SC - More contoversial subjects
Mordonna22@aol.com
Mordonna22 at aol.com
Thu Mar 2 13:04:03 PST 2000
Oddly enough, the topic we have been discussing here was the subject
of some recent news stories. It turned out that a prominent local
restaurant had, for years, been serving "veal" dishes made with pork.
When the story broke, the owner of the restaurant (who claimed, very
likely truly, that he hadn't known it was happening) apologized to
the local synagogues.
It occurred to me that one could argue that orthodox Jews who ate at
his restaurant had suffered no injury, and even a benefit. They had
committed no sin, since they had no way of knowing they were eating
forbidden food, and they had gotten a tasty dinner.
That raises an interesting question about food prohibitions in
general. To what extent do the people under such prohibitions see
them as "God has forbidden me to do this, so I can't do it even
though I would like to," in which case the argument of the previous
paragraph might be valid. And to what extent do they see them as "God
has told me that this food is evil, so I don't want it--it's yucky."
In the latter case, people would react with distaste to the thought
that they had eaten forbidden food, even if innocently--just as most
of us would react with distaste to the knowledge that we had eaten
excrement, or human flesh.
In the Islamic case, I think it is pretty clear that the prohibition
on wine was seen the first way--and extensively violated. But I have
seen nothing at all indicating that the people who drank wine, even
though it was forbidden, also ate pork--which suggests that that may
have been seen the second way. In persona, I try to make that
distinction by referring to wine as "forbidden by the Prophet's law"
and pork as "unclean meat."
David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list