Pork, Ham, Spam, and Other Seemingly Innocuous Pig Products
It's interesting -- there are certain mitzvahs that somehow have become more popular than others. Although pork is no less kosher than any other non-kosher animal, it has a special taboo associated with it...
...Pesach is one of three Jewish festivals (together with Shavuot and Sukkot, which are lesser-known than Kwanza), but for some reason, it is observed in much greater numbers by Jews around the world...
...There are prohibitions that are seemingly more severe than intermarriage in the Torah, yet even amongst Jewish families with very tenuous connections to Torah and mitzvot per se, the prospect of "intermarriage" is considered to carry a perilously dark storm cloud over it...
...Pesach is one of three Jewish festivals (together with Shavuot and Sukkot, which are lesser-known than Kwanza), but for some reason, it is observed in much greater numbers by Jews around the world...
...There are prohibitions that are seemingly more severe than intermarriage in the Torah, yet even amongst Jewish families with very tenuous connections to Torah and mitzvot per se, the prospect of "intermarriage" is considered to carry a perilously dark storm cloud over it...
There is a concept in the Talmud (Pesachim 66a) אם אין נביאים הן בני נביאים הן "if [Jews] are not prophets themselves; they are the children of prophets" and therefore, unconsiously, when we are involved in mitzvot as a people, we tend to reflect hidden truths in those mitzvot albeit unconsciously. This is a bit of an extension of this concept from the norm, given that we are applying it to the observance of mitzvot on the backdrop of their lack of observance, but it seems to hold true*.
Pig, according to the letter of the law, is as non-kosher as a cat. How so? For a land animal to be kosher, it must satisfy two well-known requirements:
How, then, can we explain why pigs, boars and hogs get such an especially bad rep? Either we should fund a negative PR campaign against cat-eating, or a Pro-Pig Ad campaign (e.g. "Pork -- it's still not kosher, but hey, it's no worse than cat!")!
The National Diet
In a seemingly unnecessary act of ink-spilling, the Torah proceeds to list the only four land animals that have only one of the two signs in order to be kosher: the camel, the hyrax, the hare, and the pig. This is really beating a dead horse (pun intended -- sorry). Why is G!d insulting our intelligence? Maybe He thinks we're lazy...that maybe we would have found a camel chewing its cud, and with great complacency sent it off straight away to make camel pastrami...or corned hyrax-beef... C'mon! He gave us two separate rules that have to both be fulfilled! Of course these 4 that only check off on one are not kosher!!!
The Torah seems to include the lone sign of kashrut that they do have as part of the reason that they are not kosher. It would have been enough, and certainly more clear, to tell me what makes them not kosher: "don't eat camel because its hoof is not split!" Don't tell me why it was almost kosher!
You see, cats are not fooling anyone -- they don't have split hooves and they don't chew their cud. At least they're honest. Camels, hares and hyraxes, however, do chew their cud, but they don't have split hooves -- and as the astute eye on the Torah reveals, this deception actually embellishes their non-kosher-ness. They are misleading creatures, so to speak.
As for the pig, who rolls around in the hay, literally showing off its oh-so-kosher split hooves, but concealed in its innards, digests without chewing its cud, is considered by the spirit of the law to be the most spiritually pernicious of all. These animals, and the pig especially, are the epitome of hypocrisy -- of giving off the impression to the outside that one is "kosher," when really he is not. The Kli Yakar writes that "without a doubt, [the Hypocrite] is worse than the complete Rasha (wicked person), whose insides and outsides are equally evil."
There is nothing worse than the proverbial "nice guy" who is cordial and friendly to all, yet cheats in business or in his family life. And certainly, the absolute worst is a person who is externally "religious" with all the fix-ins (e.g. hat, suit, beard, peyot, etc.), checking off all of the relevant "Orthodox" prerequisites, but is rotten on the inside. There is obviously no bigger Chillul Hashem (Desecration of G!d's Name) than this. Indeed, the word חלול "chillul" is connected to חלל "challal," meaning "hollow," for he is turning Hashem's Name into an empty, superficial shell..."just a word" that lands on deaf ears.
It might be hard for most of us to relate to the spiritual damage that comes from eating non-kosher meat and literally internalizing the negative character traits that they embody, what our Sages call טמטום הלב "Clogging-up of the Heart" (see Shulchan Aruch Y"D 81:7), but we can begin to understand it philosophically.
The midrash in Vayikra Rabba 13:5, written 1,000 years before the Kli Yakar, would have remained a locked box had he not given us the key. The midrash there draws a parallel between these 4 animals and the host cultures of the 4 exiles of the Jewish people: Babylon (Camel), Persia (Hyrax), Greece (Hare), and Rome (Pig). We can understand simply, "oh, there are four exiles, and four of these weird kosher-exceptions -- a perfect match!"
