pig leather | Imamother

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 4:52 pm

I don't see how treif animals give bad thoughts, and neither does my rav. And then, why would zoos be allowed but not plushy?

Quote:

Ruchel to be honest I don't know what to call it. a chumrah, minhag whatever. It makes no difference to me. The Rebbe told us about it so that's what we do, whatever status it may have.

really? when I learn something, I love knowing more! I like knowing if it's a chumra, segula, kabbala... doesn't mean I'll stop doing it!! but I like knowing.

Quote:

why? there are plenty of chumra's belonging to other groups, that I've never heard of.

yes, but this one is well known, and when I asked my rav, he knew about it. But he said it was a custom (= pertaining only to chabad), not a chumra (= good to take on, if you're on the level).

gryp

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:00 pm

Quote:

I don't see how treif animals give bad thoughts, and neither does my rav. And then, why would zoos be allowed but not plushy?

Because we don't live in zoos. The issue is being surrounded constantly by non-kosher images of animals.

Quote:

really? when I learn something, I love knowing more! I like knowing if it's a chumra, segula, kabbala... doesn't mean I'll stop doing it!! but I like knowing.

We call it a hora'ah, a directive.

Quote:

yes, but this one is well known, and when I asked my rav, he knew about it. But he said it was a custom (= pertaining only to chabad), not a chumra (= good to take on, if you're on the level).

Maybe it's well-known because so many of us have not-Lubavitch relatives and we have to let them know gently that although we love them and appreciate the gifts they bring, we prefer to not have anything with non-kosher animals on them.
For me that includes toys, books, and clothing.

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:04 pm

Quote:

The issue is being surrounded constantly by non-kosher images of animals.

okay!! I understand better. What about pets? what about a few "treif" toys?

Quote:

We call it a hora'ah, a directive.

and people don't ask why (just for knowledge and curiosity, not to decide if they do)?

Quote:

Maybe it's well-known because so many of us have not-Lubavitch relatives

possible. It's true that in most people's extended family, there is at least a Lubavich.

gryp

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:12 pm

Quote:

okay!! I understand better.

Glad to hear it!

Quote:

What about pets? what about a few "treif" toys?

Most of us don't have dogs, cats, things like that. Fish and birds are more common.
I'm not sure what you mean by "treif toys." Do you mean like the plastic treif food that comes in the play food sets? Like the bacon and sausages or whatever? I throw those out, I just don't like my kids to even pretending to eat bacon or whatever it is.

Quote:

and people don't ask why (just for knowledge and curiosity, not to decide if they do)?

Why what? I don't know what else there would be to ask. The Rebbe gave his reasons for this hora'ah.

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:17 pm

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "treif toys."

I meant like a teddy bear. Do people tolerate a few of them as long as the kid isn't surrounded, or nothing not even a tiny bear image on a skirt for example?

Quote:

Why what? I don't know what else there would be to ask. The Rebbe gave his reasons for this hora'ah.

But he didn't say if it's a chumra, just his idea, a minhag from where he was raised...?

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:41 pm

gigi that is part of the reason

the other reasons include saying a brocha and davening where there is a tamei animal around.

I'm not too cluey on the details because I've never thought of buying a dog, but I think its written elsewhere. (If anyone has the source please post)

Quote:

But he didn't say if it's a chumra, just his idea, a minhag from where he was raised...?

Like GR said, we call it a hora'a and gave his reasons.

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:44 pm

My dh says the animal must be a pet (not wild) and non smelly, but if it's the case you can say a bracha or daven, if you don't look at it.

Quote:

we call it a hora'a and gave his reasons.

must be a language thing... I didn't see the reasons, just "it's a haraa". Never mind...

Ribbie Danzinger

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:48 pm

Ruchel, I think that this problem was not around in previous times for anyone to have it as a minhag before the Rebbe gave his hora'ah. His advice is based on halachic sources and can be considered (dare I say it?) da'as Torah.

As for pets, I think there is a halachah that states that one must not raise a vicious dog in one's home.

Quote:

must be a language thing... I didn't see the reasons, just "it's a haraa". Never mind...

Did you see the long quote in GR's post above?

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:50 pm

Ribbie Danzinger wrote:

Da'as Torah for the Lubavich? Maybe. I still wait for an aswner about what it is. But since all the holy generations before him didn't have it, I can't see it making sense for non Lubavichers.

Quote:

As for pets, I think there is a halachah that states that one must not raise a vicious dog in one's home.

Quite possible, that would make sense.

cassandra

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:55 pm

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 before. 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.

Ruchel

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 5:58 pm

cassandra wrote:

EstiS wrote:

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

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:02 pm

Ruchel for example did mickey mouse exist in previous generations?

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.

Lechatchila Ariber

Wed, Jan 16 2008, 6:03 pm

Ruchel wrote:

cassandra wrote:

EstiS wrote:

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.