Food Taboos in Judaism and Hinduism
a paper I wrote for my anthropology of religion class

-by Annie (2/99)

What first interested me in researching food taboos in religion was learning about the origins of these traditions. I quickly learned that there are several theories about the origins of such restrictions, but no answers. The possible origin of a taboo is important as a way of understanding the history of a religion and how it has evolved as a whole.

It is well known that Jews do not eat pork. But I didn't think it was too strange or realize there was more to the practice until I started reading about the Kashrut (kosher laws). In Leviticus 11:2, the Torah enumerates the identifying marks of the animals that may be eaten and in Deuteronomy 14:4 lists the names of the permitted animals. (Klein 1979; 304) According the Leviticus, ruminants who do not chew the cud and have split hooves are forbidden, eliminating pigs specifically. "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch..." (Leviticus 11:7-8) There are a total of twenty-four birds (according to the reckoning in the Talmud) which are forbidden. The implication is that those not listed are permitted. (Klein 1979; 304) The fish that may be eaten are those that have fins and scales. (Lev. 11:9-10; Deut. 14:9-10) The Torah also forbids creeping things, but lists several species of locusts that are permitted.

I find all these interesting but the issues concerning the pig being unclean are numerous. Throughout the ancient world there have been varied accounts of pig controversy, but nothing to distinguish it in such a way as above. Egypt is one of the better known places associated with anti-pig feelings and coincidentally the Jews had cultural contact with them by being enslaved. There is a convincing myth of the gods Seth (Simoons) and Horus where Seth, symbolized by the pig, fell out of favor. Accordingly, no new temples were built for Seth after 1085 B.C. The matter is supported by writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484-425 B.C.). He observed that most Egyptians did not eat pork, except once a year in sacrifice. They were regarded as so unclean that a respectable Egyptian who accidentally brushed against a pig cleansed himself by rushing to the Nile and plunging in without undressing. (Simoons 1994; 20) Swineherds were also unclean and constituted a separate class which other Egyptians did not marry.

Among other ancient people where pork consumption was controversial, it seems to take on a similar pattern. Pork was an acceptable food source until it was banned because of spiritual belief, i.e., not being acceptable food for the Gods. Archaeological evidence suggests that even when pork was banned from society, it was still eaten by the lower classes.(Simoons)

The change in the perception of the pig is linked to the change in the lifestyle of humans. During late Paleolithic and Neolithic times, people hunted and ate wild swine without as much controversy. The best habitat for the wild pig is moist, sheltered, and forested where they thrive on nuts, fruits, tubers, and grains. The pig doesn't sweat either and wallows in clean mud to keep cool. After humans domesticated the pig about 6000 B.C., agricultural expansion and forest clearing caused a shift in the lifestyle of the pig. In a hot, dry climate of the Middle East, there are fewer mudholes available, forcing a pig to wallow in its own urine and feces to survive. Pigs are also competitors for human food, unlike cows and sheep, making them more expensive to raise and more likely to be forced to feed on garbage and feces to survive. Their adaptability into domestication gave them a reputation as being physically unclean.

Another theory about the origin of the unclean pig in the Torah has to do with pig farming threatening the integrity of the basic cultural and and natural ecosystems of the Middle East. Hebrews around 2000 B.C. were culturally adapted to rugged, sparsely inhabited arid areas between the river valleys of Mesopotamia and Egypt. (Harris 1974; 40) The nomadic Israelites could not raise pigs in this habitat, and pigs were not as useful to farmers as other domestic animals. Within the mixture of pastoralism and farming, the divine prohibition against pork constituted a sound ecological strategy. (Harris 1974; 41)

Pigs weren't as economic to raise for food because they don't give milk, and they compete for human food. The rise in population accompanied by deforestation added to the rarity of pork meat. (Harris 1974; 43) They were a luxury. The taboo placed on pork in Leviticus is likely a symbolic gesture to prove one's faith to God. If pork was such a luxury item, as suggested by Harris, then a person could prove their faith through a discipline such as strict dietary laws. People always find it difficult to resist temptation on their own so it was written into the Torah. If they are willing to give up such desires they would be closer to their God.

"God made covenant with a particular people that it should be His priesthood. To this people, the seed of Abraham, the slaves He had just redeemed from Egypt, He revealed the Torah, the Law which they were to obey, as the particular burden of the Jews and as the sign of their unique destiny in the world". (Hertzberg 1991; 21) Another way Jews look at the strict dietary law of the Torah is that it sets them apart from other groups of people. Historically they have been victims of oppression in numerable ways.  The written customs unify them as one people and give strength to those who are suffering.

