5 ms·

I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo

52 points by lermontov 11y ago

ars 11y ago
It's a great story, but not entirely true. Jews do not avoid pig for the reasons listed but simply because God said not to eat pig. That's it. No other reason. And note there are a TON of animals Jews don't eat, not just pig. Yet people seem to focus on the pig more than any other. This says more about them than about the Jews.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Yes, why even consider a historical narrative when God...
- vook 11y ago
  It should be said that there is no such thing as consensus among Jews or rabbinical scholars regarding the interpretation and understanding of Talmudic Law. To say "Jews do or don't do X, Y, or Z" is an inherently flawed statement. What is true is that only a small fraction of American Jews keep strictly kosher (e.g. most do not have two dishwashers). Some dietary restrictions are often given more consideration than others. For example, many Jews would refuse pork or shrimp altogether, but wouldn't necessarily wait 5 hours after some chicken to have a slice of cheesecake or a scoop of ice cream. There is always variation from person to person. "Kosher style" is what I encounter most.
  - timv 11y ago
    It's also (to refer to the grand-parent) a stretch to make concrete claims about why any large group of people do any particular thing. I know Jewish people who avoid eating pork (etc) because it's their cultural identity and they don't want to disrespect that part of their heritage even though they have no particular belief in God or reverence for the Torah.
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      What's ironic about that cultural Judaism is that that practice, even for atheists, still ultimately comes from God (whether or not you believe in it/him/etc).
- timv 11y ago
  Except the article makes no claims about why Jews avoid pigs, other than a few minor observations such as: - Israelites came to consider pork avoidance a central element of their identity. - Scriptural dietary rules grew more significant with time. - God expresses his fury at a few people who have eaten “swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things.” - even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to his people. The reasons listed in the first section of the article are referring to other ancient near eastern cultures, whose reason for avoiding eating pork products certainly wasn't due to Levitical laws. In the latter section an emphasis is made on the fact that avoid pigs became more of an issue in the post-exilic period when the Jews found themselves ruled by cultures that did eat pig meat, and the point of difference was more apparent. So, I'm really not sure which part of the article you think is "not entirely true". I can't vouch for the overall accuracy of it, but its representation of Jewish culture and history seems reasonable accurate to me.
  - ars 11y ago
    Have you ever heard the saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? > even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to his people Both you and the author have completely misunderstood this episode. There is NO law requiring death from eating pork! There is however a law that if an oppressor tries to make someone violate a law in public you must must accept death rather than comply with even the most minor offence. The important part here is "in public". Pork simply has nothing whatsoever to do with it! And that's just one of the reasons this article, while a nice story, is simply not accurate. (At least about Jews, but when it gets the part I know well wrong it doesn't give me much confidence in the rest where I don't have the knowledge to check - it's definitely a great story though.)
    - timv 11y ago
