Pigskin Boots
For those of us who don’t regularly see a copy of the Air Force Times, or another service’s equivalent, this week’s front-page article is a doosy. The Air Force is considering using boots made of pigskin beginning FY07. Apparently they’re easiest to clean, from all the testing they’ve done so far on various types of hide.
The article focuses on Muslim objections, and briefly mentions consulting 2 rabbis somewhere in the middle, who basically say it’s okay as long as you’re not eating your boot. It says it consulted a Reform rabbi and an Orthodox rabbi. I don’t know about the first, but I highly question the latter said it was okay. It’s pretty clear in Torah:
Leviticus 11:7-8 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you. Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you.
Pigskin boots are not going to make it on to my feet.
What follows is the article from AirForceTimes.com:
Boot dispute
A pigskin utility boot feels pinch from some Muslims, who call it offensive
By Nicole Gaudiano
Times staff writer
When Air Force uniform officials were first briefed on new utility boots that airmen are now testing, a question came to their minds: Would religious groups be offended by boots made of pigskin?
The answer yes for some Muslims could be a factor in what boot the Air Force ultimately chooses.
The use of pigskin unless for medical reasons is clearly prohibited for Muslims and is only made lawful when its use is a dire necessity, wrote Qaseem Ali Uqdah, the Muslim chaplains’ senior ecclesiastical endorser, in a July 6 letter to an Air Force chaplain.
Uqdah, responding to an Air Force request for his input, cited the Koran verse, ‘He has only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine and any [food] over which the name of other than Allah has been invoked.
Uqdah wrote, It is forbidden for a Muslim to wear pigskin because the impurity of a pig’s skin is not removed even by tanning their skins, as pigs are impure in themselves. So the issue here is not confined to just eating it.
The concern from some involves not only the idea of Muslim airmen being asked to wear the boot, but the international implications of Americans wearing them in Muslim countries.
Mahmoud El-Yousseph, a Muslim and active member of the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in Military, said he freaked out when he learned the boots were being tested.
It is almost like an “in-your-face” attitude, said El-Yousseph, a Palestinian-born U.S. citizen who recently retired from the Ohio National Guard as a technical sergeant. Most of our troops are stationed in Muslim nations. You can’t win people’s minds and hearts in the Muslim world if you go there wearing uniforms made of pigs.
When El-Yousseph deployed to Kuwait in 2000, he was told anyone caught with pornographic material or pork would be sent back on the next airplane. Respect for the host country’s culture and traditions was paramount in deployment briefings, he said.
By sending troops in pigskin, we’re not doing what we preach, he said.
A spokesman for Iraq’s representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Samir Sumaida’ie, said the issue would probably be a bit sensitive for people in Iraq. The ambassador just predicted there are going to be some people who might be offended by this, the spokesman said.
Calls to the embassies of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar were not returned, and the spokesman for the embassy of Afghanistan declined to comment.
Easier to clean
Uniform officials discovered the pigskin material in their search for a low-maintenance boot that required no polishing or shining, and would go with the new green-and-tan utility uniform due out in fiscal 2007. They had previously tested cowhide suede boots, but found that some career fields had a hard time keeping them clean.
Pigskin boots, which look like cowhide suede but carry a more even texture, have a waterproof and stain-resistant finish that should make them easier to clean than normal suede, according to the Air Force clothing office.
Uniform officials stressed that no decision has been made on which boot they will choose. About 215 airmen at Hurlburt Field, Fla., and Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash., began testing the pigskin boots in chameleon light green and desert tan on July 25. As a measure for the pigskin, they are also retesting the cowhide suede. The test is expected to last six months.
We might find that there’s a better boot made out of cowhide, said Steven Wagoner, chief of the Force Sustainment Division. We might pick the boot we’re talking about and pick another boot for the ones who are having difficulty with it. It’s a positive thing in that we’ve asked the question, we have good information now and we can make an informed decision.
The issue surfaces at a time when the Air Force is focused on religious sensitivity. A recently named assistant to the Air Force secretary and chief of staff for values and vision, Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff, is developing specific guidance about expressions of personal religious beliefs after some cadets brought allegations of religious intolerance and pro-Christian bias at the Air Force Academy.
