A Muse: Emor 2008

“You shall observe my commandments and perform them; I am the Lord. You shall not desecrate My Holy Name, rather I should be sanctified among the children of Israel; I am the Lord who sanctifies you.”(Leviticus 22:31-32)

These two verses which seem rather straight forward are not only complex but provide us with a moral standard of behavior when confronted with situational ethics. The concepts of kiddush hashem and chillul hashem can be traced to these verses. Although the idea of kiddush hashem and its converse are broad I would like to touch upon the concept of yehoreg v’al yaavor, in particular because of the season which we are in, that of Yom Hashoa U’gevurah, Yom Hazikaron and Yom Haatzmaut, where there were many documented instances of kiddush hashem within the narrower definition of yehoreg v’al yaavor. This season also brings to mind the need to clarify, whenever possible standards of behavior when faced with situational ethics.

In a situation where someone is threatened with death unless he kills someone else the principal we live by is clear. He isn’t allowed to kill someone else in order to save his own life; by obeying this principal he becomes a kiddush hashem. The principal is based upon the statement of Rava in Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 74-a, when asked about the ethical behavior incumbent upon a person if faced with that kind of situation. His answer, more of a rhetorical question was, “is his blood more red than the intended victim’s blood? This approach, also adopted by the Rambam has no direct biblical reference but is a humanistic/moral approach an attempt at anticipating situational ethics which begs for moral guidance.

The principal of Rava becomes clouded when we complicate the paradigm by changing the composition of victims. If several people were told that if they don’t kill a certain individual they will all be killed would Rava’s principal apply? Harav Kook deals with this question and maintains that preference should not be determined based on numbers, and that Rava’s principal will still apply. The logic is the following: When we use quantifiers, prognosticators, statistical predictors or numbers as a determinant than we have to ascribe value to that system. What value can we possibly apply; and if we apply a value perhaps the wrong value system is being used. For example, perhaps one highly educated individual is worth more than ten uneducated persons based upon his contribution to society, should we therefore sacrifice the ten for the one? What about the life of one chayal verses that of five talmudei yeshiva? And who is to determine which value ought to be applied? According to Harav Kook when dealing with issues relating to life and death we cannot make a decision based upon statistical predictors or quantifiers or prognosticators.

Harav Kook does however believe that in very specific situations numbers do count, and trump the individual. For example in situations of triage or if one wishes to volunteer for a suicide mission in order to save others the individual can sacrifice himself for the good of the group. There is one other example, that of Clal Yisrael. Here Harav Kook maintains that one can sacrifice his life on behalf of Clal Yisrael because the Clal isn’t a group of individuals united into one group, but rather is one unique and indivisible unit.

A Muse: Acharei Mot 2008

The story of the death of Aron’s two sons Nadav and Avihu is the central text read on Yom Kippur and is referenced four times in the Torah: Vaykira 10: 1-2; Acharei Mot 16: 1; Bamidbar 3:4 and 26: 61 suggesting possibly the level of significance.

This Parsha was incorporated into the Yom Kippur service by the 7th century author of the Pesichta D’Rav Kahanah. Many have asked the question why incorporate this parsha into the Yom Kippur service, especially since he lived hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple when there were no more sacrificial worship, no usage of the sair laazazel, and certainly no holy of holies. The chazal and later medievalists suggests that the connection between this seminal event and Yom Kippur was just as Yom Kippur brings atonement so does the atonement of the righteous.

The Pesichta, not convinced by this interpretation offers a totally different approach and his analysis raises issues such as crime and punishment, appropriate punishment to fit the crime, and optional approaches to atonement, all of which are thought provoking and thus appropriate for such an awesome day.

In analyzing the deaths of Nadav and Avihu it is important to note that the horrific event took place on the backdrop of the dedication of the Mishkan, a day of joy and celebration; after the fire came down from God, publicly dedicating the altar and witnessed in joy by the Hebrews. All of a sudden the two sons of Aron offer a strange fire not commanded of them resulting in another fire emanating from God and killing them on the spot.

In trying to make sense of the event and find meaning behind it, the Pesichta offers six different complex approaches, one of which I will share with you. In this particular explanation he sites Kohelet, Chapter 9 verse 1-2:
“All this I grasped and clearly understood, that the just and the wise, together withal their works, are in god’s hands; men can be certain of neither God’s love nor His hate-anything may happen to them. One fait awaits all men, one lot comes to the just and the unjust, to the good and pure and the impure, to him who brings his offerings and him who does not; as with good man so with the sinner; as with man who swears lightly, so with him who fears an oath.”

