Person A:
It just came to me: When reading the works of A.A.Milne while living a torahcentric life, one’s favorite character not only should not be but also cannot be… Piglet. Alas for those of us who admired his loyal nature and moments of superior intelligence when contrasted with the bumbling Pooh bear.
Quite possibly Charlotte’s Web should not be on the top of our reading list either. Isn’t it a wile of the Devil to ingratiate pigs into the homes of unknowing families through the interest of their children? Fie upon pigs, and may their true garbage-eating, slob-living, abominable habits be speedily recognized and abhorred.
Person B:
The way I see it is, A.A. Milne was writing about stuffed animals – not the real things. So we’re off the hook there, and besides, you really couldn’t be anyone but Piglet.
Charlotte’s Web is a different matter entirely. The moral of the story far outweighs the…um…means of telling it, I guess…
?
June 10, 2008 at 8:43 am
Listen to me… Piglet (of course) has always been everyone’s favorite, and since he’s not real, I think it’s okay to like him. Its not saying that I like pigs… Piglet doesn’t even *look* like a pig… (does he?). When I look at a real pig, I hate it, and my stomach starts to churn. This is not the way with Piglet. In fact, Piglet deserves some love and care. Ok, that’s going a bit far I admit, but the subject deserves some thought. Does this mean we can’t have stuffed animals (beanie-babies) if they’re unclean animals??
June 16, 2008 at 11:51 am
That is very funny. You have me thinking now because those are 2 of my favorite stories. Hummmmm…..
July 2, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Even though bunches of people had already seen it, I removed the names on the email messages mentioned above to protect the (lost) privacy of those involved. On our blog, anonymity and controvery are irrevocably tied together.*
(*Because we want everyone to love us.)
August 26, 2008 at 8:39 am
Have you located the scripture reference where “the Holy One (blessed be He) … called [pigs] an abomination”?
August 26, 2008 at 8:41 am
Leviticus 11 is very clear that swine are unclean to us (v.7). My statement that unclean animals, swine in particular, are also considered an abomination was based on a recollection of v11, which could refer to all “unclean” animals but may indicate only aquatic species without fins and scales. In this case, shrimp would be an abomination to G-d, but swine are not.
I am inclined to think that Leviticus 11.11 refers to all unclean animals previously discussed in the chapter… but because there seems to be some doubt, I have edited this post accordingly.
A better reference for the point I was trying to make in the original post might be Leviticus 11.47, where we are commanded to make a difference between the unclean and the clean. A “difference” could be that we don’t promote sentimental attachments to stuffed unclean animals in our homes.
August 26, 2008 at 8:44 am
Actually, I was hoping that you would have referenced this week’s portion, Re’eh. As you have no doubt by now read, in Devarim 14:3 we are commanded not to eat “any detestable thing” (NASB; “abominable” in KJV); and then Moshe goes on to describe what can and can not be eaten. Verse 8 specifically references pigs as being in the “do not eat” category. A logical question after reading v3 is “What is detestable?” Moshe then goes on to tell us in v7-8 and following, and that list includes pigs; therefore, pigs must be “detestable” or an “abomination”.
I’m not certain that I agree with your inclination to believe that the reference to “abomination” in v11 of Vayikra 11 (KJV) applies to all unclean animals discussed in the prior verses. Your acknowledgment of the possibility that this is a reference to unclean water-based creatures seems to be the correct conclusion in my view. The discussion of land-based animals that begins in v2 seems to end in v8; and God then turns his attention in v9 to water-based creatures. As such, the subject of the “they” and “their” references which are called “detestable” in v10 and “abhorrent” in v11 (NASB; both as “abomination” in KJV) are certainly the unclean water-based creatures described at the beginning of v10. All of the remaining references to “detestable” through the rest of the chapter are in context of either birds, insects, or things that crawl on their belly.
Therefore, while God may not have specifically referred to pigs as “detestable” or an “abomination” in Vayikra 11 as He did the unclean water-based creatures, Moshe made clear in Devarim 14 that pigs are indeed “detestable” or an “abomination”.
Viewed more broadly, the Devarim 14:3 reference would seem to imply that all non-edible animals are “detestable” or an “abomination”. Following your reasoning, we should not view any such creatures in an endearing fashion. What then would you counsel with respect to… [a] stuffed fox… which our kids are very fond of…?
I appreciate your thought provoking dialogue on this topic.