What We Still Don’t Know About Kashrut

In Part I of Fins and Scales, Hooves and Cud, I explored a question that is easy to overlook.

If every fish with scales also has fins, why does the Torah mention fins at all?

If the pig is the only split-hoofed mammal that does not chew the cud, why not simply list it as the lone exception?

Both formulations would be logically equivalent—and significantly shorter.

Yet the Torah deliberately presents the full criteria.

My proposal was that the Torah’s wording makes sense when viewed through the lens of information theory. Rather than minimizing words, it maximizes the robustness of the message. Redundancy, in this view, is not a flaw but a feature that helps preserve meaning across generations.

Why did the Torah choose to express the rules this way?

This article turns to two different questions:

Why have dietary laws at all?

Why these specific biological criteria?

Why have dietary laws at all?

This question has been explored for centuries, and many thoughtful answers have been proposed.

The dietary laws may:

cultivate holiness and self-discipline;

distinguish the Jewish people from surrounding cultures;

reinforce obedience to God;

shape communal identity;

encourage ethical reflection.

Traditional Jewish thought also classifies many of these commandments as chukim—divine statutes whose ultimate purpose may not be fully accessible to human reason.

Whether one agrees with these explanations or not, they are well represented in both Jewish tradition and modern scholarship.

How Kashrut Shapes Jewish Identity

Among the existing explanations, I find one especially persuasive.

Many rabbis understand kashrut as a system that shapes Jewish identity.

Food is one of the most powerful markers of belonging. It influences daily life, family life, hospitality, festivals, and community. Dietary laws naturally create a shared culture while distinguishing one community from another.

This explanation makes a great deal of sense.

But it answers only the first question.

It explains why dietary laws exist.

It does not explain why the Torah chose these particular anatomical signs.

To see the difference, consider a thought experiment.

Imagine a world in which the Torah had declared that fish without scales were permitted while scaled fish were forbidden.

Or imagine that mammals without split hooves were kosher.

Would Jewish identity still have developed around those dietary distinctions?

From the perspective of identity formation alone, many different dietary boundaries could have served the same social function.

That observation does not imply that the Torah’s actual criteria are arbitrary or lack deeper meaning. It simply means that identity, by itself,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)