Poor Wilbur . . .
Houstons culinary crises du jour, restaurants surreptitiously passing off pork as veal, gets Protocoled.
In assessing Houston Rabbi Brenner Glickmans statement that I do not personally keep a strict kosher diet, [but] like many Jews, I like to eat out in restaurants, but I abstain from ordering dishes with pork or bacon or shellfish. So this issue is very relevant to me. Substituting pork for veal is reprehensible. It means that Jews who eat in these restaurants who are trying to observe their religion are being deceived into violating the Torah. It’s repulsive, Protocols Steven I. Weiss opines:
This is a bit ridiculous, kind of like how when vegetarians were suing McDonalds for using a beef-derived flavoring on their French fries, everyone was joking about when a Jewish group would sign on to the suit. You have to be very reconstructionist to completely ignore all the kosher laws that would make a piece of veal at a run-of-the-mill restaurant treyf [non-kosher] and then still reach for an idea that pig is outlawed d’oraysa [under Biblical law, in this case Lev. 11:7].
Theres a palpable distinction in Jewish law between sins committed bemeizid, intentionally (Brenner: Gimme the pork chop special, Waiter: Sure), and beshogeg,unintentionally (Brenner: Actually, make that a veal tenderloin, Waiter: Riiight). Weiss is correct in noting that veal, a cut of meat which can be kosher if slaughtered and prepared correctly, is treyf if prepared in a non-kosher eatery. But thats no reason to take beef (sorry, I couldnt resist) against a Jew who opts for treyf veal instead of pork. Better treyf veal than being oiver, in violation, the additional prohibition of eating a pig. When someone tries to keep one mitzvah you shouldnt go off on him for not keeping another.
i couldn’t agree with you more.
Firstly, you probably shouldn’t comment on The halachos of Shogeg and Meizid without being aware of all the guidlines of when we attribute shogeg to a person’s actions. Also, see Steven I.’s Response on protocols. Your arguments hold no water from a halachic standpoint. although you are right from a basic ethical standpoint. It is clearly wrong to put one in a sitaution where they unintentionally violate their personal customs. And it is somewhat commendable for Brenner to not want to eat Pig for traditionally Jewish reasons, but it in no way encompasses halachic standards.
There is no "additional prohibition of eating a pig." There are two distinct prohibitions, one of eating pig, one of eating treyfa. Eating veal killed in a manner not prescribed by halacha violates trayfa. Eating pig violates the prohibition of eating pig (and camel and rabbit etc.) Since "ayn issur chal al issur", when you eat pig that is also trayfa, you only violate the prohibition of eating pig. However, I do see some (minor) value in attempting to follow the spirit of jewish law. (though it becomes rather diminished when the person in question clearly knows what he is doing is not halachikly aceptable.
I am not so sure that is accurate MJ, I will look up the gedarim of ayn issur chal al issur, i think it is only in reference to Beis Din punishing, but you are still "oiver" the issur midinei shamayim. Also, i am just curious, if you eat pig beshogeg, but treif bemeizid, what the law would be…although i can’t imagine that the dinnim of kashrus apply to eating Pig,etc… (i.e. if one had a heter to eat pig, does it need to be prepared within all the guidlines of kashrus?) I will look into these halachos tonight, and post my findings.
You’re wrong about the halacha. Treyf veal is a d’oraysa of neveila or treyfa. Pork is a de’oraysa of non Kosher meat. Same level of prohibition. No "additional" prohibitions to speak of. Dave- MJ is correct ein issur chal al issur would apply to pork.
Uri- you seem to know halacha, do the laws of preparing kosher meat apply to a pig, etc.? also, i am unsure of where to look, but i am pretty sure the above case would still be a meizid, because the person is purposely eating a biblical issur, and i am pretty sure shogeg would be where the intent is to not be oiver any issur, unless since it is a different issur he would not be responsible for eating chazer, what do you think?
I would guess that if we were still doing such things, he would not recieve malkos, since his intention was to violate one issur [neveila/treyfa] and he violated another. In that sense he would be considered a shogeg.Again with re: laws of preparing kosher meat and pig, we would apply ein issur chal al issur, in other words once pig is not kosher, we don’t care how you shecht it, if you boil it in its mother’s [or whoever's] milk.