Arts & Culture
The Least Kosher Thing Ever
By Amy Schiller / January 28, 2009
We’ve all made those jokes, spinning out the thread of ever-increasing absurdity, layering hypothetical violation on top of hypothetical violation, all to determine: What is the least kosher meal you could possibly eat?
Are we talkin’ shrimp wrapped in prosciutto and dipped in butter sauce? (I’m sure Paula Deen is, if no one else. Scratch that, Paula will just take the butter sauce). Perhaps a pork-and-cheese sandwich with chopped lobster on top. Maybe just eat a whole freakin’ pig with some creme fraiche. At a certain level, it’s hard to refine the criteria.
Until now.
Ladies and gentlemen, the universe has spoken, through two guys named Jason Day and Aaron Chronister, professional barbecue experts from Roeland Park, KS. They have created (drumroll please): The Bacon Explosion.
This contraption involves stuffing meat into meat, basically the treyfiest turducken you can imagine. Lattice-work bacon, layered (lard-erd?) with sausage, topped with already-cooked bacon, rolled and then smoked for about one hour per inch of thickness (that’s what s/he said.)
Followed by porkgasmic gorging, presumably followed by arterial failure of some kind.
The New York Times piece on these guys and their creation even quotes a Jewish guy (’cause hey, it wouldn’t be a Times story if they didn’t. Gotta make it relevant to their readership) saying "It wasn’t planned as a send-off for me to Israel, but with all of the pork involved it sure seemed like it."
There, there, Jew. Surely the Holy Land will be rewarding in ways more fulfilling than anti-heckshered gluttony. Or, um, not. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I have to go throw out all my fake bacon and contemplate what the hell is wrong with me that I won’t eat this beautiful manifestation of God’s creation, both of pigs and human ingeniousness.
POST A COMMENT
This is really problematic, especially if you know ahead of time that your friend plans to buy the Reuben. One is not permitted to give milk and meat to a dog, let alone serve it to a person. Now, true, the waiter serves the food, but I think that this is really problematic. Look at all the figuring required just to get around this dilemma. Best to just avoid the situation altogether. Perhaps what you suggest might be technically permissible, but why try and get away with it. I think that the prohibition in the Torah, which is repeated over and over (four times?), is meant to show how vicerally God rejects the idea of consuming milk and meat. From what we know of the prohibitions surrounding deriving benefit from and serving said combination, it clearly is not in the spirit of the law to buy such a sandwich for the friend. If I can’t give my parent’s dog a treat containing milk and meat because God finds it so repugnant, than why would I give it to my friend whom I care for and/or love? Are they any less than the dog, that I should feel that it’s okay to give this to them? I should hope not.
One common explanation for why the milk and meat combination is so wrong is that it combines the flesh of an animal with what it mother provides to sustain it’s life.
What’s Chthulu? And scallops being more appealing because of their appearance? I don’t think so. As a matter of fact, I would say that the number one thing I’ve heard a wide swath of Kashruth observant Jews express interest in tasting is lobster. I think the sheer high priced "high class" appeal of lobster tails in fancy restaurants that garner rave reviews from non-Jews (let’s hope!) has a huge impact on the Jewish curiosity tendencies of today. A rabbi I know has a chuckle inducing reputation for constantly using lobster as his treyf reference. But Chthulu? Huh?
"In other words, the Torah didn’t need to prohibit human flesh, because humans naturally are revolted by it, and a prohibition would be superfluous." [mikewinddale's summary of Rs Glasner and Kook]Â
Human behavior frequently defies broad generalizations. To argue that humans are naturally revolted by cannibalism is like many arguments against homosexuality or same-sex marriage, e.g., "traditional" marriage is between one man and one woman. [Please note that this isn't a straw man argument, many opponents of same sex marriage —albeit, not the greatest thinkers of their camp— use the specification "one man, one woman."] Obviously, positing "one man, one woman marriage" falls apart when one considers other traditions, including Judaism.
