Foods forbidden to Gentiles

I did not understand the Rabbi's intention in the sentence
“How is this different from eating a kosher animal except for the halakhic prohibition?”
In the context of the Gentiles . . .
What halakhic prohibition?

It is what I said. There is no difference except on the halakhic level, and it is not relevant to the Gentiles.

I think there is confusion between this and eating an organ from an animal - meaning an animal from which the organ was removed before it was slaughtered - in which the Gentiles are also commanded.

So I understand that anyone who accuses non-Jews of eating bat/snake meat has no basis in Judaism. . .
There may be a problematic moral or aesthetic aspect here, but not a Jewish statement. .

There is no moral or aesthetic problem here.
There is no difference between eating a chicken and eating a bat, beyond cultural habits.

Aharon Shalom,
Most people in the world would agree that eating dog/cat meat is a moral problem, probably due to the animals' closeness to humans. It's not about evolutionary proximity, but because they are domesticated animals.

Regarding eating bats - first, I assume you're aware that a bat is a mammal. It's much more similar to a rat than a chicken. On the other hand, within the mammal class, a bat is closer (evolutionarily) to a cow than to a rat.

But that doesn't really matter. In fact, eating rodents/bats instinctively evokes a huge sense of disgust in most people. That's where the aesthetic dimension comes in, at least in the Western world.
I assume that not all Far Easterners eat bats and snakes either, so we can conclude that it's not a cultural affiliation, but rather that there's something deeper that arouses a sense of disgust in us.

I would be happy if the rabbi would express his opinion.

Ehud, I am bothered by your use of the words ‘most people would agree’, the argument can be made even without these substantiations (in principle, most people can be wrong, unless the accepted opinion defines the term, as one might argue regarding aesthetics).

Are you claiming that proximity to humans morally prohibits eating a dog? Is this when the specific dog served me, or even if it did not serve any human, but simply because it belongs to a domesticated breed?

And what about a dog that died a natural death? Is it also morally forbidden to eat it because it served humans?

Regarding the difference between mammals and birds, and between those who are evolutionarily close to us and those who are distant, I did not fully understand why this is relevant. And regarding aesthetics, I also do not know how to measure it. Maybe what I am used to is perceived as aesthetic, and what is not is not? Maybe it has to do with culture and time?

I will add something else, which may sound strange.
I do not think there is a moral problem with eating people who have died a natural death.
There is a problem when eating people can indirectly cause their death, for example in times of distress.
There is a problem when a person fears that they will be eaten by others after their death, and the thought of this causes them sorrow in their life.
But without these reservations, I do not see the matter as a moral problem. It does not cause sorrow to anyone.

Again, I would be happy if Mikki or another person who is familiar with the criteria of morality, would correct me.

Another caveat: Those who believe in life after death can argue that eating a person's body causes sorrow to their soul, and causing sorrow to a soul is immoral.

I agree with every word. I wrote about this in a column on aesthetic values (154).

Aharon Shalom,

To your question, I think the reason for the feeling of disgust that most people feel when thinking about eating a dog or a cat is not only because they are ordinary domesticated animals (sheep and cows are also domesticated to some extent), but because they are domesticated animals that humans are emotionally attached to to a huge extent and they also have an emotional connection to us. Even if I personally do not raise a dog or a cat, I encounter them (like most people) every day, and therefore the thought of eating their meat is difficult for me, even if I personally have not had a specific connection with them.

You can make it difficult and ask that there are people who see chickens every day, and it is not difficult for them to eat poultry. . .

That is true, but you need to remember a few things:
A. Usually, humans do not have an emotional connection to the chicken.
B. They do not have an emotional connection to us (unlike dogs)
C. If a person raised a rooster as a pet, he would probably feel uncomfortable eating it after it had been hopping around his yard for years. He probably wouldn't do it. He would eat another chicken, one he had never met before.

