In a biblical context (especially in the so-called priestly source) there is a profound classifying instance. Classifying means distinguishing “this differs from that.” Thus “groups” or “categories” are formed. This does not involve establishing differences between individuals but between groups. One single fruit can be healthy or rotten; while it is a family of foods that is pure or impure. On the basis of which criteria are such divisions established? Symbolic? Cosmological as in compliance with the order of the world (the eleventh chapter of Leviticus divides animals between the sky, land and water)? Are there criteria stated in the text or by tradition? If so, do they cover other reasons (such as the famous hygiene, the forte of positivists)? All these alternatives have had their supporters.
As far as food is concerned the best known word is kashèr (or kòsher). The rules regulating this area are expressed by the word kasherut or, to be more precise, kashrut. This word, however, has a reference framework that is far vaster than that of food. Its basic meaning is “valid”, “suitable.” It is therefore applied to any person, thing or object suited to a certain objective. Lexical observation is significant in our case. Pure food is not ipso facto kashèr, it is not so when it is, for example, cooked inappropriately. With a degree of simplification one can state that purity or impurity depends on biblical classifications, while kashrut derives from norms elaborated by the so-called oral Torah (tradition).
Let us address a crucial point. The real definition of observance based on a model of classification of reality in the Bible, is transformed by tradition into a way of increasingly powerfully distinguishing one’s community from others. Cosmic order (by definition the same for everyone) is reflected, due to the contributions of tradition, in the social and symbolic one, of one group distinct from others. This means that what is right for some is not right for others and vice versa. Food that is forbidden to “us” but allowed to “them” becomes a ritual means for maintaining a specific collective identity. Within a community instead, this works in order to introduce a counter-position between practicing and non-practising members. “To me, therefore, you shall be sacred; for I, the Lord, am sacred, I, who have set you apart from the other nations to be my own.” (Leviticus 20,26). Specifically in relation to this verse, an ancient rabbi reached precise conclusions regarding the motivations at the origin of a determined dietary behaviour. To justify the fact that one does not eat pork, one should in fact not say “pork is revolting” but rather “I would like pork, but I do not eat it because it is forbidden.”
The criteria used to establish the lawfulness of different foods are many: a) the distinction between allowed and forbidden animals (see Leviticus 11,1-30); b) the rules of the shekhitah (hence the manner in which permitted animals are butchered); c) the prohibition to eat blood (strengthening the shekhitah with additional rules); d) the prohibition to eat certain parts of fat (Leviticus 3,17): e) prohibition to eat meat torn from a live animal; f) the prohibition to eat the sciatic nerve (see Genesis 32,33); b) obligation to choose animals with no defects or diseases among those allowed (the kashèr ones); h) prohibition to mix meat and dairy products; i) prohibition to ingest substances that endanger one’s health; l) prohibition to eat certain kinds of food normally allowed at certain times of the year; a typical case is the prohibition on eating chametz (leavened bread) during Passover (in this case called kasher le-Pesach).
Since it would be impossible to set out all the norms here we have chosen two examples of different founding types.
Regarding quadrupeds, Leviticus (11,3-4) says that “any animal that has hoofs you may eat, provided it is cloven-footed and chews the cud.” Horses are therefore forbidden because they chew but have hoofs; pigs instead have cloven hooves but do not chew the cud. Unlike the second, the first is instantly recognisable. Such detail also has symbolic repercussions. The pig, for example, far from being associated with dirt and intemperance, is used as the image of the hypocrisy typical of those who present themselves in one way and turn out to be totally different (this was the case of Rome, a friend of the Jews in the Maccabean era and later a harsh ruler).
The prohibition to eat the sciatic nerve cannot be linked to any overall cosmological explanation. The prohibition depends from its very origins only on a historical-mythological reason peculiar to one group. It refers to Jacob’s legendary lameness following the patriarch’s battle with the Divine Being (Genesis 32,23-33). The biblical rule remains undeletable. Furthermore, it involves a technically complex operation and one that is decidedly uneconomical. There is nothing in the “world order” able to justify the antigenic role of the sciatic nerve (positivists should resign themselves). This prohibition is only the expression of a peculiarly Jewish historical event that, unlike what happened with Easter, has never had effects on other religious traditions.
Translation by Francesca Simmons