LEV103 The nineteenth-century rabbi, Samson Raphael Hirsch, put forth an interesting theory (Horeb, vol. 2, chap. 68. Trans. from the original German by Dayan Grunfeld (London: Soncino Press, 1962). He believed a person is what he or she eats. Since all the kashrut laws train a Jew to be less violent, he or she will become less violent. How does this work? Hirsch says the least violent food is vegetables. Therefore, all produce from the ground is kosher. The animals that eat vegetables and not other animals will be less violent animals; thus, a person who eats these animals will, in turn, be less violent. Similarly, animals that cannot run far and quickly will be domesticated animals and will be far less violent than wild animals. Therefore, only animals who chew their cud (all are herbivorous) and those who have split hooves that prevent them from running away are kosher. These domestic animals are less violent and thus permitted to be eaten. Although there is no specific formula for birds (the Torah just lists those that are kosher and those that are not [this and following verses], the Mishnah (Chullin 59a) discusses a case for someone who is in the desert and does not have his kosher list with him. How can he know if a bird is kosher? The Talmud answers that although no rule is stated in the Torah on birds as on meat, nonkosher birds attack other birds; if the birds "seize their prey," they are not kosher.... By eating less violent birds, Jews will be less violent. Finally, the fish. According to Hirsch, the kosher fish that have to have both fins and scales give them the means to swim closer to the bottom of the ocean and eat from the ocean’s vegetation, rather than eat other fish. Thus, kosher fish are less violent than non-kosher fish, and eating them will make a person less violent. While one may argue with the theory, one fact seems to be true. Sociologists have shown that during most of history, although Jews have (unfortunately) been involved in many types of crime, they have exhibited conspicuously much less violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery, and the like) than other sociological groups. It has not been proven whether the reason Jews have been less violent is because they observed kashrut, but it is an interesting fact, in view of Hirsch’s theory. Like all mitzvot, there is no “one” reason or explanation for kashrut, and each person at each stage of life must try to make kashrut and any other mitzvah meaningful for him or her (See chapter on “Mitzvot“). But eating food does have a moral quality for the Jew and keeping kosher properly will lead to holiness.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV105 We must do chesed for everyone and not merely for our friends. The Talmud (Chulin 63a) states that the Hebrew name for the white stork is chasida, because it acts with kindness, chesed, toward its friends. The Ramban writes that the birds enumerated in this portion are forbidden for consumption because of their cruelty. If so, the stork should be permissible since it does kindness. The Chidushai Ha-Rim answers thus: the stork does favors only for those that are its friends. Since it does not do chesed for strangers it is considered unclean. Chesed must be done for everyone, not only for one's friends.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV104 R. Yehudah said: "the stork" -- this is the white dayah. Why is it called "chasidah" [lit., "the gracious one"]? Because it engages in lovingkindness [i.e., it shares its food] with its fellows (Chullin 63a).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV106 [The] fundamental difference between man and animal also helps answer questions about some laws of ritual impurity. Touching a dead animal causes ritual impurity for a person for one day until nightfall [this verse, Leviticus 24-26, 31, 39]. But an animal can never make anything else ritually impure as long as it is alive, as it says "whoever touches them when they are dead, shall be unclean until evening" (Leviticus 11:31). But a human being can sometimes cause ritual in purity even while alive. For example, childbirth, the very act of giving life, makes a woman ritually impure for seven or fourteen days (Leviticus 12:2-6). This is the antithesis of the law and logic concerning animals. Why is there a difference between man and animals in ritual purity and impurity? When man or animal fulfills its potential or purpose, it is in consonance with its basic nature. The life of an animal is such that as long as it is alive, its purpose is fulfilled. Every minute of its life it is actualizing its potential and fulfilling its reason for existence. Therefore, an animal can only become ritually impure when its purpose no longer exists, i.e., upon its death. If the animal still has a purpose even after death, then it does not become ritually impure when touched. Thus, kosher animals (those with split homes that chew their cud) that are ritually slaughtered and continue to have a purpose for human beings as food or a sacrifice, do not become ritually impure (Maimonides, Hilchot Avot HaTumot 1:2). But why does a woman become impure at that great moment of giving life, which seems to be the antithesis of ritual impurity? Perhaps this question can be answered by understanding another anomaly regarding the mother giving birth. The Torah tells us that after her time of impurity, the mother brings a sin offering and receives atonement (Leviticus 12:6-7). What possible sin could the mother have committed in giving birth that requires a sin offering and atonement? Although there are many answer to this question, Rebbeinu Bechaya reminds us that the first mention of childbirth in the Torah was connected to the first sin, when Eve ate the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam (Rabbeinu Bechaya commentary on Leviticus 12:7). Her punishment was a childbirth filled with travail (Genesis 3:16). Thus, every breath reminds us of a time that man did not fill his potential, and the sin offering tries to repair that first sin, whose consequences are seen in the case of each childbirth. Since man is not completed at birth and has not yet fulfilled his potential, he can become ritually impure in life and can render others ritually impure as well.