      > There is NO law requiring death from eating pork! I don't see anywhere in the article that even remotely suggested there is. And I certainly made no such claim. Eleazer is a hero in Maccabees because he chooses death rather than violate the Mosaic law. The eating of pork products was a key point of differentiation between the Romans and the Jews, not because the dietary laws relating to pigs are more important (to the Jews) than the other laws, but because the Romans ate a lot of pork products and the refusal of obedient Jews to partake was an obvious sign of their refusal to fall in line with Roman culture. It was not the only such point of contention, but in an article about eating pigs, it stands to reason that the pork issue is going to get a mention. > Pork simply has nothing whatsoever to do with it! Eleazar was killed for refusing to eat pork (or more accurately for refusing to pretend to eat pork). I think pork has at least something to do with that.
- rdtsc 11y ago
  Not true because god... ok... God said lots of crazy things without an explanation. This article though provides an interesting and entertaining historical context.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- azernik 11y ago
  For someone who does not accept the idea of divine authorship or inspiration of the Biblical text (like me), the question is: why is it written into the Bible as a divine commandment? Where did this religious law come from? A lot of the laws in that text have some sort of systematic/philosophical justification for them, however alien that justification might be to modern ears, so what is it for the Kashrut laws?
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Seminary Student Here. The really cool thing is that the Ancient Hebrew writing (One of the earliest in the world) started around the time of Moses. I have read many ANE (Ancient Near East) laws and papers and almost all of them had dietary rules and rules on just about everything. A person's national identity was directly tied to one's national religion. Reading other papers kind of shows that this isn't some wacky crazy idea but a very common thing in the area. I might say the academic integrity of most non-religious disciplines is horrible and lazy. Academics will take text (for example The Epic of Gilgamesh) treat all the copies as one story and try to prove stupid things compared to the Old Testament that are just plain silly or they don't know how to read dates. Heck the way academics had treated the New Testament was also just play lazy and stupid, but now things are improving. PS As a seminary student I had several non-believing professors come and teach in my classes because they found looking for the answer to the question you asked worthy of a life long pursuit. Theology is really a great discipline and very enjoyable academic pursuit. It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
    - minority-one 11y ago
      Can you touch on the Hammurapi (however you spell it) and its lack of animal food prohibition (or as far as I can remember, pork at least was not prohibited)? > It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion. Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?
mirimir 11y ago
Great article! I didn't know that Roman cuisine featured "liquamen—a fermented fish sauce central to Roman cuisine".
- dTal 11y ago
  That'd odd, I've always heard it was called "garum".
  - dagw 11y ago
    My understanding is that was regional thing. Some called it liquamen and others called it garum. They might have started out as different variations of fish sauce but as cultural influences spread across the empire they became the same thing.
  - zxexz 11y ago
    As did I. According to Wikipedia[0], "Liquamen was a similar preparation, and at times the two were synonymous." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum
tpeo 11y ago
From the history of pig farming in the Near East, it seems they enjoyed the current status of pidgeons, rats and insects in the psychological food hierarchy.

