[WJW]

Those are all fair questions, but they are about axioms and whether you should accept them or not. I was trying to describe the thought process of someone who has already accepted the axioms as set out in the old testament and is now trying to interpret the rules for modern times in an internally consistent way.

[reallydontask]

that's fair enough but say that we accept that the rules do come from god and he is all knowing, etc ..., the second question still stands and is the gist of the comedian's jibe

How do we know that to the letter vs to the spirit following is the right course of action for the follower of the religion?

[LegitShady]

>letter vs to the spirit

What is the inherent spirit of the law in only eating animals that chew their cud and have split hoofs? Or fish that only have scales and fins? The inherent spirit of not wearing linen and wool together?

There are plenty of places where religious jews go beyond what the law says because rabbis have deemed it important. The prohibition of not eating meat and milk together come from "not eating a kid in its mother's milk" but rabbis said it applies to all meat and all milk.

I'm not sure how legitimate it is to think you know or can determine the spirit of religious laws you don't know the details of.

[reallydontask]

> I'm not sure how legitimate it is to think you know or can determine the spirit of religious laws you don't know the details of.

That is precisely my point. Rabbis might say X or Y, that doesn't mean that it pleases God one way or another.

You can take the view that the loopholes are there to be found and thus prove your commitment, the opposite view or just the view that some are ok and some are not, this is all very theoretical given the impossibility of knowing what the relevant God thinks, as arguments could be made for both situations.