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)

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)

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.

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)