Leather jacket - made from pig skin - forbidden?

Za'atar · #1 30th October 2012, 05:14 AM

Shalom

I saw some nice leather jackets on sale, but on the description it had 'constructed in pigskin'. In reference to Leviticus 11:7 -

And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Would that fall under being forbidden? Under the 'touch their carcasses'?

Avodat · #2 30th October 2012, 06:16 AM

Ugh, I really wouldn't want to wear anything made from pig! Really makes me shiver, that!

I would have thought it comes under that exclusion because it is, basically, made from the carcass of a pig, even though it has been cleansed and processed.

visionary · #3 30th October 2012, 06:58 AM

I would rather not take the chance, that for some unknown reason to man, God knows the depth of which we should abide by His Word.

Steve Petersen · #4 30th October 2012, 11:12 AM

Leather Bible covers are often made from pig skin.

Then of course, the football.

netzarim · #5 30th October 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Petersen

Leather Bible covers are often made from pig skin.

What irony, eh?

Most Bibles labelled only "genuine leather" are pigskin.

Gxg (G²) · #6 30th October 2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Za'atar

Shalom

I saw some nice leather jackets on sale, but on the description it had 'constructed in pigskin'. In reference to Leviticus 11:7 -

And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Would that fall under being forbidden? Under the 'touch their carcasses'?

If I may say,

I tend to not think that all things pig-related were ever cursed or condemned in the Torah---and it's amazing considering how researchers have even used pigs to create organs for others and have used pigs for testing a new design of colonoscope as part of the battle to improve screening for colorectal cancer which is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the Western world. For those Jewish men who are pig farmers and helping to save lives around the world, I say thank the Lord for what they do

Wearing a coat made from pig would be within the same category as showering/having soap because soap could conceivably be made from pork fat or porcine glycerine....and glycerine from pigs would be chemically identical to glycerine from any other animal. Fats from pigs would be chemically identical to the same fats from other animals, but the fatty acids would exist in proportions unique to pigs. That is, once the triacylglycerols themselves were extracted from the cell material, raw fat from an animal would still contain cells from that animal....and seeing the main ways in which gelatin is used from soaps to many diverse ways in the medical world, I do wonder on how far others may be willing to go with avoiding all products made from that which they believe is "unclean"....especially if stuck in the emergency room for whatever reason/not really having a say on what kind of soaps or materials are used to save one's life. Again, its rather amazing to see how many aspects of pigs are in products beyond what's mentioned. ..from paint to heart valves and many other things. For more information, one can go online/look up the site of Christien Meindertsma, and her Pig 05049 project--as seen under the title of "PIG 05049: Christien Meindertsma" ( )

And on her talk on the subject, one can go here/look up under the following title:

"Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Christien Meindertsma: How pig parts make the world turn | Video on TED.com" ( )

COnsuming something from a pig being detrimental isn't the same as saying all contact with pig parts is harmful/an "unclean" matter. It says in the Torah that one should not touch the carcasses of swine....specifically, the prohibition against "touching" a pig – or any non-kosher animal for that matter – from Leviticus 11:8, where it states: "You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Understanding this verse in its most literal sense leads one to the conclusion that it is forbidden to touch any part of a non-kosher animal's carcass. ..but that would be something that creates a lot of issues. Does this mean that we should not wear Hush Puppy shoes (made of pigskin) or play football or rugby with a ball made of pig skin?

And the same with using leather Bibles, as they're often made from pig skin.

To understand Leviticus 11:8 as being ultimately literal/understood as touching them in any sense would be problematic since that'd mean that it would have been unlawful for a Jew to have rode upon a camel, or to take out and make use of hog's lard in medicine. It seems the context was of touching them in order to kill them, and prepare them for food, and eat them.. and indeed all unnecessary touching of them is forbidden, lest it should bring them to the eating of them. Of course, the text may chiefly respect the touching of them dead for its own sake...as that can lead to diseases and a lot of other issues.

Animal hide does not carry impurities, especially when it is tanned. Even the apostle Peter did not seem to have an issue with it...as he lived with a tanner for sometime.