The bottom line, writes Kohelet, is that for the righteous and the sinner the end is the same – death. Even though in comparing the lives of two people who are polar opposites, sharing nothing in common; one good the other bad still their end is the same. For example, and as Kohelet suggests, he who brings sacrifices, such as King Josiah and he who doesn’t bring sacrifice like King Achav died by arrows. Or he who swears impetuously such as King Zedekiah verses he Shimshon who is reluctant of taking the oath, in the end they both die in blindness. The Pesichta, taking this one step further juxtaposes those bringing the ketoret, the supporters of Korach who were rebellious and challenging leadership ultimately were consumed by fire vs Nadav and Avihu that attempted to sacrifice not out of divisiveness, but sincerity and too were consumed by fire.

Obviously, the author of the Pesichta is deeply troubled by this phenomenon: Life’s deeds don’t seem to impact on the quality of our mortality. It appears as though the Pesichta is challenging the accepted normative assumption that makes a connection between ones behavior and ones destiny. He questions these norms by introducing Nadav and Avihu into this scheme making it difficult for the “believer” in reward and punishment to come to terms with these events, unless one accepts the notion of “just rewards in the next life.”

This approach, as I mentioned earlier is only one of six exploratory initiatives into understanding the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. It is left unresolved-and for the reader to ponder as he reads this powerful chapter.

Entitlements: Frum Style

There is, to be sure an imperious attitude guiding the frumer as he makes his way through life. There was a time when I not only understood, but held the same views. I remember as a child going to shul on Succot carrying my father’s (may he rest in peace) lulov and esrog as it happened that yomtov fell out on a school day. As we were walking to shul at around 8:30 or so in the morning we passed a public school where there were many pupils walking to school. My father turned to me and said how bad he felt for these “unfortunates” that they don’t have “succos” in their lives or for that matter shabbes or any of the other “yom tovim”. Agreeing with my father I couldn’t imagine such an empty life. To be a “goy”, I thought was a meaningless existence because absent from their lives was the Torah. It never occurred to me that perhaps they had their own beautiful holidays, customs and ceremonies and probably felt that the Jews were living an empty existence.

All this came to mind when I greeted my daughter at the airport as she was returning home from Israel for Passover break where she is a student at the Hebrew University. Her ordeal at the airport and on the flight was unremarkable, other than the fact that she was stunned by the never ending and demanding attitude of the frumies. Being a student at Hebrew University she doesn’t have occasion to “get up front, close and personal” with the frum community, so her recent experience was notable.

Her experience as she told it triggered other memories; as a student at a yeshiva high school, we were indoctrinated with myths and half truths that may be contributing factors to the entitlement syndrome of the frum community. Perhaps at this point I should pause and explain what it is I mean by entitlement: Jewish style. Frum people believe that ultimately the world was created for them and that everyone in it is there to serve their needs. The advancement of their spin on Torah is all that really matters, regardless of the inconvenience and hardship that it may cause others who are either not Jewish, or Jews of another stripe. They would perpetuate a corrupt government in Israel if there is something in it that will promote their cause. Similarly, they will break laws, scheme and manipulate the system in order to get funding for their torah institutions. The myths that we were indoctrinated with are those that are still believed today; legends that we are the oldest culture, who gifted the world with monotheism; that we are living proof that we are “God’s chosen”. After all, where are all the other nations who had persecuted us through the ages and tried to annihilate us? And more: we are the “am cohanim v’goy kadosh”, we are a priestly nation, a holy people.

For those who still believe that the world is 5768 years old this will be lost on them but there are older cultures than ours. While we were slaves in Egypt the Shang dynasty was at its peak. As a matter of fact Chinese history traces itself back as far as 2800 B.C.E. with the “Three August Ones and Five Emperors.” (Although that may be a myth, we too have our myths as well. That is to say, events which cannot be verified without written documentation.) The Japanese can trace their history as far back as the mid-Jomon period roughly 3000-2000 B.C.E. These cultures, too, saw themselves as favored by their gods, no different than our tradition which refers to us as a holy nation.

