I grew up keeping kosher. Osem, Manischewitz, and Wacky Mac (and Publix mac & cheese for my southern friends) were pantry staples. I carefully considered pots, pans, plates, and placemats for each meal. Beyond that, we were commanded to abstain from certain foods: pork, shellfish and birds of prey. As someone who eats hot dairy out, I’ve carried these restrictions from my childhood home into my adult life. At its core, kashrut restrictions are either about what you’re eating or how it got onto your table. The first time the Tanakh sees the former is in Prashat Noach.
When Noach opened his ark to the animals, two by two, some were allowed to bring more friends along. Specifically, God commanded Noach to bring seven pairs of each pure animal.
“מִכֹּ֣ל ׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהוֹרָ֗ה תִּֽקַּח־לְךָ֛ שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲ֠שֶׁ֠ר לֹ֣א טְהֹרָ֥ה הִ֛וא שְׁנַ֖יִם אִ֥ישׁ וְאִשְׁתּֽוֹ׃”
“Of every pure animal you shall take seven pairs, male and female mates, and of every animal that is not pure, two, male and female mates;” (Genesis 7:2) The Hebrew word used to describe the animals that Noach is allowed to bring more of and eat is “טהורה” and it refers to a sense of ritual purity. The other animals would be considered impure or “טומאה”. The Torah also clearly distinguishes between beasts of the earth and birds. The birds also get the seven-pairs treatment, even though their purity isn’t mentioned. Later in the Torah, the line will be drawn between which animals are kosher and which are traif; however, this section of Bereshit leaves out which animals are and aren’t pure. It is also unclear whether Noach and his family are meant to eat the additional pure animals, because the chapter before commands him to gather and store food for himself, his family, and all the animals.
Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher whose parents were Austrian Jews fleeing the holocaust when he was born in Melbourne. Singer is one of, if not the most famous, moral philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century. His practical utilitarian work has focused primarily on humans’ ethical and moral obligations to each other and to nonhuman animals. Rather than separating Animals by purity, Singer distinguishes between animals he feels are worthy of moral consideration. The line that Singer draws in the sand is over sentience. Singer defines sentience in a being, human or nonhuman, as having interests. Interests can be complex or simple, and their complexity does not indicate their importance. My interest in continuing to do well in school is much more complicated than my interest in relieving my hunger. This doesn’t mean that I prioritize studying over eating. “If a being suffers, the fact that it is not a member of our species cannot be a moral reason for failing to take its suffering into account.” (Singer, Not Only for Humans: The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues, 1971) This expands the circle of moral considerability to nonhuman animals. This doesn’t mean we should place the interests of nonhuman animals above those of humans, or that stratifications exist within the concept of sentience.
This past weekend, when I was home for fall break, my family brought our dog, Freddie, to the blessing of the pets—a yearly tradition for Parashat Noach. While most of us see our pets as worthy of moral consideration, that belief typically doesn’t extend to animals we can’t see or don’t find cute. At a basic level, there is no real difference between slaughtering and eating a dog vs. a cow vs. a horse vs. a pig vs. a goat vs. a sheep vs. a giraffe. All of them can experience suffering and thus have interests; however, many draw the line on which ones are acceptable to consume in different places. A morality grounded in kashrut would say that cows, giraffes, and goats are fine to eat, but dogs, pigs, and horses are out of bounds, while the societal and legal bounds in the U.S. would say that pigs, cows, and goats are fine, but dogs, horses, and giraffes are out of bounds. Singer would argue that all of these animals, and all others, are worthy of moral consideration.
I am not a vegetarian or a vegan, and I am not asking you to be one either. But as we once again read about all the animals living together on the ark, we can learn to live with them and consider their interests.
