Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Esther 3:5 says, “וימלא המן חמה” Haman was filled with butter. This would presumably make his flesh basar b’chalav, but Shemos 16:35 clearly says “ובני ישראל אכלו את־המן” the Children of Israel ate Haman; how was this allowed?


This question is Purim Torah and is not intended to be taken completely seriously. See the Purim Torah policy.

share|improve this question

closed as too localized by msh210 Feb 28 '13 at 18:44

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
Not sure if this answers the question: judaism.stackexchange.com/a/5666/3 –  WAF Feb 21 '13 at 12:37
    
It says vayihi beyemai achashvairosh. Why were they in the sea. Must be they were fish. –  Ish Ploni ViKohen Mar 4 at 9:23
    
No, @IshPloniViKohen, the entire story takes place inside Achashverosh's intestines; and since he wasn't Jewish, the whole problem doesn't begin. –  J. C. Salomon Mar 4 at 9:27
add comment

11 Answers 11

up vote 16 down vote accepted

The answer is simple. It is true that Haman was filled with butter early in the megilla. But if you read on, you will find out what the end of this story was. In Esther 7:6:

והמן נבעת מלפני המלך והמלכה והמלך קם בחמתו ממשתה היין אל גנת הביתן

And Haman was terrified before the king and queen, and so the king arose with his [Haman's] butter from the feast to the garden of the palace.

Clearly, the king removed the butter from within Haman and left with it. That which “ובני ישראל אכלו את־המן” happened after this whole story and after the butter was removed from Haman, making him simply basar, but not basar b'chalav.

share|improve this answer
2  
related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/14297/759 –  Double AA Mar 4 '12 at 17:49
    
@Vram: הוא הודח ממשרתו. –  Alex Mar 4 '12 at 18:14
2  
@Vram, Indeed, but in the next chapter: "וַתִּתְחַנֶּן-לוֹ, לְהַעֲבִיר אֶת-רָעַת הָמָן הָאֲגָגִי". This probably refers to k'lipa. :) –  jake Mar 4 '12 at 18:16
add comment

In parashas B'ha'alosecha (B. 11), the b'nei Yisrael cried out "מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר"- who will feed us meat- "אֵין כֹּל--בִּלְתִּי, אֶל-הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ"- we have nothin to look at except Haman.

If Haman was meat, why are they complaining for meat? It must be that Haman became filled with butter which replaced the meat that used to be there.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Haman is a descendant of Amalek, of whom it says אשר קרך בדרך - he cooled you off on the way (Deut. 25:18). They are therefore a "cold" people. Haman's flesh, then, was cold, and so there was no problem of cross-contamination between the meat and the butter. (At most you'd have to remove a kelipah - but fine, Haman himself was the ultimate kelipah.)

share|improve this answer
    
+1..........:-D –  Seth J Mar 5 '12 at 2:03
    
But oznei haman become a problem, since ears are so thin. ☺ –  J. C. Salomon Mar 9 '12 at 14:48
add comment

Would Chalav Nochrei be a problem? Most hold that since butter can only be made from kosher animals this is not a problem (is this a proof that Haman was kosher?), some are machmir that maybe some non-kosher milk would be mixed in and hence it would sit on the top the butter. (SA YD115:3)

But in truth I think that it is cholev yisroel and it was Mordechei that caused the chemah in Haman.

share|improve this answer
1  
Yossi Sirote, welcome to Judaism.SE, and well played! Given your ability to do a good job with the Purim Torah, I look forward to your real Torah contributions. Please consider registering your account, which will give you access to more of the site's features. –  Isaac Moses Mar 7 '12 at 11:24
    
R' Yossi, welcome! I was just thinking that I recognized this question from somewhere! :) In any case, I've been thinking about an answer for you. I think, ultimately, it's not an issue. Remember, that with כחל, for example, the milk is naturally occurring. This would raise a concern of חלב ישראל, as you pointed out, because Mordechai didn't actually put the butter in Haman. But in the case of Haman, he is wasn't generating the butter either, but was just full of it! –  Seth J Mar 7 '12 at 14:29
add comment

The butter only filled up Haman's torso. So, all of his internal organs are assur to eat, cook, or have any benefit from.

However, his extremities never touched the butter.

