![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 27th, 2007 06:35 pmInteresting review of a book on the history of vegetarianism in the New Yorker. I will finish reading the review at some point, but I was struck by two things that seemed flagrant errors at the outset.
It makes reference to a belief, apparently of Sir Isaac Newton's, that kashrut (Hebrew laws concerning what may and may not be eaten) prohibit the consumption of bloob because blood causes people to be cruel. It's been a while since I read them, but I'm fairly sure the laws of kashrut say nothng of the sort. The laws themselves say nothing about "why", as I recall, but the clear implication is that blood is not proper for humans to eat not because it is unclean or bad for people, but because blood is to be reserved for God as a sacrifce, that it is too vital for humans to consume it.
The other item that struck me was that either the reviewer or the author of the book is unaware that 'meat' has long been used as a synonym for food, not just the flesh of animals. When Burns's Selkirk Grace ('Some hae meat and cannot eat. Some cannot eat that want it: But we hae meat and we can eat, Sae let the Lord be thankit.') refers to 'meat', there's nothing that I'm aware of to suggest that the speaker is exclusively speaking of flesh--he's saying 'Thank you, Lord, for giving us FOOD!'
Speaking of which, I was on about dinner before I got sidetracked...
It makes reference to a belief, apparently of Sir Isaac Newton's, that kashrut (Hebrew laws concerning what may and may not be eaten) prohibit the consumption of bloob because blood causes people to be cruel. It's been a while since I read them, but I'm fairly sure the laws of kashrut say nothng of the sort. The laws themselves say nothing about "why", as I recall, but the clear implication is that blood is not proper for humans to eat not because it is unclean or bad for people, but because blood is to be reserved for God as a sacrifce, that it is too vital for humans to consume it.
The other item that struck me was that either the reviewer or the author of the book is unaware that 'meat' has long been used as a synonym for food, not just the flesh of animals. When Burns's Selkirk Grace ('Some hae meat and cannot eat. Some cannot eat that want it: But we hae meat and we can eat, Sae let the Lord be thankit.') refers to 'meat', there's nothing that I'm aware of to suggest that the speaker is exclusively speaking of flesh--he's saying 'Thank you, Lord, for giving us FOOD!'
Speaking of which, I was on about dinner before I got sidetracked...