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV108 What forms of abstinence are in accord with our Torah? I say, in response to this question, that the abstinence advocated by our Torah is of three kinds. One of these is in our dealings and associations with other people. The second relates to what is solely our own regarding our physical senses and external limbs. The third relates to what is ours alone regarding our inner selves, our traits, our convictions, and the thoughts, good or bad, hidden in our hearts. ... The abstinence we should adopt of the second kind--that which relates solely to ourselves with regard to our senses and external limbs--may be divided into two parts: (1) the forbidden, namely, the negative commandments; and (2) the permitted, namely, all the different kinds of permitted pleasures. Each of these parts may be divided into three, as follows. The forbidden. Anything that is forbidden to us must be one of three things. Either it is (1) One of the things for which there is a natural longing, such as fornication, theft, usury, and gluttonous consumption of forbidden food and drink; (2) something that by nature one neither abhors nor desires, such as wearing a garment woven of wool and flax, sowing diverse seeds together, eating meat and milk cooked together, eating forbidden fat, and many things similar to this; or (3) something that is repulsive to our nature and abhorrent to our souls, such as eating the flesh of a beast that died of itself or had not been ritually slaughtered, [eating] the blood, or [eating] any of the many creatures that one would not wish to eat even if these were permitted to be eaten, such as the eight species of reptiles (Vayikra 11:29-30) and their like. You should discipline yourself, my brother, by abstaining from all that God has commanded you to abstain from, until the disgust you feel and the abhorrence you have for forbidden forms of pleasures and desires reach such an extent that the most revolting of the forbidden things and those that are attractive [to others] are equally abhorrent to you. Thus, forbidden sexual relations, taking money in prohibited ways, self-aggrandizement through the humiliation of one's fellow and his disparagement-- all of which a person, by nature, is strongly attracted to--should be as [repulsive to you as] eating mice, blood, or reptiles, which are repulsive and abhorrent to you by nature. When you attain this degree of abstinence from the forbidden without forcing your nature or feeling it a hardship, you will belong to the class of people who are free from sin and [saved] from a stumbling, of whom it is said: “No evil will be fall the righteous” (Mishlei 12:21). (Continued at [[DEUT811]] Deuteronomy 17:17 wives 811-3)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV107 … [there is] one who constantly sets himself on a path that is not good (Tehillim 36:5), a man who daily treads [the course of] his sins (Eichah 3:39), repeating his foolishness (Mishlei 26:11). He keeps returning to his pursuit (of sin) (Yirmeyahu 8:6), at every turn he cherishes evil. The very obstacles of his sin, namely, his passion and yetzer, are constantly before him (Yechezkel 14:3; see Rashi; they become the bedrock of his ideology), and his desire and aim is that nothing should stand in the way of his implementing what he has devised (Bereishis 11:6). For such an individual repentance begins when he forsakes his evil ways and thoughts, and when he consents to maintain and commit himself not to sin any further. [Only] afterwards must he regret his corrupt deeds (unlike one who has sinned perchance, where the process of teshuvah begins with regret, this individual must first totally distance himself from sin; only then can regret bring him to repentance.), confess his wrongdoing and return to Hashem, as the pasuk says, (Yeshayahu 55:7), "Let the wicked forsake his way and the iniquitous man his thoughts (I.e., a complete break with his former lifestyle of sin.); Let him return to Hashem (this is the next stage in his repentance: regret, confession, and prayer (Zeh Hasha'ar), for he is now ready to return to Hashem.), and He will show him mercy." This is comparable to one who holds a [dead] sheretz (I.e., one of the eight low-creeping creatures that impart tum'ah (ritual impurity). [See this and following two verses), and comes to immerse himself [in a mikveh] to be purified. If he releases the sheretz first and subsequently immerses himself, he will then be purified; but as long as the sheretz is in his hand, he remains impure, and the immersion will be to no avail (See Ta'anis 16a). Forsaking one's preoccupation with sin is equivalent to casting aside the sheretz; while regret over sin, confession, and prayer, take the place of the immersion.