It is thought that the various sections of the Book of Leviticus represent independent traditions which echo the living observance of faithful worshippers in different generations of Israelite religion. Traditions grew and developed in accord with changing circumstances and the decisions and directives of cultic specialists (priests or Levites) who officiated at different shrines. It is likely that customs became more uniform and stable with the centralization of Israel's worship in Jerusalem. (Burns 1983; 187) According to the same source, Leviticus was placed strategically in the middle of the Exodus - Sinai story to remove Israel's cult from possible associations with religious practices based on nature or in superstition and taboo. Instead it was firmly rooted in the movement of God's relationship with Israel in history.

No matter what theories one accepts, the fact remains that Jews don't eat pork because it is unclean. They view eating pork the way most Americans view eating insects. It is also strange that the reason for not eating it is drastically different than the reason for not eating animals in other religious groups. Many people don't realize there is such a difference between the ban on pork from Jewish diets and the ban on beef for Hindus: one animal is rejected because it is unclean, and the other animal is banned because it is sacred.

The second group central to the discussion of food taboos in religion is Hinduism. The basis for their beliefs is much different from the monotheistic Hebrews, Christians, and Moslems. It is hard for non-Hindus to understand why they do not kill their cows. The sacredness of the cow is linked in Hindu theology to the doctrine of transmigration. (Harris 1985; 49) All creatures are souls which have risen or fallen from various stages of progress toward Nirvana. It takes eighty-six transmigrations to rise from devil to cow and there are said to be 330 million gods and goddesses in a cow's body. It is also seen as a mother figure that gives life and "the five products of the cow" (milk, curd, ghi, urine, and dung). (Simoons 1994; 110)

Both politics and religion have played a role in perpetuating the beef and slaughtering taboos, but neither explains why they have achieved symbolic prominence over other animals. Cow protection was not always the central fact of Hinduism. The earliest sacred texts of Hinduism, the Rig Veda, celebrate the gods and customs of the Vedas, a cattle farming people who dominated northern India from 1800 B.C. to 800 B.C. and were an early warrior-pastoral people. The implication of the Vedic hymns were that the Hindus of that period practiced nature worship, that they deified and prayed to various powers of nature, such as fire, wind and the sun. (Sathaye 1970; 1-2)

Vedic society already recognized the four main castes of modern Hinduism and neither spurned beef nor protected the cow. On ceremonial occasions, Vedic warriors and priests generously distributed their meat as a reward for loyalty and a symbol of wealth. (Harris 1985; 51) At this time, the Brahman caste's religious duties centered on slaughtering the cows. The compulsive attention to the size, shape and color of cattle resembles the detailed instructions found in the Book of Leviticus pertaining to animal sacrifice.

Populations grew and forests shrank, changing the pastoral way of life to one of intensive farming and dairying. Vedic chiefs could no longer keep cattle as a reserve of wealth. Beef was eaten less by the lower castes because cows are poor converters of plant food and it was economically better to get plowing and dairy products from them. By about 600 B.C. peasant living standards were declining due to wars, famine, and draught. The old Vedic gods seemed to be failing. Ordinary people became increasingly hostile to animal sacrifices both as a symbol and as a material manifestation of the inequalities of the caste system. (Harris 1985; 53)

Buddhism arose as a reaction to these stresses and was the world's first nonkilling religion. Gautama's teachings directly opposed the Hindu beliefs and practices of his time. Early rulers let the many nonkilling religions flourish because of their mass appeal. In fact, the first emperor of all India became a follower of Gautama, but animal sacrifice was not yet banned. For over nine centuries, Buddhism and Hinduism struggled. Hinduism eventually won, but Buddhism left a huge impact. The Brahmans adopted the principle of nonkilling, or ahimsa, and set themselves up as the protector of cattle. (Harris 1953; 55)

An earlier and less popular theory is that of totem and taboo as a way of explaining the cow's sacredness. Archaeological seals from the Indus Valley show evidence of people in yoga position surrounded by animals which suggest that they were worshipped as sacred. Among these is a figure of a bull-man, possibly a deity of fertility and abundance. In shamanic initiation, one receives training in the art of taking on powers of a particular animal; in some societies, a clan will devote itself to that particular animal which is not killed or eaten by the group. (Chapple 1993; 6) It has been suggested that the pig was sacred too and therefore forbidden to be eaten. Theoretically, anything is possible, but this theory is unlikely. The Torah could have said the pig was holy and that's why it should not be eaten, but did not.

There are so many aspects of the two food taboos I chose that I could only cover part of them. By showing the difference between two religions with well-known food taboos, I also notice a few similarities. They seemed to be a bit fanatical, but I think the reason for restricting oneself from something is ultimately because it is best in the long run. By declaring the pig unclean it sets up a discipline to follow which is backed up by the idea of disgust. The cow is viewed in such high regard that to kill it disgusts a Hindu and so there is discipline amongst a nation of poor and hungry people. If Jews started eating pork, they might as well be Christians or a part of any other group for that matter. Their Kashrut sets them apart. If Hindus started to eat cows, they would lose a huge supply of other more economically beneficial products, considering their population. I may be wrong, but in this light it seems as if the whole fabric of their cultures might not exist without these food taboos.