Acts 9:43
Peter stayed in Joppa for some time with a tanner named Simon.
Acts 9:42-43 / Acts 9
Acts 10:32
Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’
Acts 10:31-33 / Acts 10

A tanner was involved in treating the skins of dead animals, thus contacting the unclean according to Jewish law---and an individual involved in such a trade was despised by many. In Acts 10:9-16, the passage addresses but whether Peter was going to recognize God’s cleansing actions in the life of Cornelius---the one who aided in beginning the Gentile Pentecost. Peter was being shown that being cleansed by God made one clean. The unclean beasts were being used because eating them would have naturally repulsed Peter—just as Americans are today when they see what passes for food in some cultures. In the same way Peter would have been repulsed at the idea of going into Cornelius’ house and preaching the gospel to them. We see the Jewish mindset in this regard when we hear what those of the circumcision said in Acts 11:18: ‘So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.’

I find it interesting that Peter was staying and eating in the house of a Jewish believer whose livelihood would have made him unclean, but would have still held up his nose at entering the house of a Gentile. Simon was a tanner, which would have made him unclean, because the tanners had constant contact with animal carcasses (Ben Witherington III, New Testament History, (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001), p. 208). The stench from the process would have been unbearable. It was bad enough that tanners had to place their homes outside of the city (notice the passage tells us his house was by the sea). So Peter, who was staying in a stinking hovel would have turned his nose up at entering the house of a gentile. Peter could understand that God could cleanse a Jew doing an unclean occupation, but could not understand God cleansing an unconverted Gentile. This is why God had to command him to eat things that would have disgusted him—to get through this ethnic barrier. For it does seem that Peter had some serious issues as it concerns prejudice and racism (more shared here).

__________________

yedida · #7 31st October 2012, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Steve Petersen

Leather Bible covers are often made from pig skin.

Then of course, the football.

I was just thinking the same thing, about the bible covers, that is.

yedida · #8 31st October 2012, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by netzarim

What irony, eh?

Most Bibles labelled only "genuine leather" are pigskin.

As well as many "bonded leather," & the bonded can be a mixture of pig and cow, too.

yedida · #9 31st October 2012, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Easy G (G²)

If I may say,

I tend to not think that all things pig-related were ever cursed or condemned in the Torah---and it's amazing considering how researchers have even used pigs to create organs for others and have used pigs for testing a new design of colonoscope as part of the battle to improve screening for colorectal cancer which is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the Western world. For those Jewish men who are pig farmers and helping to save lives around the world, I say thank the Lord for what they do

Can a Pig Heart be Kosher? | Science | Religion Dispatches

BBC News - Israeli pig-farming kibbutz draws religious ire

Pig-farming kibbutz in Israel is a religious target « Eideard

On Israel's Only Jewish-Run Pig Farm, It's The Swine That Bring ...

Traditional veterinary medicine in the Near East: Jews, Arab - OIE

Boisbriand, QC, Canada - Jewish Community Upset about Pig Lab ...

The Good Good Pig: The Extraordinary Life of Christopher Hogwood - Page 67

Wearing a coat made from pig would be within the same category as showering/having soap because soap could conceivably be made from pork fat or porcine glycerine....and glycerine from pigs would be chemically identical to glycerine from any other animal. Fats from pigs would be chemically identical to the same fats from other animals, but the fatty acids would exist in proportions unique to pigs. That is, once the triacylglycerols themselves were extracted from the cell material, raw fat from an animal would still contain cells from that animal....and seeing the main ways in which gelatin is used from soaps to many diverse ways in the medical world, I do wonder on how far others may be willing to go with avoiding all products made from that which they believe is "unclean"....especially if stuck in the emergency room for whatever reason/not really having a say on what kind of soaps or materials are used to save one's life. Again, its rather amazing to see how many aspects of pigs are in products beyond what's mentioned. ..from paint to heart valves and many other things. For more information, one can go online/look up the site of Christien Meindertsma, and her Pig 05049 project--as seen under the title of "PIG 05049: Christien Meindertsma" ( )

And on her talk on the subject, one can go here/look up under the following title:
"Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Christien Meindertsma: How pig parts make the world turn | Video on TED.com" ( )

COnsuming something from a pig being detrimental isn't the same as saying all contact with pig parts is harmful/an "unclean" matter. It says in the Torah that one should not touch the carcasses of swine....specifically, the prohibition against "touching" a pig – or any non-kosher animal for that matter – from Leviticus 11:8, where it states: "You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Understanding this verse in its most literal sense leads one to the conclusion that it is forbidden to touch any part of a non-kosher animal's carcass. ..but that would be something that creates a lot of issues. Does this mean that we should not wear Hush Puppy shoes (made of pigskin) or play football or rugby with a ball made of pig skin?