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV109 See [[LEV106]] Leviticus 11:24 unclean AMJV 96-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV110 After having been spiritually impure, a Kohen who has immersed in a mikvah during the day shall not serve in the Beis HaMikdash until after nightfall. A Kohen is an emissary between his fellow Jews and Hashem. When he brings offerings in the Sanctuary his brethren regain closeness to Hashem for they gain atonement for their sins. Therefore, while performing his duties in the Sanctuary the Kohen must be spiritually pure. If he loses his spiritual purity and begins the process of restoring it, only Hashem knows when the Kohen completely regains his purity and is again fit to serve in the Sanctuary. Hashem reveals to us that the time comes with the appearance of three stars on the night after the Kohen’s ritual immersion.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV111 The fourth principle [of repentance] is grief over one's actions, as the pasuk says (Yoel 2:12), "Even now, so declares Hashem: Return to Me with all your hearts, and with fasting, weeping, and lamenting." Our sages, z"l, said (Yerushalmi Berachos 1:5, Bamidbar Rabbah 17:7), "The heart and the eyes are the two agents of sin." Similarly, it states (Bemidbar 15:39), "You must not explore after your heart and your eyes." Atoning for the transgression of these agents requires that their repentance be commensurate with their waywardness. The transgression of the hearts of the sinners is atoned for through their bitterness and sighing, by breaking their hearts [in sorrow over the sin committed] -- as it is written (Yeshayahu 57:16), "Until the spirit be Me surrenders," and as the pasuk says (Tehillim 51:19), "A heart broken and crushed, Hashem, You will not distain" [This is a reference to the first agent of sin -- the heart; consequently, one must have a broken heart to atone for the sins of the heart.) This can be compared to impure vessels which, when broken, are purified from their defilement, as the pasuk says [this verse], "A [clay] oven or a stove shall be shattered." The transgression of the eyes are atoned for by tears, as the pasuk says success (Tehillim 119:136), "Streams of water run down from my eyes because they did not keep Your Torah." It does not say "because I did not keep Your Torah," but rather "[because] they did not keep." Since they were the cause of sin, therefore, I have shed streams of water (This is a reference to the second agent of sin; consequently, one must shed tears to atone for the transgression of his eyes).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV112 I don't know whether I believe that God doesn't want us to eat animals--the Torah seems to support both sides of that argument. Before the Flood, God does not indicate any purpose for animals in the scheme of the Creation. In Genesis 1, only birds and sea creatures and human beings are blessed. In Leviticus 11:40, the Torah makes it clear that there is no intrinsic value to an animal dying a natural death. Such a creature is called n’veilah, and we are forbidden to eat it. In the description of the cap High Priest’s Yom Kippur ritual (Leviticus 16), the fortunate animal is not the goat that is kept alive, doomed to wander sin-laden through the wilds of Azazel, but the one whose death comes in a korban, as part of a ritual sacrifice. All animals, like all humans, must die. The question is, does an animal's death fulfill a purpose? The Torah seems to say--whether you agree with this reasoning or not--that the animal’s purpose is to nurture bigger animals and human beings. Human beings, after all, also nurture the earth when we die and are buried. Although God seems to see nurturing other creatures as one of the purposes for the existence of animals, God clearly wants human beings to think about the lives they are taking. Consider the long lists of creatures permitted and forbidden, the near-death struggle in Parashat Vayishlach from which Jacob emerges wounded in his loins, the source of the prohibition against sirloin and tenderloin and porterhouse. Consider the statement in Genesis 9:4 that blood represents the life that belongs to God and not to us, and the Rabbis’ tortured extensions of the simple command to avoid boiling a kid in its mother's milk. Taking your animal’s life may be permitted, but we are to empathize with the animal’s pain, with tzaar baalei chayim. If the ideal is the reinstatement of the Edenic condition, then to confront the realities of consuming animals with every meal we buy, prepare, and consume not only builds our Jewish identities, but also makes us aware many times each day of God’s mitzvot--and reminds us of our failure to create societies free from violence and lustful appetite. The encounter with the realities of taking the lives of living creatures reminds us of our own creatureliness as human beings, even as the dietary section in Deuteronomy 14:21 reminds us that our destiny is to be an am kadosh, a holy people to Adonai our God. We are creatures, whom God commanded to consume other creatures to live--but we can also be holy, striving to climb out of creatureliness into godliness. It is a struggle: Jacob’s frail body versus the spirit; k’doshim tihyu, Leviticus 19:2 tells us--we are becoming holy; we have not yet reached the goal. (By Richard N. Levy, “KASHRUT: A New Freedom for Reform Jews”) (Continued at [[LEV354]] Leviticus 19:13 defraud SACTAB 71-2).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT