pig leather | Imamother

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Judaism -> Halachic Questions and Discussions

Pig leather

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:06 pm

EstiS wrote:

Ruchel wrote:

cassandra wrote:

EstiS wrote:

correct, its a chok.
so there is no rational explanation to it outside of the spiritual plane.
Can you then accept that there is a spiritual connection to it? (because its a G-dly law with no mortal explanation)

Esti, I think this is the root of my not getting you beforhttp://imamother.com/forum/login.php?logout=true&sid=5f6ab417fe4d2ccf1b63ba7691cfb43d
Log out [ Ruchel ]Log out [ Ruchel ]e. As a Lubavitcher I think you take certain things as givens because your education makes you look at things in a very specific way. You assume that I would get that there is this whole spiritual world out there that operates alongside the physical world, and that by having your kids surrounded by the image of a pig (which is a spiritual negative) your kids would be affected by it. I don't take as a given that there are spiritual forces that operate so strongly and that you can a) track them and b) live your life in a way that those spiritual forces can help you or harm you. GR explained it in a way that I got the piece that you and others had assumed I would have taken as a given, but didn't.

Same thing with the kashrus question. I keep kashrus because G-d commanded it, and while I'm sure we can ascribe reasons (physical, spiritual, psychological, or otherwise) to it that isn't my primary cause for keeping it. You assume that a mitzvah in the Torah is there because it does something in the spiritual world. This is a very specific way of looking at things and I'm not sure I accept it.

I did learn the connexion to what you eat, but as a connexion to what you EAT.

well some of us actually learnt about it in connection to the animal itself as an animal and not just food.

to each their own, as long as it's not presented as better!

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:06 pm

Ruchel...again???
did you read what I wrote to you before?

enough with the distortions already. WE didn't choose to have this discussion and to have to argue our position

cassandra

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:08 pm

EstiS wrote:

Cassandra you admited from the beginning that you were aware this was a spiritual issue but stated that you didn't buy into it. So why bother with this line of questioning if you anyway don't agree with it?

If this is a debate on the spiritual element of keeping mitzvos (what other element can there be? Confused

) then that's a whole other topic.

I don't think I said it quite like that. I was trying to understand something. I understood that it was a "spiritual issue" but that is very vague to me. Spirituality to me requires cognition, and I couldn't see how just being around a pig when don't have the intelligence to process what a pig IS or even symbolizes could be harmful. Now I get there there are those who believe precisely that: that something can be harmful even if you aren't aware of it, and that for some reason that is unknown (because it is a SPIRITUAL thing) it only applies to IMAGES and not the thing itself.

I still don't GET it, but at least I get WHY I don't get it, and why I won't be able to get it.

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:10 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plushy

A stuffed animal is toy animal stuffed with straw, beans, cotton or other similar materials. Some stuffed animals are very old – home made cloth dolls stuffed with straw go back to at least the 1830s, perhaps much older.

It is known for on tomb paintings in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamian civilizations that stuffed animals existed in those societies.

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:12 pm

If it's harmful for our generation, I am sure at least other charedim would have taken it on. I see that even my very ultra aunt doesn't do that, and it wouldn't be the weirdest thing she does!

Ribbie Danzinger

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:13 pm

I think (as I quoted above) that there is a point where the spiritual can be acquainted with the scientific. When we speak of viewing certain things as being spiritually damaging, it is similar to the idea of subliminal images that can sub-consciously damage a person's judgment (which is why using subliminal imaging in commercials is banned).

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:16 pm

Quote:

there is a point where the spiritual can be acquainted with the scientific.

of course!

Quote:

When we speak of viewing certain things as being spiritually damaging, it is similar to the idea of subliminal images that can sub-consciously damage a person's judgment (which is why using subliminal imaging in commercials is banned).

I agree, except if it was damaging for everyone, all rabbanim, or at least all the most machmir ones, would at least encourage it. Up to now, except in Lubavich rabbanim, what I read about it is "it's a Lubavich custom, but in halacha it is absolutely not problematic to have treif animals in real or image or toy".

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:20 pm

I think its ridiculous when posters put other posters up for a challenge questioning them about certain minhogim or chumros they keep, only to end off suggesting that the challenged poster is claiming to be better then them!

Of course we lead a certain lifestyle because we think its a better way to live, but we never said we were better then you.

It would be different if we had come to you and brought up the topic intending to "convert" you to our way but since we didn't, comments like

Ruchel wrote:

to each their own, as long as it's not presented as better!

Ruchel wrote:

before other frum people are called not machmir in their children's chinuch...

are out of place in a thread where we are the ones being asked to explain why they do what they do.

Quote:

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Every group has their thing that they are strong about and think is the right way to do things, since when do we challenge a groups particular chumrah or minhag based on the fact that if it were right others would be doing it ? Confused

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:25 pm

Quote:

we think its a better way to live

better for YOU, or better for ALL?
As long as they keep basic halacha, I don't think people who don't keep my customs or chumros are less good. My things are better for ME.

