Dear Alumni Sheyichyu!
Sholom U’Brocho!
(If anyone is aware of any mazeltov’s that I omitted please let me know).
Thank you as always for the feedback, it is much appreciated.
The following news story appeared this week in the New Yorker magazine:
Rabbis saw to it long ago that it’s against the law to have a pig farm on Jewish-owned land in Israel, so Jewish pig-farmers there (perhaps after consulting a legal-loophole-minded rabbi of their own) built their sties on platforms above the land—taking the practice of raising pigs to a whole new level.
But if you want actual Kosher pork—pork spare ribs, pork cutlets, center-cut pork chops, all labeled in Hebrew “Sh’Chita Beit Yosef” (i.e., kosher slaughtered)—you get that only in New York, only at the Associated Supermarket at 4407 Greenpoint Avenue, in Sunnyside, Queens, and only for a few hours today, between the time the Israeli artist Oded Hirsch snapped the above photo on his cell phone and it got forwarded to me, and the time I phoned Aris Duran, the supermarket manager, for an explanation.
“What are you saying?” Duran asked. “Pork cannot be kosher.” So I e-mailed him the photo. He called me right back, and said he was going to pull all the meat off the shelves. “It was a mistake,” he said, and a few seconds later he called back and left a message to say, “Thanks for alerting me.”
In fact, any hashgacha, be it Satmar, Lubavitch, Litvish or other, would have little effect to disguise pork. Pork is pork is pork. It’s meat from a dovor acher, and it’s a no-no (as the song says” “take away that ham and bacon, I won’t eat it you’re mistaken”). The most flowery words on the most stringent hashgacha wouldn’t minimize its repulsiveness in the least.
If it were a hot dog or a hamburger, let alone something ethnically Jewish, like chulent or kishke, why then, it is very conceivable that the misleading label could sow chaos and confusion, and result in mistaken maskonos and assumptions.
But with the pork, we’re much safer, no matter how we dress it, its’ true colors still show, and reveal what it truly is. As Chazal tell us, the dovor acher extends his hooves, saying “look at me I’m kosher” But it doesn’t help. One look is enough for anyone to know that it’s, well, a pig!
And not kosher, without a doubt.
As the old saying goes, ‘if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.’ (or something to that effect)
Let’s try to find an analogy to this:
Imagine a guy sitting in a bar on a Friday night, drinking beer, and listening to a rock band. Does he look chassidish? Not very. Right?
Now, dress this fellow up in a shtreimel, with white socks, and have him converse only in old-fashioned Yiddish. Does he look chassidish now? Still not, I think. Because he’s behaving like a bum, and no matter what disguise he hides under, it just wouldn’t fool anyone.
Now let’s try something a little different. Let’s have a guy sitting at a table, speaking animatedly and vehemently against other Jews (or other groups of Jews). What do you see? ‘I don’t know’, you say, ‘I need to see the whole picture’.
Okay, let’s adorn him in a beard and payos, and have him illustrate his words with a chassidishe maaseh and a relevant quote from Chazal. Sounds like a Chassisher Yid, no? Chances are, he’ll convince us, and we’ll give credibility to what he’s saying.
But wait! One second! Isn’t this guy also behaving like . . a bum? Perhaps. But it’s not as obvious, and can easily be disguised.
The gemoro says, with regards to the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh (Yuma 9B): “Rishonim shenisgaleh avonam, nisgaleh kitzam, achronim shelo nisgaleh avonam, - lo nisgaleh kitzam” [In the first beis hamikdash, in which their sins were revealed, the “ketz” – the end of the golus was revealed (and it lasted only 70 years). In contrast, in the 2nd Beis HaMikdash, in which the sins were not revealed, there is no end in sight for the golus (and, indeed, it has stretched on and on and on r”l)].
What does this mean that in the 2nd Beis HaMikdash the sins were not revealed? Doesn’t the very same gemoro state clearly, just before this, that the sin that brought about the destruction of the 2nd beis haMikdash was sinas chinam? Isn’t it stated just as clearly as the sins that caused the destruction of mikdash rishon (see Rashi and Maharsho there)?
The Alter Rebbe (in the Likkutei Torah of last Shabbos) explains this as follows: In the first Beis HaMikdash, their sins were revealed; - in other words, they were clearly and unmistakably sins. Therefore, they were quick to recognize the error of their ways and repent, resulting in the short duration of the golus. In contrast, in the 2nd BHMK, the sin was sinas chinam. This is not a revealed sin, for the person guilty of it always convinces himself that it’s not a sin. “I have sinas chinam?! Why I have all the reasons in the world to be against this person!’ As a result, they were unlikely to do Teshuva, leading to the impossible length of this golus.
