A dilemma? For Jews?
.png)
In Judaism, the pig prohibition applies only to eating its meat. Full stop. There has never been a serious halachic debate about using pig-derived medical materials when life is at stake. So what is the dilemma?
The article sharpens the supposed question:
Now biotech companies are raising genetically altered pigs to transplant their organs into patients whose own kidneys have failed. Experts in the field are only beginning to grapple with the question: Will Jews and Muslims accept a transplanted organ from a pig if it saves their lives?It has not always been entirely clear whether the religious prohibitions on pigs apply strictly to consumption, and neither of these religions has a supreme authority, like the pope, who would issue a decree applicable to all.
Really? It has not always been entirely clear in halacha?
The article itself goes on to show that this "dilemma" is not at all a dilemma for Jews.
For Jews, the short answer is a clear and unequivocal yes. It is one of the exceedingly rare instances in which the maxim “two Jews, three opinions” does not apply.“It’s 100 percent permitted,” even for the most observant and Orthodox Jews, said Rabbi Pamela Barmash, a professor of Hebrew Bible and biblical Hebrew at Washington University in St. Louis.Judaism teaches that in cases of life and death, the obligation to preserve life trumps all other religious commandments and obligations. And in the modern era, the prohibition against the pig applies only to eating it, according to Rabbi Moshe Hauer, the executive vice president of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America.“A Jew can do everything from having a heart valve that comes from a pig to playing professional football with a football made of pigskin,” Rabbi Hauer said in an interview.
One doesn't need a Jewish pope to issue such a legal decision.
Note the use of "in the modern era." This is not true - Judaism always recognized saving lives as a higher priority than kosher laws. Even consuming pig-based products would be allowed when there is no alternative.
The entire article is clickbait - manufacturing a controversy when none exists. This is how the Times works: create a "dilemma", flatten distinct religions into a single stereotype of primitive belief systems struggling to deal with modern topics, then walk it back in the body of the article.
But the clickbait headline - and the insinuation - sticks.
Now, when the New York Times shows such disregard for headline accuracy in a trivial article about Judaism, how can you trust the headlines when the topic is much more important - like how the IDF is fighting in Gaza?
If the Times cannot get something as basic as this right - a question with an unequivocal, one-word halachic answer - why would anyone trust their reporting when the subject is Israel’s war in Gaza?
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy