Talk:Kashrut

Following Kashrut in part

RK: I guess there are quite a few Jews who follow kashrut, but only in part. (E.g. they might avoid obvious things like eating pork, but ignore most of the other dietary rules.) I think it would useful if the article mentioned that. Also, some Jews don't follow kashrut without clearing fitting into categories like Reform or Reconstructionist (e.g., according to a newspaper article I recently read, a lot of recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union to Israel -- I doubt most of them consciously identify as Reform or anything like that.) -- SJK

Capon isn't a species

Capon isn't a species of bird; it's a neutered bird. Should it be listed here? -phma

Bans and anti-Semitism

The below text has been removed for the mean time for being a little too broad in its accusations:

The kosher method of slaughtering animals has been criticized as being cruel; it has been forbidden in a number of European countries. These campaigns are often accompanied by anti-Semitic remarks from government members of the nations, as well as anti-Semitic remarks from members of the non-governmental organizations which have taken the intiative in trying to ban kosher food. Jewish groups hold that these campaigns are based on Anti-Semitism, and have no valid basis in animal rights. This has been evidenced by the fact that many opponents of kosher meat have publicly stated that "the Jews" should leave the country if they don't like the restrictions being put on them.

Which European countries? What remarks? What is often? How is this different from the opposition to islamic slaughtering? Why does the slaughtering of animals in a kosher way have no basis in animal rights, when many animal rights activist oppose all methods of slaughtering of animals? Why is there even a need for a paragraph, when this could possibly be dealt with in a single sentence? Let's make it a little more precise before putting it back -Scipius

Although I want this material restored, I am refraining from doing so because you have raised some excellent questions that must answered. I am compiling a list of European nations which have banned kosher slaughter, as well as a brief list of remarks that many Jews find anti-Semitic. I believe that the nations are Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. The nation of Holland has banned some types of kosher slaughter, but I believe is being accomodating and is working with the Jewish community to make sure that the methods used there are fully in accord with the nation's laws on this subject. As for the idea that some groups are against the slaughtering of all animals, we know that this is false. All the extant laws banning slaughter only ban Jewish, and sometimes Islamic, methods of slaughter. None of these nations ban the types of slaughter practiced by Christians or secular Jews, Muslims, etc. It is clear that only religious Jews (and sometimes Muslims) are the target. None of the European nations has made any attempt to ban all animal slaughter.

A newspaper article notes http://jewishworldreview.com/0702/euro_kosher.html
Abraham Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's national director, who is currently touring Europe to assess the wave of anti-Semitism, said the bans are the result of activism between animal rights extremists "aided and abetted" by anti-Semitic politicians. "Sometimes anti-Semites will use this as a vehicle to try to isolate the Jewish community by reaching out to those who are so preoccupied with [animal rights]," said Foxman in an interview from Rome. "The key is whether or not there is a history in that country ? what other issues of animal rights have they engaged in to prohibit cruelty? When they begin and end with kosher slaughter, that's when I become suspect."

What you need to do is unequivocally prove that the reason those European countries "banned" kosher slaughtering had to do with anti-Semitism, rather than being based in animal rights concerns. Doubtless there are anti-Semites that would advocate such a ban and disguise it as caring for animals, but it is outright preposterous to suggest without proof that the entire government decided on a ban based primarily on this sentiment, rather than any other (and especially the obvious animal rights one).

You're also not being fair towards animal rights activists. I'm not one of them, but I do know many oppose all slaughter of animals (check the Wikipedia link). It has nothing to do with the method used per se, but rather with the simple killing for consumption motive. I believe this is more an issue of freedom of religion versus animal rights, rather than a case of anti-Semitism. You seem to downplay the fact that islamic butchers should be facing the same restrictions, how is the islamic situation in the countries you accuse? Just what practises are banned? -Scipius

RK, to add to Scipius' point, some theorists of the liberal state (in this case, meaning people who believe rights to belong to individuals and not groups), such "humane slaughter" laws are not discriminatory because Jews and Muslims do not have to eat meat; they choose to. Scipius, in support of RK, the deleted text does not claim that such laws are intrinsically anti-semitic, only that they are often accompanied by anti-semitic rhetoric. Would you rather the claim were narrowed to "sometimes?" In any event, I agree that the claim is stronger when specific examples are provided. But you are not being fair to RK, or you did not read the text -- it did not by any means claim or suggest that "that the reason those European countries "banned" kosher slaughtering had to do with anti-Semitism," there for I see no need for RK to "prove" this claim. Slrubenstein

I disagree, the original text most certainly tried to suggest that people who seek restrictions on kosher meat do this for primarily anti-Semitic reasons, which is a claim that needs to be firmly corroborated. Some 70% of the text above is about anti-Semitism. Look at the last sentence of the text: it states that "many opponents of kosher meat have publicly stated that "the Jews" should leave the country if they don't like the restrictions being put on them". This should be easily demonstrable, and it should be evident from government spokespersons, since "these campaigns are often accompanied by anti-Semitic remarks from government members of the nations". Let's have them, and demonstrate that this is the clear basis for the ban. Otherwise this is simply opinion and hardly a NPOV one. RK is simply not fairly representing the animal rights view, down to the point of completely negating their argument. He doesn't necessarily have to, since this article isn't about animal rights, but he does when he makes such accusations.

Here's a replacement text I propose: The kosher method of slaughtering animals has been criticized by as being cruel towards the animal and restrictions are in place in some countries primarily in the interest of animal rights, as is the case for the related islamic slaughtering method. Some Jewish (and Muslim) groups however feel this may be in part fueled by discriminatory sentiments, rather than concern for the animal, and protest the restrictions on this basis. Other countries have made special exemptions for ritual slaughtering techniques such as Kashrut. -Scipius

The issue is not always that Kashrut is outlawed; England has "humane slaughter" rules, from which Jews and Muslims are exempt -- and some have questioned the fairness of giving certain groups such exemptions. In other countries a different sort of compromise wa sreached: Peter Singer, in his book Animal Liberation(p. 154), describes how Rabbis in Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, agreed to stun animals before slaughtering them. By the way, I am not entirely convinced that slaughterhouses that follow "humane slaughtering" rules are really that humane. It makes me wonder how much of this issue may be a red herring. Slrubenstein

---

Scipius writes "You're also not being fair towards animal rights activists. I'm not one of them, but I do know many oppose all slaughter of animals (check the Wikipedia link). It has nothing to do with the method used per se, but rather with the simple killing for consumption motive."

You are confused. This is not at all what I am talking about. I am well aware that some animal rights groups are trying to ban the slaughter of animals of food. So what? This has nothign to do with the topic I dicussed, namely the attempts of European groups and governments to only ban Jewish butchers, but to allow Christian butchers. The vast majority of animals slaughtered for food is done by gentiles, for gentiles, and this is not banned. It is only the Jews who are forbidden from procuring meat. Your rebuttal is against a claim I never made. Of course it is not anti-Semitic for a nation to ban all slaughter. But such an event has not occured. RK

I'm hardly the one who's confused. Did you not write: "As for the idea that some groups are against the slaughtering of all animals, we know that this is false"? The entire paragraph clearly tried to suggest that the restrictions on kosher meat had everything to do with anti-Semitism, without fairly demonstrating why this would be the case. Since you appear to be in the know on this issue, why won't you tell us how the islamic slaughtering method is treated, which should be facing the same restrictions? -Scipius

Scipus writes "This should be easily demonstrable, and it should be evident from government spokespersons, since "these campaigns are often accompanied by anti-Semitic remarks from government members of the nations". Let's have them, and demonstrate that this is the clear basis for the ban. Otherwise this is simply opinion and hardly a NPOV one."

You misunderstand. I am not saying that everyone must agree with the fact that these actions are anti-Semitic. Without firm proof, such a claim would be a violation of NPOV. Rather, I am saying that Jewish groups feel that these actions are likely based in some anti-Semitic feelings. And that description of how many Jews feel is absolutely correct, and thus it is NPOV. Further, none of your responses directly dealt with any of my comments. Instead, you are simpyl claiming that I am attacking animal rights in general, which is utterly false. (I never even imagined that this had anything to do with the subject.) My statements were about the fact that certain European nations were discriminating against Jews and Jews alone, irregardless of the mechanics of how animal actually were killed, and this singling out of Jews is hard to explain except by noting the vast amount of anti-Semitism that permeates Europe. (Note that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe in the last few years is even greater than in the early 1930s, when the Nazi movement was building.) RK

"And that description of how many Jews feel is absolutely correct, and thus it is NPOV". Just because "many" Jews feel that it is true, doesn't mean that it is in fact true, it is just one point of view. This is not an exclusively Jewish encyclopedia and therefore all points of view should be given fair and equal treatment. That was my problem with the text as it was, it seemed to focus solely on trying to claim opponents of the kosher slaughtering method were doing this purely out of anti-Semitism, which, if you can't prove it, is unfair when you don't allow for the other side's arguments. Both sides' arguments should be equal to us, so that we have a neutral point of view.