If we zero in on that region closest to our own history we will discover that the infamous Greeks, the “yevonim”, trace their antecedents back to 2700 B.C.E. The Minoan civilization was a wonderful and sophisticated culture in Crete that later merged into the greater Greek culture. Egyptian culture was the best and perhaps had the most sophisticated science at the time that our ancestors were slinging mud and making bricks. When confronted with this the frum community will respond by saying yes, “but those cultures are no longer the same cultures that they once were. Greek and Egyptian cultures, once proud and magisterial are today shadows of their glorious past. My rejoinder is: what about us - look at us today – eich naflu giborim? As in every living organism nothing remains stagnant. Culture is organic, constantly growing and transforming. The Japanese of today barely resemble that of their antecedent culture of 5000 years ago. The same is true of the Greeks and Egyptians and, yes the same is true of us.

We were once a “great” people who had a Temple and who enjoyed the prophecies of giants such as Amos, Jeremiah and Isaiah. Where are we today compared to where we were then! A frumie would say “ein hachi nami” we have to do teshuva! By saying that however, he is living in denial. The false belief that this community can recover their past glory is precisely the mentality that contributes to their arrogance.

For us to look down at other cultures is condescending and high handed. It is this haughtiness which is partially the reason for the sense of entitlement in the frum community. And it doesn’t matter where the frum community is located. It could be in B’nei B’rak it could be in Gateshead or it could be in Boro Park. It doesn’t matter because they all share this one common “hashkofa”. Our way is superior, our Torah is superior, and our history is superior because we are the “am kohanim v”goy kadosh.” A myth which perpetuate this arrogance, for example, is the classic midrash that hashem approached every civilized people asking them if they wished to accept the Torah and they all refused. Of course, we didn’t; we responded with a resounding “naaseh v’nishma.” The question ought to be asked; why couldn’t the midrash have been reworked giving us the credit for having accepted “ol malchus shamayim” but at the same time maintaining the honor and integrity of other nations. To be contemptuous of them by saying they refused hashem’s offer is part of the hubris which guides the frum community.

The implicit “put down” of others is disingenuous and counterintuitive. When we sit down at the seder table and chant “avadim hayinu b’mitzrayim” let’s remember where we come from and perhaps we’ll increase our humility and decrease our sense of entitlement.

Diaspora Jews?

The Jewish Agency head, Zev Bielski and the Diaspora Cabinet Secretary, Oved Yechezkel are in the process of redefining Israel’s relationship with Jews abroad. The whole thing seems absurd and another means of legitimizing their jobs. Essentially the Jewish Agency is a throwback to pre - state days. It was kept alive as a political gesture providing employment to political hacks that are very low on the “lists” and have no chance of becoming Chevrei Knesset. Had it not been for the funding provided by UJA, Keren Hayesod and other Federations there would be no Jewish Agency. It relies on that funding, so to downplay the philanthropic angle by redefining the relationship is disingenuous.

Even if one was to argue that a redefinition of the relationship was long overdo it would seem silly to engage this conversation with Bielski or Yechezkel. Bielski, as was already mentioned above is the head of an impotent organization that is bolstered by American Jews who are in need of lackeys. After all, philanthropists love hobnobbing with politicians when they visit Israel. The organization isn’t respected in Israel and employs a good number of Olim. Israelis who work there are either third rate political hacks, usually ashamed to admit to their friends who their employer is. Yechezkel is the Diaspora Cabinet Secretary. His title tells you everything you need to know about his understanding of the Jewish community outside of Israel.

I have yet to meet a Jew in America or Europe who considers himself to be in an existential state of Diaspora. True, there are Jews who believe that they are in a perpetual state of Galut relieved only of this cumbersome burden only when the Messiah shows. However, most Jews, certainly those Jews that Yechezkel has been mandated to relate and redefine do not see themselves in a state of Diaspora. How could they? With international airlines flying everyday it is virtually impossible to play the Diaspora card. As long as Yechezkel and other government hacks see the Jewish community in a heightened state of Diasporatic angst there is no chance that they can help, understand, much less redefine the relationship between the two communities.

I would even suggest that until Yechekel and Bielski bring into line the Chief Rabbinate there is no chance of redefining anything. The RCA and the Chief Rabbinate have entered into an unholy alliance whereby they have now erected an orthodox stranglehold on the conversion process. There is, to say the least, a significant amount of non – orthodox conversion in America, not to mention the staggering number of intermarried couples who chose to identify Jewishly. These people and their families together with the liberal religious community make up the overwhelming majority of American Jews. How do they propose to redefine a relationship with people that their Chief Rabbinate refuses to recognize as Jews? As things stand the relationship that will be redefined can only be with the orthodox community. Mostly everyone else is de facto excluded. The largest movement in America, the reform movement recognizes one as being Jewish through patrilineal descent. How will the Yechezkel’s of Israel’s establishment institutions hope to redefine their relationship with the reform movement without dealing with this issue? It’s almost like Israel recognizing the “right of return” of Palestinians.