Wagoner and Lt. Col. Dan Anderson, chief of the commander’s programs, recognition and uniform board, said they realized on their own that they should ask more questions about pigskin when they received a briefing on the uniform and boots in June at the Air Force clothing office.
The Air Force counts the number of self-reported Muslims at 655 for enlisted members and 116 for officers, while Uqdah said the number is about 1,500.
We recognize there are some faiths that have some concerns relative to the animal that material would be coming from, Wagoner said. We wanted to make sure we knew what the issues would be so we could make informed decisions.
Chaplain (Lt. Col.) Steve Torgerson, of the Chief of Chaplains Office, called reformed and orthodox rabbis, who said the only issue with pigskin was consumption. He also contacted Uqdah, the Muslim chaplains’ senior endorser, when a Muslim chaplain deferred to him. Cowhide boots would be permissible in both faiths, he said.
Asked whether there would be no circumstances in which Muslims would be asked to wear pigskin, Wagoner said he didn’t want to jump to that conclusion, but it would be unlikely.
I find it hard to imagine a downstream possibility that we would find ourselves having to do that, he said. It would be some dire circumstance, some absolute operational necessity. I find it hard to imagine, but I can’t predict the future either.
The uniform officials would not say whether Muslim objections alone would cause them to reject the boot. Asked if there was concern that pigskin boots might be offensive in Muslim countries, Wagoner responded with a written statement.
At this point, we don’t know what the international implications might be, but [we] continue to do our homework as we move down the path towards a decision, he wrote. For now, this boot is currently in use by other Services and we are asking them for their experience, as well as doing our own independent assessment.
Marines have them
The pigskin boot has been in the Marine Corps inventory as an optional item for about a year, though that boot could be replaced. Although there are no specific regulations for wearing the boot, commanders can make special uniform considerations for religious preferences, according to a Marine Corps spokesman.
Asked for comments from Marines wearing these boots in Iraq, Marine Lt. Col. Dave Lapan, a Multi-National Forces-West spokesman at Camp Fallujah, wrote: There is not one person I have spoken with who knows what their boots are made of. I don’t have any idea what mine are made of. This is not an issue or something one considers.
The Navy is currently testing the boot while the Army uses cowhide leather boots because the Army has found cowhide to be more durable than pigskin, according to a response from the project manager soldier equipment office.
Some Muslims interpret the Koran and traditions of the prophets differently when it comes to pigskin. Fathi Osman, a retired professor of Islamic studies who held positions at Temple and Princeton universities, said the written traditions or Hadith say that skin from any animal is pure after it is tanned. Some people are always suspicious and they want to be on the safe side, he said.
Uqdah came to his opposite conclusion using the same literature and the commonly held views of the majority of American Muslims, though he recognized his view may not be shared by other Muslims.
Air Force Chaplain (Capt.) Hamza Al-Mubarak, a Muslim, meanwhile, was more definitive. There is no ambiguity on this issue, it is impermissible for a Muslim (male or female) to eat or use the tanned skin of a pig in any form of clothing (ie. Leather jackets, shoes, belts, etc.), he wrote.
In an interview with Air Force Times, Uqdah commended the chaplains and Defense Department for unique concern for religious accommodations. But he also worried about new recruits if the pigskin boots become an approved item. Someone throws you the boots, you’re going to take the boots, he said. At the recruit level, these kids have no say whatsoever in their lives.
Uqdah, the executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, is a retired Marine gunnery sergeant. He believes airmen should not be put in the position of wearing pigskin in Muslim countries if it can be avoided.
It has to be mission necessity to move forward on these boots, he said. That’s the only way I can see them wanting to risk having a potential backlash or a negative connotation associated with Americans.
The issue of respect
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, had a similar recommendation for the Air Force.
Spokeswoman Rabiah Ahmed said airmen wearing pigskin would be an offense to Muslim sensitivities and could give extremists further ammunition to say, The West doesn’t respect Islam.
If you could avoid all that, it just seems to me a better option, she said. Things are so sensitive right now in this climate, I’d rather be safe than sorry.
However, Muzammil Siddiqi, the chairman of the Islamic Law Council of North America, said the issue would be resolved if Muslim airmen were given an alternate boot. The rule is just for Muslims, he said.
