How Michael Wyschogrod Taught Me To Eat Like a Jew

[PatrickMurphy]

David, in light of your response to Wyschogrod's essay, I'd like to know your take on the movie Temple Grandin. She, the woman the movie is about, has a revelation that we owe cattle some measure of dignity when we transform them from a being to beef. She does not object to our transforming them so; she just argues that we should do it in the right way.

The movie just came out on DVD. It couldn't be more timely for those who gather here.

[Spengler]

Patrick,

It was a very good film, inspirational in some ways, although I reserve judgment regarding its characterization of autism. I just don't know much about the subject.

There certainly are other things besides shechita (kosher slaughter) that honor the trace of the divine in animals, and it may be that kosher slaughterhouses might benefit from Temple Grandin's innovations. What is unique about kashrut is that it has more than three millennia of practice informed by the commitment of a faith community called into being by revelation. Supernatural sanction, as I wrote, is required to justify the consumption as food of sentient animals. Judaism sublimates such consumption into a sacral act, with strictly-defined limitations. It seems to me that Christianity has lost an important dimension by abandoning kashrut.

[total issues]

As a cultural Christian, I have always found dietary laws etc. as rather weird. They have never had much resonance with Christians - Catholic Fish on Fridays was rather lame (and has been abandoned anyway), and giving up something for Lent pales in comparison to the rigours of Ramadan.

One can see the origins in health common sense - in hot climates pork and shellfish go off easily before refrigeration, and not mixing milk and meat spreads out protein when it was scarce. Nowadays it only makes any sense at all as rituals to bond a community, a more venerable and ancient version of Masonic handshakes. Noteworthy that only where religious tribes are the primary identification (Middle East, India) do dietary rules prevail. At the other extreme those firmly nationalistic and not religious Chinese will eat almost anything that moves.

Slaughter is an interesting moral clash. Both kosher and (the similar) halal methods would be considered cruel by many by modern standards, but Western countries have run a mile from conflict on that issue.

[ellens]

The funny thing is, though TI, the biggest dietary fanatics I remember from my college days (leftovers from 1960's activism, no doubt) were the vegetarians and vegans. They might literally strangle you if you gave them something to eat that had animal parts in it. Not even the most devoted kosher observer, of which in those days there were few at elite colleges, would go that far.

That point always struck me as weird, frankly. I can see getting fanatical about something that you believe is divinely inspired and affects your mortal soul. But, about vegetarianism? Being nice to chickens and pigs?

This reconfirmed my long-held view (that is, in a 19-year old) that when people don't have religious beliefs they drum up all sorts of substitutes and become enraged when others don't take their "beliefs" as seriously as most people once took religious beliefs.

[total issues]

The funny thing is, though TI, the biggest dietary fanatics I remember from my college days (leftovers from 1960's activism, no doubt) were the vegetarians and vegans. They might literally strangle you if you gave them something to eat that had animal parts in it. Not even the most devoted kosher observer, of which in those days there were few at elite colleges, would go that far.

That point always struck me as weird, frankly. I can see getting fanatical about something that you believe is divinely inspired and affects your mortal soul. But, about vegetarianism? Being nice to chickens and pigs?

This reconfirmed my long-held view (that is, in a 19-year old) that when people don't have religious beliefs they drum up all sorts of substitutes and become enraged when others don't take their "beliefs" as seriously as most people once took religious beliefs.

You are quite right - it is quite enjoyable to tuck into a steak with veggies around to shock the "meat is murder" brigade! Vegan is just unhealthy, you need some animal proteins for balance - Hindus are mostly veggie, but they eat a lot of dairy. It is mostly women here who are obsessively vegetarian, I notice, and it is on the increase.

That said, you should be nice to chickens and pigs. Factory farming is a moral abomination, and I try whenever possible to buy free range meat. By all means eat them, but let them have a decent life first. Also in developed countries most of us eat far too much protein, and that can have health implications, such as gout.

[lzzrdgrrl]

".......It seems to me that Christianity has lost an important dimension by abandoning kashrut."

That may explain why the various Christian churches have so much trouble trying to protect the integrity of the marriage vow - which seems better understood by me as something on the order of kashrut......

[Spengler]

TI,

Kosher slaughter (and its imitation in Halal) is a most humane procedure. The animal loses consciousness instantly. It is more reliable than electric stunning which often goes wrong.