Getting back to the subject, within Jewish tradition, cannibalism is not considered to be a kosher method to dispose of a corpse. While a human body [the other white meat] is not explicitly treyf, consumption would be prohibited be laws regarding the dead [????-???]. Nevertheless, in other human societies, cannibalism was an appropriate means of corpse disposal.
Indeed. Rabbi Alan Brill’s critique of Rabbi Yehuda Amital notes cryptically that Rabbi Amital (who relies on Rabbi Glasner) avoided the Kalam questions.
In other words: the Kalam/Mutakallimun, who were troubled why the Torah had to deal with "obvious" matters of morals, Rabbi Amital (following Rabbi Glasner) neglected this.
Rabbi Brill further notes that sociology today would say, as you do, that morals are in the eye of the beholder.
That is why I wish to rely on my own case-law/statutory-law theory. It allows us to say that the Torah dealt with those topics familiar to its audience, implying (as Maimonides held) that had the Torah been given to another nation, it’d have dealt with different topics. Therefore, we can say, based on the Torah’s broad ethos, that certain actions would be frowned upon by the Torah, even without an explicit prohibition, without running afowl of what you and Brill point out.
Actually, there is no Torah prohibition of cannibalism!
Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner (early 20th century Orthodox Hungarian rabbi), regarding this, notes that there IS a prohibition of pork, and NOT one of human flesh; nevertheless, he says, someone starving should choose prohibited pork over permitted human flesh:
 ?? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????, ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? . . . ???? ???? ??, ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???, ???? ??? ????, ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??"? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????!
My own unexpert (and extremely literal) translation:
"Everything that is accepted in the eyes of mankind, [specifically those of mankind who are] awakened to moral abominations, even those [prohibitions which are] not explicit in the Torah as prohibited – whoever transgresses it [viz. the matter NOT prohibited in the Torah] is worse than he who violates a[n explict] decree of the Torah. Take, for instance, a sick individual in mortal danger to his life, before him unkosher meat and human flesh; which meat shall he consume? We may suppose that he may eat human flesh since there is no prohibition of of doing so, (even though from the laws of ethical propriety accepted by mankind, anyone who eats or feeds another human flesh is dismissed from inclusion in mankind!); and [rather, we will] *not* [say for him] to eat the [unkosher] flesh [eg. pork] which the Torah has prohibited. [But if we follow such a course, w]ill one believe that we are the Chosen People, the Wise and Understanding Nation, and yet transgress the law of propriety such as this, to escape from the Torah prohibition [of unkosher meat]?!"
Likewise, Rabbi Glasner’s contemporary, Rav Kook, on this same topic, says, ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???
My own unexpert translation: "The Torah did not need to make an explicit prohibition [of human flesh], because a man does not need a warning to stay from that [viz. a "fear" of that prohibition] which is naturally possessed by him by dint of natural inclination [even without a command of G-d]."
In other words, the Torah didn’t need to prohibit human flesh, because humans naturally are revolted by it, and a prohibition would be superfluous.
—
The problem with the explanations of Rabbis Glasner and Kook, however, is that it opens up a philosophical can of worms. The Medieval rabbis already struggled to explain why the Torah prohibited murder, which is also obvious. Rabbis Glasner and Kook would only deepen this problem; according to them, the Torah DID need to prohibit murder, but it did NOT need to prohibit cannibalism – pray tell, why??!!
I’d then explain in a different manner: The Torah teaches by case law, not statutory law. That is, the Torah teaches via paradigmatic examples, and not by giving general principles. For example, the Torah teaches the dignity of the human body, by teaching what is to be done with executed criminals. Similarly, the Torah teaches employment laws via the laws of slavery. Therefore, I’d say, the Torah didn’t mention cannibalism, simply because it wasn’t a concern in the Middle East. On the other hand, murder and theft were hardly unheard of, so the Torah had to mention these. But even though the Torah never mentions cannibalism (because it was relatively unheardof crime in that time and place), we shouldn’t presume it is therefore automatically permitted. As Rabbis Glasner and Kook say, cannibalism is prohibited even if G-d never said so.
