Shemini, beginning with the sixth aliya, is the parasha that talks about kashrut (kosher) foods in more refined detail. I believe the exceptions to this more expansive discussion which precede this one include a verse about B'nei Yisrael not eating the sinew of the thigh in relation to the Yaakov wrestling with the angel story and a prohibition against cooking a kid in its mother's milk, in Sifrei Bireishit and Shemot, respectively.
For starters, at least in this aliyah, the Torah does not use the word "kosher." Instead, it prefers to talk about food in two totally distinct categories: tamei (impure) and tahar (pure). It is interesting that one of the primary instances in which we see an utter dichotomy mentioned is in relation to food: either it can be eaten or it cannot be eaten.
In reading this aliyah, the sixth of Shemini, I picked up on an obvious connection which I'm sure others have noticed but I hadn't yet: regarding animals and fish, two of two features are required (completely split hooves and chewing the cud for the former and fins and scales for the latter). The Torah goes to great lengths, at least for animals, to point out and discuss specific examples of animals that only meet one criteria (the rabbit has completely split hooves but does not chew its cud, as does the pig, while the camel chews its cud but does not have completely split hooves). Why? We all know and have been carefully taught that there is not a single wasted word in the entire Torah, and that the Torah makes its point as succinctly and expressly as possible. If so, why repeat and then provide numerous examples of the rule when surely stating the "two for two" requirement once would have sufficed?
While there is much to learn about our diet, no doubt, the Torah may be coming to teach us something vastly deeper - that in any given situation, if there are two elements, and one is holy and the other is not holy, then the entire situation is not holy. Take, for example, the Torah's discussion of intent just a few aliyot ago - that even if the sacrificial service is performed exactly as it should be, if the intent is improper, then the entire korban is an ineffective waste.
That was in relation to intent and action. Now, the Torah takes that logic one step further: if any part of the encounter is impure, then the entire result is impure. The means and the ends. The tone and the content of a communication. The reading fluency and the reading comprehension. The tool and the final product. The list is endless, and the implications are mind-boggling.
How often do we excuse ourselves of something because while one component may be improper, at least one other component is proper. I shudder to think of a multitude of real-life examples. But this is the exacting standard to which the Torah holds us: to maintain holiness, every single aspect, without fail, must be equally holy.
Comments
Post a Comment