Obviously animal rights are concerned in this issue, don't try to claim you never had any idea it had, if that's what you meant. It said right in the first line of the removed text that is was being criticised as being cruel. As for the "fact" that this ban is only on Kashrut, can you verify then that islamic slaughtering techniques are not banned in those same countries? That would after all be a good indication that it may indeed be influenced by anti-Semitism. -Scipius

The anti-semitic actions in Europe come from the right-wing fringe, not from the left-wing governments, which fight those right-wing elements but still enact humane-butchering rules because they are close to the animal-rights movement. Furthermore you claim that these rules discriminate against Jews and Jews alone, which is incorrect: they discriminate against anybody who desires to use the proscribed butchering rules, and I believe this also includes some Arabs. The "mechanics of how the animals actually are killed" is precisely what matters, nothing else. AxelBoldt

Maybe. My concern is that these countries do not only bad one specific mechanic; they have flat out banned all forms of kosher slaughter. All attempts at compromise have failed. They won't even allow any discussion, which is a bad sign. Since they refuse to even discuss the issue (to find a way that Jews can carry out their actions in accord with the new animal-rights laws of these nations), many Jews are reluctantly saying that this probably has something to do with anti-Semitism. They feel that they are left with few alternatives. RK

I like the new text, though the untrue statement about the Netherlands had to go (read the article referenced above). I've further edited the text a little more for nuances. Shall we agree this can stay? -Scipius

---

Scipus writes "Just because "many" Jews feel that it is true, doesn't mean that it is in fact true, it is just one point of view. This is not an exclusively Jewish encyclopedia and therefore all points of view should be given fair and equal treatment.

You are arguing against a point that I am not making. I agree with what you just said. I am unsure of why we are having this disagreement, over a point that I agree with you on. Let me try and straighten things out. You hold that, given the current information, it would a violation of NPOV to state that these laws are definately caused primarilly by anti-Semitism. And for the moment, I agree with you. However, it is in accord with NPOV to write that Jewish groups really do believe that these laws are to some large or small extent, anti-Semitic. This isn't saying that the Jewish POV is an indisputable fact it is pointing out that this is what some of these groups believe. You write that "it is unfair when you don't allow for the other side's arguments. Both sides' arguments should be equal to us, so that we have a neutral point of view." I just want you to know that I agree with you on this.

Well, I'm glad to see we can agree on the concept of NPOV, but the devil is as always in the details...;) The problem is how you state the kosher position, it is far too accusational, giving no room for the other side's argument. -Scipius

Scipus writes "Obviously animal rights are concerned in this issue, don't try to claim you never had any idea it had, if that's what you meant."

Please don't be angry, you seem to misunderstand my claim. I agree that there are animal rights people who are trying to ban all animal slaughter. However, this is not what the article mentioned. The article mentioned the actual events in which Jews and Jews alone were prevented from slaughtering animals, while gentiles and usually Muslims were allowed to do so. You still seem to be arguing against a point that I was not making. RK

No, you still have given no evidence that every country that has banned kosher meat (and only kosher meat, i.e. not halal meat) did so motivated primarily by anti-semitism. In fact, I would like to see where Jews were forbidden from slaughtering, whereas Muslims were not, since the two methods are AFAIK related. Remember, this is not about Christianity versus Judaism or Islam, but about religious, ritualistic slaughter versus industrial of conventional slaughter. -Scipius

Scipus writes "As for the "fact" that this ban is only on Kashrut, can you verify then that islamic slaughtering techniques are not banned in those same countries? That would after all be a good indication that it may indeed be influenced by anti-Semitism."

Well, I can't prove a negative. I am not aware of any movement in European nations to ban all Islamic slaughtering. The only European-wide movement I know of is aimed at Jewish slaughtering. There may well indeed be a few places where Islamic forms of slaughtering are also being banned. RK

And there we have the crux of the matter. There most certainly is a movement against all ritualistic slaughter. Whenever I hear of it, it is usually in relation to Islamic slaughter, rather than Jewish, since the latter is far less common. This is why I believe it is very important to determine whether or not there is any difference in how the two are treated. How about a list of what restrictions exist on ritual slaughter in the world?

I have edited the article further to nuance things further and make it less accusational. You are being far too broad in your choice of words and this gives the impression you're on some anti-European crusade. I've mostly followed the info from the excellent Swiss article. -Scipius

Kitniot link broken

The second kitniot link doesn't work. Where's it supposed to point? -phma

Sentence removed

NPOVified and slightly fixed up the most recent addition.

I removed the following sentence, because (1) I don't quite understand what it means or how it's relevant, but more importantly (2) the quote appears to have been damaged in transit (I assume the bad grammar is a misquote rather than in the original.

Further, in the Jewish mindset, "The body is the instrument of the soul's actions and the quality of these actions depends on the personality structure of man which, in turn, is influenced by his food, his body and soul during the life of man on earth are interdependent and interconnected." (Isadore Grunfeld, The Jewish Dietary Laws, 1972, vol. 2, p. 213.)

GGano

Wine and mevushal

It Would Be Great If someone whose knowledge was more than my little bit would add the criteria for wine to be kosher, including mevushal and its significance. Salsa Shark 05:19, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

External Links

External links have been my pet peeve for the last little while, because people (often anonymously) insert them into articles to push a POV, then leave and other don't bother to check if they're relevant to the article body.
The links at the bottom are all totally irrelevant to the article. There's anough to say on Shechita to make it stand like an article - one of the reasons being the animal-rights movement taking on ritual slaughter as cruel. I suggest all the present links be removed, and will in fact do so in a few days if this comment goed unchallenged... JFW | T@lk 19:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

---

This would explain why a BLT with cheese is the most non-kosher food in the world. --Carnildo 07:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bans on Kosher meat

I'm doing some reading on countries that ban Kosher meat. I've read that Hitler banned Kosher slaughter. Can this be mentioned in the article, or is it like throwing gasoline on a fire? If factual (and I have no reason to doubt it) I sort of feel it should be mentioned. But I don't want to run afoul of Godwin's Law. Jdavidb 14:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. In the 1930s the Polish legislature introduced a number of antisemitic measure, including legislation in 1936 banning kosher slaughter, and this actually went into effect in January 1939. Would that fit somewhere as well? Jayjg 15:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, from what I've read, of the five European countries that ban kashrut slaughter, three had bans in place since the 1930s. (I may have misread; the five may be those with new bans, in addition to the three.)

Britain also considered such a ban in 2003. [1]

This issue affects Muslims as well as Jews, though I have no idea how similar the slaughter methods are or whether they are identical. Muslims seem to often assert that Kosher (Halal, actually) meat is tastier, I notice. Jdavidb 17:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you don't stun an animal before killing it it will have a gamey taste. This is due to some chemicals released into the bloodstream when an animal is frightened. Some Kosher butchers do stun the animal preventing the meat from getting gamey. Usually an experienced butcher is quicker and more humane and leaves less of this taste behind. (Some like the taste, and others don't, but it's generally frowned upon by butchers because it means the animal suffered more than it had to.) Zenyu 00:57, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Myths about giraffes

"Incidentally, it is a myth that giraffes are not eaten because we do not know where on the neck to slaughter them. You can slaughter them anywhere you want. The reason why we do not eat giraffes is mainly that they are extremely expensive." See http://www.zootorah.com/Content/identification.html and http://www.zootorah.com/essays/unicorn.html. Also, "Let's first dispense with the myth that we don't know exactly what spot on the long neck to shecht it. Actually, since Sh'chitta is permitted anywhere on the neck, this cannot be the problem. (source: Tosefta Chullin 1:11; Code of Jewish Law YD 20:1-2; "Tzohar" pg. 262, by R' A. Ben-David)." See http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=giraffe&f=tqak&offset=1 Jayjg 18:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pareve status of packaged foods?

