Some rabbis just lifted an 800-year-old dietary rule | Hacker News Reader

Some rabbis just lifted an 800-year-old dietary rule

washingtonpost.com

20 pointspbhowmic24 comments

Sorry, I'm going to be dismissive about the whole thing. "Arbitrary and wacky dietary restriction slightly less wacky" is what this comes down to. I do not understand why people in 2016--2016!!!--adhere to these restrictions to begin with. To think that the Creator of the Universe would be some out put-out or offended that you ate some rice is weird.

I was raised as a catholic (but am no longer). The "no meat on Fridays" (at first always and then only during lent...oh yeah, and "fish" isn't "meat" for this purpose) has nothing compared to the Jewish dietary laws, but I don't have a lot of contact with observant Jews where I live. When I ask catholics around here why they still do the "no meat" thing, I don't really get responses that I think would resonate with anyone not already on board. It seems that most do it for tradition sake and I have a hard time getting on board with something like that. (And few others will say something like "the pope says not to, so that's good enough for me.")

never mind that "fish" includes rodents in some regions

I think the Catholic church is back to the old "no meat on Fridays" rule again now. Don't ask me why.

Where'd you get this? It's still a Lenten season thing. It's encouraged to practice it year round, but not considered a requirement.

EDIT: Turns out there's a lot more variation of this between nations than I realized. Abstinence and fasting being two separate things, with fasting typically including abstinence. The Council of Bishops in each country basically decides what the rules will be for that country. Fasting is mandatory for some days worldwide, but the rest are up to the locals, so to speak. Some have chosen year round abstinence and fasting, others some subset of that.

See #1249–1253[+] of the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church (a.k.a. Western Church).

[+] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4O.HTM

Meat abstinence on all Fridays of the year (excepting solemnities, i.e. "high feast days") is and has been the universal law of the Western Catholic Church for centuries; the Eastern Church/es have their own disciplines, which some times and in some ways overlap with the Western ones.

Following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), local councils of bishops received the authority to determine if/how some universal laws would be adapted in their jurisdictions. In the United States and some other territories, the obligation of law for meat abstinence on Fridays outside of Lent was effectively relaxed – one is supposed to do some kind of penitential act on Fridays, but it doesn't necessarily have to be meat abstinence. The effect, though, has been to demolish among the general Catholic populace any sense of the need for the regular exercise (e.g. weekly) of ascetical practices, as an important aspect of Christian discipleship. That's why the "old rules" are starting to come back around in some territories, though church-law hasn't changed in the United States yet.

The point of abstinence (of any kind, e.g. from a favorite food or Facebook or whatever) and fasting (a related discipline) is to practice "ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart." (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2043)[+]

[+] http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a3.htm#2043

The things you do make the world you live in. In order to preserve the communal culture of a group they continue doing things that have no apparent function other than reinforcing the culture itself. Who can say which parts of what we do are the ones that make us into ourselves and which parts are useless. It is not your way, but it definitely has an obvious utility for the people engaging in it. Passing broad judgement against that utility because it's outcomes are behavioral and mind-state rather than material is a reflection of your culture, not the senselessness of theirs.

>"Arbitrary and wacky dietary restriction slightly less wacky"

the kernel of those dietary restrictions naturally evolved in a desert climate with no refrigerators available (i.e basic difference between food (and combinations of) which naturally dries out vs. one which naturally rot/perish. Like beef vs. pork or cod vs. sturgeon. Or imagine rich bacteria population of unpasteurized dairy coming into contact with fresh meat on a hot day...). Those people who didn't follow the restrictions had naturally selected themselves out back then.

"It seems that most do it for tradition sake and I have a hard time getting on board with something like that"

Are traditions so bad? Perfectly okay if you don't have certain traditions, but I wouldn't disrespect other people's traditions either.

We buy engagement rings out of traditions. We leave a tip at a restaurant because its traditional. I live in a country without Starbucks, so I ended up developing my own tradition of buying a java chip frappuchino when ever I travel.

As long as no one is forcing you to adhere to their traditions, let people hold on to theirs.

Religious restrictions like this that come from above from the religious hierarchy are just the opposite of "As long as no one is forcing you to adhere to their traditions."

Religions define their in-group trough arbitrary restrictions. More extra hoops you have to jump, more you are separated from non-believers. It's way to use power over others. Follow these and you are good Jew/Christian/Muslim/Mormon/Scientologist and you are one of us and a good boy.

I'm a Catholic who doesn't eat meat on Fridays. The reason I do it is that it's a weekly commemoration of the crucifixion. There are other benefits, too, (in fact the concept seems to be gaining popularity in the secular world as "meatless Mondays") but for me it is a principally a weekly reminder of my faith.

But I agree that we Catholics don't have anything on the Jews when it comes to dietary laws. In fact, that was the whole point of the Council of Jerusalem!

And as far as the "fish is okay" rule goes, that's really just because our modern word for "meat" doesn't correspond exactly with the word for "meat" in the ancient church. Fish was seen as distinct from meat from the very beginning. And unfortunately our modern word for "fish" doesn't correspond exactly with the ancient meaning as well. In the ancient church "fish" referred to any animal that lived primarily in water, which includes some reptiles like frogs and semi-aquatic mammals like the capybara.

Meatless Monday is ultimately promoted from a concern of animals - I don't see the concepts as being analogous beyond a superficial similarity.

I've got to say, even as a former Catholic, I don't understand meatless Fridays. There is certainly no level of sacrifice required to abstain from meat. And if there were even a tinge of moral reasoning behind the decision, why only one day a week? Seems like another strange artifact.