...but, if we contemplate it deeper, we see the precision of the comparison.
We know that the Torah does not have a xenophobic stance on other cultures. The Talmud itself says we went into exile all over the world in order for converts to be attracted to Torah and to enrich the Jewish people with their otherwise lost sparks of holiness (Pesachim 87b). Certainly, the Sages also consider that there exists true, valuable, non-ethical wisdom to be found outside of the Torah as well (Eicha Rabba 2:13). So, then, why the unflattering comparison to these non-kosher animals?
Precisely, because they have signs of being kosher.
The entire television industry is predicated on a concept called "the suspension of disbelief." The TV viewer knows during the first few moments of flipping to a sitcom, let's say, that what he's watching is not real. However, if he remains hung up on the fact that these people are actors, and they're not actually this witty, and that he's always looking at the same 3 walls of Jerry Seinfeld's apartment, he will never be able to enjoy it. So what almost every viewer does quite quickly is willingly suspend his disbelief -- he throws out his concern with it not being "real." Consequently, commercials are strategically placed after 12 minutes of this couch potato eating up everything he's watching with his intellectual filter on "OFF." They use this as an opportunity to convince you to buy things you wouldn't otherwise buy. If it were not an opportune time to do so, why would companies pay half a million dollars for a 30 second ad during prime time TV?
If you thought the Marlboro Man was problematic, and you think calling terrorists "militants" may be even more, you must begin to suspect that there is more unwanted "nuance" crossing into our minds through osmosis.
The midrash, and the big idea of kashrut in general is meant to make us aware of what we consume, because we consume a whole lot. Now, more than ever, that media consumption is at all-time high and rising with no signs of slowing, we must not be naive as to what we are putting into our systems. Even if part of that content is totally G and PG, "kosher" Discovery Channel and History Channel, and "highly educational" and "enriching" we have to actively realize that the bad is dragged in after the good. In the process, we may be swallowing whole ethical, metaphysical and theological premises that are anaethema to what we would say is "True," "Correct," and "Moral" on any other day. Without question, over time, we can be led to believe things that are worlds away from what we would have intellectually and methodically have come to conclude. In the exile of the "pig," the true danger to us is what's been eroded from our insides, even if we look down and see kosher hooves on our outside.
* (e-mail me about Pesach and intermarriage if you're interested.)
1) It must have completely separated split hooves, and
2) It must chew its cud, i.e. it must process its food in multiple stomaches (Vayikra 11:3).A cat has two strikes against it (sorry, China), and a pig, one, in that it doesn't chew its cud. But since in the case of kashrut it's "one strike and you're out," neither pigs nor cats will ever receive the OU stamp of approval.
How, then, can we explain why pigs, boars and hogs get such an especially bad rep? Either we should fund a negative PR campaign against cat-eating, or a Pro-Pig Ad campaign (e.g. "Pork -- it's still not kosher, but hey, it's no worse than cat!")!
The National Diet
In a seemingly unnecessary act of ink-spilling, the Torah proceeds to list the only four land animals that have only one of the two signs in order to be kosher: the camel, the hyrax, the hare, and the pig. This is really beating a dead horse (pun intended -- sorry). Why is G!d insulting our intelligence? Maybe He thinks we're lazy...that maybe we would have found a camel chewing its cud, and with great complacency sent it off straight away to make camel pastrami...or corned hyrax-beef... C'mon! He gave us two separate rules that have to both be fulfilled! Of course these 4 that only check off on one are not kosher!!!
~~~~~
If we take a closer look at the psukim, we'll notice something unusual about how the Torah phrases the prohibition against eating these 4 animals:אַךְ אֶת-זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִסֵי הַפַּרְסָה: אֶת-הַגָּמָל כִּי-מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא, וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס--טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם. וְאֶת-הַשָּׁפָן כִּי-מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא, וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס; טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם. וְאֶת-הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי-מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא, וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה; טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם. וְאֶת-הַחֲזִיר כִּי-מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא, וְשֹׁסַע שֶׁסַע פַּרְסָה, וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא-יִגָּר; טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם
Only don't eat from these that bring up their cud and have split hooves: the camel, because it brings up its cud, but its hoof is not split -- it is tammei [spiritually blocking] for you; and the hyrax, because it brings up its cud, but its hoof is not split -- it is tammei for you; and the hare, because it brings up its cud, but its hoof is not split -- it is tammei for you; and the pig, because its hoof is split and completely separated, but it does not chew its cud -- it is tammei for you
(Vayikra 11:4-7).