This article mentions that the kashrut of certain packaged foods is suspect, even if marked with a K. Is this also true of foods marked "Kosher pareve"? What is the connection between Passover and pareve food? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:40, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

If food does not indicate who the supervising authority is, then it is suspect. There is no specific connection between Passover and pareve food. Jayjg 18:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Drinking glasses for meat and dairy

BEVERAGE GLASSES Q: Can one use the same glass beverage glasses for both dairy and meat meals? A: Yes.

Q: Can these glasses be used for both hot and cold beverages? A: Yes.

http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-containers-glass.htm

"pareve utensils like salad bowls or drinking glasses can accompany both milk and meat meals." http://www.kosher.org.uk/what.htm

This is a very common practice, even in Haredi homes. Jayjg 18:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that the London Beth Din is often not accepted by many Orthodox. Unsigned by User:Mikeage

Why are you saying this? JFW | T@lk 14:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the opinion of the Bies Yosef that glass does not absorb, but the Ramo argues. IIRC everyone agrees if glass reaches a melting heat/or enough that it can be bent with out breaking, it does absorb the status of meaty or prave, could a Rabbi please explain this. (BTW JDF, are there any others in Wikipedia Judaism project that are Rabbis other than user:Eliezer) 220.233.48.200 16:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Kosher ambiguity

In its most common usage, "kosher" refers to food, but it isn't really limited to that. "Kosher" means "suitable" and can also refer to witnesses, inscribed parchment in Torah scrolls and mezzuzot, etc.

So what I'm suggesting is that "kosher" should not automatically be rerouted to "kashrut," but that an explanation should be provided for the general meaning of the term. Unsigned by User:Leifern

For the English reader, the main use of kosher is in its context as "suitable according to the Jewish dietary laws". IMHO, the redirect should remain the same, with a brief mention of your conundrum in the intro. Indeed, the use of kosher in its food context is very recent. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Insects and produce

In the Produce paragraph, there is a sentence that includes the phrase "some companies now sell thoroughly washed and inspected produce for those without the time or patience to do it themselves" (emphasis added). In the context, this strikes me as mildly insulting to the members of the Haredi Jewish community, since it implies that their refusal to eat broccoli comes from a lack of patience. I would suggest deleting the entire "for those" clause entirely, or replacing it with a different description of the target market. --LostLeviathan 15:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course that was not the intent, however, if one person interprets it that way, then obviously it can be interpreted that way, and no doubt there are others, so OK. Gzuckier 18:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have NPOVed the paragraph further. It made the Haredi sound extremist or somehow lacking legitimacy; who are we to say? JFW | T@lk 16:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, who wants to eat bugs? Gzuckier 20:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's remember, that to properly check "easy" vegetables is a few moments, "medium" vegetables (such as romaine lettuce often requires soaking, washing, and examination of each leaf with either bright sunlight or a light box, and "difficult" vegetables will often require the disposal of more than 50% of the pieces due to severe infestation. Based on those standards (which may or may not be your standards), do you really think it's a laziness thing? --Mikeage 13:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you ever tried removing every visible insect from a broccoli stalk? JFW | T@lk 14:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I don't grow it in my little pesticide free garden any more. Gzuckier 15:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Manipulative use of hekhsher

I should note that the determination of kashrut according to the condition of the food is the ideal situation, the naïve look at it. In reality, at least in the state of Israel at the present day, the hekhsher is often used by the rabbis as a manipulative tool for achieving their dominance. A restaurant in Israel can lose its hekhsher by being open on Saturday. What has Sabbath-keeping to do with the kashrut of the food? Nothing really, except that the hekhsher has long ceased to be about food only. Recently, a restaurant operated by religious Jews (therefore not open on the Sabbath) lost its hekhsher because it came to be a meeting-place for religious Jews of both sexes (sexual interaction of any sort apart from marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism). It would be accurate to say the kashrut business is no longer kosher. --Shlomital 14:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

If you feel this should be represented on Wikipedia, it should be in hechsher, not on this page.

Indeed, a rabbi has the full right to withdraw a hechsher if a restaurant violates other precepts of Jewish law. There is nothing coercive about that - it's a "take it or leave it". A restaurant may also lose its hechsher if it engages in money laundering - is that coercive? Jewish law frowns on stealing, and the rabbi is actually encouraging honest business!

I cannot verify your story about the restaurant acting as a meeting ground. In certain areas of Israel, such a place would be disruptive for the community (and endanger the reputation of the youngsters), and the rabbis would act in good faith by removing this lifnei iver! JFW | T@lk 20:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this could be covered in a more relevant fashion on hechsher, specifically in regards to what other standards aside from kashrut are used in the granting of a hechsher.

It might be worth noting (if it can be cited with credible references) which marks are granted solely on the basis of kashrut. It would be misleading to imply that the mark is solely a sign of kosher practices if it is in fact being used as more than that.

I do not think that Wikipedia can call someone "manipulative" in condemnation -- that is not what we are here for -- but we can certainly point to specific criticisms and studies made elsewhere. --FOo 20:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nekudot

Nekudot -- why was the addition reverted? Seems to me like it was a good addition, as well as factually correct Mikeage 15:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Nequddoth are excellent detail, and deserve their place in the articles, just as much as Arabic vowel diacritics and katakana/hiragana next to Japanese kanji. - Gilgamesh 02:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I use Firefox and I see the nekudos. Are you sure they are a problem? Jayjg | (Talk) 17:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could it be an issue of installing Hebrew screen fonts in Windows? Gzuckier 19:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I have any installed on this computer. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have Hebrew fonts, and only use Firefox. I see them just fine.

• Hebrew Vowel Marks will work in any Unicode compliant browser, as Unicode has been incorporated into all modern browswers (and unicode support is required in standards), it should be kept into the article.--Josiah 23:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

When I use Explorer at work, the nekudot look great, but the (U) symbol is just an empty square. When I use Firefox at home, the (U) looks fine, and the nekudot are visible, but the nekudot are between the letters instead of below them. When I use Explorer at home (which I stopped about a month ago, but went into it just now only to check this out) the (U) is only a square, and the nekudot are below the letters, but several of the letters are simply vertical bars. I hope that info is meaningful to someone. --Keeves 03:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

In the section on vegetarianism, the article reads: "Since there are few laws of Kashrut restricting the consumption of plant products (except for fruits, harvested from a tree, less than three years after its planting -- which isn't done anyway for practical reasons), it follows that a truly vegetarian meal would be inherently Kosher."

This seems incorrect, although it isn't clear what the author considers to be a truly vegetarian meal. Three examples: first, consider the case of wine: wine and other products made from grape juice are only Kosher if produced by Jews, unless pasturized first. (See Kosher foods.) Second, milk is only kosher if it comes from a kosher animal. Third, vegetarian food might also be non-kosher if prepared with a non-kosher implement, even if that implement (for example, a pan, or an oven) contains no residues from an animal product. (That implement may still need to undergo ritual purification for it to be kosher.) Unsigned by User:131.215.6.187

Please do not insert the {{dubious}} template if it is not necessary. Your comments here are heard and taken seriously. Your are correct that wine and milk have kashrut restrictions, and that the utensils may have a beli'ah (absorbed taste) that may invalidate the kashrut of the vegetarian product. I will edit the article accordingly. JFW | T@lk 10:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added four examples of differences between pareve and vegetarian, without even getting into things like wine or bishul akum. But then I noticed the article on Kosher foods and I really think that these two articles need some sort of overall editing cleanup. I think that the material in these articles should either be merged into a single article, or there should be a clearer distinction on what goes where. --Keeves 03:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I have the same problem, I was wondering what was up with that--69.14.120.79 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Shellfish and Pain; Bottom Feeding

In section 3.5 "Other reasons", the article reads: "Like the laws for the slaughter of animals, laws against shellfish could actually be for the good of the creature. There is no painless method for the preparation of "bottom feeding" lobster and crab."

There is scientific dispute that lobster and crab do not feel pain when cooked. Read for example http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7557037. At the very least, this article should not state as fact that "there is no painless method" with respect to shellfish.

according to Alton Brown, there is a painless way to cook a lobster, by separating it's brain and brain stem with a large, sharp knife prior to cooking. it is just as likely that there are ways to cease the functioning of any creature, painlessly, in the same manner. the case i see against eating of "botton feeders" is these animals feed by filtering, possibly feeding on toxic material.

The statement could be qualified, e.g. "Some believe there is no painless method" etc. But I'm not sure these two sentences form a strong enough concept to be worth keeping in the article in the first place. Frankly, they read like something the author invented through personal reasoning, as opposed to an actual documented belief held among Jews or a theory debated by Kashrut scholars. If the shellfish pain idea really does have a basis in tradition or scholarship, then I think it's worth amplifying these statements. For example, I would find it interesting to learn if Rabbinical authorities have taken a stand on whether or not crustaceans feel pain in the context of Kashrut.

If this is editorial postulation, then, respectfully, I think it's weak. It suggests that pain-free slaughter is always the goal of Kashrut, but it seems that this suggestion is easily toppled by the example of (finned, scaled) fish, which are parve and AFAIK do not require a slaughtering technique. That fish feel pain may be disputed, but there is modern scientific evidence that they do (read for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm). Since there does not appear to be a reevaluation of parve status for fish as a result, I find it a bit of a leap to believe that pain is meant to be a major part of the equation WRT lower-order animals. Why protect the lobsters, which don't feel pain, and not the fish, which do? It seems to me that the seafood discussion pretty much ends at fins and scales. Granted, Kashrut can be arbitrary, but that argument is covered in other sections. Absent an external source of support for it, the shellfish pain argument is only casually plausible, and as such it weakens the article.

The "bottom feeding" argument thrown in there is unclear. Presumably bottom feeding isn't in and of itself a problem. Catfish aren't Kosher, but that's because of the lack of scales, not where they eat. Carp are Kosher, and they are bottom feeders. Do you mean to draw a parallel to carrion birds? Lobsters mostly eat live things (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq7.html), though I would agree that popular wisdom has it otherwise. Incidentally, carp will feed on dead animal material. I do not believe Kashrut demands only grain-fed, farmed catfish, though I would be interested to know if that's not the case.

You make a number of good points. The information seems dubious at best, and if the arguments can't be sourced, they should be removed as original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"For several years, it was a tradition for many Jewish families to eat at non-kosher Chinese restaurants on Sundays."

The statement "For several years, it was a tradition for many Jewish families to eat at non-kosher Chinese restaurants on Sundays." was inserted into the article today. Aside from the fact that the point it is making is not entirely clear, is it true, is there a reference for this, and is it encyclopedic? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it from many firsthand sources. I won't feel the least bit hurt if someone takes it out; just intended to illustrate differing attitudes toward kashrut. --Leifern 18:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps it can be generalized to something about kosher in the home, not kosher outside. By the way, did you notice my note on your talk: page regarding international law? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was quite taken aback when I first saw that comment, but it does have a certain amount of validity, if only we could pin it down a bit better. When I was a youngster in the 60's, for example, we kept kosher at home, but would eat out anywhere. I do recall eating Chinese frequently on Sundays, but I was not aware of any pattern or deliberateness to it. In other families there may have been a deliberate streak of rebellion against kashrut to this practice. A friend of mine once described his family as not religious at all, "but we ate Chinese out to show that we were Jewish". I think this may also have been a staple joke among Jewish comedians of that era. What we really need to do is three things: (1) Be more specific than "for several years". (2) Find some description for this practice other than "tradition". Even better, give the reasons for the practice. (3) Above all, have some sort of reference!!! Keeves 02:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it and inserted something better, pretty much like Jayjg said. Many families still have a kosher-at-home/non-kosher-outdoors approach, although this may have become less since the 1960s. The contentious text indicated a ritual (like Fish on Friday) that has never been there. JFW | T@lk 02:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good job, JFW. Nice, concise and non-judgemental, like an encyclopedia ought to be. Personally, I liked what the previous person had written, which constrasted "religious observance" and "traditional practice", because I felt that it was a nice hint of an explanation of the slide from full observance to partial observance. But the more I think about it, such comments are out of place here. OTOH, if one would want to write a longer explanation of it... Hmmm... I wonder if there's an article yet on Assimilation... gonna go look now... Keeves 13:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lovely. I think not every article on every item of Jewish law needs mention that "not every Jew adheres to this law". But in this case, it may be worth mentioning. There is always a small bias problem. People who eat kosher at home and not outdoors may be guilty of hypocrisy, but then every egg-sized bite of non-kosher food is an additional sin - so the more kosher food, the better, even if not all the time.

I'm not sure if we have a good "assimilation" article. I'm not offering to write it :-) JFW | T@lk 09:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cows and sheep and trichinosis

"The laws permit consumption of animals such as cows and sheep, which can also harbor trichinosis"

Any animal could theoretically "harbor" trichinosis, but what citation is there that cows and sheep do? Trichinosis is a disease of carnivores and ominvores, since it is contracted by eating of meat from infected animals. Cows and sheep do not eat animals unless they are force fed--this is how we ended up with mad cow disease. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took out the sentence arguing against kashrut as not logically being a health code on the basis that cows and sheep (kosher) harbor trichinosis and horses (not kosher) do not. These are all herbivores, though the horse is not ruminant. Gov health sites specify that "[p]eople get trichinosis by consuming raw or undercooked meats such as pork, wild boar, bear, bobcat, cougar, fox, wolf, dog, horse, seal, or walrus containing Trichinella larvae." Note the inclusion of horse, exclusion of cow and sheep. Pigs are especially susceptible because they are promiscuous eaters, including cannibalism. Horses? There were cases of trichinosis in France, mostly from the eating of raw or rare horsemeat imported from other countries (incl. Germany and the U.S.). It is not known with certainty how the horses contracted it, but it has been observed that horses will eat meat if it is placed in their feed.

Perhaps the ancient Hebrews observed similar phenomena; it is well known that the trichinosis was endemic among Egyptians (the parasite has been found in mummies). Let's not bend science to religious purpose. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Companion animals?

The text added at 17:38 on 20 Jun 2005 by 82.35.52.157 includes this:

The laws of Kashrut also conform to a general rule that human societies tend to separate food animals from companion animals, whether pets or working animals. For instance, where dogs are kept as pets, they are not eaten; in most countries, where horses are used as draft animals they are not eaten, but in countries where oxen and cows are used as draft animals, such as India, they are not eaten.

These comments might make more sense if 82.35.52.157 could demonstrate that the ancient Israelites kept dogs and pigs as pets or draft animals.--Keeves 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food Taboos

Some food psychologists point out the similarity between the laws as laid out in Leviticus and the natural 'disgust' reaction that all people generally show to novel meats (see the work of Paul Rozin). That suggests that the food taboos were a codification of existing practice rather than the imposition of a new rule, an attempt to give a religious explanation for an existing state of affairs in which the early Israelites did not eat pork etc. while other groups they knew did. Certainly, the 'disgust' reaction to novel meats helps maintain the taboo over time. The 'disgust' reaction is specific to novel foods derived from animals rather than plant materials, which explains why the laws of Kashrut, like most religious taboos, are unconcerned by plant-derived foods

I'd like to point out two things to the submitter: 1. Can you provide sources? (otherwise, I'm tempted to revert this as original research) 2. This is not true! Plenty of Kashrus lawys are concerned with plant derived foods. Perhaps in the modern non-religious mind the primary focus of the laws is on meat, but strict kosher laws regulate plant consumption as well. Mikeage 08:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the reference to Paul Rozin. I don't know who he is, but let me read up on him in the meantime. Nevertheless, I think my point about plant laws stands.Mikeage 08:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that we don't have carte blance to eat all plants, we're talking philosophy here, and the laws which regulate plants are of an entirely different nature than animals. In the most broad sense, I think it is safe to say that all (or virtually all) of the laws about eating animals are negative commandments -- avoid this because it is taboo. Even shechita, ostensibly a positive mitzva, is more about avoiding animals which died for bad reasons, than anything positive about the shechita. In contrast, all the laws about eating plants are positive commands. For example, we can't eat Israeli produce unless it has been uplifted by giving a portion to the kohen. Even orla, which might seen to be a taboo, is more about the baby tree being special, and being given a chance to mature, than anything 'disgusting'.--Keeves 13:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of Treif

Treif has 2 other spellings:

• Tref
• Traif

A Google search on Kosher followed by traif or tref or treif gives a ratio of 1:1:10, making treif the most common spelling on the web. Should the other spellings be shown in article? Rellis1067 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I would retain "traif". "Tref" is linguistically more tentative. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've certainly seen "treif" much more often; that would seem to me to be the better choice. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.treif.com/ Gzuckier 02:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Treifa(h) is more common, on the web, I'm sure, than either "tref" or "traif". Even if only in reference to the Treifah banquet... Tomer ^TALK 06:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

TO: cupcaketwinkie, a thank you

Thank you for restoring the information published by Johns Hopkins (Bulletin of the History of Medicine), Lancet, and Bible Archaeological Review).

