Patrick Simpson

Dick Swaab is a neurobiologist who writes a column for NRC. His latest column is on the rational basis of religous rules.

The first religous rule he mentions is the ban on eating pork: The Jewish and Islamic ban on eating pork was probably very sensible in an age before meat inspection. Sure, just as sensible as banning beef and mutton would have been, which were perfectly okay to eat. Wikipedia mentions that in Judaism, theoretically it would be kosher to eat a pig if it were born to a cow. Which means two things: genetic modification is apparantly okay in Judaism and I’m going to make loads of money sell kosher pork.

Another rule for which Swaab investigates the rational basis, is the perceived impurity of menstruating women. He hypothesises that this may have to do with improving the chances of conception, which for a species that has always been as close to extinction as humanity is of course completely tolerable.  He further mentions that menstruation continues to be taboo, long after the time of Leviticus (who wrote the chapter of the old testament that declares menstruating women impure and also bans absolutely everything else):

Vincent de Beauvais (1478) felt that menstrual blood would prevent grain from sprouting, make grapes turn sour, wilt plants, make trees drop their fruit, rust iron, tarnish bronze, and cause rabies.

And how do we know it doesn’t? Sounds like an interesting research proposal. And one that allows for serious cross-departmental research. I can almost touch the EU funding already.

This is not an outmoded, medieval idea.

True, the Middle Ages were much more about crusades and the burning of witches (did they perhaps prevent grain from sprouting and cause rabies? Hmm). But I would say it is outmoded.

According to popular belief, even today, bread and meat can spoil or plants die if touched or glanced at by a menstruating woman.

They’re witches, I tell you!

For those of you interested in this subject, there’s even a wikipedia page on menstrual taboos. I promise that page already existed, wikipedia is just that complete.

Swaab concludes that following all the regulations in Leviticus, just to be sure is not an option these days. Read the criminal code (Leviticus 20: 1-27) and shudder! Which suggests he has not been to the Swat valley recently. Or Somalia. Or Afghanistan. Or Saudi Arabia. Or the Gaza strip. (And yes, I do know the Sharia is not the same as Leviticus. But the criminial codes have a lot in common.)