I must admit that I have gone back and forth as to whether or not I should even write on this chapter concerning food cooked by a non-Jew. Clearly as Reform Jews we welcome non-Jews into our synagogues and would view Jewish law that forbids us to eat food cooked by non-Jews as antiquated and irrelevant. Yet as I read through it a second time I felt that we have a duty to read these texts and talk about them. And maybe even deep down there's a decent message and valuable piece of learning here about our relations with non-Jews and an awareness of the food that we eat.
The basic law is that we are forbidden to eat bread and certain food baked by non-Jews.
Initial reaction: I cannot make sense of this piece of Jewish tradition.
Second reaction: One line caught my eye that brings me to slightly rethink my first reaction. Verse 38:2 reads, "If a Jew throws even one piece of wood into the oven when it is being heated, the bread is permitted." This means that in order to eat the bread, a Jew had to enter the shop or home of a non-Jew, possibly strike up a conversation, and get involved in the cooking of his or her own food. The Jewish person had an opportunity to engage the non-Jew in a way that he may not have had the non-Jew cooked the bread on his own. I find a message of partnership here between the Jew and non-Jew in cooking and preparing the food.
Secondly, by throwing his or her own wood into the fire, this also compels the Jewish person to be more involved in the cooking of his or her own food. In our world of pre-packaged food, the idea of being a part of the baking process is a message that really resonates with me in 2010. In this week's New York Times Magazine, I read an article about "femivores" who find great meaning in growing their own vegetables and even maintaining chicken coops in their backyards. In a sense, this encourages us to do the same, even if only throwing one log onto the fire.
While certainly Chapter 38 is problematic for us Reform Jews, (and Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried z''l, the author of the Kitzur, would probably roll over in his grave reading this interpretation), I think there are ways to draw meaning from this section. Perhaps we should all be inspired to "throw a log on the fire" in order to create partnerships with non-Jews and be more involved in the creation of our food.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good for you, Evan, for taking this on and for taking the time to reflect thoughtfully and seriously on it. In the period of the rishonim, there were different practices regarding the bread of non-Jews. See B. Avodah Zarah 35b and Tosafot, s.v. "me-klal," as well as AZ 38b and Tosafot, s.v. "v'ata." The Provencal traveler R. Abraham b. Nathan ha-Yarchi wrote extensively in his Sefer Ha-Manhig about why the bread should be permitted, only to close with words of wistful praise for the Sefardim "who are careful not to eat it and yashir koach to them."
ReplyDeleteWhile I (of course) respect your right to your own views, I would just like to comment on your point about shame. The past--including our Jewish past--is a foreign country. It is familiar, yet also different and, to us, even strange. Our ancestors lived in a different world with tremendous challenges, and, being human, responded to these challenges in terms that made sense to them in those times and places. B. AZ 35b is clear that the reason for the prohibition of this bread was to prevent "marriage." Eating together is a sign of companionship--as your own interpretation emphasizes!--which can lead to even closer companionship. This food prohibition--and it's part of a larger prohibition of the "cooked food of non-Jews"--was meant in large part to keep the beleaguered Jewish minority distinct and intact. And the Jewish minority did remain distinct and intact; hence we can learn together about this today.
Were a contemporary scholar to trumpet this issue now, I would agree with you that shame is an entirely appropriate response. But we have to remain careful to avoid "presentism"; the anachronistic superimposing of the present onto the past.
That said, I like your interpretation. I agree that R. Ganzfried and all his predecessors would not!