I am referring to the information below:

In 1953 Dr. David I. Macht of Johns Hopkins, conducted toxicity tests on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the toxicity of Levitically "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%. [2] Dr. Macht used a toxicology test cited in the peer reviewed literature that Dr. Macht reported was particularly good for zoological toxins which of course is relevant for testing kosher and non kosher meat/fish/poultry. In addition, Dr. Macht had research indicating the harmful physiological effects of meat and milk combinations. Lastly, Dr. Macht compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat.

Macht's conclusions were challenged by some scientist in a Seventh Day Adventist publication although one partially affirmed his study [3] Seventh Day adventist believe in eating kosher but Christians are in general agreement that they can eat the food that was declared unclean in the Old Testament (Galations 2: 7-16 and 1 Timothy 4:1-5). Some of the criticism of Dr. Macht's study is regarding controversy about what animals are kosher and what animals are non-kosher (see: reference section and various Scipture translations). For those who are interested in the toxicology test Dr. Macht used in greater depth, Dr. Macht discusses the reliability of toxicology method he used in relation to zoological toxins in the peer reviewed science literature (see reference section). Perhaps in the long term is eating food that is more toxic and that the Torah declared unclean is less healthy or perhaps it makes no difference. In the short term eating non kosher food often appears to have no dramatic ill effects in general. For example, the Arabs who do not eat kosher consider camel to be a delicasy. Clearly, non kosher Arabs do not fall dead right after eating camel meat. However, the long term optimality of eating clean versus unclean meat though is an unanswered question of science. Also, eating non kosher foods clearly has some nutritional benefit. For example, shrimp and pork contain protein. Perhaps, the benefits outweigh the cost and clearly there is some nutritional goodness in foods that the Torah declared unclean. What foods are good or not good or optimal from a empirically tested science viewpoint is often controversial. In short, in regards to eating strictly a kosher diet versus a non kosher diet science has no definitive answers at the present time.

A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant relationship between cirrohosis and pork consumption (Dr. Macht found that swine meat was more toxic than food the Torah declared clean). [4] However, in relationship to the Torah it must be admitted that modern day pork raising is different than ancient methods. Perhaps, modern swine ingest or are exposed to toxins in the modern commercial swine raising industry. Of course, as noted earlier even unclean foods have their benefits and what is nutritionally sound in the long term from a empirical science standpoint in relation to clean and unclean food in general appears to be an unanswered question.

Jane Cahill reported in Biblical Archeological Review (Jane Cahill and Peter Warnock, "It had to happen, Scientist Examines Ancient Bathrooms of Romans 586B.C." BAR May/June 1991 ) that the toilets of a Jewish household in Jerusalem were examine and no parasites or infectious agents were found. A similar study done regarding Egyptians revealed eggs from Schistosoma, Trichinella, wire worm and tapeworms, all found in pork. These organisms can cause significant chronic diseases. Of course, this is only one finding but perhaps noteworthy.

• Consumers’ FAQ’s on Kosher fish- Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America by rabbinical scholar Chaim Goldberg
• KASHRUT.COM - Kosher and Non-kosher fish
• Kline, Monte Ph.D., The Dietary Law
• Macht, D. M.D., (1953). “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 27. 444-450
• Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. : Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1941, 26: 597
• Macht, D. I. Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184
• Macht, D.I. , Science 1930, 71 :302
• Ministry Magazine, March 1953, p37-38 "This Question of Unclean Meats" Responses to Macht's study from heads of biology depts.
• Nanji AA, French SW. Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. Lancet. 1985 Mar 23;1(8430):681-3.
• Ohr Somayach Website – Ohr.edu - Ask the Rabbi - Are swans kosher?

ken 16:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Hmm.... When I read the article, especially the "toilet research" made me think. So, they looked at Jerusalem toilets and toilets somewhere in Egypt and found parasites found in pork in the egypt ones. But, most Egyptians are muslims, and would probably never eat pork. Of course, there arealso many secular muslims, but I have many muslim friends, and even those who are totally secular, don't attend religious services on a regular basis, and are even heavy drinkers for some reason never eat pork. So, where did they find the "pork-contaminated" toilet? Or could it be that these parasites are not specific to pork at all, and the studyperhaps just says something about hygiene standards in Egypt? --222.13.236.80 07:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

TO the person who deleted the Johns Hopkins/Lancet/Biblical Archaeological Review material again

Johns Hopkins, Lancet (UK's premiere medical journal), and BAR are all mainstream science. I also see that one person restored what you deleted with no commentary in the talk page, thus I see no general reaction that the material should not be there. I also offered opposing arguments so it is not POV. I am returning the material to the article. I respect your right to disagree but I do not believe in arbitrary exclusion. I have no desire to get into a edit war. That is why I offered opposing arguments. Please be reasonable here.

Now science is probabilistic and provisional. If you have studies controverting the Macht/Johns Hopkins, Lancet, and BAR material I would be happy to hear about them.

ken 16:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Perhaps it helps if you're concise and cite 1-2 references only. JFW | T@lk 19:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

TO: jfdwolff, regarding conciseness

You wrote to me:

"Perhaps it helps if you're concise and limit yourself to 1-2 references. Wikipedia need not be the final word. JFW"

I welcome your suggestion, however, if it is shorter than two things will happen:

One, it will be called non-mainstream science (original research) because it does not have the support of Dr. Macht/Johns Hopkins publication, Lancet (UK's premiere medical journal), and BAR.

Two, it will be called POV because it does not give both sides.

I believe I was concise it giving both sides of the germaine issues and used mainstream sources. For example, Dr. Macht's study was published in a Johns Hopkins publication and Dr. David I. Macht has a excellent biography.

ken 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Let's rephrase this: could I suggest you limit the section on Dr Macht's work to a few paragraphs, with the mordicum of references. Dr Macht is only one of the many voices in the rich debate on the function of the Biblical dietary laws, and to devote a long section to him would create the impression that he is a world authority on the subject, quod non. You are right that he needs to be mentioned, but the best way of doing that is briefly. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

jdwolff, made it more concise and.....

I am glad we agree that Dr. Macht needs to be mentioned. I did make the Dr. Macht section smaller plus added a reference to his other Torah food work.

Next, if you want to add other sources in addition to Dr. Macht or develop other potential positions by all means do so. I do know I gave the opposing sides though in relation to his study.

I am looking for "world authority" sources. I do not think the sources I used are the only "world authority" sources and welcome other sources. With that being said, I do think "world authority" sources are important. Johns Hopkins is one of the premiere medical research institutions and Dr. Macht was employed by them and published his article in a Johns Hopkins publication. And again, Dr. David I. Macht has excellent credentials in medicine and toxicology. Lancet is a impeccable source in regards to pork consumption journal articles. BAR is a internationally distributed and highly regarded archaeology source.

Also, I do think these sources are important and should be alluded to in the article and references as they give the peer reviewed science/medical articles on the test Dr. Macht used so readers do not have to be overly influenced by the Seventh Day Adventist scientists opinions which were expressed. I am referring to these references:

Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. : Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1941, 26: 597

Macht, D.I. , Science 1930, 71 :302

I realize these articles are older but it is the validity of information and not the newness of information that is important. Otherwise, we descend into appeal to novelty illogical fallacy type thinking. And again, if anyone has better information in relation to toxicity and clean/unclean animals it is most welcome.

I do not want to belabor the point though and I am glad we came to an agreement. ken 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

In what sense has the section become shorter? I notice no changes. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

TO: jfwolff, here is how it is shorter

I removed these sentences:

"Perhaps in the long term is eating food that is more toxic and that the Torah declared unclean is less healthy or perhaps it makes no difference. In the short term eating non kosher food often appears to have no dramatic ill effects in general. For example, the Arabs who do not eat kosher consider camel to be a delicasy. Clearly, non kosher Arabs do not fall dead right after eating camel meat. However, the long term optimality of eating clean versus unclean meat though is an unanswered question of science. Also, eating non kosher foods clearly has some nutritional benefit. For example, shrimp and pork contain protein. Perhaps, the benefits outweigh the cost and clearly there is some nutritional goodness in foods that the Torah declared unclean. What foods are good or not good or optimal from a empirically tested science viewpoint is often controversial."

