SC - Perspectives on Recipe Adaptation (was: ALCOHOL IN FOOD)

[david friedman]

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/