[Spengler]

The Covenant never stated that every individual Jew would prosper, only that the Jewish people would be eternal, and that other nations would bless themselves by us (which in a way is true of the Christians, who seek the blessings of Election in their own way). As for the mitzvot: God surely does not need our observance. He makes us holy through his mitzvot (kidshanu b'mitzvotav) so that we may cleave to him and become in a way Godlike, by aligning our will to his. That is an act of grace on God's part, not an act of propitiation on our part. How does finite man touch the Infinite? The Jewish position comes from Deuteronomy 30:

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

God bridges the gap between finite and infinite through the Torah. The point of observing mitzvot is to elevate ourselves.

[ellens]

You are quite right - it is quite enjoyable to tuck into a steak with veggies around to shock the "meat is murder" brigade! Vegan is just unhealthy, you need some animal proteins for balance - Hindus are mostly veggie, but they eat a lot of dairy. It is mostly women here who are obsessively vegetarian, I notice, and it is on the increase.

That said, you should be nice to chickens and pigs. Factory farming is a moral abomination, and I try whenever possible to buy free range meat. By all means eat them, but let them have a decent life first. Also in developed countries most of us eat far too much protein, and that can have health implications, such as gout.

Not to make light of this issue, but I have always been struck the preoccupation shown by the veggie crowd for animal life being turned into food, fellow creatures that they are. I could certainly understand opposition to the use of companion animals (eg, dogs and cats) for food because many humans have close and personal relationships with their pets. But, when it comes to cattle and other animals who are bred specifically to be used as food, my sympathy for this argument wanes.

Years ago, I heard a talk by Prof. Peter Salovey from the Yale Psychology Dept in which he showed videos of farm animals purportedly expressing emotions on their faces. He had cows showing looks of surprise, sheep in amazement, and goats in a state of dismay. It was hilarious and very entertaining, and possibly had some glimmer of validity to it. This is the sort of "evidence" that underlies arguments by vegetarians and vegans against using these animals as food. You see, they have feelings just like us humans.

Well, I have often wondered, how do these people justify eating plant life? Aren't they too our fellow living creatures? Don't they have an emotional life, as well, obscure as it might be to our perceptions? Have you never seen a tomato plant in a state of shock? How about a dismayed rhododendron? How do you justify eating any living material if you are going to make an argument against eating cow's meat.

This is an argument taken to its logical extreme, in my view. Be nice to cows and pigs, I agree, and slaughter them in a humane way (which the laws of kashrut require, by the way). But don't pretend that eating cow's meat is the same as cannibalism. I would rather see a few more acres of tomato plants in my environment, quite honestly, than a few hundred of these animal rights fanatics.

[total issues]

The natural life of the wild ancestors of cattle, pigs and sheep would consist of eating grass punctuated by terror as the wolves or lions descended on the herd, and then proceeded to eat you alive. Under proper conditions with a nice field or open range protected from predators, modern animals have it cushy - and without the demand for meat most of them would never have existed anyway. So no objection to breeding them to eat, from my side. Anyway, I like a good steak (or just to annoy you all, a nice pork chop)

The objection is to intensive factory farming which is downright cruel. Making an effort to buy free range meat or eggs is a bit like those worthy 18th century middle class types who bought slave free sugar.

[Pastaneta]

Well, maybe... But I just bought organic eggs from free-range hens, and it is written inside that the hens are living in an "open concept barn"...

De qui on se moque?

[PatrickMurphy]

TI wrote:

The objection is to intensive factory farming which is downright cruel. Making an effort to buy free range meat or eggs is a bit like those worthy 18th century middle class types who bought slave free sugar.

Er, no, it's not. You need to watch the movie Food, Inc. Although that will just be scratching the surface. The factory farm certainly is cruel, but that's not the most important objection by a long shot. The meat produced in these environments is necessarily unhealthy. The animals are gravely unhealthy (so they are given antibiotics in their feed, for instance). You eat their flesh, you eat antibiotics. Michael Pollan's books tell the larger story very nicely.

The goal should be to return to the world as it was, with family farms, raising happy, healthy animals. Buying meat and eggs and milk and cheese directly from farmers who care about the animals they raise is good for your health, good for the economic context you live within, and it is a spiritually beneficial behavior as well.