That's why we eat Haman's ears.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Chalav Zachor answer this problem. The Mechaber (SA YD87:6) say eating meat with "male" milk is "aino lokin" - ie osser drabbanan. But the Rama (ibid) says that it is nothing - ie muter. The Shach (16) explains that the mechaber is referring to animal male milk, which is osser drabbanan to eat with milk, but the Rama is referring to human male milk, which is muter.

Since haman's butter is from a male, it would be muter to eat with meat.

share|improve this answer
2  
We know that Haman sent out copies of the passhegen with runners, making these messengers mail meat. If Haman was mail meat as well, this is yet another proof that shlucho shel adam k'moso. –  YDK Mar 9 '12 at 14:30
add comment

חמה is margarine, חמאה is butter, so there was no problem as they ate him with margarine. (source חמה דחמה)

share|improve this answer
add comment

First we must address Dinei כחל (Y"D 90).

"כחל (udder) is Asur MiDeRabanan because the Torah did not forbid meat cooked with milk from a(n already) slaughtered (animal) ... A כחל that has not been cut (see background, below) ... it is Asur to cook. If one transgressed and cooked it by itself (RaM"A: all the more so if one roasted it) it is Mutar to eat it."

So it would seem from the above that, so long as Haman was properly sliced and drained, especially if he was roasted, it is Mutar to eat him.

However, that is in reference to a Kosher animal (such as a properly slaughtered cow or sheep).

Human flesh has its own issues:

  • The RaMBa"M in Hil. MaAchaloth Asuroth (2:3) says that there is no Lav (negative commandment) against eating human flesh, but it is an Isur 'Aseh (a violation of the parameters of a positive commandment) to abstain from doing so.

  • However, according to the Darkei Moshe (Y"D 79:2) the RaAVa”D (ad loc), the RaShB"A (Kethuvoth 60a), and the RaMBa"N (VaYikra 11:3) all write that it is Mutar LeChateḥillah to eat human flesh, so long as the person is still alive (a human corpse is Asur BeHanaah, prohibited from any kind of benefit, however, see Magid Mishnah on RaMBa"M, ibid., who suggests that this is only according to RaMBa"N and only for a Yisrael).

So, now that we have established that one can eat human flesh according to the majority opinion, can we then apply the Din of כחל to this case? Unfortunately, I think probably not:

“[The laws of meat and milk are] only applicable to the meat of a Behemah Tehorah (animal that chews its cud and has split hooves) … furthermore, eating a Ḥayah or chicken cooked with milk is only Asur MiDeRabanan. However, fish and locusts that are cooked with milk are not even Asur MiDeRabanan.”

  • Since, as we said, the RaMBa”M holds that eating human flesh is only Asur because of an Isur ‘Aseh (which is derived from the fact that Vayikra 11:2-3 says, “This you shall eat” and excludes humans), it would seem that the Heter of כחל would not apply to humans filled with butter.

There is, however, one final issue that may shed some light onto this subject.

“It is Asur to cook meat with a woman’s milk because of Marith ‘Ayin (appearances of wrongdoing when one’s action is otherwise permissible).”

  • The RaM”A (ad loc) adds,

“…This law applies only to the meat of a Behemah (domesticated animal).”

He explains that since it is an Isur DeOraitha to cook Behemah with milk the Marith ‘Ayin applies, but for Isurei DeRabanan, there’s no need to impose Marith ‘Ayin.

Why is a woman’s milk only Asur to cook with meat because of Marith ‘Ayin? The answer brings us back to RaMBa”M’s opinion that human flesh is Asur because of an Isur ‘Aseh.

  • We have a concept that something which derives from something Tamei is also Tamei. However, this law only applies to something which is Asur because of a Lav. If it is Asur from an Isur ‘Aseh, such as human flesh, derivatives of that “Tamei” item are not Temeim, which means that human blood and human milk are not in any way prohibited.

  • Remember, only the RaMBa”M holds that there is an Isur ‘Aseh prohibiting human flesh. Therefore, LeKulei ‘Alma (according to everyone) it is permissible to consume human milk, and at the very least according to the majority opinion among the Rishonim it is permissible to eat human flesh.

Therefore, eating Haman is Mutar LeGamrei (entirely and without question) according to the majority opinion in the Rishonim.


