There are aspects of "Kosher" that are not "Rabbincal" tradition. Such as refraining from pork and shellfish.
"There are aspects of "Kosher" that are not "Rabbincal" tradition. Such as refraining from pork and shellfish."
More than just aspects!
Practically all of it.
No shellfish.
No fish without scales (i.e., no eels) no animal without a cloven hoof that chews the cud (i.e.: not just pork, but also virtually all mammalian predators, rabbits, etc.).
No meat boiled in its mother's milk (the tradition builds a fence around the Torah and thus requires no meat and dairy together, but the basis of that lies in the prohibition of coddled meat).
No blood. The preparation this requires is important.
Abstention from certain portions of the fat of meat and certain tendons.
No leaven in the house during certain high holy days.
The tradition builds many fences around the Torah and embellishes these rules, to make sure nobody inadvertently breaks them, but God was quite concerned with Jewish dietary practices.
He was also concerned, in the Torah, with Gentile dietary practices. According to the Law given to Noah for all mankind Gentiles can eat meat, but no blood (Maimonedes glosses this to mean no flesh torn from a living animal, per the old Orphic rites).
Now, this is enough for Gentiles to satisfy the Lord, for most Gentiles are descendants of Japheth, and "Japheth is blessed" according to the Torah. So, Japheth may be eating pork, which a Jew under the law of Moses may not, but as a Gentile, it is licit to eat such pork, so long as it does not have the blood in it.
Of course, a strict literalist will point out that ALL meat, however well drained, has blood it it. Ergo, if we are to be strict literalists about the literal words of the Bible, mankind is required to be a vegetarian. Given that God allows man to eat meat, and gives strict rules to Moses for the preparation thereof, the Bible's literal words are in direct contradiction. The solution is to not interpret the first NO BLOOD literally, but take it more figuratively. Once one does that, however, one has departed from Scriptural literalism. And if one does it there with impunity, to resolve a conflict, then one does not have standing any longer to be a priggish literalist in preference to one's own interpretation in some other conflict.
The man who wishes to never be a hypocrite must take the harder rule, and that would force vegetarianism, because God says explicitly that man is not to eat blood.