Quote:

Every group has their thing that they are strong about and think is the right way to do things

For sure, but why would Lubavich customs or chumros be something to follow for non Lubavichers, if they don't have this as a custom or chumro too?
Some posters did seem to think it was. If they had presented it as simply their minhag/the rebbe's advice, very nice! But better/relevant for ALL? No.

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:35 pm

Quote:

I don't think people who don't keep my customs or chumros are less good.

and did I say I did?

Quote:

For sure, but why would Lubavich customs or chumros be something to follow for non Lubavichers, if they don't have this as a custom or chumro too?

who said its something for Non lubavitchers to follow?
We were asked questions which we attempted to answer
end of story. YOU are the one that is implying we said you should do it.

Quote:

Some posters did seem to think it was. If they had presented it as simply their minhag/the rebbe's advice, very nice! But better/relevant for ALL? No.

Please quote them Confused

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:38 pm

Not you.
I don't really want to single out people, but just look at posters saying it's daas Torah, it's halacha... without saying it's halacha for Lubavichers, and not harmful to others (since I didn't read non Chabad rabbis saying it was).

cassandra

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:41 pm

Coming from the other side, I don't see any Lubavitchers trying to push an agenda on anyone. I was the one who originally asked how you square wearing pig leather with not having your kids play with pig toys, and I got my answer (sort of). I was the one who brought up the pig toys in the first place.

Esti and others, I'm sorry if you were put on the defensive as a result of my question.

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:41 pm

ruchel this is getting ridiculous

of course the poster who said its daas torah (who mind you is not lubavitch) was refering to daas torah for lubavitchers

the halacha reference was what it was based on, not that it itself is halacha.

for goodness sake lubavitchers were asked a question so they answered.
there is really no need for us to insert "for lubavitchers only" into every post. Thats getting paranoid and ridiculous.

wasn't there a thread somewhere about shaving heads?
should I feel threatened that satmar feels shaving their heads is a better way to keep taharas hamishpocha? Confused

Cassandra wrote:

cassandra I appreciate your post and I'm sorry if I came across to you as too defensive. Part of the problem were the other posters who were inserting mocking and cynical comments and everyone's posts got mixed up into a cholent that I may have read some of that cynicism into your posts even where you didn't intend it.
Plus, this discussion has come up before, in old threads I've seen.

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:47 pm

since she said "dare I say", it didn't sound like something "normal" like "it's daas Torah for Lubavichers". For sure you don't insert "for Lubavichers only" every time, but it's good to say once that it's not something for all, especially since on the internet some people will take on anything.
As for Satmar, it's the same ! as long as it's clear that they mean it's the best for them, no problem. But for example it would be very bad to shave for someone whose culture is to have hair with elaborated hairdos to be beautiful to their husband (like some North Africans). Same with the sheitel/no sheitel thing. It's so annoying when someone bashes sheitels/tichels.

cassandra

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:48 pm

EstiS wrote:

Thanks. I hesitated before asking the original question because I knew it would turn into this, but curiosity got to the better of me 8)

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:53 pm

Quote:

since she said "dare I say", it didn't sound like something "normal" like "it's daas Torah for Lubavichers".

actually I think she said "dare I say" because its not a typical lubavitch expression

Quote:

For sure you don't insert "for Lubavichers only" every time, but it's good to say once that it's not something for all, especially since on the internet some people will take on anything.

its completely unnecessary as this entire discussion was addressing a lubavitch held philosophy from the start.

that kind of expectation would only stem from a paranoic outlook on things

GetReal

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 7:36 pm

Ruchel wrote:

EstiS wrote:

and Ruchel did you read RD's explanation about it being a non-issue in previous generations?

Yes, I didn't understand. Why would it only harm our generation?

I just read something the (Lubavitcher) Rebbe wrote about this, don't know if someone posted it yet. He wrote that since we are coming closer to the times of Moshiach, when "v'es ru'ach ha'tumah aveir min ha'aretz" there will be no more tumah in the world, we should be more careful about this concept now. During the time of "ikvasa d'mishicha" the footsteps of Moshiach, we should live with a "taste" os Moshiach.

gryp

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 7:42 pm

Quote:

We can find all kind of opinions, it doesn't mean there are people who follow them. I don't pasken myself from sources, so I can just say it is only done by the Lubavichers, according to what my rav told me.

Ruchel, I don't get what you're saying. Of course it's only done by Lubavitchers. That's what the Rebbe told us to do.

Quote:

Same thing with the kashrus question. I keep kashrus because G-d commanded it, and while I'm sure we can ascribe reasons (physical, spiritual, psychological, or otherwise) to it that isn't my primary cause for keeping it.

Cassandra, we keep kashrus for the same primary reason. But we know that the food we eat has a spiritual effect on us.

Quote:

Yes, I didn't understand. Why would it only harm our generation?

