Volume 45 Number 58
Produced: Fri Nov 12 5:31:05 EST 2004
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Breastmilk unkosher for adults (2)
[Josh Backon, Michael Goldrich]
Humans are not non-kosher animals (5)
[Jack Gross, Samuel P Groner, Shimon Lebowitz, David Glasner,
Michael Kahn]
I LIKE/LOVE this parsha question
[A Simple Jew]
Lateness to Shul (3)
[Tzvi Stein, Martin Stern, Ari Trachtenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:42 +0200
Subject: Re: Breastmilk unkosher for adults
1) The prohibition to cook meat with human breast milk is due to *mar'it
ayin* (Yoreh Deah 87:4) and if this milk accidentally falls into a pot
of meat it is permitted and requires no nullification.
2) However, according to R. Akiva Eiger, if one deliberately mixes human
milk with meat, the mixture is prohibited.
3) The SHACH (YD 87 s"k 8) prohibits even with regard to chicken (which
is a rabbinic prohibition).
4) Only when the mixture is needed for medicinal purposes, would it be
permitted (TAZ there).
Josh Backon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Goldrich <michaelg25@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:42:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Breastmilk unkosher for adults
Source please?
> It is not kosher EXCEPT for infants; adults are not permitted to drink
> human milk.
> Gershon <gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 17:39:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Humans are not non-kosher animals
Human blood and human milk are both permissible (and parve) min haTorah,
but are subject to rabbinic restrictions of opposite nature:
- Blood is permissible, but only if not yet removed from the site of
origin -- i.e., to lick a wound -- because of mar'is ayin.
- Human milk is permitted (to adults of either gender) only after it is
removed from the site of origin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Samuel P Groner <spg28@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:21:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Humans are not non-kosher animals
Immanuel Burton asks, "Does this mean that the prohibition against
eating human flesh is not as direct as that against eating pig meat? If
one was shipwrecked on a desert island and one's only two sources of
food were a human corpse or a pig, which would one have to eat first?"
When I was learning at Yeshivat Har Etzion (Gush), I heard a number of
times (during discussions about the relationship between halakhah and
our own senses of morality/ethics) from other students that Rav Amital,
one of the Roshei Yeshiva, had said at one point that were he in a
situation where he had to choose between eating something unequivocially
Biblically forbidden to eat [like pig] and eating the flesh of a human
being, he'd eat the animal, not the human. I can't guarantee Rav Amital
said that, but I can guarantee that his students often quote him for
that proposition.
Sammy Groner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:51:46 +0200
Subject: Re: Humans are not non-kosher animals
Irwin Weiss writes:
> (I can't believe I am writing this). Does someone feel there are
> circumstances under which one consume eat another human?
I am reminded of the famous case of the Uruguayan rugby team that
crashed in the Andes in 1972, and ate their deceased friends' bodies in
order to survive the 10-week (!) ordeal.
See, for example:
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/72-10-13(TAMU).asp
Immanuel Burton raises the question:
> If one was shipwrecked on a desert island and one's only two sources
> of food were a human corpse or a pig, which would one have to eat
> first?
Apparently, one would be required to eat the human rather than (or,
before) the pig, since the pig is a straight Torah prohibition, and the
human is Rabbinic.
However, I think that when this was discussed once when I was studying
in yeshiva, we decided that Bal Tishaktzu (roughly: do not do disgusting
things) is also a Torah prohibition, and human flesh is in that category
that the sages call 'nefesh adam katza bam' (people are sickened at the
thought of eating it).
In that case, the level of prohibition being equal, the shipwreck would
eat the pig, which at least has the name "food" attached to it, and does
not have the additional Rabbinic prohibitions that human flesh carries.
Shabbat shalom, and may we only hear good tidings,
Shimon Lebowitz mailto:<shimonl@...>
Jerusalem, Israel PGP: http://www.poboxes.com/shimonpgp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:06:11 -0500
Subject: RE: Humans are not non-kosher animals
Immanuel Burton asks:
> Does this mean that the prohibition against eating human flesh is not
> as direct as that against eating pig meat? If one was shipwrecked on
> a desert island and one's only two sources of food were a human corpse
> or a pig, which would one have to eat first?
This is an important question and was addressed by the Dor Revi'i in his
petihah klalit to Hulin. Herewith an excerpt from my translation which
I hope to post to the Dor Revi'i website <www.dorrevii.org> in the not
too distant future.
Another example. Human flesh, in the opinion of the Rambam, is
prohibited only as a result of a positive commandment, and in the
opinion of the Rashba, is completely permissible Biblically. And now
consider a dangerously sick person who has before him the flesh of an
improperly slaughtered animal or of a tereifah (by virtue of one of the
18 conditions that lead to tereifah) and the flesh of a human being.
Which flesh should the person eat? Could we say that rather than eat
flesh that the Torah has prohibited by a negative commandment, he should
eat human flesh, which is subject to no Biblical prohibition, even
though the ethical principle which has been accepted by mankind is that
anyone who eats or serves human flesh is no longer counted as a human
being? Could anyone imagine that we the Chosen People, a learned and
wise people, would violate such an ethical principle to avoid violating
a Biblical prohibition? I maintain that any conduct that is abominable
in the eyes of the enlightened nations is prohibited to us, even apart
from any hilul ha-Sheim, because of the obligation "you shall be holy."