Redefining the relationship with the Jewish community outside of Israel will require bold moves on behalf of the religious establishment in Israel. Principally, they will have to understand that Jews abroad, unlike their Israel counterparts are not subject to an autocratic system whereby ones’ Jewish status is defined by a rigid orthodox standard. They are free to marry who they want, when they want. Jews living outside of Israel aren’t bound by halachic standards such as a forbidding a “cohen” to marry a divorced woman or for that matter a woman marrying a Jewish man without a “get”. There are rabbis that simply do not recognize these halachic standards. And they aren’t the exception to the rule. On the contrary, it is the small orthodox community that is the exception to the rule. So the question is what will be the nature of this redefinition of the relationship between the community of Israel and those Jews living outside of Israel.

Logic would dictate that the only way in which such a discourse could take place would be if the program was between the halachic community in Israel and the halachic community outside Israel. But then why bother. The orthodox community, while vocal, is on a fraction of the overall Jewish community and certainly aren’t representative of the larger Jewish community. Perhaps that’s the whole point. After all, the anachronistic, inept Jewish Agency will spend significant funds, spin their wheels, produce a lot of paper and in the end will land up yellowing on someone’s shelf in a back office on King George Street.

A Muse: Metzora 2008

The discussion surrounding those suffering from Tzoraat focuses not on the actual illness but the mitzvot relating to becoming clean after having been rendered unclean as a result of the illness. Interestingly, the Torah itself doesn’t make a direct connection between the disease of Tzoraat and lashon hahrah or any other sin. There are however several Tanaitic texts that draw the connection between lashon harah and Tzoraat such as the Sifra on Sefer Vayikra. There is also a discussion in the Talmud (Eruchin 15a), which makes the connection although a bit tenuous. The Rambam, however makes a clear connection between the two, but treats it more within the framework of haggadah / musar rather than halachah.

Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen from Radin, better known as the Chafetz Chaim was the first to actually connect the Tzoraat with lashon harah from a non haggadic and purely halachic position. The Chafetz Chaim recognized the extreme difficulty of human behavior in avoiding lashon harah but was determined to alter normative behavior by employing the use of halachah. It was his goal to create not only the awareness but also the practice of observing the halachot surrounding lashon harah as one would practice all the other 613 mitzvot. He was very clear that lashon harah wasn’t about musar but about halachah.

There were those who disagreed with the approach of the Chafetz Chaim and their argument centered on two points: Lashon harah, although important, can only be maintained through personal ethical conduct which is relative, by nature. This can’t be defined by halacha only by the will of the individual to distill in himself exemplary conduct and behavior. A second position was because observing this mitzvah demanded practically super human qualities that most of us are lacking, it was better to sin as a shogeg than as a mezid.

There is, of course, a more obvious problem with the construct of the Chafetz Chaim: If lashon harah is so connected to Tzorat then practically the entire Jewish community ought to be walking around with Tzorat. The convenient answer is that Tzorat was manifested only when there was a Temple, because then it was possible to be remedied through the good offices of the Priest. However, in a post exilic period, when there is no Temple and there are no “active” Priests, there can be no remedy; hence there is no true manifestation of the Tzorat. If this is the case than from a strictly halachic point of view we ought to be able to partake in lashon harah!

Mirror Mirror on the Wall

The modest woman who conceals her sexuality invites a man to reveal it, always teasing the possibility of more. And what is eroticism, if not the arousal of limitless possibility?

These are the penned words of none other than Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, in an article (The International Jerusalem Post Feb.29-March 6, 2008) in which he is trying to argue that women should dress more modestly. I say “trying”, because in effect, Shmuley is basically turning those b’not yisrael of modest dress into nothing more than cheap temptresses. So as not to be accused of quoting out of context in the previous paragraph, he claims that modest women are the sexiest of them all because they look feminine and desirable and the fact that their bodies are covered piques the prurient interest in men.