I dunno… cannibalism strikes me as really treyf.
I think eating a Chinese stir-fry in a Far Eastern country would top the most non-Kosher list:
unwashed, wormy and pest ridden vegetables with pork chunks and a bit of prawn and labrador mixed in. Just add a bit of sweet and sour sauce and down it goes. Â
Beats the Reuben anytime.
Another way to make food more treif: dismember the animal while alive, and then eat it. This is called "ever min ha-hai", lit. "organ/body-part from a living [creature/organism]".
However, this prohibition is violated only if you also consume the animal; if you dismember it (while it is alive), and then make dog food out of it, you haven’t violated this prohibition. Halakhah has a lot of technicalities.
But have no fear, a second prohibition is here: based on Bilaam’s whipping his donkey, and being reprimanded by the angel, the Talmud derives another prohibition: tza’ar ba’alei hayim, meaning **unnecessary** suffering caused to animals. (I emphasize the word "unnecessary". An example will illustrate how crucial this is: according to Rabbi Gil Student (http://www.hirhurim.blogspot.com), pate de foie gras could be justified in Medieval times, because Jewish children had no other source for many vital nutrients. But today, he says, children don’t need foie gras anymore, and so the suffering causes to the ducks is no longer necessary, and it is now tza’ar ba’alei hayim, he says, to make foie gras. Thus, we see that this prohibition forbids only unnecessary pain caused; however, any pain caused to animals, which is necessary for human welfare, this pain caused is permitted.
So if you dismember the animal AND eat it, you have violated ever min ha-hai. Oh, you’ve also violated tza’ar ba’alei hayim. See what I meant about the Rabbis cleverly making you redundantly double-guilty?
If you cause any plain unnecessary pain, including dismemberment without consumption, you have violated only tza’ar ba’alei hayim. (Agriprocessors/Rubashkin’s, anyone?)
Now, for the grand finale: why, of all things, does the Torah have a special prohibition against ever min ha-hai? Answer: back before refrigeration, you wanted to eat one part of the animal, while keeping the remainder fresh. You can figure out the rest…
Oh, and be careful of those oyster somethings they get off cattle; those are definitely ever min ha-hai.
Indeed, pork is not "meat". That is, the Torah never would have prohibited its consumption with milk (since it is prohibited anyway; on the other hand, the Rabbis do often find ingenious ways of making you redundantly guilty of more than one sin even when you only performed one action, but let’s ignore all facts that are troublesome to my thesis), and the Rabbis didn’t need to extend the prohibition of meat and milk to pork (as they did with poultry), since there’s very little fear of confusing pork with "meat" when everyone is presumed to be keeping kosher (i.e., there is no one raising and slaughtering pigs in the first place).
On the other hand, I’m not sure an Orthodox Jew would find any difficulty in paying for his friend’s reuben. (I guess a reuben has meat and milk together? Mia, with my culinary knowledge, my having written a column for Jew and The Carrot means Mashiah has come, and I’ll write a second column when pigs fly.) Now, halakhah says one may not even benefit from meat and milk (so you cannot feed your pet meat and milk; this gives you a benefit, viz. your pet’s being fed), but what prohibited benefit is there in paying for your friend’s sandwich? Perhaps one will answer that one gains the increase in strength of friendship, but one could argue that this increase in friendship came not from the sandwich per se, but rather, from the act of paying. That is, whether your friend chooses a $10 reuben or a $10 glass of water, your paying $10 for him nets the same benefit for you (viz. increased friendship). Moreover, one could easily avoid the entire issue altogether, by stipulating from the outset (i.e. before your friend has chosen the reuben) that you’re paying for whatever he orders (perhaps up to X dollar amount). That way, you have ensured that you’re not paying for the reuben per se, but merely, you’re adhering to a contract that you’d pay for whatever he orders. (To illustrate what this is halachically: Imagine your friend asks you for some money, and you hand him $10. He comes back twenty minutes later, and tells you what a great reuben he just had. Did you sin? Of course not; you merely handed him $10, and he did with it whatever he did. Similarly, then, your promise to pay for whatever he orders (before he has told you what he’s ordering) absolves you from guilt for the fact that he happened to choose a meat-and-milk sandwich.) But even without all this rigamaroll, I’m pretty sure that even if your friend tells you he wants a reuben, you can still give him the money, since your benefit (viz. stronger friendship) accrues not from the reuben per se, but rather, from the simple act of paying.
