Framing the conversation:
The Jewish people is not just a faith community; it is not merely a collection of individuals, each longing to connect himself or herself spiritually with God. Rather, Judaism is a way of life of a people chosen by God to be a medium of His vision of holiness and justice.
R. David Hartman, from “An Open Letter to A Reform Rabbi,” in A Heart of Many Rooms p. 196 (2001)
(מג) אַל־תְּשַׁקְּצוּ֙ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם בְּכָל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵ֑ץ וְלֹ֤א תִֽטַּמְּאוּ֙ בָּהֶ֔ם וְנִטְמֵתֶ֖ם בָּֽם׃ (מד) כִּ֣י אֲנִ֣י יְהוָה֮ אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם֒ וְהִתְקַדִּשְׁתֶּם֙ וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אָ֑נִי וְלֹ֤א תְטַמְּאוּ֙ אֶת־נַפְשֹׁ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם בְּכָל־הַשֶּׁ֖רֶץ הָרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (מה) כִּ֣י ׀ אֲנִ֣י יְהוָ֗ה הַֽמַּעֲלֶ֤ה אֶתְכֶם֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לִהְיֹ֥ת לָכֶ֖ם לֵאלֹהִ֑ים וִהְיִיתֶ֣ם קְדֹשִׁ֔ים כִּ֥י קָד֖וֹשׁ אָֽנִי׃ (מו) זֹ֣את תּוֹרַ֤ת הַבְּהֵמָה֙ וְהָע֔וֹף וְכֹל֙ נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַֽחַיָּ֔ה הָרֹמֶ֖שֶׂת בַּמָּ֑יִם וּלְכָל־נֶ֖פֶשׁ הַשֹּׁרֶ֥צֶת עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (מז) לְהַבְדִּ֕יל בֵּ֥ין הַטָּמֵ֖א וּבֵ֣ין הַטָּהֹ֑ר וּבֵ֤ין הַֽחַיָּה֙ הַֽנֶּאֱכֶ֔לֶת וּבֵין֙ הַֽחַיָּ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר לֹ֥א תֵאָכֵֽל׃ (פ)
(43) Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. (44) For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy; for I am holy; neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of swarming thing that moveth upon the earth. (45) For I am the LORD that brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God; ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. . (46) This is the law of the beast, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that swarmeth upon the earth; (47) to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.
>>>> What reasons to these texts give for keeping kosher? What does this tell about kashrut as a practice? How does that impact individuals? How does that impact us as a people? Which appeals more to you?
(ב) ואומר כי כל מה שאסרתו התורה עלינו מן המאכלים - מזונם מגונה. ואין בכל מה שנאסר עלינו מה שיסופק שאין הזק בו רק החזיר והחלב; ואין הענין כן כי החזיר יותר לח ממה שצריך ורב הפסולת והמותרות ורוב מה שמאסתו התורה לרוב לכלוכו ומזונו בדברים הנמאסים. וכבר ידעת הקפדת התורה על ראית הלכלוכים ואפילו בשדות במחנה - כל שכן בתוך המדינה. ואילו היתה מותרת אכילת החזיר היו השווקים עם הבתים יותר מלוכלכים מ'בית הכסא' - כמו שתראה ארצות הצרפתים היום. כבר ידעת אמרם "פי חזיר כצואה עוברת דמי":
(2) I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. 11:7), and fat (ibid. 7:23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks. A saying of our Sages declares: "The mouth of a swine is as dirty as dung itself" (B. T. Ber. 25a).
>>> The Rambam sees this as a "healthy eating" issue. Pork is an exception due to its entire way of living - it is living in loathsome conditions, bringing them into the humans habitations. Today very few would agree with the Rambam, and even in medieval times people already disagreed with him.
Nevertheless, the medieval Jewish philosophers did try to provide a rationale for the mysterious details of the dietary laws....
Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed III:48) understands the dietary laws chiefly as a means of keeping the body healthy....