Normally I wouldn’t be troubled by this kind of article because I don’t necessarily believe in “modest dress” unless circumstances and “good taste” dictate. For example, attending synagogue or religious services or visiting a particular community where the norms of the community dictate a particular type of dress. But Boteach is promoting a value that distorts and demeans women. The truth of the matter is that there really is no such thing as modest dress or sexy clothes. One could be dressed modestly “al pi chol hadeyot” and she can still look like one of Elliot Spitzer’s call girls. On the other hand, during the course of the day, I, as many of you, come in contact with numerous women, many of whom are dressed in what R’ Shmuley would consider immodest and seductive, with a little cleavage and exposed thigh. Many of them are as sexy as Mother Theresa.

It’s all in the attitude and the look in their eyes. It isn’t what she wears or how she wears it but how she relates to her environment and the people with whom she interacts. So, to put a particular premium on a dress code is nonsense. What is more revealing however is Boteach’s obsession with matters of sexuality. “It is time”, he writes “to praise the orthodox Jewish woman who with her sleeves, stockings and long flowing skirt, is not just a model of femininity but is super desirable too”. Why is it time? When was it ever the time to praise Jewish girls as super desirable? I thought they were only supposed to be desirable to their husbands, therefore the modest dress and the avoidance of “ervah”? Doesn’t that also turn them into objects that Boteach so derides and is demeaning? Boteach is guilty of the same sin as those whom he has castigated in the secular community. He unconsciously treats women as sex objects, views them as something to have; no different than that those whom he criticizes:
Here’s the truth of the matter: Modest women are the sexiest of all. They look feminine, desirable, and their covered bodies invite male curiosity….But the difference is that the man will stay focused on the covered women’s flesh well after her cleavage-bearing sister has nothing left to offer.

I find this to be very disturbing; an indictment against women and society whose dress code doesn’t meet Boteach’s standards. Accordingly, these women, who may be well read, well educated, versed in literature and the sciences have little to offer compared to the “bas torah” whose span of knowledge may be limited to that which the “roshei yeshivah” allow her to be exposed to, all because of a little cleavage! And when does modest dress become excessively modest to the point that it is no longer within the purview of Jewish mores? The women in Kiryat Hayovel and Bet Shemesh who chose to cover every inch of skin and veil themselves? Are they modest Jewish girls, or is there some kind of pathological disturbance at work? Who decides what is appropriate and what isn’t?

The so-called immodestly dressed women are at least honest in their desire to appear sexy to their willing enablers and admirers who objectify the flesh; while Boteach is in denial, hiding behind questionable archaic mores that by applying them have blurred his ability to distinguish between “looking” and “leering”.

Separate – But Not Apart

During the past several weeks there has been a robust discussion among those in the fringe Jewish community (read Heeb and Sh’ma) as to what Hillel meant when he said “do not separate yourself from the community”. (Avot 2:4) The concern and the reason for the discussion revolve around the fact that the 21st century has seen a broadening of a development which started towards the end of the 20th century. This community of peripheral Jews is an unaffiliated one, seeking Jewish expression and identity in a way which reflects their lifestyle. The number of unaffiliated Jews is growing daily; the disaffection within the denominational groups (conservative, reform, reconstructionist) is up as well as the inverse shrinking numbers of members from those movements. Definitions regarding sexual identity are changing; we no longer see the world as simply divided between male and female, married or single, but into gay and lesbian as well as the more tenuous, but nevertheless significant grouping of the transgender. Not too far in the future job and college applications will include a third category along with the two alternative boxes of male or female, that of transgender. There are many intermarried couples who either do not feel comfortable or aren’t made to feel welcome in the traditional movements and so they too have joined the fringe.

This rather large and growing group of Jews on the periphery of our community seeks acceptance as well as validation. Like all of us, they are Jews by choice, as is mostly everything else for this emerging group. “The greatest generation” is rapidly disappearing and the “baby boomers” are beginning to make room for generation “x” and “y”, but Jewish organizational life including the denominational structure hasn’t adjusted itself to this new reality or they are in denial. It’s as though they were living in a time warp. B’nei Brith men’s clubs, synagogue sisterhoods and dinners to honor second and third stringers are still alive and well. Mainline Judaism is still trying to figure out why synagogue attendance in all the movements (excluding orthodox) is dramatically down and is in a free fall. Organizations have been established to think through this problem and to come up with strategies to attract the younger generation to the decaying synagogues like Friday Night Live, or some other gimmicky programs. We are locked in this fourth dimension because there is no gutsy leadership out there in the Jewish community to administer an electric shock of reality. It’s not surprising therefore, that slowly but surely there is a growing group of disaffected, well meaning, sincere Jews who, because a place hasn’t been made at the table for them have decided to “make their own shabbes”.