Regarding aesthetics, there is an “aesthetic sense” in reality that is also absolute.
So it's true, sometimes culture can influence people to tune in the opposite way from that aesthetic sense, but that doesn't mean it's relative. There is also an absolute point of truth in this aesthetic sense. And apparently someone who doesn't eat bats or feels disgusted by eating human corpses is closer to the same truth found in this sense (and I'm sorry if you're a little offended).

This aesthetic sense is relevant to a variety of areas of life, for example, music, morality, painting, sports, appearance, mathematics, and yes, even food. By the way, I realized that many things that were considered aesthetic, and it was not exactly clear why, were recently discovered to be in accordance with the golden ratio.

*I did not read the rabbi's column on the subject

A. I think you are mixing up the concept of emotion and the concept of morality.
B. Regarding aesthetics. Its definition is complex, and this is what we are discussing, is there an absolute aesthetic.
But even if there is one, it does not mean that all aesthetics are absolute, there may be absolute aesthetics, and there are aesthetics that depend on culture, right?
So, your generalization “probably someone who does not eat bats or feels disgusted by eating human corpses, is closer to the same truth found in this sense”, is incorrect. Maybe not eating a certain type of animal in most of the Western world does depend on culture?

Hey Aaron

You wrote:

“But even if there is one, that doesn't mean that every aesthetic is absolute, there can be an absolute aesthetic, and there is an aesthetic that depends on culture, right?”

Of course, there is room in reality for ”other aesthetics” because God made it possible, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one aesthetic in all of reality that is the most true, and it also contains more.

I'll give an example from the religious/faith world. The Jewish faith is the most aesthetic of all faiths, and it's probably the closest to the most perfect aesthetic.
Isn't there also a certain aesthetic in the Christian and Islamic faiths?
Apparently yes, and apparently a lot of souls were created to settle/have settled precisely with this partial aesthetic. The fact that the Arab world is more connected to Islamic aesthetics (as mentioned, very partially) and there is some “cultural aesthetics” does not change anything about the fact that the Jewish faith is the more aesthetic and inclusive one.

In general, in the end, and with full belief that Rabbi Kook's concept is the most advanced method currently within the scope of the Jewish faith, I say that the entire world strives for good, infinite good that there is always somewhere to strive for.
And in the end, other partial aesthetics must also eventually connect to the overall aesthetics of the Jewish people. And the Jewish people will discover a higher aesthetic – a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

With greetings, Ehud

I didn't quite understand what was meant by the Jewish faith being the most aesthetic.

Can one say with the same weight that the Jewish faith is the most delicious?

Aesthetic = the most true and correct. The closest to the perfection that should be.
Question, have you ever studied Rav Kook?

Aesthetics: Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that deals, among other things, with questions of beauty and its characterization. Aesthetics examines the role of beauty in the creation of art and the ways to create beauty (Wikipedia).

I have not studied the writings of Rabbi Kook.

“The aesthetic sense must generally be well developed, so that the soul can be absorbed in the noble picture of splendor, in such a way that it can stand at the heights of its ranks. And the literature of the generation, and the signs of the expansion of beauty that have seized it, even though they tend to worldly matters, and sometimes they are very defiled, are but degrees and qualifications to the highest purity of the majesty of the heavens that will appear in the world”. (Eight Files in KIA)

To know the definitions of concepts, it is customary to consult dictionaries and encyclopedias.
The accepted definition of the concept of aesthetics is not as you understand it,

Although the argument is of course semantic. We are talking about two different concepts, and there is no essential difference whether we call the concept 'my' semantics, or the concept 'your'.

Regarding the understanding of passages from the writings of Rabbi Kook: When someone claims to understand these writings, I ask them to pass the test at the following link (Prof. Nadav Shnerb's website). Will you pass?

https://woland.ph.biu.ac.il/?page_id=154

I will note that when I saw the passage you brought me, I really suspected that you created it in his text generator.

Indeed, our discussion is semantic.
I have previously taken the Shnerb test, on the recommendation of Rabbi Michi of course.
I will be honest and say that I failed to the best of my recollection.