I don't want to remove more or it will remove the core material and then the missplaced "original research" or non-supported charges will occur and it is important that material be supported.

Three paragraphs are devoted to PETA/animal welfare. I don't think a pro and con paragraph each for Macht is excessive given the relevant issues.

ken 00:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Grey Area

Can we have a section for grey area foods? I know that there are some borderline cases that a lot of people might turn to an encyclopedia to figure out if it is kosher or not- generally, your more uncommon meats such as:

• eel
• deer
• rabbit
• duck

Make some people scratch their heads. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Don't the rules listed cover them? There are all sorts of different kinds of animals, how would one decide which to include? P.S. Not kosher, kosher, not kosher, kosher. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, where are the rules listed? In either case, I thought it might be useful to actually list the kashrut status of common foods, so you don't have to click through the article to determine if a particular fish has scales, or to see if a certain animal has a cloven hoof, etc. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

They're listed in the Kosher foods article, which I think covers most of this. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV section

This text sounds a bit POVish to me, as well as generally reading poorly due to redundancy and general sloppiness:

In 1953 Dr. David I. Macht of Johns Hopkins, conducted toxicity tests on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the toxicity of Levitically "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%. [1] Dr. Macht used a toxicology test cited in the peer reviewed literature that Dr. Macht reported was particularly good for zoological toxins which of course is relevant for testing kosher and non kosher meat/fish/poultry. In addition, Dr. Macht had research indicating harmful physiological effects of meat and milk combinations and Dr. Macht also compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat [2].

Macht's conclusions were challenged by some scientist in a Seventh Day Adventist publication although one partially affirmed his study [3] Seventh Day adventist believe in eating kosher but Christians are in general agreement that they can eat the food that was declared unclean in the Old Testament (Galatians 2: 7-16 and 1 Timothy 4:1-5). Perhaps some of the criticism of Macht's study by the scientists was invalid due to a misunderstanding of kosher classification and Scriptural translation issues.[4] [5][6] Also, Macht states in the peer reviewed journal Science that his technique is particularly good for detecting zoological based toxins (as opposed to plant based toxins), and therefore perhaps one could conclude it was was suitable for testing fish, meat, and poultry. (The toxicological method that Dr. Macht used was also cited in the Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. See references). Lastly, the long term effects of eating kosher/non-kosher is not yet determined by science if non-kosher food is more toxic.

It was inserted by a POV pusher. I think it can be narrowed down to 1-2 lines of NPOV. JFW | T@lk 07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. With any luck they have moved on, and it can be briefly summarized. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that those who push the views of Dr. Macht have missed the point of this article. That section is not about scientific research into the possible health benefits of kashrut. Rather, it is about an entirely different topic: What did Jews believe, such that they followed and developed the laws of kashrut? What was the rationale for these laws? I am fairly sure that the Mishnaic sages Hillel and Shammai didn't base their views of Kashrut on 20th century research! In other words, the views of Dr. Macht have no bearing on how and why the laws of kashrut were developed and followed. They don't belong in this section. However, we could make a link from this section to a separate article onto modern day scientific research into this issue. RK 19:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a brief summary would not be a bad idea. It supports the Rambam's assertion in the Moreh that Kashrut was at least partially for health reasons. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this article yesterday. I do not claim to know for certain whether Dr. Macht's research is on solid scientific ground--it may very well be so--but let me say that from an outsider's perspective the section on his work reads as extremely biased. The language heavily favors Dr. Macht throughout. Only one competing study is cited, and it seems deliberately marginalized. If it is necessary to point out that Seventh Day Adventists published the latter study, why is it not important that Dr. Macht is a Doctor of Hebrew Literature? I find it interesting that, of 9 citations in his toxicology study, 8 are his own work; that the end of the paper is a celebration of the Torah with no bearing on science; and most importantly that the sole method used to determine "toxicology" is the effect of meat juices on plant seeds. Is this plant seed method good science for human toxicology? Are there other studies exploring the toxicology of kosher vs. non-kosher meats? If not, is it because this study is considered authoritative on the subject or because it is considered not to be worth addressing? To summarize my concerns with this section, it sounds like POV quackery even if it may not be. 209.213.198.25 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have slashed this down now to just two papers: Macht's 1953 research and the riposte from the biologists. I do support the mention of the Seventh Day Adventist background: it was in a ministry journal that their response was published. 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Machts original study was published simultaneously in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine (which was not peer reviewed), and in the Ministry Journal, which then asked a group of peers to review it AFTER it was published (hence the second article, mentioned above - it is NOT a competing study, its the opinion of the heads of biology departmen on Macht's study.). Macht's study is not up to any kind of scientific standards, most especially since the results were never replicated. His "phytophamocological" method was one he invented, and which nobody used (or even referenced) subsequently. See David_I._Macht.

MickWest 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that "the correlation [...] was 100%" is potentially misleading. Correlation is a very specific concept in statistics which is commonly applied to this sort of study, but this concept cannot be what is meant in the passage. 70.137.157.131 08:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to the complete deletion of that paragraph. If the last relevant study cited appeared in 1953 there has obviously not been a lot of excitement in the scientific community about this kind of research. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Name

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we are to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Kosher is a far more common term in English (8,550,000 Google hits vs only 375,000 for Kashrut). Based on this policy, the article should be named Kosher with a redirect from Kashrut, and I propose we make that change. However, to play devil's advocate to my own proposal, we also have another policy to "Redirect adjectives to nouns". Since Kashrut is a noun, that would argue for keeping the page here. Thoughts? Johntex\^talk 01:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the system of laws. "Kosher" just means whether a product (or diet) satisfies these laws. I would be opposed to a move. It presently employs the correct terminology. JFW | T@lk 07:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think JFW's comments are a restatement of the preference for naming the articles for nouns rather than adjectives, and I agree with that. I think that the idea of using the more common English term is merely a convenience factor, and is outweighed by using the more correct term, because the redirect will effortlessly bring the user to the correct article in either case. In other words, when a user tries to go to Kosher, he will effortlessly arrive at Kashrut, and the first thing he will learn is the difference between those two words. IOW, leave it as is.--Keeves 11:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Kashrut is the preferred typed way, but most English speaking people say it as Kashrus. Or maybe it just mean there is too many South Africans in Sydney. ;) 220.233.48.200 16:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity's Attitude

I think this deserves a place in the article. As a Christian Jew I'm often asked to explain when exactly I feel God "repealed the Kashrut laws" and I do remember the story in the New Testament vaguely, but not well enough to put it in the article. It had a sheet.. that god laid down.. with all the animals in it.. and said it was okay to eat if you give thanks...

There is a specific NT source for the Christian "repealment" of the dietary laws, but I cannot claim to be conversant in the NT. Why do you need to be a "Christian Jew" (whatever that may be) to face this question? Indeed, wasn't Christianity supposed to replace Judaism? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is that if someone is going to add a section about this, then it should not talk only about Kashrut, but must explicitly compare Christianity's views on Kashrut with Christianity's views on other Jewish traditions. Suppose someone would add a section to the article on Ramadan, and describe the Jewish attitude to Ramadan; it wouldn't make any sense - why is there a focus on the Jewish attitude to this one particular detail of Islam??? So too, you'd have to supply some context for readers to know why there's a focus on the Christian attitude to this one aspect of Judaism.--Keeves 12:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

NT Source

Acts (of the Apostles) Chapter 10 v1-8: These verses speak of an Italian (Gentile) named Cornelius, who feared the God of Israel, and one day in prayer had a vision of an angel telling him to send for the Apostle Peter. v9-18: As the men sent by Cornelius are on their way, Peter is in a famished stated & while food was being prepared he "fell into a trance". He was shown a sheet containing animals which he knew to be unclean. He heard a voice stating to, "Arise, slay & eat". However, Peter protested, noting that he had never eaten anythin which was common or unclean. He hears the voice stating "Do not call common or unclean what the Eternal has cleansed". When he awoke, he searched for a meaning to the vision, and the men arrived. v19-33: While Peter still thought about the meaning of the vision, as he realized that it was not literal, he heard the Spirit speak to him saying that three men were seeking him & that he should doubt nothing, but go with them. When Peter reached Cornelius, he noted in v28-29, that it was "unlawful" at that time for him (a Jew) to keep company with Cornelius (a Gentile), but how he was shown that he should not call any Man common or unclean.