If you read the sicha I quoted the Rebbe said clearly that this is because we are coming close to the era of Moshiach and we need an extra guard against negative spiritual influences.

Quote:

to each their own, as long as it's not presented as better!

I don't know what you're talking about or where you see that. Did you have some experience IRL that made you bitter about this?

Quote:

Now I get there there are those who believe precisely that: that something can be harmful even if you aren't aware of it, and that for some reason that is unknown (because it is a SPIRITUAL thing) it only applies to IMAGES and not the thing itself.

Yes, exactly. You did get it, cassandra. Wink

Except that it is only unknown to us common folk. The Rebbe told us clearly that there is this negative spiritual influence. He knows.

Quote:

If it's harmful for our generation, I am sure at least other charedim would have taken it on. I see that even my very ultra aunt doesn't do that, and it wouldn't be the weirdest thing she does!

As you said yourself, it's only a Lubavitch thing. This is what the Rebbe told us. Why do you mention other circles not doing it, as if that has to do with anything.

Quote:

Up to now, except in Lubavich rabbanim, what I read about it is "it's a Lubavich custom, but in halacha it is absolutely not problematic to have treif animals in real or image or toy".

Of course it's not halacha. It has a basis in halacha, that's all.

Quote:

better for YOU, or better for ALL?
As long as they keep basic halacha, I don't think people who don't keep my customs or chumros are less good. My things are better for ME.

It never crossed my mind to think of myself better than someone who has a teddy bear. But in all good conscience, me knowing that images of impure animals are spirtually harmful, makes me uncomfortable to give away the gifts I get with these things on them to other Jews.
I see it the same as not giving a fellow Jew a hechsher I wouldn't eat myself, or something that isn't Cholov Yisroel. Even if someone keeps that hechsher, I just don't feel comfortable giving it to him.

Quote:

"Daas Torah" is an instruction given to an individual, not for Klal Yisroel, to my understanding.
No one said it's a halacha, but that it has a basis in halacha.

Thank you cassandra for your honesty.

TzenaRena

Thu, Jan 17 2008, 5:42 am

Quote:

Believe it or not, the Chassidic movement is not for Chassidim. It's for Jews. Those Jews who want to pursue the study of G-dliness as taught in Chassidus, and follow the path of Avodas Hashem called Chassidus become Chassidim.

So to begin with, it's not a fraternity, Chassidus is a commodity that is available to all Jews. If you don't want to buy it, no one is forcing you, but it's ridiculous to say that it has no application to anyone except Chassidim. If it's a truth, it's a truth. That's generally speaking.

GR wrote:

Ruchel, I don't get what you're saying. Of course it's only done by Lubavitchers. That's what the Rebbe told us to do.

Although Lubavitchers are the ones who accept the Rebbe's teachings unquestioningly, they are not the only ones who do things that the Rebbe teaches Exclamation

(the Rebbe never asks anyone to do something without bringing sources from Shas and Poskim)

In this case particularly,the opinion of the Rebbe about this matter is not only for Lubavitchers; it is not a strictly "Lubavitch minhag", the way some minhagim are. (An example would be how one wraps his tefillin- Lubavitchers do it in a different direction. You can't do it both that way and the regular way. Therefore, to wrap it the Lubavitcher way would be a Lubavitcher minhag.)

As a matter of fact, when the Rebbe first spoke about this matter, he lamented that a certain publication that was otherwise "al taharas hakodesh" was using the character of an unclean creature to teach Torah concepts to children. He expressed a wish that in a pleasant non-confrontational manner an attempt should be made to influence the publisher to change that .
That magazine was NOT a Lubavitcher publication, and clearly the Rebbe felt that it applied to them (and all Jewish chinuch organizations, parents etc.).

AFAIK, the attempt succeeded, because the feature WAS changed.

Ruchel wrote:

Up to now, except in Lubavich rabbanim, what I read about it is "it's a Lubavich custom, but in halacha it is absolutely not problematic to have treif animals in real or image or toy".

Interestingly, the first time I ever read of the concept of not comparing Jewish children to unclean animals WAS in that very same publication, years earlier, in my childhood. There is an incident described in the Gemarah about one Tanna or Amorah who overheard one of his students telling another that in someway he did something or was like a dog!

After hearing this remark, the Sage dismissed, or censured the first student! I don't remember the details, but the story made a strong impression on me, and after that I knew that we must be careful not to utter a comparison of a Yid to an unclean animal.

This was before I heard the Rebbe say anything about it.

Can no one see a connection here?

GAMZu

Thu, Jan 17 2008, 11:09 am

We're not Lubavich. but when my first baby was born, DH tried to stay away from animals on clothes and stuff. Stuffed also. He explained to me the reasoning, and it went on for a bit, until it got too hard.
I mean, there are SO many adorable clothes and toys that feature non-kosher animals.
I find it hard enough to find wholesome classy clothes for babies, and I couldn't handle this restriction.

I just got such a cute raccoon themed outfit for my baby. Smile

Page 6 of 7

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next