Otto
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by Otto on Mar 13, 2008 4:30:51 GMT -8
I have a question on Observance. If times got hard and there was no clean food to eat, but there was unclean food to eat. Should one eat the unclean food or starve to death?
|
|
|
Post by Mpossoff on Mar 13, 2008 11:46:13 GMT -8
Do you believe God would have you starve to death? Now if there was absolutely no 'clean' food I don't think God would have you starve.
But in the case like Daniel where he requested lentil and such, is different.
Marc
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Mar 13, 2008 13:55:01 GMT -8
Halachically-speaking, saving a life takes precedence over the unclean food commandment. So you would eat the unclean meat.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 13, 2008 16:09:19 GMT -8
Any vegetarian would suggest that you would be hard-pressed to find no alternative to starving to death if there was no clean meats available.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 13, 2008 16:12:23 GMT -8
As I recall, there was another question , way back when and a long time ago that asked a similar question; though it was specifically in reference to a medicine that had shrimp in it. I haven't got time to peruse through the old threads; but I know it is back there. Rabbinically, observance should never interfere with basic protections. This is an extension of the idea that one must help another who is in need, even on the Sabbath.
|
|
Otto
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by Otto on Mar 16, 2008 1:09:19 GMT -8
[Do you believe God would have you starve to death?] NO! Not at all. I ask this to see if anyone here could give a reason why “someone” would think this way. I know a husband & wife with 12 children, super orthodox, that have told my son {there future son-in-law} that Observance should be kept even at the cost of life. [Any vegetarian would suggest that you would be hard-pressed to find no alternative to starving to death if there was no clean meats available.] The Jews in Nazi occupied countries were hard-pressed; The Jewish southern people as well as the Southern solder that fought in the south during the Civil War were hard-pressed.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Mar 16, 2008 4:56:03 GMT -8
Here's an interesting passage to speculate upon:
O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. O fear the LORD, ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him. The young lions do lack, and suffer hunger: but they that seek the LORD shall not want any good thing. Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD. What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (Psa 34:8-19 KJV)
|
|
|
Post by jewishjediguy on Mar 16, 2008 12:18:36 GMT -8
I have a question on Observance. If times got hard and there was no clean food to eat, but there was unclean food to eat. Should one eat the unclean food or starve to death? Shalom well, there really is no such thing as unclean food, because the flesh of animals and insects and such that are called unclean in the , are not called food at all. however, the rabbis have taught that one may break a mitz'vah to save life as long as it doesn't profane the Holy Name, nor lead to idolatry. so i would imagine that in a situation where no real food is available that the eating of unclean flesh is permissible, only if it would save life. but even with that, it would be permissible only if it is absolutely certain that no real food is obtainable. Shalom b'Yeshua, Yochanan
|
|