Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman
It is said that “you are what you eat”, and in fact, some Jewish thinkers consider that the reason for the rules of the kashrut. Notably, Nachmanides, in his biblical commentary (Lev. 11:13), asserts that the types of birds that are deemed not kosher are predators, and are barred for that reason. Consuming them, he claims, “tends to make the heart cruel”. He further writes that the correlation is absolute. Predator birds can be identified by their listing among those that are not kosher, and those that are not kosher are all predators.
There are a number of ways to understand this approach, ranging from the mystical to the speculatively scientific. It may also be understood more directly: if these birds sustain themselves through aggression, then the human who, in turn, sustains himself on them is also partaking in that aggression and is comfortable doing so. Over time, that mindset becomes hardened as internalized cruelty.
A similar process might be associated with the obligation of shechitah, which amounts to a prohibition to consume any animal that has not been killed in this fashion, which is understood by many commentaries to be the most humane method. The Torah is thus prohibiting one from sustaining himself through unnecessary cruelty to animals, which would in turn allow that cruelty to become a part of his own psychological constitution.
While Nachmanides is confident that this explains the unfitness of birds, he more tentatively suggests that this also explains which kinds of animals are deemed non-kosher. One fascinating application of that theory involves the lion. Some works cite an idea that in messianic times, the lion will become permitted to consume (see Otzar Pilaot HaTorah, Lev., pp. 364-365). Here, the explanation is that the noble lion, featured on the Heavenly Chariot, is actually a kosher species, but is nonetheless currently prohibited in consumption because it sustains itself as a predator. In the future, however, when that is prophesied to change (Is. 11:7), so will its status.
In light of this theory, one non-kosher bird listed by the Torah receives disproportionate attention because of its name: the “Chasidah” (Lev. 11:19, often translated as “stork”), which sounds as if it is derived from chesed, or kindness. Rashi, citing the Talmud (Chulin 63a), tells us that is indeed the case: it is so named because “it acts with kindness, chesed, to its friends, in sharing its food”.
This seems surprising; if it is indeed the case that those birds that are not kosher are designated as such because they have a predatory nature, and consuming them would have a negative effect on one’s soul, how, then, did the Chasidah, named after its kindness, receive the status?
This may be why the Ibn Ezra saw the rendition as far-fetched (derekh rechokah). This question bothered the Torah Temimah, so much so that he preferred other etymologies, unrelated to kindness, against the Talmudic interpretation, citing the Ibn Ezra and Vilna Gaon to that effect.
One popular explanation is to claim that the Chasidah the is deemed not kosher because its kindness is expressed specifically “to its friends”, and is thus apparently exclusive in its nature. (See Birkat Asher, citing Chiddushei HaRim).
However, this explanation seems difficult as well. No one has infinite resources to take care of everyone, and Jewish law does indeed have priorities as to how those resources should be spent, including requiring first taking care of those one is closest to. It seems unfair that this bird should be considered not kosher for acting in a way no different than that expected of benevolent people.
The Pardes Yosef cites from the Ishbitzer a striking possibility, noting the rabbinic dictum that one who is compassionate toward the cruel is as guilty as one who is cruel to the compassionate. Accordingly, the issue may be that the Chasidah which acts with chesed even with its fellows who are cruel thus acts inappropriately and earns its non-kosher status (see Ramatayim Tzofim to Tana D’Bei Eliyahu, ch. 22, # 68). The message, as he understands it, is that such a indiscriminate benefactor is controlled by the attribute rather than the reverse, and thus is opposing the Divine will. The claim is that such opposition is itself a source of impurity. One might have also suggested, more specifically, that the kindness to the cruel itself makes one an accessory to cruelty. (See also the two interpretations in Siftei Kohen al HaTorah; one defines the term differently, and the other references the concept of the “chasid shoteh”.)
It seems, however, that the point is a more basic one. The Chasidah is not kosher because it is a predator, just like all of the other birds in that category. The fact that it is nice to its friends does not change that reality. (My grandfather, in his commentary Meshivat Nefesh, indicates this understanding; compare also Toledot Yitzchak.) This indeed teaches a crucial lesson for humans: evil is not excused just because it is inconsistently expressed. If you are a Nazi, or a terrorist, we don’t care that you also love animals or are nice to your mother.
Eli Sharabi, in his book “Hostage”, the harrowing account of his captivity in the hands of Hamas, describes the captor he deemed to be the cruelest among them. He notes that despite this fact, he displayed other tones as well. "In contrast to his cruelty towards us, when he talks on the phone with his kids, suddenly a different side of him emerges - soft, attentive, and sensitive. We overhear their phone calls nearly all the time... I hear how even the cruelest, meanest captors speak affectionately with their own children” (pp. 142-143; thanks to Chaim Horowitz for this reference.)
It is not merely that such compartmentalized civility can coexist with the greatest of evil. This reality is one that is particularly dangerous; it allows the cruelty to be concealed and even laundered through a veil of deceptive benevolence.
In that vein, the unacceptability of the Chasidah might be compared to that of the most paradigmatic of non-kosher animals, the Chazir, or swine. It might be considered surprising that of the two signs of a non-kosher animal, the swine, which at least has one of them, should be considered the most representative of the proscribed category.
However, as the Kli Yakar (Lev. 11:4) notes, this may be its most offensive trait. That the pig puts forward its literal “best foot”, while its disqualification is hidden in the background (see Lev. Rabbah 13:5), constitutes the greatest danger.
In our times, those who have advocated the loudest for perpetrators of evil such as those who held Eli Sharabi do so under the cover of the pretense of human rights and purported justice. Their position is no more praiseworthy than that of the Chazir or of the Chasidah; in fact, it is representative of that which is most wrong with the world. The rules of kashrut, arcane as they seem. need not be considered inaccessible to our rational consciousness; in fact, analyzing their messages may be the best strategy to restore the rationality of a world that has lost it.
