|
|
|
Book Review
| Daphne Barak-Erez, Outlawed Pigs: Law, Religion, and Culture in Israel, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2007. Pp. 160. $45.00. (ISBN 978-0-299-22160-7).
|
| In "Safe Treyf" (http://soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/SAFE-TREYF.pdf), Gaye Tuchman and Harry G. Levine explain how Chinese Food helped New York Jews overcome the Jewish Taboo on eating pork. Chinese Food "disguises the tabooed ingredients by cutting, chopping, and mincing them.... [It] could be adopted by rebellious Jews because the forbidden substances were so disguised that dishes did not reflexively repulse and so undermine their ability to rebel." Daphne Barak-Erez, a professor at the faculty of law at Tel Aviv University, has written a fine book in which she looks at the history of the pork taboo—but from the perspective of Israeli Jews. |
1
|
|
This angle is quite unique. It is one thing to be a secular Jew in a country that upholds the separation of state and church. It is another thing to be a citizen in a state like Israel, where the boundaries between nationhood and religion are fluid and enigmatic. Barak-Erez's book reviews the history of the regulation of the pork industry in Israel. She argues that to the secular majority of Israelis pork was, but is no longer, "reflexively repulsive" and shows how this development is reflected in the legal history of the country. In other words, she demonstrates how, even without the intermediation of Chinese Food, the concept of "treyf" (forbidden) has become obsolete (at least for large enough sections in society) and pork consumption largely "safe." |
2
|
|
Barak-Erez divides the legal history of pig regulation into three periods. The first two decades of statehood saw the aversion to pork as integral to Jewish and therefore to Israeli identity. Thus, even secular Knesset members were willing to vote in favor of the prohibition, not on strictly religious grounds, as she emphasizes, but rather on "cultural" or "national" grounds. When the issue was challenged before the Supreme Court, a doctrine reminiscent of minimalism was utilized in order to chill the anti-pork fervor and allow freedom from religious coercion. The Court refrained from any rhetoric about the religious or cultural significance of the prohibition and used strict statutory construction in order to reach results that encouraged tolerance of pork raising and trading. |
3
|
|
During the 1970s interest in the topic faded but was reignited in the 1980s when the religious block in parliament gained influence. Members of the religious block attempted to put teeth into the enforcement of the prohibition, while secular localities increasingly displayed indifference to the regulatory statutes. The status quo prevailed. |
4
|
|
Still, the issue refused to die. Bark-Erez does a splendid job analyzing the various factors responsible for the amplification of the controversy since the 1990s. Following the passage of two basic laws, Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, the Supreme Court held that it possessed the power to review the validity of statutes in violation of these Basic Laws' principles. Furthermore, the immigration of a million persons from the former Soviet Union, Jews and relatives of Jews, created demand for pork products that formed the basis of the everyday diet of this population. Barak-Erez also shows how experimentation with the voting system which allowed voters to choose a prime minister and then separately to vote for a party affected the subject matter. Voters used this freedom to strengthen sectarian politics. The religious and secular blocks as well as the "Russian"-based parties gained representation and launched nasty duels in parliament. Pork was one of the issues about which they disagreed. When the issue came before the Supreme Court, a middle ground was found. In Solodkin v. Municipality of Beth Shemesh, 58(5) PD 595 (2004) (Solodkin is a Russian-immigrant-Israeli politician), the Court held that a flat ban on pork sales cannot apply in all situations. The local government involved must develop regulations proportionate to the needs and sensitivities of the residents. Barak-Erez concludes her historical review stating that "[S]pecial laws on [pigs] are still a unique characteristic of the Israeli legal system, but their actual impact has significantly diminished" (105). |
5
|
|
Barak-Erez ends her book with a chapter titled "National Symbol or Religious Concern," summarizing the intellectual debate on the meaning of the prohibition of pork in the emerging Israeli civilization. Concluding an illuminating discussion, she offers the following: "The question dangling over all these controversies is: what should be the role of cultural and historical factors in the legal system of the state that defines itself as both 'Jewish and democratic?' The verdict is still pending" (121). I would go further to suggest that history may yet frustrate any normative conclusion. We have learned enough to know that history is not linear and that progress (in the sense of tolerance for what we find repulsive) is not guaranteed. The end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century have seen an astounding surge in religious fervor. Israel is not immune to this trend. The nationalist sentiment presently smoldering under the Israeli surface may yet combine forces with the religious fervor to suppress tolerance as decadent, un-Jewish and therefore "un-Israeli." One wonders what will be the role of American immigrants to Israel, mostly religious, in any future developments. Similarly, one wonders if changes in the status of the Supreme Court may influence any future developments. Since the 1950s the Court has been a voice of balance and tolerance, first using the techniques of minimalism and then becoming bolder and more adept in the rhetoric of liberty and personal freedom. The Court has been under intense attack lately, and efforts to change the way of appointing justices are under way. If the political branches are successful, and if the Court reacts by adopting a more docile profile, then one should not be surprised to see religious or nationalist justices upholding a variety of measures passed to tighten the prohibition on pork throughout the (holy) land. |
6
|
|
Barak-Erez offers an intriguing perspective through which one can gauge the particular question of who is an Israeli individual, what is the Israeli collective about, and what is the meaning of Jewishness in a state committed to both democratic and Jewish values. She also offers a great test case for the precarious condition of cultural pluralism and the tension between religion and state. Anyone interested in these issues will find her book full of insights and challenging observations. |
7
|
| Pnina Lahav
|
| Boston University School of Law |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|