“Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing” (Deut. xiv. 3); that is,
according to our traditional explanation, everything that the Word of
God declares to be abominable (Sifre, ad locum). One of the sections of
the Dietary Laws concludes thus: “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” (Lev. xi. 45).
Holiness is therefore the only object of these laws that is distinctly
mentioned in the Pentateuch. But what is the nature of the holiness
which they are intended to produce or to promote? “The Dietary Laws,”
says Maimonides, “train us in the mastery over our appetites; they
accustom us to restrain the growth of desire, the indulgence in seeking
that which is pleasant, and the disposition to consider the pleasure of
eating and drinking the end of man’s existence” (“The Guide,” III.,
chap. xxv. p. 167). And, indeed, wherever the Law commands restraint of
some bodily enjoyment, or restriction of any of our appetites, such
commandment is followed or preceded by the exhortation to be holy, or
the warning not to defile oneself.
Is there any secondary object in these laws besides the motive
distinctly mentioned? It has frequently been observed that Jews have
enjoyed a certain degree of immunity from epidemics that raged among
their non-Jewish neighbours. It has further been noticed that they have
a lower rate of mortality and a greater longevity. These facts are
generally explained to be the result of a temperate life, regulated by
the Divine Law. Finding that such is the consequence of obedience to
the Dietary Laws, we may fairly assume that in distinguishing certain
things from the rest, in prohibiting some and permitting others, the
Lawgiver aimed at the health and the well-being of man’s body. Our
conception of the goodness of God compels us to believe that in
recommending certain things for our use He intended thereby to promote
our well-being, and to show us what is good for our health, and what is
injurious. But we must take care that we do not on that account
consider these precepts exclusively as sanitary regulations, however
important such regulations may be. We must not lose sight of the fact
that Holiness is the only object of the Dietary Laws, mentioned in the
Pentateuch.
But what difference can it make to the Almighty whether we eat this or
that? Surely it makes no difference to the Almighty; but we have faith
in His Goodness and Wisdom, and are convinced that He knows by what
means we may best attain to that holiness which we are so frequently
exhorted to seek, and that the Divine Laws which He revealed to us for
this very purpose show the shortest and the safest road to this aim.
With the following exceptions, the Dietary Laws concern only animal
food:—
(1.) ערלה “Forbidden fruit,” i.e., the fruit of a tree during the
first three years after its planting (Lev. xix. 23).—The fruit of the
fourth year (נטע רבעי) was formerly, in the time of the Temple,
brought to Jerusalem, and consumed there amidst praises and
thanksgiving to Him who is the source of all blessing (ibid. v. 24).
Those who lived far from Jerusalem were allowed to redeem the fruit of
the fourth year with silver, and to spend the latter in the holy city.
(2.) חדש “New corn.”—The Omer of barley offered on the second day of
Passover is called “the first of your harvest” (Lev. xxiii. 10), and it
was enjoined, “Ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh
ears, [169] until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the oblation
of your God” (ibid. 14).
These two laws (ערלה and חדש) seem to have their source in the
dictum, “The first of the first-fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring
into the house of the Lord thy God” (Exod. xxiii. 19).
(3.) כלאים.—Mixture of different kinds. “Thou shalt not sow thy field
with two kinds of seed” (Lev. xix. 19). [170] “Thou shalt not sow thy
vineyard with two kinds of seed” (Deut. xxii. 9). In the former case
only the sowing of divers kinds is prohibited, but the produce of such
sowing is not forbidden; in the latter case, if the law is
transgressed, the produce of both the vine and the seed is not to be
used for any purpose whatever (אסור בהנאה), for the law is followed
by the words, “lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which thou
hast sown and the increase of the vineyard.”
Although these and similar [171] precepts are introduced by the words
“Ye shall keep my statutes (חקתי),” and no reason is given for the
enactment of these statutes, it seems, from the position occupied by
these laws in a section of moral precepts, that they serve as reminders
of the important lesson that our conduct should be regulated by the
principles of contentment and simplicity of life, principles which are
the best safeguard against undue desire for luxury and superfluity. The
prohibition of sowing divers kinds of seed further reminds us of the
importance of preserving our heart in a state of simplicity and purity;
that twofold weights, twofold measures, and especially a twofold heart
are an abomination to the Lord.