The Torah seems to include the lone sign of kashrut that they do have as part of the reason that they are not kosher. It would have been enough, and certainly more clear, to tell me what makes them not kosher: "don't eat camel because its hoof is not split!" Don't tell me why it was almost kosher!
~~~~~
The Kli Yakar, Rav Shlomo Ephraim Lunschitz (16th C. Prague) opens up this mystery for us...You see, cats are not fooling anyone -- they don't have split hooves and they don't chew their cud. At least they're honest. Camels, hares and hyraxes, however, do chew their cud, but they don't have split hooves -- and as the astute eye on the Torah reveals, this deception actually embellishes their non-kosher-ness. They are misleading creatures, so to speak.
As for the pig, who rolls around in the hay, literally showing off its oh-so-kosher split hooves, but concealed in its innards, digests without chewing its cud, is considered by the spirit of the law to be the most spiritually pernicious of all. These animals, and the pig especially, are the epitome of hypocrisy -- of giving off the impression to the outside that one is "kosher," when really he is not. The Kli Yakar writes that "without a doubt, [the Hypocrite] is worse than the complete Rasha (wicked person), whose insides and outsides are equally evil."
There is nothing worse than the proverbial "nice guy" who is cordial and friendly to all, yet cheats in business or in his family life. And certainly, the absolute worst is a person who is externally "religious" with all the fix-ins (e.g. hat, suit, beard, peyot, etc.), checking off all of the relevant "Orthodox" prerequisites, but is rotten on the inside. There is obviously no bigger Chillul Hashem (Desecration of G!d's Name) than this. Indeed, the word חלול "chillul" is connected to חלל "challal," meaning "hollow," for he is turning Hashem's Name into an empty, superficial shell..."just a word" that lands on deaf ears.
It might be hard for most of us to relate to the spiritual damage that comes from eating non-kosher meat and literally internalizing the negative character traits that they embody, what our Sages call טמטום הלב "Clogging-up of the Heart" (see Shulchan Aruch Y"D 81:7), but we can begin to understand it philosophically.
The midrash in Vayikra Rabba 13:5, written 1,000 years before the Kli Yakar, would have remained a locked box had he not given us the key. The midrash there draws a parallel between these 4 animals and the host cultures of the 4 exiles of the Jewish people: Babylon (Camel), Persia (Hyrax), Greece (Hare), and Rome (Pig). We can understand simply, "oh, there are four exiles, and four of these weird kosher-exceptions -- a perfect match!"
...but, if we contemplate it deeper, we see the precision of the comparison.
We know that the Torah does not have a xenophobic stance on other cultures. The Talmud itself says we went into exile all over the world in order for converts to be attracted to Torah and to enrich the Jewish people with their otherwise lost sparks of holiness (Pesachim 87b). Certainly, the Sages also consider that there exists true, valuable, non-ethical wisdom to be found outside of the Torah as well (Eicha Rabba 2:13). So, then, why the unflattering comparison to these non-kosher animals?
Precisely, because they have signs of being kosher.
The entire television industry is predicated on a concept called "the suspension of disbelief." The TV viewer knows during the first few moments of flipping to a sitcom, let's say, that what he's watching is not real. However, if he remains hung up on the fact that these people are actors, and they're not actually this witty, and that he's always looking at the same 3 walls of Jerry Seinfeld's apartment, he will never be able to enjoy it. So what almost every viewer does quite quickly is willingly suspend his disbelief -- he throws out his concern with it not being "real." Consequently, commercials are strategically placed after 12 minutes of this couch potato eating up everything he's watching with his intellectual filter on "OFF." They use this as an opportunity to convince you to buy things you wouldn't otherwise buy. If it were not an opportune time to do so, why would companies pay half a million dollars for a 30 second ad during prime time TV?
If you thought the Marlboro Man was problematic, and you think calling terrorists "militants" may be even more, you must begin to suspect that there is more unwanted "nuance" crossing into our minds through osmosis.
The midrash, and the big idea of kashrut in general is meant to make us aware of what we consume, because we consume a whole lot. Now, more than ever, that media consumption is at all-time high and rising with no signs of slowing, we must not be naive as to what we are putting into our systems. Even if part of that content is totally G and PG, "kosher" Discovery Channel and History Channel, and "highly educational" and "enriching" we have to actively realize that the bad is dragged in after the good. In the process, we may be swallowing whole ethical, metaphysical and theological premises that are anaethema to what we would say is "True," "Correct," and "Moral" on any other day. Without question, over time, we can be led to believe things that are worlds away from what we would have intellectually and methodically have come to conclude. In the exile of the "pig," the true danger to us is what's been eroded from our insides, even if we look down and see kosher hooves on our outside.
* (e-mail me about Pesach and intermarriage if you're interested.)
No comments:
Post a Comment