- This topic has 24 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I once heard that halachically speaking, its worse to eat traif animal meat that human flesh as traif animals are explicitly forbidden in the Torah while human flesh isn’t. Is this true? One halachic ramification I think is if a person is extremely ill and he needs something to eat to stay alive and his only options are human flesh (I have no idea why, the idea disgusts me) and traif meat like pork.
The Wolf will be happy to hear this.
Gives new meaning to the question “who are we having for dinner tonight?”
Naturally, this only applies if you don’t actually kill the person you’re eating. You can’t, however, murder someone for food.
The Wolf
The Wolf will be happy to hear this.
Woo-hoo! When the apocalypse comes, I won’t be the first thing on the menu! 🙂
The Wolf
Gives new meaning to the question “who are we having for dinner tonight?”
Is POY still in existence? That was hysterical!
On Tisha B’av we read about how during the time of the churban women ate their own children.
Isn’t that a marvelous middos machine joke?
“You will be our guests for dinner tonight” IIRC
Simcha,
Now that I think about your question, I wonder if your premise is true. You make your premise on the idea that there is an issur of tarfus but there is no comparable issur for cannibalism.
However, now that I think about it, there *is* an issur on having hana’ah from a dead body. Generally speaking, issurei hana’ah are more stringent than issurei achilah. As such, you could make the case that you’re better off eating the tarfus (which is only an issur achilah) and not eating the dead human (which is an issur hana’ah).
Of course, when push comes to shove, both issurim get pushed aside for pikuach nefesh. But if you have a choice….
The Wolf (who, I guess, put himself back on the menu).
Human flesh is assur. We even prohibit eating skin as a result, because it is difficult to ascertain that the piece of skin does not contain some amount of the flesh to which it was adjacent.
What you may be thinking of is human blood, which is not assur m’ikkar hadin, but it is assur because of ma’aras ayyin (since human blood looks the same as animal blood, which is assur).
n.b. the lack of an issur on consuming human blood is likely the source of the vampire legends and blood libels.
As such, you could make the case that you’re better off eating the tarfus (which is only an issur achilah)
Before someone calls me out on it — yes, I know there are some forms of tarfus that are assur b’hana’ah as well. Clearly I’m not talking about those forms.
The Wolf
I can’t imagine this is true. I know someone who was given a heter to have a homeopathic remedy made with some pig product (I don’t know if it were pig flesh or a derivative) because of a disease they had.
And I can’t imagine eating my child. I would rather kill myself first. I don’t judge them because I can’t imagine a situation where I would think it would be approrpriate.
And I can’t imagine eating my child. I would rather kill myself first. I don’t judge them because I can’t imagine a situation where I would think it would be approrpriate.
Sadly, in times of famine, it has been known to happen that people would eat their children. It’s easy to say that you’d rather kill yourself first when your belly is full, but when you’re facing starvation and see your kids suffering the same fate, it may be a different story. May God never present anyone with such a terrible choice again.
The Wolf
I understand that Wolf.
Hopefully I will never be in that situation. I would rather kill myself and let my children eat me though. Assuming my husband is around to care for them.
YW Moderator-42…
That is one of the things (mothers eating their children) I never could really understand from Eichah on Tisha b’Av.
Even during the horrors of the Holocaust I never heard of that happening. It seems hard to believe. I wonder if it is meant to be taken literally???
Even during the horrors of the Holocaust I never heard of that happening. It seems hard to believe. I wonder if it is meant to be taken literally???
Two completely different types of tragedies.
In the Holocaust, prisoners were generally fed, even if minimally. As a result, (barring some possible extraordinary exceptions that I’m not aware of) no one had to resort to eating children.
In an ancient city under siege, however, there is no one providing even minimum sustenance. In such cases, people are forced to eat *anything* edible… even if it’s each other.
The Wolf
Personally, FWIW, of all the k’lalos in the tochacha, I’ve always considered that one (va-achaltem b’sar b’neichem…) the absolute worst. Going back to Mitzrayim and ending up selling yourself on a flooded slave market (which, in the tochacha is the ultimate punishment/consequence) sounds far better to me.
The Wolf
sjs with pikuach nefesh, of course it would be allowed. like nutramegen formula-its made from pig something or other, but if a baby has digestive issues (forgot if it is colic or something else, they could get a heter to use it
AinOhdMilvado:
The descent into inhumanity is one of the largest K’lallos of the Tochacha.
Wolf: ending up selling yourself on a flooded slave market is, as Rashi points out, saying that they will not even want you for work, so you will be killed right away.
As opposed to the Holocaust, where many who lived did so in “work” camps, as they wanted some of the Jews’ output.
Wolf: ending up selling yourself on a flooded slave market is, as Rashi points out, saying that they will not even want you for work, so you will be killed right away.
Forced cannibalism of one’s children still sounds worse to me but who am I to argue with Rashi, right? I hereby stand corrected.
The Wolf
Forced cannibalism of one’s children still sounds worse to me but who am I to argue with Rashi, right? I hereby stand corrected.
It is not the matter of being forced, it is that they chose to do so instead of retaining their humanity is what makes it horrific.
And I’m not the one who said they are in order (of bad, even within the groups), anyway. If you could find out who said it (I think I have heard it (as far as the groupings are concerned) as well, but have also heard it is just a timeline), or if anyone else could help, I would be happy to learn.
I think its the Meam Loez who writes (he quotes a midrash) that the fulfillment of the passuk occurred when people who were starving resorted to eating the carcasses of dead children and one time a woman eating such a “meal” recognized the body the meat was coming from was her own child. I dont think it means that in a fit of hunger people resorted to killing their neighbors for dinner.
I always understood this on a more psychological level. The Jews began their collective destiny as slaves, the ultimate punishment is not only going back to where you started, not only the knowledge that you accomplished nothing in life, but they won’t even want you as slaves. Your life went completely backwards. You end off even more degraded and worthless than you started.
FWIW, That is the way I have always understood it as well.
The Wolf
It is not the matter of being forced, it is that they chose to do so instead of retaining their humanity is what makes it horrific.
By “forced” I meant “forced by starvation,” not forced by one’s fellow man — much the same way that people are “forced” to sometimes jump out of burning buildings.
The Wolf
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.