If the pigskin or cowhide suede boots failed the wear test, the Air Force previously said it would go with a leather alternative in a color to later be determined. That could mean a little-polish, no-shine boot or the current plain leather boot.
Airmen interviewed recently at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, seemed to be more concerned with function and comfort than religion.
Staff Sgt. Nicholas Pizzi, who deployed from the 305th Security Forces Squadron at McGuire Air Force Base, N.J., wants a boot that doesn’t show stains, but thinks the Air Force should abandon the idea of pigskin before it has to recall thousands of boots and issue new ones to airmen bound for Muslim countries.
I don’t think it will be an issue, but people will make it an issue, he said.
Capt. Shane Heavener, a judge advocate deployed from Aviano Air Base, Italy, had a different take:
Get what functions, he said. If we chose cowhide and deployed to India, what would they [Hindus] think?
Nicole Gaudiano can be reached at (703) 750-8653 or at . Staff writer Bruce Rolfsen contributed to this story.
Boot photo courtesy of www.altama.com
Considering that most purity/impurity laws went into hibernation with the destruction of the Temple, I’m pretty sure it’d be fine to touch a pigskin boot, even if it does make you technically tamei’.
Also, once it’s processed into a boot it might not even count as a pig carcass anymore.
Purity/impurity laws went out with the destruction of the temple? Then Judaism would’ve went out with it, too.
Come on, that same verse says not to eat swine – and we still don’t. More observant Jews also observe nida. We didn’t abandon what laws of Torah we could still practice during the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the first Temple – and observant Jews still don’t since the second’s destruction.
But except for Nida issues, and Kohanim in cemetaries issues, no one really worries about issues of tum’a and tahara today.
I guess the question is, does the pasuq actually forbid touching pigs and other tamei’ifying animals, or does it just lay out the consequence of tum’a, which then makes it forbidden for you to deal with sanctified objects and places.
And there’s still the issue of maybe the processing that the skin goes through making it cease to count as pig and becoming only “material”.
As for processing, Torah doesn’t say if you make a hide out of it, maybe turn it into a jacket, it’s okay.
I see what you’re saying overall though, even if I don’t completely agree. I guess it comes down to, if you’re going to eat pork, then you have no problem wearing boots made of pig; and if you’re not going to eat pork, then you’re going to have a problem with wearing pig boots.
I guess it depends how much you want to observe still seeing as how we’re (temporarily?) without the temple – and it seems clear how we both stand on that.
I think what Steg might be suggesting is that there is some grey area concerning certain issues of halacha. By processing, I imagine he is referring to the idea of Panim Chadashot, where something has changed so much from its original form, that it is a totally different entity. A good example of a halacha dispute (and Panim Chadashot) is gelatin.
I’m no learned rabbi, but I think it’s quite a stretch to say that boots made from the hide of a pig are “separated” or altered enough for Panim Chadashot to apply. So, if you follow these laws, then I think the boots would be a no-go.
I’d be curious to hear the opinion of a chaplain (or any rabbi) on the matter.
As far as I know the only thing we stopped doing without a Temple was animal sacrifices. All the rules still apply.
Now I’m wondering… what ARE my boots made out of?
Taiyas
Hmmmm, just wanted to get in on this. I guess I really never wondered what my boots were made of. I can’t believe with all of the atrocities going on in the Muslim community, we’re worrying about boots. Let’s all get together and work on getting along. Then we can worry about attire.
Uhm… i believe in halakha, and am very much so shomeir mitzvot. I also know though that halakha doesn’t come straight out of the Torah; it comes through the Talmud, and many things that may seem absolutely clear in the Torah (“eye for an eye”, for example) are very much not as they appear once they get filtered through the Oral Tradition.
I also know that in the laws of purity, the state of being of the object matters; if you have a jug that’s become impure, but you break it into pieces and remake it, it’s considered a new object and is therefore once again pure.
Similarly, it’s very likely that a processed pig skin that’s been changed so much that it’s unrecongnizeable, could be counted as a new object, i.e. boots, and therefore be pure again.
Reading this fascinating article about pigskin, I couldnt help but think of Football. Fairgame (changed so much its not pig anymore), or do you throw the same flag on the play(traif, dont touch)?