This conversation, I believe, is valuable, largely because it reminds us of the spiritual dimension of presuming to play God with animals on an industrial scale. God, in His Word, makes clear that this is an important object to keep in mind. Jews, as our host reminds us, are the ones God ordained to force us to face that fact, by their life practice. Keeping Kosher is good health practice, for our physical bodies, but it is perhaps more so a healthy spiritual practice for the individual, and healthy social practice for society at large. If everyone got that memo, we'd all be better off.

[ellens]

I don't know what an open-concept barn is, although it sounds interesting. As far as caging animals go, the most cruel institution is the traditional zoo. There are some great modern zoos where they put let's say a collection of animals from the African savannah all together in a large enclosed area that replicates the original territory of these animals in Africa.

It's pretty depressing to watch an animal imprisoned in a small cage pace back and forth while curious humans stare at him. Especially, if he doesn't have a mate. I used to wonder what things would look like if we engineered a little role-reversal and had the animals staring at the pacing humans.

Now this conversation has really wandered far afield. Sorry.

[total issues]

The goal should be to return to the world as it was, with family farms, raising happy, healthy animals. Buying meat and eggs and milk and cheese directly from farmers who care about the animals they raise is good for your health, good for the economic context you live within, and it is a spiritually beneficial behavior as well.

Wonderfully idealistic, but there are just too many people out there, living in cities and wanting to eat meat, for this to be practicable. That's no excuse of cruelty though.

i agree about pumping animals full of hormones, and antibiotics are dangerous, as it helps spread bacterial immunity.

I don't know what an open-concept barn is, although it sounds interesting

The chickens are in a barn, but they can run around freely, and are not restricted to tiny batteries.

Now this conversation has really wandered far afield. Sorry

Interesting conversations do. If peopled are bothered, Auerbach could split it off to a separate thread. I think our duty of care to animals is an important moral issue, whether one is religious or not.

[Pastaneta]

. I think our duty of care to animals is an important moral issue, whether one is religious or not.

Judaism has explicit provisions against tsar le baalei chaim, cruelty to animals... But as humanity has dominion over animals, uses for food and leather are legitimate.

http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm

The primary principle behind the treatment of animals in Jewish law is preventing tza'ar ba'alei chayim, the suffering of living creatures. Judaism expresses no definitive opinion as to whether animals actually experience physical or psychological pain in the same way that humans do; however, Judaism has always recognized the link between the way a person treats animals and the way a person treats human beings. A person who is cruel to a defenseless animal will undoubtedly be cruel to defenseless people. Modern psychology confirms this understanding, with many studies finding a relationship between childhood animal cruelty and adult criminal violence. Sadly, the converse is not always true, and those who love animals do not always value human life: Hitler loved animals; the animal rights group PETA wrote a letter to Arafat telling him, when he blows up a bus full of Israelis, could he please not hurt a donkey to do it.

In the Bible, those who care for animals are heroes, while those who hunt animals are villains. Jacob, Moses and King David were all shepherds, people who cared for animals (Gen. 30, Ex. 31, I Sam. 17). The Talmud specifically states that Moses was chosen for his mission because of his skill in caring for animals. "The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said 'Since you are merciful to the flock of a human being, you shall be the shepherd of My flock, Israel.'" Likewise Rebecca was chosen as a wife for Isaac because of her kindness to animals. When Abraham's servant asked for water for himself, she volunteered to water his camels as well, and thereby proved herself a worthy wife (Gen. 24).

On the other hand, the two hunters in the Bible, Nimrod and Esau, are both depicted as villains. The Talmud tells the story of a great rabbi, Judah Ha-Nasi, who was punished with years of kidney stones and other painful ailments because he was insensitive to the fear of a calf being led to slaughter; he was relieved years later when he showed kindness to animals. (Talmud Baba Metzia 85a)

In the Torah, humanity is given dominion over animals (Gen. 1:26), which gives us the right to use animals for legitimate needs. Animal flesh can be consumed for food; animal skins can be used for clothing. The Torah itself must be written on parchment (animal hides), as must mezuzah scrolls, and tefillin must be made out of leather.

However, dominion does not give us the right to cause indiscriminate pain and destruction. We are permitted to use animals in this way only when there is a genuine, legitimate need, and we must do so in the manner that causes the animal the least suffering. Kosher slaughtering is designed to be as fast and painless as possible, and if anything occurs that might cause pain (such as a nick in the slaughtering knife or a delay in the cutting), the flesh may not be consumed. Hunting for sport is strictly prohibited, and hunting and trapping for legitimate needs is permissible only when it is done in the least painful way possible.