And whatever is prohibited to mankind by ethical principles cannot
possibly be permissible for us the holy people. For is there anything
that is forbidden to them but permissible for us? And the Torah tells
us that the Gentiles will say: "For what great nation is there that has
righteous laws and statutes?" And if they stand on a higher level in
their laws and ethics, they will say about us: "a foolish and decadent
nation" not a learned one. And for this reason, it appears to me, it is
necessary to prevent those slaughterers who eat a dead calf found inside
the womb of a slaughtered animal and even sell it to others as tender
flesh, something that is abominable and disgusting in everyone's eyes,
and is prohibited by the laws of every state. Similarly the flesh of
gravely ill animal that has been slaughtered should not be permitted,
even if it still showed signs of life after being slaughtered,
especially if no blood flowed, which is also prohibited by the civil
law. In my opinion, these practices are prohibited under Torah law,
because our moral level must always be higher than the moral level of
all other nations in ethics and morality and not lower than theirs.
David Glasner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kahn <mi_kahn@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:44:01 -0500
Subject: RE: Humans are not non-kosher animals
>(I can't believe I am writing this). Does someone feel there are
>circumstances under which one consume eat another human?
Of course. In cases of pikuach nefesh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: A Simple Jew <asimplejew@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: I LIKE/LOVE this parsha question
I have heard several rabbis discuss how we consistently misuse the word
"love" in our everyday conversation. As an example, it is not uncommon
for a person to say "I love chicken!".
The rabbis commented that a person doesn't really LOVE chicken. He may
enjoy the taste of chicken, may enjoy eating chicken, but he doesn't
love chicken the same way that he loves his wife. What the person is
saying is that he really LIKES chicken.
So here is the problem, in this week's parsha (Parshas Toldos), Yitzhak
Avinu says:
"Then make delicasies for me such as I love and bring it to me and and I
will eat, so that my soul may bless you before I die." (Bereshis 27:4)
How do you explain the fact that Yitzhak Avinu used the word love when
referring to food? Isn't this how we are not supposed to use this word
according to the example of the rabbis?
Note: In the original Hebrew, the pasuk says "k'asher ahavti" (such as I
love). This is not just a problem of mistranslation.
I would appreciate any insight anyone may have.
A Simple Jew
http://asimplejew.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:12:01 -0500
Subject: Lateness to Shul
I have always found it amusing that people criticize so harshly someone
who comes late to shul, even habitually. Meanwhile, the people who
never come to shul but just daven at home all the time (or most of the
time) are completely spared from the criticism. You are only
criticising the late person because you see him. At least he's coming
to shul! Don't you think that's better than not coming at all?
[Added from second submission. Mod.]
I've reflected on this a bit and I think my main objection is that with
so many serious issues that need to be addressed in the frum community,
is lateness to shul what we need to focus on? What about the shidduch
crisis, agunot, teens at risk, etc. etc. Even if you want to focus on
problems in tefila, my point is why not get more people to come to shul,
rather than attack the people who are already doing so? By focusing on
this issue, you could actually be doing damage... if I do not usually
daven in shul, but when I do, I'm usually late, seeing that latecomers
are the focus of criticism is only going to keep me away from shul even
more. I strongly disagree with any notion that it is preferable to
daven at home than to come late to shul, so anything that will keep
people from going to shul, however late, seems counterproductive.
Wanting to make positive change is great! But let's focus our precious
energy where it will do good, not harm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:59:40 +0000
Subject: Re: Lateness to Shul
on 10/11/04 9:49 am, Sam Saal <ssaal@...> wrote:
> Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote [regarding a gentleman who
> always came late to Tefila]
>
> While I might have some difficulty understanding (without asking him)
> why he follows his minhag of out-loud davening even when late, the
> lateness itself doesn't bother me. We don't know that he does not have a
> very good reason for being late week after week.
As I explained, this person is late not week after week but for almost
every tefillah but this is not the point: what matters is that such
behavior is accepted by most people as the norm.
> My father explains his family's multi-generational custom of being late
> to shul as an act of kindness to the person who is always early, but
> this time is late and embarrassed by it. This person is relieved to see
> he is not the last to come to shul.
>
> And, yes, my father's family is Yekkie, in some ways, stereotypically.
It may be very laudable to be so considerate of other people's feelings
but perhaps if they were embarrassed when they occasionally came late
they would be on time more often. Such saintliness may be the cause of
the present lackadaisical attitude which has led to a general disrespect
for tefillah. If something is important to someone, he will make the
effort to do it properly and on time.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:03:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Lateness to Shul
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
> What I find objectionable is not this particular person's behaviour but
>the way such lateness is almost invariably accepted as the norm and
>those who object to the implied disrespect for davenning are lambasted
>as meshugge frum. We pray to the Almighty that He should not keep us
>waiting for mashiach. Perhaps we should consider how we, so to speak,
>keep Him waiting by our lateness in coming to shul - middah keneged
>middah.
It is well established that the Almighty does not need our prayers. As
such, when we are praying we are doing it for our own sake or for the
sake of our community. Therefore, we should balance our need to daven
with other extermely important mitzvot ben adam l'chavero (between men)
... and the manner of objecting to a late-comer is no less important
than the time at which one comes to davening.
Best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 45 Issue 58