Although the New Testament asserts that the sacrificing of the son of Mary could bring atonement for sins, it never asserts that it had the power to cleanse unclean meat. In Matthew 5:17-19, Christ made the statement that the Torah was still binding until heaven & earth pass away (the world to come). In Christian prophecy, the "Dragon" makes war with a church that keeps the Torah, and has the faith of Jesus Christ. In Romans 2:12-16, the Apostle Paul declares that those who keep the Torah will be Justified before God, and that the Gentiles believers will live in a manner that suggests that the Torah was written in their hearts. This statement of Paul's actually coincides with the promise of the "New Covenant", which is found in Jeremiah 31:27-34. The "New Covenant" is notably made with two parties, the House of Israel, and the House of Judah. Galatians 3:29 indicates also that the Gentile believers become a part of the lineage of Abraham, being adopted into the covenant.

Although the NT describes a belief that sacrificing of animals is no longer necessary, due to the sacrifice of Christ, there are no scriptures that indicate an abandonment of the Dietary Law, or most other mitzvot. Christianity appears to have initially been a sect of Judaism, but at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, most of the Gentile Christians desired to be separate from the Ethnic Jews. This appears to have been the start of the rise of the Roman Church, it also appears to show a decline in Torah observant Christians, and the mixing of pagan traditions such as solstice & the festival of Ishtar (Christmas/Easter) came soon after.

Other Reasons

The Other Reasons section doesn't seem to be encyclopedic, it reads as random conjecture. Further some of the reasons are quite a stretch from the laws. It's not so much that specific animals are excluded (for the most part) but that rules to determine which animals are kosher are defined. [unsigned anonymous comment]

SOME RANDOM CONJECTURE:

I would like to add my own "random conjecture": The Torah laws for Kashrut are linguistically symbolic. The Torah states: "You may eat (ToAKh'Loo) this from all that are in the water (MaYeeM), all that has to it fins (S'NaPeeR) and scales (QaSQeSeT), in the water, in the seas (YaMeeM) and in the rivers (NaChaLeeM), they are for you." Lv11:9 Each of the words transliterated in the above sentence have very literal meanings. The word for eat (ToAKh'Loo) comes from the root A.K.L., this word literally means "to contain or encompass all." It is an expansion of the word KoL meaning "All" and is related to the word YaKhoL meaning "to be able" or in analogous form "to encompass an act." So metaphorically, the kosher laws will tell us what (behaviors) we may "encompass" in our lives. The words for water (MaYeeM) and sea (YaM) both come from the verb H.M.H. which means "to stir up or agitate." The word for sea (YaM) literally means the "the stirred up or agitated state" and the word for water (MaYeeM) literally means "what is of the agitated state." So we are about to be told what behaviors we may "encompass" when we are in the "agitated state." The word for fin (S'NaPeeR) literally means "the sharp thing that can be removed." It is a combination of the word SeeN from the root S.N.N. meaning "to sharpen or refine" (and incidentally related to the word Sinai meaning "sharp (mountain)or refined (person)") and P.W.R. / P.R.R. meaning "to disengage, remove, break apart, smash." The word for scales (QaSQeSeT) simply means "firm." So what we are being told is:

The behaviors that we may "encompass" when we are in the "agitated state" are "to be of a refined disposition, disengaging ourselves from the situation that agitates us as well as to remain "firm."

Likewise, the word for Herd Animal (B'HaeMah) means "to brutishly and forcefully push one's way into something" (in the case of the herd animal probably toward the watering whole). These animals must be "ruminant" and have "split hooves." The Arabic for the word ruminant also means "to ruminate on something mentally" as it does in English. And the word for split hooves PaRSaH also means "to make distinctions." So the lesson here is that "we may only force ourselves into life situations if we ruminate on the situation and if we make distinctions as to what is appropriate and what not."

Incidentally, the word for Pig (ChaZeeR) means "the one who busily goes around and around searching." And we are correctly told that this behavior is inappropriate because "although in engaging in this behavior, we may make distinctions (in moving from one thing to another)=(split hoof), we do not ruminate on our experiences (because we are too busy going from one thing to the next). Any comments to Yishalom@sbcglobal.net

Another other reason, some further random conjecture

A spontaneous thesis, the kashrut was fomulated (divinely, shamanically, or otherwise) to cope with the hazards of a post-volcanic, toxic environment. This is way out of my ken- enjoy with all due skepticism. A few things to tie together,

• Kashrut was codified in the aftermath of the Exodus
• The Exodus was thought to be coincident with, even occasioned by, the erruption of Thera
• This also caused a die-off in several populations, destabilising them for years, and present higher than normal carrion rates and disease vectors
• This volcanic erruption caused massive toxic contamination, which would have been subject to bioconcentration.
• Pure herbavores would be relatively isolated from much of this, if grass could be found
• Many of the non-kosher species are opportunistic scavengers (wild pig, raptors) or bioconcentrators (shellfish, insects)
• Bird identification in kashrut is complex, apparently, but isn't a "korkuvan (gizzard, "pupik" in Yiddish) whose inner lining can be peeled" possessed by grainivores, not insectivores or raptors, evading problems of bio-concentration? All the 24 listed non-kosher birds are either shellfish-o-vores, insectivores or raptors.
• Rabbits and pigs feed on roots and burrow in the ground (ok, desperately reaching for something with rabbits, which puzzle me)

Comments? -SM 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this actually a published hypothesis, or is this your own theory? JFW | T@lk 23:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It was a spontaneous and- I assure you- inexpert observation. The correlation of Exodus and Thera was made by Charles Pellegrino in his book, Unearthing Atlantis, though I don't know if it was his original research, and didn't have it to hand to cite before (note that the point does not depend upon whether Thera was Atlantis or not). The zoological observations are common, though the point on the relative immunity of herbivores to bioconcentration is more speculative (on my part). I cited the kashrut article wherein I found the guidance on gizzards, etc.

Subsequent to writing the above, I happened to be studying the no original research principle, and found this comment, which says, "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages". I started a discussion, to clarify the policy, and, perhaps, negotiate the terms of my contrition (mortified as I was to have possibly written in bad taste here).

I have no interest in pushing my theory, or representing it as authoritative in any way (the use of the word shellfish-o-vore should have sufficed to make that point). I was fishing for a published theory, the existence of which seemed probable, but of which I was unaware. Also, the Other reasons section did seem to struggle...

And I am still puzzled about rabbits. -SM 20:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Great article, but missing the root "Why?"

"How kashrut is viewed by Judaism today" looks pretty NPOV to me, but it lacks a binding 'why'. Perhaps it is obvious to someone who practices Judaism, but from the perspective of a Gentile reader of this article, I see all this debate about rules, pseudoscientific authoritative sounding reasoning, and nothing but a wimpy excuse for a religious explanation. As this article has grown, this section has suffered immensely. I get the impression that all this anti-semitic finger pointing in the talk page is keeping people from contributing in this regard. -Andrew

Hate to break this to you, Andrew, but the Jews themselves simply regard the laws as God-given (chukim) without a need for a good reason. The reasons you have seen are the only ones really discussed by Jewish philosophers. Maimonides suggests it is conducive to health, Hirsch maintains it is to spiritually elevate the act of eating. There is no other unifying explanation that is not already in the article. JFW | T@lk 05:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

With all props to chukim(ooh, that's keeper vocabulary, thanks!), I would be surprised and a bit disappointed if there was not out there some learned consideration of the catastrophic context in which kashrut arose (Andrew, see my post above for the sort of thing to which I am referring). There is reasonable hard evidence that the Exodus took place against a backdrop of enormous environmental upheaval, which would have certainly posed serious health challenges to those foraging in the Wilderness, requiring a system of precautions. And this gentile is still puzzled about rabbits. =)

-SM 09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Like most religions, though, the Deity in Judaism did not feel a need to justify His laws to the people subservient to them, so you definitely won't find explicit reasoning in the Jewish source texts. i.e. The Torah does not have footnotes. Any socio-political/scientific reasoning is speculative at best. Modern Orthodox Jews do not use as their basis for keeping kosher that it made biological sense 3,000 years ago. They do it because it's written in the Torah, plain and simple. 38.112.113.242 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your theory is interesting. Have you considered publishing it? JFW | T@lk 10:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And what's with the rabbits? They're not kosher. JFW | T@lk 10:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a famous one...rabbits or hares are said to chew their cud, but to not have a split hoof. See Lev. 11:6. (They do eat their food twice, but not at all in the same manner as ruminants. It's a classic "proof" used by Bible detractors that either the Torah wasn't given by God, or that God ch"v isn't omniscient. My personal belief is that "cud" is an inaccurate translation.) Tomer^talk 02:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Re rabbits, that was my puzzlement, my framework explained only weakly why rabbits might have been declared unclean: do kosher animals not eat roots and tubers, perhaps (greater bioconcentrators)? Camels and rabbits have soft toes, not hooves per se, but couldn't guess what that means. Asking whether anyone else had thought along these lines was really the extent of my publishing ambitions [blush], apart for hopes of a footnote mention should someone else subsequently decide to do so. =)

Interestingly, Leviticus 11:37-38 seems to indicate fear of a specific biocontaminant, or perhaps in the prohibition in 11:38 whether a carcass is kosher may not matter. More theorising, um... I'll stop now.

