Once upon a time there was a donkey. A very intelligent donkey. In fact the most rational donkey that ever lived. But he was not a happy donkey. He was forever hungry. You see, this creature belonged to a philosopher. A French philosopher and physicist of the 14th century called Jean Buridan. After every long day of work his master used to keep him tied up to a post. And being a bit of an obsessive character he was always tethered him to the same place. Buridan’s ass was kept tethered between 2 bales of hay each exactly equidistant from where the animal stood. And the bales of hay were of exactly the same size. The poor old ass had a perpetual problem. Which bale of hay to eat. You see he had this principle that he would only ever perform an action if there was sufficient reason for so doing.

So, there was one bale of hay which we shall call for the sake of argument A and he was near enough to reach it and eat it. But as soon as he thought of so doing there was the other bale which we shall call B. As long as the ass was aware of bale B he couldn’t find sufficient reason for eating Hay A and vice versa. He had no good reason to move to one lot of food rather than the other. So he stood where he was and got hungrier and hungrier probably eventually starved.

Reform Judaism sometimes appears to be like Buridan’s ass. We know where we stand but it doesn’t always allow for a great deal of commitment to one course of action rather than another. A great deal is made of the importance of choice and of reason. The trouble is that if you have as your criteria for action having sufficient reason for everything you are liable to get stuck.

This might be the case over Kashrut. The Dietary laws. We advocate, as in most things religious, the free exercise of individual choice – as to what degree of Kashrut to keep. We also advocate faithfulness to tradition. So faced with the choice of a king-size Macdonald’s cheeseburger – or not, what’s the Reform answer?

Reform often holds that reasons for observances are all important. Explanations can be given as to why certain animals are eaten and others not, or why they should be killed according to the laws of shechita or why we are not to consume blood or separate milk and meat, but to expect these explanations to provide sufficient reason for following kashrut is to expect too much.

Animals which chew the cud and have a cloven hoof are the Kosher ones. In general that rules out the most aggressive, clawing creatures – which seems to hold an ethical message (especially for ancient communities where it was believed you are what you eat). For us though, this is really a historical message.

A bird (and this isn’t sufficiently well-known) is kosher as long as it has an extra toe in addition to its three front ones and not the clawing talons of a raptor. It must also have a craw or crop (a pouch like enlargement of the gullet) and a removable part of the gizzard. So quails are OK. Though because of the complications some authorities only permit chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, pigeons and in some places, pheasant.

Only the eggs of kosher birds are permitted. The trouble really with the reasoning that birds of prey are ruled out to avoid eating aggressive creatures is that many permitted birds prey on small creatures, if only insects.

Insects of course are treif not kosher. Nobody knows why certain kinds of locusts were permitted. They seem to be extinct. Maybe because too many Jews were eating them!

Sea creatures have to have fins and removable scales. Again by and large rules out the most aggressive fish. But I believe there are exceptions. So the reason isn’t all that clear.

Shechita - kosher slaughter is for the purpose of as near an instantaneous death as possible and total removal of blood which is the symbol of life. The process is not always kind to the animal. For one thing it has to be tilted to let out all the blood and this is distressing to the animal. The blood of fish incidentally is permitted.

There is no sufficiently good reason why on grounds of kindness to animals the kosher laws should be preferable to vegetarianism. Quite the opposite in fact.

The separation of meat and milk derives from the law; you shall not boil a kid in its mothers milk. Archaeology has shown that this was a Canaanite fertility practice. The rule was generalised to include meat that was not from a baby goat, even chicken (although not amongst all Sephardim). Some say it’s to symbolise kindness to animals. This is not for certain.

Health is not the reason given for the kashrut laws. It’s not health but holiness. The animals permitted to be eaten were the ones permitted to be sacrificed. Shechita is carried out prayerfully. Most of us would like to believe it’s health because it’s easier to accept than holiness. It stands to reason.

The solution, as for Buridan’s ass would be to give up the principle of having to have sufficient reason for everything.

If so, what other principles could there be for keeping kosher? Faith perhaps, though that’s difficult. Obedience – a hard one! Faith is akin to love, obedience is dependent on fear (it’s the carrot and the stick, to put it in donkey terms).

Reform tends to prefer the carrot. We keep our Judaism out of commitment which is a form of love. As a movement we encourage kashrut. All our public events are required to be kosher.

When discussing our values last Friday night ‘Identity’ came up as the main reason why we do things. People thought that it was identity which motivated us more than a sense of duty to obey commands.

By keeping kosher – and eating is all about survival, we are asserting who we are. There are certain values - in particular by and large our kashrut limits us to a rather restricted field of domesticated animals, so there are environmental benefits here – and there is within our dietary laws that human beings are in reality carnivores – omnivores, but that being so, that we are not the absolute masters of the world to consume indiscriminately and ruthlessly, but we apply an awareness of the sanctity of life, through the symbolism of our tradition.