{For background, see Ḥullin 109 on the subject of כחל (udder). The Mishnah says, "The כחל must be cut and the milk must be removed. If it was not cut, one does not transgress a Lav (negative commandment)."
Rav says (as explained later by the Gemara) that the Mishnah is saying that if the כחל was not cut, it is even Mutar MiDeRabanan. Rashi ("Kafi", 111b) says that the Mishnah and Rav are talking about roasting the כחל. However, for cooking, if it was not cut and pressed to remove the milk (as explained by the Gemara, 109b; see the apparent Maḥloketh R' Yehudah and R' El'azar, ad loc, though Rashi holds they're talking about different cases) then, according to Rashi, the Mishnah and Rav would hold the כחל is Asur MiDeRabanan and require 60 times the volume of the כחל (however the כחל itself would count towards the 60) to permit it to be eaten.
Rabbeinu Tam disagrees with Rashi. He says that if you don't cut it at all, even eating it cooked, BeDi'Avad is Mutar (assuming it was cooked by itself; cooking with other meat is slightly more complicated).
The RI"F says that the Mishnah is talking about cooking by itself, and if it was not cut at all it is Mutar BeDi'Avad. To roast it, nothing is required.
}

share|improve this answer
6  
I am tempted to say that this analysis is udder nonsense... :) –  Alex Mar 5 '12 at 5:45
1  
@Vram, No, not quite. Ḥalav Zachar is milk that has been milked while the animal is still alive. Furthermore, I think that since, as I established, the entire issue of human flesh is separate from animal flesh, I think my analysis still addresses the relevant issues. –  Seth J Mar 5 '12 at 6:47
3  
@Vram, Look over there - squirrel! –  Seth J Mar 5 '12 at 6:54
    
@Vram, I think I actually have an answer for you. The RaM"A is a minority opinion on the issue of Ḥalav Zachar. See the Sha"Ch there. –  Seth J Mar 5 '12 at 7:02
    
@Alex, I appreciate the pun. Did you read through it all, though? Other than the premise (and the nonsense associated with it), it's all real Torah. –  Seth J Feb 22 '13 at 4:03
show 3 more comments

Haman was compared to "flesh of donkeys". Therefore, since Donkeys are an impure animal, there is no Biblical prohibition of Milk and Meat.

It makes sense to say that the Rabbinic prohibition (if there even is one [see Shulchan Aruch/Bach]) didn't exist yet.

For the Halacha behind this, see Pirchei Shoshanim ad loc

share|improve this answer
add comment

The Mefarshim (see Malbim Bereshit 19 and more in the introduction Yalkut Yosef Basar BeHalav)say that animals which are created with Sefer Yesira are not considered Basar and since we know that Haman was created with Sefer Yesira through this Rashe Tevot: ה-הוא נ-נברא מ-מספר it didn't matter that he had butter because he was "Pareve."

share|improve this answer
    
<Whoosh> That was the sound of this answer flying over my head! –  Seth J Feb 15 '13 at 3:31
2  
Is "הוא נברא מספר" an abbreviation brought elsewhere or did you invent if for the purpose of this drashah? (A Google search turns up no results.) –  b a Feb 15 '13 at 4:34
2  
@ba I made it up. –  Hacham Gabriel Feb 15 '13 at 5:22
    
Why did it fly over your head? –  Hacham Gabriel Feb 15 '13 at 5:34
    
I just didn't get it. (Figure of speech.) –  Seth J Feb 22 '13 at 2:17
add comment

Siman Tzadi in Yoreh de'ah discusses the din of Kechal, an udder. The udder is filled with milk when the animal is shechted, and it is presumingly Kosher. Rabbeinu Tam paskins this way, while Rashi disagrees and says that since it is filled with milk it cannot be eaten unless the milk is beaten out of the udder. This is exactly what the first answer says. Acheshverosh made sure to beat the butter out of Haman before Bnei Yisrael ate him. Alternatively, Bnei Yisrael held like Rabbeinu Tam and the butter filled Haman would be considered Kosher anyways.

share|improve this answer
1  
Sam Reinsetin, welcome to Mi Yodeya and thanks for your answer. You might wish to browse our other purim-torah-in-jest or meat-and-dairy questions. I hope you stick around and enjoy the site! –  msh210 Feb 21 '13 at 0:38
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.