Now, I’m not a rabbi, so perhaps I’m wrong. Please consult your local rabbi before buying a reuben, I guess. Assuming a reuben actually has milk and meat; for all I know, a reuben is a sandwich which sings on American Idol.
I’m gonna have to vote for a kid boiled in it’s mother’s milk.
I think I read that somewhere.
Duh, you’re supposed to take thin slices of this "Bacon and Sausage Explosion."
Which suggests to me a variation on that old Catskills joke that Woody Allen tells in Annie Hall:
Two old Jewish women are treated to a Mediterranean cruise by their respective children. When they get back and the photographs have been developed, they’re hanging out with a bunch of their friends and of course everyone wants to know how the cruise ship was.Â
"The cabins were very comfortable and the entertainment was just fabulous. In fact, everything about the ship was lovely EXCEPT for the food," said Doris.Â
"Oy, don’t get me started," chimed in Blanche. "For one thing, every item on the menu was trayf upon trayf wrapped in trayf with melted trayf poured over and trayf on the side. We’re talking lobster tails stuffed with clams and oysters stuffed with shrimp, scallops with bacon, roast lamb kebabs drenched in yogurt-mint sauce, BBQ pork ribs…"
"That’s right, and such small portions," added Doris.
?????
Kosher or not, it’s got 5000 calories and 500 grams of fat. Blech.
The meal starts with a bowl of New England Clam Chowder, which has a pork base with clams and milk.  The appeizer is oysters on the half shell, since eating anything while it’s still alive is considered far worse than eating pork, or milk with meat. I don’t really remember the rest of the meal, though.
Someone told me that eating pork with dairy is only one violation (the eating the pig
part, but since pig isn’t "meat" per se you are not eating meat and
dairy)
I’ve been told the same thing by an Orthodox Jewish friend from elsewhere on the Web — thus, an observant Jew would be allowed to treat me, his goy buddy, to a Monte Cristo sammich made with ham and cheese, but I’d have to pay for my own lunch if I chose a Reuben instead, even though both sandwiches seemingly combine meat and dairy. However, the ham in the Monte Cristo doesn’t count as fleischig, while the corned beef or pastrami in the Reuben does. (On the other hand, if the Monte Cristo also includes turkey breast, then I’m back to buying my own lunch.)
?????
…and who don’t keep kosher kitchens, you should try cooking it sometime with baby octopus, which you can get frozen for like $2 a pound at Asian markets. They taste remarkably similar to clams, but with the added fun of tentacles. The kids will scream for seconds!
?????
…since even the more basic versions will quite typically involve at least one sort of crustacean and one sort of mollusc, in addition to chorizo, which is a pork sausage. And you can easily oomph up the trayf by throwing in some beef sausage in addition to the chorizo, and then using butter instead of (or in combination with) olive oil when you’re sauteing the seafood, sausage, vegetables, etc.
Bacon-wrapped scallops also come to mind as being both double-trayf and perhaps more enticing to Jews than any other sort of trayf seafood because of their tidy, circular appearance. As opposed to oysters, which look like snot; or crabs, which look like bugs; or squid, which look like Chthulu.
But scallops look like something the Japanese make by machine.
?????
that eating pork with dairy is only one violation (the eating the pig part, but since pig isn’t "meat" per se you are not eating meat and dairy). So I guess you could roll that dish in butter sauce, spread on the melted cheese and wash it all down with a milkshake!Â
Also check me out on the Jew and the Carrot
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!