Basically, in the 1st Bais Hamikdash, they put a hashgacha on pork. And since that is an error that is clearly recognizable, it was not long before the offensive merchandise was removed from the shelves, paving the way for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash.
In our times, instead, we’re putting the hashgacha on schnitzel. Which everyone knows is Kosher anyways. So who would dream that the hashgacha is invalid and needs correcting. Thus, the problem doesn’t get corrected, and drags on and on and on r”l.
Indeed, would any of us dream of visiting McDonalds for a cheeseburger? R”L, of course not, it wouldn’t enter our minds! And those comparable acts that we are occasionally tempted to do, that are of equal severity, are – at least – things that we are embarrassed of. We know that the pork is pork, and in those situations when we (convince ourselves that) we can’t avoid it, we hide it, shamefacedly, in the darkest recesses of our closets.
But, say I have a conflict or disagreement with another Jew (not me of course, but you know what I mean . . .). Would I feel embarrassed to inform others of my opposition to him/them, and to publicize his/their negative traits? Not at all! I would view it as my sacred duty.
[After all, we are dealing with people who insulted me in some way. And since I am a chelek Eloka mimaal Mamosh (as the Alter Rebbe states in Tanya, in which I must firmly believe), it follows that anything done against me was really done against the Eibishter. So if I won’t lead a crusade against those who did something against me, why I’d be showing a lack of respect to the Eibishter ch”v!]
A chosid would not dream of sitting in a gathering with other Chassidim, in a holy place and a holy time, and speak foul language or vulgarity. But it would not be inconceivable, at the same gathering, to hear about all of the shortcomings of Yankel or Shmerel or Berel (whether in their belief or their behavior or their gezha – or lack thereof). After all, the opposition to those people is deserved and justified, this is not sinas chinam!
If I would see a religious Jew about to be mechalel Shabbos, I would hope that I would instinctively do anything in my power to prevent this act. If you would know of a fellow Jew engaged in questionable practices; - surely you would not rest until you find a way to influence him to stop.
But when someone we know is involved in a machlokes, we may either encourage one side or the other in the righteousness of their path (and spend every spare moment trying to learn anything new on either side – like the people jumping onto bleachers to watch a scuffle that broke out). Or, at the very best, we’ll politely keep our distance, like well-dressed people standing back from a mud-bath.
But, it doesn’t seem that we would feel the same sense of urgency to prevent evil as with other treifene acts.
Indeed, when a hechsher is on something that is not universally recognized as pork, there is a greatly increased danger of it remaining on the shelf (with all of the tragedies that can result from that).
In the wise city of Chelm
Chaim was once searching desperately under a street lamp. His friend Moshe passed by, and asked him what he was seeking. “I lost my expensive gold watch”, Chaim explained, “and I must find it”.
Well, Moshe was good-natured, and immediately joined his friend in his quest. But, an hour passed, with no progress being made. Finally, Moshe questioned Chaim: “Are you sure that this is where you lost it?”
“Not at all”, Chaim clarified, “as a matter of fact, I know with certainty that it was lost 2 blocks away. Not being familiar with the logic of Chelm, Moshe was incredulous. “If you didn’t lose it here, then why are you searching here?”
“Simple”, said Chaim, surprised at his friends denseness, “the street where I lost it is dark, while here there’s a light!”
We are in the time of the year when we especially mourn the churban Beis Hamikdash, and yearn for its rebuilding. There are many things that will help is speeding this great event. But we have to ask ourselves: are we perhaps searching where it’s light, just because it’s what’s easier, without taking into consideration where it was lost?
Because if Chazal tell us that the churban happened as a result of sinas chinam, then that is where the loss took place, and the place and manner to search for it is – first and foremost - with ahavas chinam. It’s not light, and it’s not easy, as a matter of fact, it can be extremely difficult. But only when we get - even that - off our shelves, will there finally be room for the new and long-awaited merchandise, with the hashgacha of Moshiach Tzidkeinu!
[Actually, at that point the pork will get back on the shelves as well – since עתידה חזיר ליטהר - with a genuine hashgacha this time]!
L’chaim! May we take a step towards ahavas chinam, at least with the first step of identifying the treif as just that, and may the Eibishter in turn practice ahavas Yisroel, and show to the whole world his great and infinite love to us, by bringing us immediately the Geulah hoAmitis veHashleimah through Moshiach Tzidkeinu TUMYM!!!
Rabbi Akiva Wagner
לזכות 'ר שלום מרדכי הלוי בן ,רבקה לגאולה וישועה קרובה ,ושלימה י"תומ ממש ג"בטוהנוהנ !
