Judaism- An Introduction, page 13
The second process is to remove the remaining blood by kashering (making fit). Nowadays this is usually the responsibility of the butcher or distributor rather than the consumer. The specific process is known as ‘salting’, as the meat is covered with salt to extract the blood. The meat is first soaked in tepid water for half an hour in order to soften the texture and to help the salt extract the blood. It is then placed on a draining board, scattered with coarse salt, and left for an hour, before being thoroughly rinsed. The details of the laws for salting come in the law code, the Shulhan Arukh.
SEPARATION OF MEAT AND MILK
There is another aspect of kashrut to which the Shulhan Arukh devotes much space as it tries to expound the biblical teaching. This is the bizarre biblical injunction: ‘You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.’ ‘Who would want to?’ you might well ask. The prohibition appears three times in the Torah (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). Whatever the practice to which it originally referred, rabbinic tradition, filling 28 pages of the Talmud (e.g. Hullin 115b), has it that a kid in its mother’s milk is given as an example of mixing meat and milk. Three prohibitions follow from this: meat and milk may not be boiled together, meat and milk may not be eaten together, and no benefit may be derived from such a mixture.
* * *
Insight
Again, we see that it is important to understand what is and what is not kosher rather than to speculate endlessly and fruitlessly on some possible explanation of the original biblical injunction. Rabbinic tradition understands the injunction as a prohibition against mixing meat and milk, and this is then worked out in the details of living.
* * *
The consequent separation of meat and milk dishes in cooking makes heavy demands on the person in the kitchen. Having separate utensils, cutlery, crockery, washing-up bowls, dishclothes, and tea towels is taken for granted in an Orthodox household. Such dual equipment includes the kitchen sink, with one sink for meat (often, along with all its accessories, colour-coded red) and another for milk (colour-coded blue). It was, no doubt, the absorbent nature of pottery, from which most dishes were made in early times, that led the Rabbis of the Talmud to prohibit using the same utensils for meat and dairy foods. Orthodox Jews believe, however, that the intention of the law was to keep separate sets of dishes, whether made of non-absorbent glass or Pyrex or of absorbent materials, and so dairy and meat utensils are not used interchangeably. If metal pots and pans are unknowingly used for the wrong item or inadvertently come into contact with non-kosher food, they can and must be made kosher (kashered) with boiling water. The kashering process causes the offending matter to be exuded. Items made of absorbent materials, such as earthenware or plastic, cannot be kashered.
Meat is such a common ingredient that it soon becomes apparent why an observant Jew finds it so difficult to eat in a non-Jewish home or in a Jewish home where kashrut is not kept. Not only can meat and milk items not be mixed in the preparation of a meal, but they cannot be eaten straight after each other. Thirty minutes must be allowed between milk and meat and a much longer time, often three hours (though this varies between one and six hours according to locality or family tradition), between meat and milk dishes, since meat takes longer than milk to digest. Foods such as fish, that contain neither meat nor milk, are known as parev or parve, a yiddish word for ‘neutral’. They can be eaten with either milk or meat.
FURTHER RULES AT PASSOVER
During the festival of Passover, there are special dietary rules. Then, and only then, any product that involves anything which is hametz (‘leavened’, literally ‘sour’ or ‘fermented’) is forbidden. (Separate utensils and appliances are used. Alternatively, those that have absorbed such a product must be kashered, if they can be, for Passover.) Alcoholic drinks derived from a leavened grain product (e.g. whisky) are not permitted. At other times, the kashrut of wine depends not on its source but on who handles it. Many Orthodox Jews will not use wine if a non-Jew has been involved at any stage from picking the grape to bottling the wine. This goes back to talmudic times when wine used in connection with idolatrous worship was absolutely forbidden to Jews. Later this prohibition was extended to all wine touched by non-Jews. (If the wine has been boiled in the process of manufacture, it is no longer deemed sacramental and the prohibition does not apply.)
Levels of observance
ORTHODOX
Many Jews observe the laws of kashrut in their entirety and with exact care. The Orthodox position is that the traditional halakhah is binding. What may be eaten is governed by the many regulations derived from the Bible and by the rabbinic elaborations of the biblical rules. If this entails great effort, expense, and non-assimilation into non-Jewish society, then this after all serves the purpose of all these dietary laws. They are a reminder of distinctiveness. They require discrimination, recognizing that the body and food are given by God who calls for holiness in his people.
Recent studies in the US and elsewhere have revealed that standards of observance among adherents of all the various non-Orthodox movements are not particularly high and are continuing to decline. This is perhaps surprising when it is remembered that kashrut, along with Sabbath observance, is the area which has a most direct bearing on the life of most Jews and which is widely regarded as constituting the backbone of Jewish life. The US, having the second largest Jewish community in the world, which is the best documented, helps us to see the theoretical positions of the respective groups. Different responses on kashrut illustrate particularly well the difficulty in deciding, once the traditional belief that halakhah is binding has been rejected, how much scope is to be allowed to the individual (or small community) in determining what is a ‘Jewish’ life.
