Q&A: Bacon and a Human Being
Bacon and a Human Being
Question
Hi Rabbi Michi,
A famous question that students in first-year class ask (and I did too) is: if I’m on a deserted island and I have a pig and a human corpse, which one am I supposed to eat? I once heard an answer that initially doesn’t satisfy me: that “basic decency precedes the Torah,” because there are commandments in the Torah that I don’t morally identify with, but still have to observe. And even if so, if this happens on the Sabbath, would “basic decency” override there too? I thought maybe a human being is also non-kosher, or perhaps because of “love your fellow as yourself,” and then there is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so maybe the positive commandment overrides. In any case, what do you think about the issue?
Answer
Rabbi Amital once said that in his opinion one should prefer the pig, because human flesh is set aside due to repulsiveness. I never understood why. It is simply disgusting and revolting, but I do not see this as a real problem, and certainly not as something that overrides a prohibition like pork. My assumption is that there is no obligation of burial here (for example, with the flesh of a non-Jew), otherwise that too would be a prohibition. And one could discuss whether using it for eating is like using it for a transplant, where once it becomes part of my body again it is no longer subject to burial. There are many distinctions to be made, and this is not the place.
Indeed, according to Maimonides there is a positive commandment involved here, but as a matter of logic a prohibition is more severe than a positive commandment obligation (despite the rule that fulfillment of a positive commandment overrides a prohibition). In any case, this is a standard halakhic question, and I do not accept Rabbi Amital’s thesis.
Discussion on Answer
https://www.etzion.org.il/he/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D
Regarding what you wrote here: “but as a matter of logic a prohibition is more severe than a positive commandment obligation (despite the rule that fulfillment of a positive commandment overrides a prohibition).”
What is the reasoning for that? Seemingly it directly contradicts the rule that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition.
No.
I explained this rule in the past. Here we are comparing two possibilities: fulfilling a positive commandment while violating a prohibition, versus avoiding the prohibition while neglecting the positive commandment. Each of them is a subtraction between the two values, and the first comes out with a better value. But when we are dealing with a prohibition of a positive commandment, then there is no value in fulfilling the positive commandment, and the first difference comes out negative.
What positive commandment prohibition is there here? (According to Maimonides.)