🙂
I don’t want this to turn into a Torah vs. Halacha debate, because I know that people who follow halacha stringently tend to hold it holier than Torah. So I guess it’s not going to help anything to go on. We disagree.
2 things though – I’m not a professional potter, but after a jug’s been cured in a kiln, if it’s broken in pieces, can it really be shaped like clay again into a new jug and cured again?
That’s a good question about footballs, Lt Minkow, so I checked it out: As the story goes, the very first footballs were made out of pigskin. That might be true, but the people at Wilson Sporting Goods – the company that makes all the footballs used in pro games – say their footballs have always been made out of cow leather. (http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~twig/animals/html/090196.html)
As an active duty Navy chaplain, I find this to be an interesting discussion. Once you understand what’s involved here, you’ll understand that even Orthodox rabbis will tell you that there is absolutly no prohibition in touching tanned pigskin.
The pasuk (verse) in the Torah that has been quoted (which really appears in Leviticus and not in Numbers) applies only to those who find a carcass and are about to enter in the Temple or to eat kadshin–sacrificial food (i.e., the portion of the sacrifices that the Cohanim were required to eat.) For more information, you can look at Maimonides, Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments (Mitzvot Aseh) number 96.
Even cowhide which comes from a cow which was not ritually slaughtered results in the same prohibition since, the cow which was not ritually slaughtered is also considered a carcass. Jews are certainly not prohibited from wearing shoes made of animals which were not slaughtered properly.
Today, all of us are in a state of tumah, ritual impurity, either from coming in contact with dead people or by touching dead aminals that were not ritually slaughtered. The laws of nidah which were cited in some comments are in a totally different category. Those laws deal with the ritual purity of the family–not the Holy Temple–and are still very much applicable today.
For the military, there is a greater concern. That is the reaction of both our Muslim service members and the reaction of the Muslim community at large. I am certain that since this has now been raised, it will be addressed by the highest levels of our military leadership.
Rabbi Moe Kaprow
Rabbi Kaprow, thank you for your comments on this subject. Thank you also for serving our floating Jewish servicemen. Also, thanks for catching my mixup with the correct sefer. At least I got the perek and passuk right.
I respect your explanation, but I find that I have to disagree. As a previous commenter put it, “many things that may seem absolutely clear in the Torah (“eye for an eye, for example) are very much not as they appear once they get filtered through the Oral Tradition.” This is exactly where I find a lot of personal tsaros. G-d is very clear on a lot of things in Torah. It’s only when His word is taken and filtered through the word of men that things begin to look unclear.
Talmud (man’s word) makes me very uncomfortable when it explains away as unnecessary or non-applicable laws in Torah (G-d’s word). I don’t think men have the authority to do that.
Along those lines, Torah doesn’t say “don’t eat this, but you can touch it.” G-d bluntly says, “Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch.” Also, I don’t believe you’ll find any words like “family purity” in Torah. All purity laws in Torah have to do with the Tabernacle/Temple.
Respectfully, if you use the argument that the pasuk about not touching pig only applies when one is about to enter the temple, but we have no Temple anymore so it’s okay – then there’s no reason not to eat pig, either, since it’s in the same pasuk.
Bottom line for me, personally, better safe with G-d than sorry. If pigskin boots come to be the new boot, I’ll do whatever I need to do to be authorized an alternative. We’re all adults. It’s everyone’s personal choice to what to adhere – Torah or Talmud.
Lastly – I don’t want to give the impression I disagree with all of Talmud. I hope your Tisha B’Av fast, and everyone’s, were easy.
FYI: I recently heard from an editor from the Air Force Times regarding the story they ran. They would like to hear some feedback from troops affected by this issue.
If you want to comment to the Times, you can send your “letter to the editor” to airlet@atpco.com
———
Regarding Rabbi Kaprow’s comment: I thought he brought up an interesting point concerning wearing leather from cattle that were not ritually slaughtered.
Pigs seem to be the poster-animal for treif, so issues about pork and pigs tend to garner more attention, but wouldn’t pigskin boots be just as bad as an eel-skin wallet or an alligator purse? I’ve never seen an uproar about these items (although I’ve never really looked either).
