Jews, seeing that Noahide law does not require burial. In a survival situation, would you eat a dead gentile?

Question

before eating a pig? (Human meat is forbidden only on a biblical level because of desecration of a body - which only applies to a Jewish body. Otherwise it is d'rabbanan. Pig meat is forbidden scripturally.)

Please explain your logic, and give sources if you are knowledgeable enough. If not, just explain the train of logic.

It might be hard to out answer Teacher, he's been on a role.

uhhhh....first answerer. Okay, watch - According to Mosaic law gentile bodies do not need buried, so there is no Mosaic law against them desecrating their own dead bodies, or Jews desecrating them. That was the point. Now rethink and answer.

Answer 1

First of all, is human flesh (regardless of Jew or Gentile) is deoraita(biblical) or derabanan(rabinical) it is a machloket (argument). The full text is available and locations of opinions are avaliable at the mentioned source at bottom of document.


SUMMARY OF OPINIONS:
1. Ramban, Ra'avad, Rashba and Rosh:eating human flesh is permissible midoraita

2. Reah and Ritva: Forbidden because humans are not kosher animals (hence is deoraita)

3.Rambam agrees with opinion 2, but says it is not the negative prohibition being transgressed of eating non-kosher animal, but the positive commandment being transgressed to only eat kosher animals, effectively excluding the option.

4.Nemukei Yosef agrees with opinion 3, but says that because it forbidden to eat flesh from a live animal (Eiver min hachai) and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a human corpse, you will never find a situation where you can eat it.

5. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch do not discuss this issue and the Rema (YD 79:1) says that human flesh is biblically forbidden (not like the Ramban, Rosh, etc.) to eat (not like the Ramban, Rosh, etc.) but does not specify which biblical prohibition.


Now, as seen there are some opinions who hold it is derabanan eating human flesh, even a Jews.
It also seems your reason that eating human flesh is forbidden because desecration of a body is only according to one opinion.

SUMMARY:
Hence, clearly according to opinions 1+3 you can even a Jew's it appears, as 1 holds it is only midrabanan, and 3 holds it is only a positive commandment - which (to my knowledge) should always be transgressed before transgressing a negative commandment (namely eating pig)

According to 2, it is deoraita like a pig, so it wouldn't make a difference, as opinion 2 does not distinguish between Jew and Gentile - as are both not-kosher animals

According to opinion 4 it is as if you said, assuming desecration of a gentile is not deoraita.

According to opinion 5 no conclusion can be drawn.

Hence, it is only according to opinion 4 that clearly supports your hypothesis. The remainder of the opinions make no such distinction, and appears that either jew or gentile could be eaten first before eating pig.

Lastly: I am not a rabbi, so don't put this into practice without consulting one first :p

Answer 2

Actually, eating a human body is also not allowed d'oraisa. The desecration of a human body at death is issur d'oraisa- and applies to all bodies, not just Jewish ones. On top of that, the rabbinic prohibition is in order to underscore the sanctity of the human body and the issur to damage it.

So kashrut, which is seen as a relatively light issur compared to the descration of a body would be the first issur to break in this case- eat the pork, then the bodies ONLY IF it is essential to survival.

Answer 3

Jews are not held to Noahide law, they are held to Mosaic law. Gentiles are held to Noahide.

The necessity of keeping the mosiac law for a Jew superceeds who follows which laws.

--------------------------

Noahide law means gentiles are not required to bury the genile dead. Mosaic law requires burial for bodies; in the absence of specific law, one must take the safer route, not the permissive route. Thus, in such a situation, neither meat would be allowed, regardless of the body's original religious or ethnic persuasion.

However, depending on one's tradition, the Law may be suspended in case of mortal jeopardy or mortal need -- that is, if one has a choice between following the law or dying, some traditions hold it is permissible to defer the law, so long as the action is not done in meaningful defiance of it. The Law brings life, it is not to bring death.

Answer 4

If I was in a life or death situation and the only source of food is a dead human body and a dead pig I would choose the pig.

human fleash has been proven to be potentialy dangerous to eat while if cooked properly pork is not.

I dont need a de'rabanon or a de'orita to tell me common sense.

Answer 5

one weird question after another from you - seek help