Abstinence and fasting (Catholic traditional definition is one big meal, or a couple small meals) are sacrifices. They're also not sustainable (ok, maybe abstinence from meat, plenty of healthy vegetarians, but not fasting) over a long period if a population actually has to do any significant physical labor. Once a week makes it more significant than once or twice a year, but not so impactful as to prevent people from remaining otherwise high functioning (physically and mentally).

Also, Meatless Monday is not about concern for the animals. It started as a health concern, and morphed into an environmental concern. If the concern were for the animals, they should be going for full-time meatlessness.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-h...

EDIT:

http://www.meatlessmonday.com/the-global-movement/

In reviewing the above link, it seems that Meatless Monday has been brought to numerous countries by various groups. The two primary motives seem to be about health and sustainability. There are, however, some countries where vegetarian groups brought it in, I imagine as a way to get more people implementing a partial practice of what they want, a more politically savvy way to move things where they want rather than insisting on 100% vegetarianism today.

>Abstinence and fasting (Catholic traditional definition is one big meal, or a couple small meals) are sacrifices.

My point was that cutting meat out of a meal can in no way be seen as a sacrifice today.

>Also, Meatless Monday is not about concern for the animals. It started as a health concern, and morphed into an environmental concern. If the concern were for the animals, they should be going for full-time meatlessness.

The origins of Meatless Monday actually date back to World War I rationing and was later revived as a health initiative. That's irrelevant to the point that the vast majority of institutionalized pushing for the day comes from animal rights and welfare organizations. Of course people should be cutting meat entirely, but this is seen as some sort of intermediary measure to get people accustomed to vegetarian eating.

It is a bit harder to appreciate meatless Fridays these days, given the great variety and plenitude of the average diet in (much of) the modern world.

For many centuries, meat was more scarce and a small measure of it – perhaps in the principal meal of the day – was a prized part of the diet. Today we know a lot about amino acids, calorie content, etc.; despite the lack of such knowledge, people generally knew and experienced that meat was hearty and sustaining. So to deliberately forego meat for a day or even a whole season was a form of self-denial that would leave one feeling hungrier and less energetic, while still facing the same work and other obligations. And that's the point – to exercise self-denial and experience discomfort: reminding one of the frailty of human nature; offering opportunity to meditate by analogy (w.r.t. the hunger pangs) on man's constant need for Divine Grace (often not sensibly perceived); giving occasion to spiritually unite one's personal suffering, however slight, to Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.

I never got the fish isn't meat thing either I guess meat means land animals and fish is from the sea. A man was crucified 2,000 years ago so you can't eat a hamburger...why? Sacrifice maybe I could accept that but why just meat and not abstain from all food.

At least the Jews made some attempt at giving a reason as to why you can eat certain food and not just "because".

It's interesting how Jews, Christians (Catholic only?) and Muslims all have a somewhat related dietary restriction philosophy. It's not surprising seeing how all developed in the same region the Levant area where the local cultures must have had similar customs before all the religions developed. Catholicism is so close to Judaism I can understand the relation but Islam only developed over 500 years later after Christianity maybe a remnant of their former Jewish and Christian practice?

Not really remnants of Jewish and Christian practices. Jews and Christians were still fairly common in the areas where Islam took hold, initially at least.

> It's interesting how Jews, Christians (Catholic only?) and Muslims all have a somewhat related dietary restriction philosophy. It's not surprising seeing how all developed in the same region the Levant area where the local cultures must have had similar customs before all the religions developed. Catholicism is so close to Judaism I can understand the relation but Islam only developed over 500 years later after Christianity maybe a remnant of their former Jewish and Christian practice?

Islam has roots in Judaism, so it should not be surprising that they have similar dietary philosophy as well.

> I do not understand why people in 2016--2016!!!--adhere to these restrictions to begin with.

This statement is practically a fallacy. What year it is does not change tradition, nor why it should be abandoned. Most (all?) people who adhere to this choose to do so.

eh...maybe, but I don't think so. What I was referring to is that if I were to guess the mindset of how an observant Jew viewed his/her relationship with the Big Guy in 2016, I think that it is very different than the mindset of those from when these laws were created. Because society has evolved. For example, when their religious text says that God loves the smell of the burnt offerings that they made, I think that long ago the people making those offerings probably thought that to be literally true. Now, not so much.

Similarly, the purpose and function of the dietary laws had (I'm guessing) a very different character in the minds of those who adhered to them way back then (and those who created them way back then) than it does in the minds of modern adherents. If that is true, then in that case it does make sense to wonder why they have had such tenacity in the face of those old reasons being brushed aside by most who still follow the rules. The reasons for doing it have in a large sense changed. Such reasons as those cited elsewhere in this thread (as a community-enhancing exercise, for example) would probably not resonate with the people who first defined the laws.

But I don't care if others want to follow these restrictions, as long as they're not imposed on those who don't want to. And of course you shouldn't expect others to see any value in them unless you do give reasons that resonate with those people.

To give a Reconstructionist answer: people adhere to these restrictions because they find them meaningful. It may be one or more of

* to feel a connection to one's ancestors

* to be connected with one's community (people bond over food, so a group of people who eat the same way can connect more easily)

* to be reminded of a tenet of one's faith (as with many other rituals)

* to make it feel like the holiday (Is not eating bread on Passover so different than always eating turkey on Thanksgiving?)

The "no meat on Fridays" rule is intended as a bit of a personal penance, which can be change for something else to give up or endure (former Catholic).

This is a non-story. As the article explains, Sephardi Jews (even Orthodox ones) have been eating kitniyot on Passover forever. The Ashkenazi position was that it's forbidden, but there has never been consensus about this.

Happy Passover!

Very true --- and "the rabbis with the Conservative movement" are really a small minority compared to the Orthodox strands (Modern Orthodox, Haredi, Religious-Zionist, etc.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com