REFORM
In the early days of Reform Judaism, its leaders took the view that food laws are devoid of rationale and harmful to good relations between Jews and non-Jews. Geiger and Holdheim in Germany and, even more so, Kohler in the US took this negative view. The distinction made was not between Mosaic and rabbinic laws, but between different types of laws. While the moral laws were considered binding, ceremonial laws had as their purpose to enhance and sanctify life. If they failed to do that, they should be abandoned. The most radical statement on the matter came in the Pittsburgh Platform, the decisions of the rabbinical conference of 1885 (as quoted in Chapter 5) which suggests that kashrut may, in fact, be an obstacle to ‘spiritual elevation’. The Columbus Platform of 1937 took a more positive view of halakhah in general and a move even further in this direction is to be found in a comprehensive declaration by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Centenary Perspective of 1976 and in A Statement of Principles for Reform Judaism in 1999.
In practice today, many Reform Jews do keep at least some of the traditional rules (and many Orthodox Jews ignore some of them), but, from the Orthodox position, there is no rationale for Reform practice. It is a matter of personal preference. The impression given by leading Reform teachers remains that kashrut is not vital and can too easily become an impediment to true religious feeling.
* * *
Insight
Kashrut affords us an insight into the fundamental departure from Orthodoxy made by Reform. While Orthodoxy maintains that all halakhah, moral and ritual, is binding, Reform accepts only moral halakhah as binding. Ritual or ceremonial laws need evaluating according to how far their observance still serves their purpose of enhancing and sanctifying life.
* * *
It is easy to see why it is assumed that Reform Judaism adopts a negative approach to kashrut. This assumption can be challenged, however. Certainly there remains among Reform Jews today a wariness about attaching importance to the meticulous observance of dietary laws as sufficient in itself. Only when they are a reminder of the values demanded by Judaism and are accompanied by ethical behaviour do they serve their purpose. There is also concern about divisiveness caused by disagreement between kashrut authorities. In the US, any rabbi may decide. In Britain, there are two main authorities: the Chief Rabbi’s court and the Union of Orthodox Hebrew congregations which has recently produced a list in an attempt to eliminate discrepancies. Kosher butchers, bakers, and restaurants (usually serving only meat or only dairy foods) must all display a licence from a rabbinic board. This takes responsibility for ensuring that everything is done properly.
Kosher food in shops can be recognized by the seal of several Orthodox rabbinical bodies that vouch for kashrut. The buyer should look for the Hebrew for ‘kosher’ or for a seal or label (hekhser) on the packet or tin. K and U (the symbol of the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations) are the most popular. A wide range of kosher products is available today in supermarkets, usually manufactured in Israel or the US.
Of particular importance to Reform is the distinction that is made between private and communal life. Unlike Orthodoxy, Reform makes a distinction between different aspects of kashrut. Kashrut should be observed not because they are given by God to Moses, but because they may encourage self-discipline and a sense of Jewish identity. They might also have a hygienic value. It is, however, for each household to decide the degree of observance which best serves these purposes. It is not necessarily all or nothing. There are, therefore, wide variations according to the families concerned. Some Reform Jews keep kashrut completely and some partially. The latter maintain that the laws they keep are biblical, such as abstaining from eating milk and meat products together, while those they regard as unnecessary ‘additions’ are largely the post-biblical interpretations of kashrut, such as detailed regulations for separate crockery and utensils. Since this was not the original objection when Reform began and since Reform does not specify the particular aspects that should be kept, it may be argued that this position, a very common one, has evolved largely from the desire to facilitate relations with non-Jews. Certainly, eating with non-Jewish friends or in public restaurants becomes much easier. Fish or vegetarian meals can simply be requested.
* * *
Insight
It is a common misunderstanding of Reform that it accepts the written but not the oral Torah. The key differentiation, however, is not between written (biblical) and oral (rabbinic) laws but between moral and ritual laws. Moral law, whether it is written or oral, is judged forever binding. Ritual law, whether it is written or oral, is open to re-evaluation according to purpose.
* * *
Whatever each Reform Jew’s individual view on the value of the food laws, there are certain minimum standards. Foods specifically forbidden in the Bible are discouraged, especially pork, abstinence from which constitutes a law universally recognized and sanctified by history from the time of the Maccabees to that of Hitler. Eating only meat purchased from a kosher butcher where the animal will have been killed and cleaned in the prescribed way is also expected. Such butchers exist in areas of high Jewish settlement. Elsewhere, some Reform synagogues run their own ‘kosher shop’, stocking fresh or frozen products aiding the observance of kashrut. (Quite a distance may have to be travelled by Jews living where there are few other Jews.) The Movement for Reform Judaism and the Assembly of Rabbis (the professional body to which all British Reform Rabbis belong) fully supports the Board of Deputies in its public defence of shehitah. This was seen particularly in 1987 when there were attempts to make shehitah illegal.