-SM 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems

Since there are few laws of Kashrut restricting the consumption of plant products it follows that a truly vegetarian meal would usually be inherently Kosher (as long as the milk and wine and bread are supervised and the utensils are never used for meat or unsupervised milk, and the fruit comes from trees older than four years.).

There is a huge problem with this, what if they use a juice in the food and it contained grapejuice even more so when it is grapejuice? The vessels would be considered not only trafe but as vessels used for Avod Zorah. Even if the food you are going to have doesn't contain any juices it is not considered kosher. I am not a Rabbi, this is not a pask, just from my understand of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. As user:Eliezer is a Rabbi and he did learn these Halachas, I am going to ask him to check the article for any mistakes. If anyone else here knows any Rabbis that are members of wikipedia and know these Halachas, please ask them to check too. And if your a Rabbi yourself, please try and correct any problems with the article. 220.233.48.200 13:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call it a huge problem, since even that part you quoted does mention wine and orlah and such. But I agree that this should be made more obvious. I make the following suggestion (which I'll try to implement later on today if I get a chance and no one beats me to it): Further on this this section ("Vegetarianism"), we already have a bullet list of some situations where Kosher Pareve might be unacceptable to a vegetarian. All we need is a corresponding bullet list closer to the top of the same section, spelling out these specific examples of situations where even a very strict vegetarian meal is unacceptable to Kashrus. The ideas are already listed, we just need to make it more blatant. --Keeves 14:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a huge problem, it is at least one more violations than having plan trafah food. Also I redid that last line that you remove, I think I found a way better wording, if you have any better, please reword it. 220.233.48.200 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made some changes, feel free to edit it to make it readable. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What animal groups?

What animal groups is Kashrut#Kashrut_and_animal_welfare talking about? From the ones I have talked to, they are very happy of the way sichta is done, a lot more happier than what the big sloughtering companies. The following reasons where given from an animal rights group:

• The area where the sichta is done is an area where animals don't have such a big sence of feeling, and the knife use must be sharp and smooth which is deemed that it can't be felt.
• The viens where the sichta is done means the blood can't send a message to the brain to translate it into pain. (Downwards from the brain blood not upwards to the brain blood)
• The use of anesthesia is unneed when sichta is done in the way above; Which makes anesthesia just unnessarily giving drugs to the animal.
• Repect to the animals' corpse is given, unlike other major company sloughter houses. (They seem to hate the major Australian sloughtering companies.)

They where aganist one thing:

• Certain major parts of the animal are unkosher, and will not be used as meat. Meaning more animals had to be sloughter for the same amount of meat.

Maybe this is just Australian animal groups, but this one for sure holds different to what the article claims.

220.233.48.200 16:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

220.233.48.200, when you see something which is not sourced you can insert a {{fact}} by the unsourced statement and someone will usually bring a source. I have done that in this situation. If you find on a source where animal rights groups praise Shechita over other slaughtering methods, then you mayy add it to the article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

PETA has a video from Agriprocessors, Inc. Kosher Slaughterhouse, Postville, IA from Summer 2004 on their website. PETA is unhappy witht he treatment, and in the video a slughterhouse worker is seen kicking blood in the face of a cow that is still alive after slaughter. I added the link in the article but it may be removed now again, as a "flame" even though the link is neutrally written and is a documented fact. It also is directly relevent to a major section of this article. - Corby 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/letter-Genack-Reply.asp "We at PETA agree with Rabbi Genack that shechitah, done correctly, is less cruel than other slaughter methods in the U.S. (“Setting the Record Straight on Kosher Slaughter”)."..."Yes, AgriProcessors has made some improvements that have allowed the workers to kill animals properly while being watched. We are encouraged by these changes"...

Which would make your link not relevant here. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's some very careful quoting you just did to make it seem like the situation is now alright. Almost all of the article you referenced is talking about how horrible the situation at AgriProcessors is. This slaughterhouse is not doing the slaughtering correctly according to Jewish tradition. From the article: "To echo the words of Rabbi Barry Schwartz of the Central Conference of American Rabbis’ Task Force on Kashrut, 'The suffering of these animals during slaughter is sickening. Death is neither quick nor merciful. If this is kosher, then we have a big problem.'" However in America, this is what passes off as Kosher in markets all over the country, and it is not some small exception. This situation is real and commonplace in America, and that is what the animal welfare people take issue with. I can't think of a more relevent link that could accompany the text "Some animal rights groups object to some forms of kosher slaughter, claiming it can take several minutes for the animal to die and can often cause immense suffering." in this article. It is clearly directly relevent. The only place you will find the slaughter done properly where it is more humane than typical slaughter conditions, is at a small shop where they don't slaughter that many animals. However if you go by the number of animals being processed alone, the article you reference states that 18,000 animals were slaughtered in the seven week period they observed, and 25% of those were alive and kicking as documented in the video at petatv. Don't be apolegetic to the practices of the major slaughterhouses that provide most of the Kosher meat in America, or let your personal biases deny that this is a documented fact that is relevent to the issues discussed in this article. - Corby 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Peta writes that AgriProcessors has changed see above link, either way this has to do with mistakes AgriProcessors was making not what kosher slaughter is. The rest of your comments are POV and Original Research. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Weird Definition of Species

Just as two species who can interbreed will merge into one.

This is kind of a weird way of talking about a species. My understanding is that species don't "merge" into each other and that part of what makes a species a species is the fact that it can't interbreed with members of other species. I understand the comparison the author is trying to make here, but is this really the most appropriate example? Rhesusman 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Other reasons"

I removed the speculative, unsourced and poorly reasoned "other" reasons for kashrut:

There is also the suggestion of a practical aspect to some of the laws of Kashrut; for instance, the pig would not be a wise choice of domestic animal for a nation which was, at the time, a nomadic desert tribe.

This is a play on the Marxist concept that pigs are not Kosher because pigs need to wallow to keep cool, so their keeping is prohibited. This is the utterest nonsense. How stupid do we suppose the ancient Jews were? It is self-evident that you can't keep an animal that needs living conditions that don't comport with your environment; you don't need a religious proscription to tell you this. Further, trichonosis was endemic in the middle east of the time. It has been found in Egyptian mummies. This is a much more obvious reason for the prohibition on pork.

The laws of Kashrut also conform to a general rule that human societies tend to separate food animals from companion animals, whether pets or working animals. For instance, where dogs are kept as pets, they are not eaten; in most countries, where horses are used as draft animals they are not eaten; and in a few countries where oxen and cows are used as draft animals, such as India, they are not eaten.

The fails on the evidence. Koreans have kept dogs as both pets and food animals, though not the same individual animal. I don't know about other oriental societies that eat dogs. The French both use horses as working animals, and eat them. Oxen are used as draft animals and eaten in many parts of the world: ever hear of "Ox-tail soup"? Many (not all) Indian cultures are vegetarian. There is also the issue of karma (the cycle of rebirth in different forms). I don't think this is demonstrable that there is a draft animal-food animal issue.

This article really does not serve the reader very well in any kind of definitive understanding of kosher laws. It runs from the mystical to speculative materialism. -- Cecropia 06:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Bishul Yisra'el

The article stated that Bishul Yisra'el literally meant "Cooking of a Jew." Since the confusion of Israel and Judah is a long-running pet peeve of mine, I have corrected the literal translation to "Cooking of Israel," though the figurative definition (supervised by an Orthodox Jew) remains. 38.112.113.242 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)