And the same with using leather Bibles, as they're often made from pig skin.

To understand Leviticus 11:8 as being ultimately literal/understood as touching them in any sense would be problematic since that'd mean that it would have been unlawful for a Jew to have rode upon a camel, or to take out and make use of hog's lard in medicine. It seems the context was of touching them in order to kill them, and prepare them for food, and eat them.. and indeed all unnecessary touching of them is forbidden, lest it should bring them to the eating of them. Of course, the text may chiefly respect the touching of them dead for its own sake...as that can lead to diseases and a lot of other issues.

Animal hide does not carry impurities, especially when it is tanned. Even the apostle Peter did not seem to have an issue with it...as he lived with a tanner for sometime.
Acts 9:43
Peter stayed in Joppa for some time with a tanner named Simon.
Acts 9:42-43 / Acts 9
Acts 10:32
Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’
Acts 10:31-33 / Acts 10

A tanner was involved in treating the skins of dead animals, thus contacting the unclean according to Jewish law---and an individual involved in such a trade was despised by many. In Acts 10:9-16, the passage addresses but whether Peter was going to recognize God’s cleansing actions in the life of Cornelius---the one who aided in beginning the Gentile Pentecost. Peter was being shown that being cleansed by God made one clean. The unclean beasts were being used because eating them would have naturally repulsed Peter—just as Americans are today when they see what passes for food in some cultures. In the same way Peter would have been repulsed at the idea of going into Cornelius’ house and preaching the gospel to them. We see the Jewish mindset in this regard when we hear what those of the circumcision said in Acts 11:18: ‘So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.’

I find it interesting that Peter was staying and eating in the house of a Jewish believer whose livelihood would have made him unclean, but would have still held up his nose at entering the house of a Gentile. Simon was a tanner, which would have made him unclean, because the tanners had constant contact with animal carcasses (Ben Witherington III, New Testament History, (Baker: Grand Rapids, 2001), p. 208). The stench from the process would have been unbearable. It was bad enough that tanners had to place their homes outside of the city (notice the passage tells us his house was by the sea). So Peter, who was staying in a stinking hovel would have turned his nose up at entering the house of a gentile. Peter could understand that God could cleanse a Jew doing an unclean occupation, but could not understand God cleansing an unconverted Gentile. This is why God had to command him to eat things that would have disgusted him—to get through this ethnic barrier. For it does seem that Peter had some serious issues as it concerns prejudice and racism (more shared here).
__________________

As I've stated before, medicinally, I don't care, because life always trumps anything else. But where I can make a choice in clothing or soaps or shampoos that can be made from something else, I'll choose the something else.

Qnts2 · #10 31st October 2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Za'atar

Shalom

I saw some nice leather jackets on sale, but on the description it had 'constructed in pigskin'. In reference to Leviticus 11:7 -

And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Would that fall under being forbidden? Under the 'touch their carcasses'?

A carcass is a dead body and touching any dead body renders the person unclean until sunset.

Tanned leather is not a dead body. So tanned pigskin would not make a person unclean.

Just as an example, a donkey is not Kosher for food. Yet Jesus and others kept and rode donkeys. We can ride donkeys, but we can't eat a donkey. However, if the donkey dies, touching the carcass causes a person to be unclean til sunset. Skinning the carcass and tanning the skin to make a donkey skin rug, would make the person unclean because they touched and handled the dead body of the donkey, but using a donkey skin rug is ok. The rug is not a dead body and a rug is not used for food.

Added: there is a consistent theme in the Mosaic law concerning dead bodies. Something dead/dead fleshly body, is unclean and renders the person coming into contact unclean. Entering a grave yard and coming into contact with a grave makes a person unclean.
This is one of those strange themes in the law. The law of Moses points to the Messiah, so this theme likely points to the Messiah.
We are dead in our sins. In otherwords, we are dead flesh, which is unclean.

I couple this with another interesting command. The first born of a Kosher animal belongs to the Lord and is taken to the Temple for sacrifice. The first born of an unkosher animal is not suitable for sacrifice and must be redeemed/purchased back for a price or killed. Included in that list is a first born child, who needs to be redeemed. A baby falls into the same category as the donkey, unclean and in need of redemption.