Standards of observance at a synagogue or synagogue-organized event are designed to be as inclusive as possible. The idea is to enable most Jews to participate without qualms and to avoid division between Jews with different views. Some Reform synagogues, for example, permit fish or vegetarian meals only, while others ensure that any meat which is served is kosher.
Reform tends to consider much Orthodox observance unnecessary, rejecting, for instance, alcohol prohibitions and the need for special supervision and labelling of items at Passover which are already totally free of leaven. However, there is an area where, in recent times, Reform thinking moves in the direction of extending the biblical restrictions. Some Reform Jews abstain from animals bred under methods of modern technological farming, such as battery hens. Their argument is that, by contradicting Judaism’s insistence on the humane treatment of animals, including those to be killed for food (see Leviticus 22:28; Deuteronomy 5:14, 22:6–7; Proverbs 12:10), these foods are what could be described as morally trefah.
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS
Orthodox Jews reject any distinction between biblical laws and their later interpretation which, to their mind, forms a ‘fence around the Torah’ to prevent the biblical ordinances from being violated. They also believe that making eating out easier weakens Jewish identity. Strictly traditional Jews will not eat in non-Jewish homes or allow non-kosher food in their own. There are gradations, however, in modern observance, and some Orthodox Jews will eat dairy or vegetarian food outside the home under certain circumstances. Some Reform Jews also have doubts about what might be construed as one set of rules for eating at home and another for elsewhere. While others may press a distinction between the Jewishness of one’s home and the secular world outside, they fear the charge of inconsistency, even hypocrisy, and the risk of confusing their own children. From the point of view of a non-Jew proposing to entertain Jewish guests, it is sensible to avoid serving meat and shellfish. In view of the wide range of expressions of kashrut, it is best to ask Jewish guests what they can eat and drink.
Conservative Judaism occupies an intermediate position (between Orthodox norms and Reform radicalism) on kashrut, as on much else. Since it allows each person to judge whether each of the regulations enhances or detracts from his or her spiritual development, it may be judged to be nearer to Reform. The result can be a thoroughgoing adherence to the traditional halakhah or a more selective approach. Liberal Jews also stress the individual’s judgement on whether the laws help cultivate a truly religious existence. Reconstructionists, on the other hand, may well subordinate their personal preferences to the idea of ‘Jewish civilization’ and so keep at least some of the food laws because of the place which they have traditionally occupied in corporate Jewish life. This sense of a common bond is, as we have seen, one purpose of kashrut which most Jews endorse.
* * *
THINGS TO REMEMBER
Jewish laws about food are known as kashrut, from the Hebrew word kasher/kosher, meaning ‘fit’ (to be eaten).
Most of these food laws come in Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14 or both and determine that certain fish, poultry, and meat, and their by-products, are not permitted.
The laws are meant to set Jews apart as a holy people, at the basic level of eating.
There are further restrictions on meat, notably that it must not contain blood (‘the life’). A particular method of slaughtering, shehitah, and a process of salting drain the meat of blood.
There is a further law forbidding the mixing of meat and milk. This requires careful separation in both the preparation and the ingredients of a meal. ‘Neutral’ foods, such as fish – containing neither meat nor milk, can be eaten with either meat or milk.
Orthodox Jews believe that these laws (in the Bible, in the Talmud, and in the law codes) come directly from God and must be obeyed. Others adopt varying positions about their value.
* * *
7
Life and death matters
In this chapter you will learn:
how important beliefs are expressed in birth and death ceremonies
about the importance of circumcision
what Jews believe about the afterlife.
Expressions of belief
Lying behind the fundamental practices of a religion are fundamental beliefs. We turn at this point to the two most vital moments in the life of a Jew and the rites of passage associated with them. While there are, of course, many variations in custom from area to area and age to age, birth and death rituals are expressions of profound beliefs which lie at the heart of Judaism. Chief among them are a belief in the importance of having children, in the sanctity of human life, in the fallibility yet potential of individuals to live as God intends, in the equality of all members of the covenant people, and in the reality of both death and an afterlife. Jews today differ on some aspects of expression and, to a lesser degree, in the precise formulation of the beliefs. However, these areas of debate – such as exactly when life begins and when it ends, what form the afterlife takes – raise matters which for centuries have characterized the questioning and evolving faith of Judaism. What people really believe shows itself at critical moments.