Nahmanides, in his commentary to the Pentateuch [the Torah], tends to see the dietary laws as beneficial to the soul rather than the body. Nahmanides observes that the forbidden animals and birds are predators, so that for man to eat of their flesh will have an adverse effect on his character, whereas the permitted animals and birds are calmer and far less violent. As for fishes, those that have fins and scales are able to swim nearer to the surface of the water where they can inhale the fresher air, whereas the other fish lurk in the murky waters of the deep, and their flesh is less clear and refined. (Louis Jacobs, Traditional Teachings on the Meaning of Kashrut, in: The Jewish Religion - a companion, Oxford University Press, 1995)
>>>What we have is a question of getting used to cruelty and less admirable traits. I have seen how lobsters are boiled alive, and the sheer thought of it makes me cringe. The same thing happened when I saw a pig being killed. Or rather, I heard. I could not actually see it.
(ב) משרשי מצוה זו, לפי שהגוף כלי לנפש ובו תעשה פעלתה, וזולתו לא תשלם מלאכתה לעולם, ועל כן באה בצלו לטובתה ולא לרעתה באמת כי האל לא ירע אבל ייטיב לכל, נמצא כי הגוף בין ידיה כמו הצבת ביד הנפח אשר עמו יוציא כלי למעשהו, ובאמת כי בהיות הצבת חזק ומכון לאחז בו הכלים, יעשם האמן טובים. ואם לא יהיה הצבת טוב, לא יבואו לעולם הכלים מכונים ונאים. וכמו כן בהיות בגוף שום הפסד מאיזה ענין שיהיה, תתבטל פעלת השכל כפי אותו הפסד, ועל כן הרחיקתנו תורתנו השלמה מכל דבר הגורם בו הפסד. ועל הדרך הזה לפי הפשט נאמר שבא לנו האסור בתורה בכל מאכלות האסורות. ואם יש מהן שאין נודע לנו ולא לחכמי הרפואה נזקן, אל תתמה עליהם, כי הרופא הנאמן שהזהירנו בהן חכם יותר ממך ומהם, וכמה נסכל ונבהל מי שחשב שאין לו בדברים נזק א תועלת אלא במה שהשיג הוא. ויש לך לדעת כי לתועלתנו לא נתגלה סבתן ונזקן פן יקומו אנשים מחזיקים עצמן כחכמים גדולים ויתחכמו לומר, נזק פלוני שאמרה התורה שיש בדבר פלוני איננו כי אם במקום פלוני שטבעו כן, או באיש פלוני שטבעו כן וכן, ופן יתפתה לדבריהם אחד מן הפתאים, על כן לא נתגלה טעמן, להועיל לנו מן המכשול הזה.
(2) ...At the root of this precept [of not eating animals that died of natural causes or carcasses torn by wild animals, aka treyfa] lies the reason that the body is an instrument of the spirit: with it, it carries out its activity; without it, it can never complete its work. It is because of this that the soul comes to take shelter under the body's shadow, for the soul's how good and not to its harm, and God does not evil, but goodness, to all. So we find that the body at its command is like a pair of tongs in the hand of a blacksmith: with it he can produce a tool fit for its purpose. Now in truth, if the tongs are strong and properly shaped to grasp tools in them, the craftsman can make them well. If the tongs are not good, the tools will never come out properly shaped and fit. In the same way, if there is any loss or damage in the body, of any kind, some function of the intelligence will be nullified, corresponding to that defect. For this reason our whole and perfect Torah removed us far from anything that causes such defect. In this vein, according to the plain meaning we would say we were given a ban by the Torah against all forbidden foods. And if there are some among them whose harm is known [understood] neither by us nor by the wise men of medicine, do not wonder about them: the faithful, trustworthy Physician who adjured us about them is wiser than both you and them...
