Guest Posting By Chabakuk Elisha - Non-Kosher Animals In Chabad Homes

It is well known that the Lubavitcher Rebbe said that children should not be given toy versions of non-kosher animals in order to imbue them with a certain sensitivity. I was asked why this directive seems to be observed in countless different ways within in Chabad today: Some adhere to it strictly, some argue that there was a grandfather clause and they came before this directive so they don't abide by it, and others will let their children play with a horse or bear, but not a pig, and I’m sure there are others as well.
And although I don’t really know the answer, and I could be completely wrong here, all I can do is tell you how I understand it. I think that the fundamental problem is that it’s a little too ambiguous, and it’s really hard to avoid over-applying or under-applying the directive.
Let’s start with the fact that the Rebbe endorsed education about animals and nature (The Chabad publication “Talks and Tales” had the “Natures Wonderland” segment with non-kosher animals in countless issues). The Rebbe was well also aware of the fact that Chazal speak of non-kosher animals, and Chabad even has a virtual-zoo website that includes non-kosher animals. Furthermore, when the Rebbe was asked about cutting out pictures from textbooks, he rejected the idea. Also, the Rebbe approved of customary useage of things of a religious nature, such lions on a paroches or the like. It is pretty clear that a Zoo, a book on animals, as well as a paroches or even a mural in a shul were all fine, and not what he was addressing.
So, then, what WAS he addressing?
A little history first. The matter arose back when Olomeinu ran a comic strip called “Mendel the Mouse” – something that the Rebbe found troubling – and the Rebbe felt that the very fact that they chose a mouse displayed a lack of sensitivity. It would seem that the Rebbe’s primary objection was to the influence of Disney characters and the like, their encroachment into frum homes, and the general humanization of animal characters for children using non-kosher animals.
The Rebbe wanted, as he did in many instances, to promote sensitivities towards pure and impure. Through the prevalence of monkeys, bears, mice and similarly non-kosher animals in the life of a child, and his/her close and personal association with them, this all desensitizes him/her, and humanizes animals that Chazal describes as having negative middos. This is what troubled the Rebbe, and that’s what he was addressing.
So, a Lubavitcher who has books or dolls like Curious George, The Bernstein Bears, Disney characters (mice, dogs, cats) or stuffed animals like teddy bears, is simply doing so out of weakness. And honestly, we all have our weakness, and as weaknesses go, believe me when I say that this one is better than many. But, on the other hand, and it might seem radical, but I think that some other people take this too literally - the reason being that taken to its (il)logical conclusion, one might conclude that since a bear is non-kosher, it is the impure, therefore evil, therefore forbidden, therefore not viewable, therefore should be eradicated from any book, zoo, or any other place that I may be exposed to. And this is a classic example of misunderstanding and ignoring common sense. That is certainly not what the Rebbe had in mind. Seriously, while I could be mistaken, I understand it to mean that any exposure to non-kosher animals that is useful and not gratuitous should be fine.
And although I don’t really know the answer, and I could be completely wrong here, all I can do is tell you how I understand it. I think that the fundamental problem is that it’s a little too ambiguous, and it’s really hard to avoid over-applying or under-applying the directive.
Let’s start with the fact that the Rebbe endorsed education about animals and nature (The Chabad publication “Talks and Tales” had the “Natures Wonderland” segment with non-kosher animals in countless issues). The Rebbe was well also aware of the fact that Chazal speak of non-kosher animals, and Chabad even has a virtual-zoo website that includes non-kosher animals. Furthermore, when the Rebbe was asked about cutting out pictures from textbooks, he rejected the idea. Also, the Rebbe approved of customary useage of things of a religious nature, such lions on a paroches or the like. It is pretty clear that a Zoo, a book on animals, as well as a paroches or even a mural in a shul were all fine, and not what he was addressing.
So, then, what WAS he addressing?
A little history first. The matter arose back when Olomeinu ran a comic strip called “Mendel the Mouse” – something that the Rebbe found troubling – and the Rebbe felt that the very fact that they chose a mouse displayed a lack of sensitivity. It would seem that the Rebbe’s primary objection was to the influence of Disney characters and the like, their encroachment into frum homes, and the general humanization of animal characters for children using non-kosher animals.
The Rebbe wanted, as he did in many instances, to promote sensitivities towards pure and impure. Through the prevalence of monkeys, bears, mice and similarly non-kosher animals in the life of a child, and his/her close and personal association with them, this all desensitizes him/her, and humanizes animals that Chazal describes as having negative middos. This is what troubled the Rebbe, and that’s what he was addressing.
So, a Lubavitcher who has books or dolls like Curious George, The Bernstein Bears, Disney characters (mice, dogs, cats) or stuffed animals like teddy bears, is simply doing so out of weakness. And honestly, we all have our weakness, and as weaknesses go, believe me when I say that this one is better than many. But, on the other hand, and it might seem radical, but I think that some other people take this too literally - the reason being that taken to its (il)logical conclusion, one might conclude that since a bear is non-kosher, it is the impure, therefore evil, therefore forbidden, therefore not viewable, therefore should be eradicated from any book, zoo, or any other place that I may be exposed to. And this is a classic example of misunderstanding and ignoring common sense. That is certainly not what the Rebbe had in mind. Seriously, while I could be mistaken, I understand it to mean that any exposure to non-kosher animals that is useful and not gratuitous should be fine.








5 Comments:
Anyone who bothers to learn the sicha inside seriously will see that there is no ambiguity. The ambiguity stems from the fact that the person heard about it 3rd- or 4th-hand. Which is not ambiguity at all, just laziness.
Rabbi Oliver,
By ambiguity I mean that, as specifically stated in the sichos, that there are proper and improper uses of non-kosher animals. This, by definition, creates ambiguity.
CE -- I agree with you, and also admire your repeated remark "I could be wrong, but..." This shows that you have a conscience and yiras rabbo, not wanting to fahrkrum your Rebbe's words. That's the way a chassid should be!
BS"D
I came across this post purely by Hashgacha Pratit...
What is the sicha where the Rebbe speaks about toy animals? I would love to read it for myself.
I must say that it still seems to be not so clear...
Thanks.
See here.
Post a Comment
<< Home