrut and Judaism's self-construction around a people in exile, that is, of introspection and generational continuity under external threat rather than, the more expansionist and proselytizing history of Christianity and Islam. In this context I don't know what to make of the apparent complexity, per VivreManger, of Hindu dietary law.

9. And what do we make of the dietary practice of the Aghoris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stepping gingerly over the Aghoris, that's all very sensible.  I would only add that social practices which define a community's identity by distinction from an Other are by no means restricted to religious practices.

Of course, of course.

I think one of the more interesting elements of religion is where it tries to manifest belief somehow in the physical world: from self-castration and martyrdom through not cutting your hair or eating beef or whatever. In that the question of how these relate back to the main elements of the belief system (where these exist) can be fun to pursue.

Example: I think matryrdom in early Christianity was among other things a reimagining of pagan sacrifice in the context of the Christian belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example: I think matryrdom in early Christianity was among other things a reimagining of pagan sacrifice in the context of the Christian belief system.

almost.

More, I would argue, it was a natural progression from the Judaic tradition of atonement and the paschal tradition of the death of Christ

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schematic version of my point: paganism in the ancient world was not to do with 'belief' but about public ritual. Christianity comes along and is apparently very little to do with ritual and all about internal belief. Martyrdom is a physical manifestation of this funny concept in terms comprehensible from a pagan mindset.

Now, can we get back to the Aghoris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kiku's post is excellent. And Wilfrid adds the good point that non-dietary ritual can also have the same impact. But the real issue for one strain of this conversation, which is what Nina was trying to explore, is which rituals and laws have negative social impact and which ones just reinforce ones needs for spirituality but do not have external concequences towards people from other religions.

As to your question number 8, I think the complexity of kashruth has more to do with preventing Jews from converting to Christianity then anything else. That is why the plain language says "unclean to you." In and of itself it segregates because it makes for, them and a you. The "you" are instantly indentified as pork eaters and the inferences (which are mostly negative)get drawn from there. Political correctness would just say "unclean" and not distinguish between race or religion. Once religious writings identify right and wrong that is based on race or religion, it is all downhill from there.

The hallmarks of democracy were the elimination of race and religious discrimination. It is hard to believe the Judao-Christian world would be so occupied with that concept if religions didn't historicallty discriminate against people of other faiths in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...