In my (extremely limited) knowledge about kashrut, an animal is either kosher or treif. There is no animal that is more kosher or less treif than another. It’s more of a binary thing. So if this is the case, then why would a non-kosher slaughtered cow skin be any more permissible to wear than a pig skin? And if this is a problem, why are there no hechshers for clothing? :shut:
I’m not trying to be argumentative here, just thinking out loud. I’m sure there is a much clearer explanation. Any takers?
Dear Chevre,
To clarify LT Friedman’s concerns, often there are multiple laws contained in one verse. In this case there are two: 1- a prohibition on eating pig and 2- a prohibition on touching the carcass of an unshected (ritually slaughtered) animal.
To clarify the carcass issue, in Halacha, the term for a non-ritually slaughtered animal is “nevailah.” A “kosher” animal is not kosher until it has been ritually slaughtered through the process we call sh’chita. If one were to take a cow and shoot it through the head instead of performing sh’chita, its carcass would be a nevailah and would not be permissible to touch. I venture to say that the shoes we wear are made from nevailot, carcasses, because the cows were not ritually slaughtered.
The argument that family purity is not mentioned is fallacious. The basic premise of all we do is to be a “holy people” for the Torah tells us – “You shall be holy, for I, the Lrd your Gd, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). Thereafter, there are strings of commandments that tell us how to be holy.
The laws of “nidah” stem from Leviticus 18:19, where, after listing all of the prohibitions of carnal relations that comprise what we now call incest and sexual promiscuity, the Torah tells us (in verse 19), “Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness to uncover her nakedness.” This has absolutely nothing to do with purity in the Temple. It has all to do with purity as a family and nation that is holy to Gd.
I well understand your personal “tsaros” in learning Torah. First off, the Torah was written in Hebrew, not in English. To quote in English is to misquote the Torah. Secondly, all of the Torah must be learned through the “oral tradition,” the “Torah sh’baal peh.” Today those of us who were ordained are the teachers of Torah and of the accepted tradition.
In our history, we have had Jews who attempted to study the Torah literally, without the benefit of rabbinic interpretation. The most famous such groups were known as Kaarites. Because the Torah says, “You shall kindle no fire throughout your settlements on the sabbath day” (Exodus 35:3), they refused to heat their homes in the winter and ultimately died. Rabbinic interpretation, of course, permits fire to be used on Shabbat provided it is not lit or controlled on Shabbat.
The best advice I can give you is to find a rabbi with whom you are comfortable and rely on that rabbi’s interpretation of the Torah. In addition, when you complete your military service, I would encourage you to go and learn in a Yeshiva so you, too, can better understand the Torah and its obligations.
Please feel free to communicate with me if you feel that I can help you.
Kol tuv.
Greetings and Blessings!
First off, please allow me to express my deep admiration for all of you in uniform. Your service to society is inestimable!
I wanted to weigh in, and state that Rabbi Kaprow’s comments are right on the mark. Matters of halacha (the practical application of the commandments in the Torah) have to be decided by someone qualified to do so. All of you holy people should, of course, engage in learning Torah; but one needs to be humble enough to defer to more knowledgeable or qualified individuals when appropriate. During my service as a small-team combat medic (in the IDF), I wouldn’t have had the temerity to tell our comm specialist how to solve problems with radio communications, any more than he would have told me which or whether to use antibiotics for a soldier’s illness.
Lt. Friedman’s comments/questions are very astute, btw. I have tremendous respect for all of you engaged in learning Torah while in the service. I had enough challenge keeping up with learning, etc., and that was in an army that was mostly Jews! You all are doing an amazing thing, from all perspectives.
Please accept my blessings to you all for a safe and successful tour wherever you are. May G-d bless you all, protect you, grant you success in your service, and bring you home safely.
(Rabbi)Mordechai Y. Scher
Combat Medic 09 (IDF), NREMT-P, MICP, PNICP
Flight Paramedic-Med Flight Air Ambulance, ABQ, NM
Training Officer/Paramedic-PVAS, Pecos, NM
Atalay Search and Rescue, Santa Fe, NM
Mountain Canine Corps SAR, Los Alamos, NM