The commandments comprised in the thirteenth class are those that we have enumerated in Laws concerning Forbidden Foods, in Laws concerning Slaughtering and in Laws concerning Vows and Nazaritism. We have already given, in this Treatise1 and in the Commentary on Aboth,2 an exhaustive and eloquent exposition of the utility of this class. We shall add to the clarity of this explanation by examining closely the single commandments included therein.
I say, then, that to eat any of the various kinds of food that the Law has forbidden us is blameworthy. Among all those forbidden to us, only pork and fat may be imagined not to be harmful. But this is not so, for pork is more humid than is proper and contains much superfluous matter. The major reason why the Law abhors it is its being very dirty and feeding on dirty things. You know to what extent the Law insists upon the need to remove filth out of sight, even in the field and in a military camp,3 and all the more within cities. Now if swine were used for food, market places and even houses would have been dirtier than latrines, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks.4 You know the dictum of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed: The mouth of a swine is like walking excrement.5
The fat of the intestines, too, makes us full, spoils the digestion, and produces cold and thick blood. [111b] It is more suitable to burn it. Blood, on the one hand, and carcasses of beasts that have died, on the other, are also difficult to digest and constitute a harmful6 nourishment. It is well known that a beast that is terephah7 is close to being a carcass.
With reference to the signs marking a permitted animal — that is, chewing the cud and divided hoofs in the case of beasts, and fins and scales in the case of fish8 — know that their existence is not in itself a reason for animals being permitted nor their absence a reason for animals being prohibited; they are merely signs by means of which the praised species may be discerned from the blamed species.
The reason why the sinew of the thigh vein is prohibited, is given in the [scriptural] text.9
The reason for the prohibition against eating a limb [cut off] a living animal10 is because this would make one acquire the habit of cruelty. Such things were done in those times by the kings of the Gentiles; this was also an action used in idolatry — I mean to cut off a certain limb from a beast and to eat it.
As for the prohibition against eating meat [boiled] in milk,11 it is in my opinion not improbable that — in addition to this being undoubtedly very gross food and very filling — idolatry had something to do with it. Perhaps such food was eaten at one of the ceremonies of their cult or at one of their festivals. A confirmation of this may, in my opinion, be found in the fact that the prohibition against eating meat [boiled] in milk, when it is mentioned for the first two times,12 occurs near the commandment concerning pilgrimage: Three times in the year, and so on.13 It is as if it said: When you go on pilgrimage and enter the house of the Lord your God, do not cook there in the way they used to do. According to me this is the most probable14 view regarding the reason for this prohibition; but I have not seen this set down in any of the books of the Sabians that I have read.
The commandment concerning the slaughtering of animals is necessary. For the natural food of man consists only of the plants deriving from the seeds growing in the earth and of the flesh of animals, the most excellent kinds of meat being those that are [112a] permitted to us. No physician is ignorant of this. Now since the necessity to have good food requires that animals be killed, the aim was to kill them in the easiest manner, and it was forbidden to torment them through killing them in a reprehensible manner by piercing the lower part of their throat or by cutting off one of their members, just as we have explained.
It is likewise forbidden to slaughter it and its young on the same day,15 this being a precautionary measure in order to avoid slaughtering the young animal in front of its mother. For in these cases animals feel very great pain, there being no difference regarding this pain between man and the other animals. For the love and the tenderness of a mother for her child is not consequent upon reason, but upon the activity of the imaginative faculty, which is found in most animals just as it is found in man. This law applies in particular to ox and lamb, because these are the domestic animals that we are allowed to eat and that in most cases it is usual to eat; in their case the mother can be differentiated from her young.
This is also the reason for the commandment to let [the mother] go from the nest.16 For in general the eggs over which the bird has sat and the young that need their mother are not fit to be eaten. If then the mother is let go and escapes of her own accord, she will not be pained by seeing that the young are taken away. In most cases this will lead to people leaving everything alone, for what may be taken is in most cases not fit to be eaten. If the Law takes into consideration these pains of the soul in the case of beast and birds, what will be the case with regard to the individuals of the human species as a whole? You must not allege as an objection against me the dictum of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed:17 He who says: Thy mercy extendeth to young birds, and so on.18 For this is one of the two opinions mentioned by us19 — I mean the opinion of those who think that there is no reason for the Law except only the will [of God] — but as for us, [112b] we follow only the second opinion.
We have already drawn attention to the fact that the Torah itself set for the reason for the covering of blood and that this commandment applies in particular to clean wild beasts and clean birds.20
Besides the ordinances given to us concerning the prohibition of forbidden food, ordinances have also been prescribed to us with regard to the vows by which we impose prohibitions on ourselves.21 Whenever a man says: This bread or this meat is forbidden to me, it is forbidden to him to eat it — all this being training with a view to achieving temperance and to restraining the appetite for eating and drinking. They say: Vows are a fence for abstinence.22 As women are prone to anger, being easily affected and having weak souls, there would have been grave troubles, quarrels, and disorder in the house, if their oaths had been under their control. For a certain kind of food would have been permitted for the husband and forbidden for the wife and another kind would have been forbidden for the daughter and permitted for the mother. Therefore the matter, with everything pertaining to it, is given into the charge of the master of the house. Do you not see that a woman who is governed by herself and not dependent upon the control of the master of the house, has with regard to vows the same status as men? — I refer to a woman who has no husband and no father or has arrived at the age of puberty, I mean one that is of age.23
The reason for nazaritism is most manifest; it consists in bringing about abstinence from drinking wine, which has caused the ruin of the ancients and the moderns: Many, yea, a mighty host have been slain by it;24 But these also have erred through wine, and so on.25 The prohibition you see against eating anything that cometh of the grape vine26 results from the law regarding nazaritism, being an additional measure made with a view to the avoidance of wine, so that people should content themselves with no more of it than is necessary. For whoever avoids it is called holy and is put in the same rank as a High Priest as far as holiness is concerned, [113a] so that, like the latter, he may not render himself unclean through contact with a corpse, even that of his father or his mother.27 All this high esteem is given to him because he abstains from drink.