מלמד שאין ענין המאכלות האסורות לבריאות הגוף כברמב”ן, שהרי האומות אוכלים ובריאים, אלא כונתם לרפואת הנשמה, כי מגרשים רוח טהרה וקדושה, ומולידים אטימות השכל ואכזריות, וזה דוקא מועיל ”אליהם” לישראל, שהם לחיי העולם הבא, אבל לאומות העולם אין תועלת במצוה זה.
Kli Yakar, Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz, 17th century on Lev. 11:1
The reason for the laws of kashrut is not for physical health benefits, as the Ramban (Nachmanides) explains. We see that non-Jews eat non-kosher foods and are healthy. Rather their purpose is for the well-being of the soul, since unkosher animals remove the spirit of purity and holiness, and create a blockage in the intelligence, and bring cruelty. ....
(ד) את הגמל כי מעלה גרה הוא. הול"ל כי פרסה איננו מפריס שזה עיקר טעם אל הטומאה וכן בשפן וארנבת קשה זה, ובחזיר אמר כי מפריס פרסה הוא הל"ל כי אינו מעלה גרה, ולמה התחיל בכולם בסימן טהרה שלהם וביאור ענין זה שסימן טהרה שבכולם מוסיף טומאה על טומאתן כדרך שאמרו בעשו (בר"ר סה.א) שנמשל לחזיר שפושט את טלפיו להראות כאילו כשר ותוכו מלא תוך ומרמה וזה מורה על כל מי שאין תוכו כברו כמדת הצבועים המראים את עצמם כשרים והמה בלי ספק גרועים מן הרשע הגמור שתוכו וברו שוין לרעה, כמו שפירש"י על פסוק ולא יכלו דברו לשלום (בראשית לז.ד) וע"כ הפרסת פרסה בחזיר הוא סימן טומאה לפי שבפרסה זו הוא יכול להטעות הבריות ולהראות כאילו הוא כשר וכן בהפך זה בגמל ושפן וארנבת, ואע"פ שכל מדות אלו אינן שייכין בבהמות מ"מ הם מולידים תכונה רעה זו בגוף האוכלם כי כל אוכלם יאשמו (ע"פ ירמיה ב.ג) להיות מן כתות הצבועים המראים את עצמם כשרים כמו עשו וחביריו.
The camel, that chews the cud - The text should just have said "because it does not have split hooves" since this is the real principle of its non-kosher status, and so too for the rabbit and the hare. This is difficult. Also too with the pig it says "that has split hooves" but it should just have stated "because it does not chew the cud". Why does the text begin regarding all these animals with they signs of possibly being kosher, and then it adds later the sign of their non-kosher status? This is because both sign add to its non-kosher status. This is like what they (the rabbis) said that the pig is a symbol for Esav (Roman empire in the following midrash) that the pig extends his hooves as to say it is kosher, while inside it is full of deceit and fraud, and this teaches regarding everyone whose insides are not like their outsides, like the hypocrites that show themselves as kosher but they are without doubt worse than the complete scoundrel, since [the scoundrel's] insides are like his outsides, all devoted to evil. This is also what Rashi explained regarding the verse "they could not speak peaceably to him" (Gen. 37:4). And so the split hooves in the pig are a sign to its un-kosherness since because of those hooves it can mislead people, pretending it is kosher, and the same applies in the opposite direction to the camel, the hare and the rabbit. And even though these character traits (of honesty and dishonesty) do not apply for animals, they give rise to this negative aspect in those who eat it.
(ד) ולא יכלו דברו לשלום מִתּוֹךְ גְּנוּתָם לָמַדְנוּ שִׁבְחָם, שֶׁלֹּא דִבְּרוּ אַחַת בְּפֶה וְאַחַת בְּלֵּב:
(4) ולא יכלו דברו לשלום AND THEY COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY TO HIM — from what is stated to their discredit we may infer something to their credit: they did not speak one thing with their mouth having another thing quite different in their hearts (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Horeb, 317, transl. I. Grunfeld)
Just as the external temple, which represents your holy mission and to which you should sanctify yourself, becomes desecrated by impurity...so are these foods impure and unfit for your spirit, as far as they are all of them the living place of activity for your own being which is summoned unto holiness. If you have eaten them. not only touched but absorbed them into your system- you may be more nourished and better fed: but the animal instinct will be aroused more strongly within you, and your body becomes more blunted as an instrument of the spirit. Your heart, instead of being holy, instead of only striving for holiness- namely, your sublimity over everything animal-like, is drawn down to the animal- or become the more apathetic and dulled. Your spirit is now faced with a fiercer battle. and is less equipped for the fight".
Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo (Times of Israel, http://tinyurl.com/z6h8va3)
There is little doubt that one of the functions of the kashrut laws is to protect the animal from pain even during the slaughtering. ... Still, we cannot deny that in our own slaughterhouses, where proper shechita is done, there have been serious violations of another law –- tza’ar baalei chayim (the Torah’s prohibition against inflicting unnecessary pain on animals). How are these animals handled just before the shechita takes place? Are they treated with mercy when they are put on their backs so as to make the shechita easier? (This can easily be accomplished with the known Weinberg Pen, or by other methods.) What if chickens or other fowl are kept under the most unacceptable conditions, such as in overcrowded containers? Are these animals and chickens still kosher, even if the shechita was 100% accurate? Since when is the actual shechita more important than the laws of tza’ar baalei chayim? ... Since the massive growth of the meat industry, in which thousands and thousands of animals are slaughtered daily, it has become more and more difficult, if not impossible, to treat animals humanely, as Jewish law requires. The laws of shechita and tzaar ba’alei chayim were meant for Jewish communities who would eat meat occasionally, not for the huge industry we have today where these laws can no longer be properly applied. That being the case, wouldn’t it be appropriate and advisable for religious Jews to become vegetarians? In all honesty, how many of our “glatt kosher” kitchens, including my own, are still truthfully kosher? A haunting question, from which we cannot hide!
Even more extreme: Rabbi David Rosen, chief rabbi of Ireland: "the current treatment of animals in the livestock trade definitely renders the consumption of meat as halachically unacceptable as the product of illegitimate means."(Vegetarianism: An Orthodox Jewish Perspective,” in Rabbis and Vegetarianism: An Evolving Tradition, ed. Roberta Kalechofsky (1995, p. 53.)
Rabbi David Wolpe (Jewish Journal, 03/05/2010, tinyurl.com/yd4qok5)
I have not eaten chicken or meat for decades. I readily acknowledge that Judaism does not ask this of me. Kashrut is not vegetarianism. But kashrut is a reminder of Judaism’s concern with animal suffering.... Many biblical heroes are shepherds; animals too must rest on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:20) and the bible legislates many other protections for animals. We are the custodians of creation. Our first responsibility is to be kind.
Michael Freund (JPost, 11/04/2015 source: tinyurl.com/gv8jynr)
The aisles of Home Depot are probably the last place in the world one would expect to confront a kosher conundrum.... precisely amid the myriad merchandise on display that I caught a glimpse of what has gone wrong with the kosher certification industry, and why urgent measures are necessary to rein in its excesses.
Many consumers are familiar with the ubiquitous “OU” symbol, which signifies that a product is certified kosher by the Orthodox Union.... [But] consider for a moment this simple question: what does keeping kosher have to do with cleaning a chandelier? If you are having trouble furnishing an answer to this riddle, you are not alone.
Rabbi Edward Feld (CJ Kolot, http://tinyurl.com/zjq5or6)
But the way Conservative Jews keep kosher is not simply a matter of finding leniencies. There is no “Conservative kashrut.” Kashrut is kashrut, at least as it relates to shechita – ritual slaughter. But for Conservative Jews, it is also much more. One of the hallmarks of the Conservative approach to Jewish law is its sensitivity to ethical issues.
The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.
(André Gide, The Counterfeiters, transl. Dorothy Bussy, p. 427)