52 points by lermontov 11y ago

ars 11y ago

It's a great story, but not entirely true. Jews do not avoid pig for the reasons listed but simply because God said not to eat pig. That's it. No other reason. And note there are a TON of animals Jews don't eat, not just pig. Yet people seem to focus on the pig more than any other. This says more about them than about the Jews.

Mikeb85 11y ago
Yes, why even consider a historical narrative when God...
vook 11y ago
It should be said that there is no such thing as consensus among Jews or rabbinical scholars regarding the interpretation and understanding of Talmudic Law. To say "Jews do or don't do X, Y, or Z" is an inherently flawed statement. What is true is that only a small fraction of American Jews keep strictly kosher (e.g. most do not have two dishwashers). Some dietary restrictions are often given more consideration than others. For example, many Jews would refuse pork or shrimp altogether, but wouldn't necessarily wait 5 hours after some chicken to have a slice of cheesecake or a scoop of ice cream. There is always variation from person to person. "Kosher style" is what I encounter most.
- timv 11y ago
  It's also (to refer to the grand-parent) a stretch to make concrete claims about why any large group of people do any particular thing. I know Jewish people who avoid eating pork (etc) because it's their cultural identity and they don't want to disrespect that part of their heritage even though they have no particular belief in God or reverence for the Torah.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    What's ironic about that cultural Judaism is that that practice, even for atheists, still ultimately comes from God (whether or not you believe in it/him/etc).
timv 11y ago
Except the article makes no claims about why Jews avoid pigs, other than a few minor observations such as: - Israelites came to consider pork avoidance a central element of their identity. - Scriptural dietary rules grew more significant with time. - God expresses his fury at a few people who have eaten “swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things.” - even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to his people. The reasons listed in the first section of the article are referring to other ancient near eastern cultures, whose reason for avoiding eating pork products certainly wasn't due to Levitical laws. In the latter section an emphasis is made on the fact that avoid pigs became more of an issue in the post-exilic period when the Jews found themselves ruled by cultures that did eat pig meat, and the point of difference was more apparent. So, I'm really not sure which part of the article you think is "not entirely true". I can't vouch for the overall accuracy of it, but its representation of Jewish culture and history seems reasonable accurate to me.
- ars 11y ago
  Have you ever heard the saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? > even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to his people Both you and the author have completely misunderstood this episode. There is NO law requiring death from eating pork! There is however a law that if an oppressor tries to make someone violate a law in public you must must accept death rather than comply with even the most minor offence. The important part here is "in public". Pork simply has nothing whatsoever to do with it! And that's just one of the reasons this article, while a nice story, is simply not accurate. (At least about Jews, but when it gets the part I know well wrong it doesn't give me much confidence in the rest where I don't have the knowledge to check - it's definitely a great story though.)
  - timv 11y ago
    > There is NO law requiring death from eating pork! I don't see anywhere in the article that even remotely suggested there is. And I certainly made no such claim. Eleazer is a hero in Maccabees because he chooses death rather than violate the Mosaic law. The eating of pork products was a key point of differentiation between the Romans and the Jews, not because the dietary laws relating to pigs are more important (to the Jews) than the other laws, but because the Romans ate a lot of pork products and the refusal of obedient Jews to partake was an obvious sign of their refusal to fall in line with Roman culture. It was not the only such point of contention, but in an article about eating pigs, it stands to reason that the pork issue is going to get a mention. > Pork simply has nothing whatsoever to do with it! Eleazar was killed for refusing to eat pork (or more accurately for refusing to pretend to eat pork). I think pork has at least something to do with that.
rdtsc 11y ago
Not true because god... ok... God said lots of crazy things without an explanation. This article though provides an interesting and entertaining historical context.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
azernik 11y ago
For someone who does not accept the idea of divine authorship or inspiration of the Biblical text (like me), the question is: why is it written into the Bible as a divine commandment? Where did this religious law come from? A lot of the laws in that text have some sort of systematic/philosophical justification for them, however alien that justification might be to modern ears, so what is it for the Kashrut laws?
- baldfat 11y ago
  Seminary Student Here. The really cool thing is that the Ancient Hebrew writing (One of the earliest in the world) started around the time of Moses. I have read many ANE (Ancient Near East) laws and papers and almost all of them had dietary rules and rules on just about everything. A person's national identity was directly tied to one's national religion. Reading other papers kind of shows that this isn't some wacky crazy idea but a very common thing in the area. I might say the academic integrity of most non-religious disciplines is horrible and lazy. Academics will take text (for example The Epic of Gilgamesh) treat all the copies as one story and try to prove stupid things compared to the Old Testament that are just plain silly or they don't know how to read dates. Heck the way academics had treated the New Testament was also just play lazy and stupid, but now things are improving. PS As a seminary student I had several non-believing professors come and teach in my classes because they found looking for the answer to the question you asked worthy of a life long pursuit. Theology is really a great discipline and very enjoyable academic pursuit. It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
  - minority-one 11y ago
    Can you touch on the Hammurapi (however you spell it) and its lack of animal food prohibition (or as far as I can remember, pork at least was not prohibited)? > It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion. Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?

mirimir 11y ago

Great article! I didn't know that Roman cuisine featured "liquamen—a fermented fish sauce central to Roman cuisine".

dTal 11y ago
That'd odd, I've always heard it was called "garum".
- dagw 11y ago
  My understanding is that was regional thing. Some called it liquamen and others called it garum. They might have started out as different variations of fish sauce but as cultural influences spread across the empire they became the same thing.
- zxexz 11y ago
  As did I. According to Wikipedia[0], "Liquamen was a similar preparation, and at times the two were synonymous." [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum

tpeo 11y ago

From the history of pig farming in the Near East, it seems they enjoyed the current status of pidgeons, rats and insects in the psychological food hierarchy.