Separation from the community is serious business and there have been many such occurrences in our long history but we have to ask ourselves this: If Hillel was concerned with the “peeloog”, what was happening in his community that prompted him to give it his attention? And which Hillel are we talking about: Hillel Hazaken (end of first century BC and beginning of first century CE), or Hillel, (3rd century CE), the grandson of Yehudah Hanasi? Many scholars believe that the saying in Avot sited above is really that of the latter Hillel, but attributed to Hillel Hazaken. It would make sense, because the second Hillel was concerned with the spread of Christianity and the defection within the Jewish community. Perhaps this was what prompted Hillel to pen his ruling which was directed not only at those Jews defecting, but to the normative Jewish community which wasn’t addressing the root cause of the problem.

There were many other instances of “peeloog” but one very interesting occurrence was about 150 years ago in Hungary. The “peeloog” took place between the orthodox community and the rest of the community which favored a more “enlightened” approach to governing the communities other than by the shulchan aruch. The majority did not want the shulchan aruch as the guide by which to govern their communities but a minority of the orthodox insisted on it. A vote was taken and the orthodox were in the minority: 126 “neologists” (liberals were referred to as such) verses 94 orthodox. The orthodox not being able to have their way were “poresh”, they separated themselves from the community. Ironically, (and take note) when it suited the orthodox establishment they found ways to ignore Hillel’s ruling!

The real question however, is what prompts a community of people to have to resort to separation? It would appear that the emphasis ought not be on the “perisha”, but why do people seek to separate from the main body in the first place. Once a community begins to assess the need to separate it would appear that it is probably too late to alter their course. When reflecting on the Jewish community as it is structured one would have to ask whether or not it is responding to the needs of the entire community or perhaps it is locked into its own ideology at the expense of others. This was a question that had to be asked when Hillel penned his rule, or when the Orthodox community in Hungary felt the need to separate itself. It is certainly no less important a question that needs to be addressed in 2008. In the case of Hillel it would appear that a great deal of wisdom was used in finding ways to be inclusive and minimize the loss of our people to other faiths or cults. We see that in many of the rulings and the spirit in which they were made. In the case of Hungary on the other hand, it is obvious that good will, intention and desire to maintain the community whole, wasn’t in play.

It would appear that the contemporary Jewish community has learned little from history. The various denominations, locked in to their narrow ideologies barely speak with one another (unless it is regarding civic issues), and even those within their own denominations are experiencing ideological fissures that are ever widening. So what about the fringe Jews, those on the periphery, marginalized and discounted because of circumstances, choices made or life styles adopted? They have separated because the mainstream community, in their myopic vision has chosen to disenfranchise them. Yes, they may be separate but they are not apart from the Jewish community.

A Muse: Shemini 2008

In this week’s portion of Shemini, chapter 11 lists those animals prohibited to eat and those which are permissible. Harav Kook, based upon his understanding of Torah was a vegetarian, and believed that optimally, the Israelites should be vegetarian. However, based upon certain considerations this goal was put on hold. Harav Kook position is based on several considerations:

• In the creation story man is told to eat from the land; but not from the meat of animals.
• In the verse (Deuteronomy 12:20) where man is permitted to eat meat, it is based on compromise, considering the word usage in the verse “ta’avah nafshecha”; as if to say that man is allowed to eat meat so long as he doesn’t treat animals as recklessly and callously as he treats man.
• Harav Kook views the laws in Shemini as a means by which to limit the consumption of meat. For example, the idea that only domestic livestock are allowed to be eaten is for Harav Kook, a way to discourage eating meat. It may be emotionally more difficult to eat domestic livestock rather than wild animals.
• The obligation to cover the blood after the slaughter (chapter 17:13) is indicative of “sheficat damim”, approximating manslaughter, something to be ashamed of.
• He also believes that the biblical injunction against cooking “meat in the mother’s milk” was intended to create a visual image of something so abhorrent that it would deter one from killing animals.
• Harav Kook also suggests that we aren’t allowed to eat from the ‘neveila’ (road kill) because we shouldn’t benefit from an accident whereby an animal was killed.

When considering the scandal surrounding the Rubashkin meat packing company it would do us well to consider the words of Harav Kook. Perhaps we have reached the point where we need to limit or perhaps eliminate the consumption of meat.