Talk:Kashrut/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Problems

a quick search through my Tanack yielded me with only these three sources about insects: Leviticus 11:20-23, Leviticus 11:43, Leviticus 20:25. If anybody can figure the other 2, we can get rid of the "citation needed" tag in the vegetarian paragraph. i wish i could help more, but i don't have a Talmud handy -Meitavlord2007

Generally do not recommend using the Hebrew Bible directly as a source about laws of contemporary kashrut. I'm not familiar with this area, but for example there may be doubt as to what species of insects are the edible ones. --Shirahadasha 00:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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:PinchasC 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. --PinchasC | £€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. --PinchasC | £€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. --PinchasC | £€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. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

PETA's anti-shechita propaganda has already been debunked. Iowa Sec. of Agriculture Patty Judge inspected the slaughterhouse personally, and determined that the shechita slaughter "... was humane... and there was absolutely no problem with the way they [the animals] were handled." http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/The_Shechita_Controversy.asp

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. Unsigned from Cecropia

It's neither Marxist nor nonsense. Pigs, given the opportunity to avoid filth, will do so. But in hot climates, they will roll in their own wastes to keep cool. Trichinosis is easily avoidable by simply cooking the pork sufficiently.--RLent 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First, the idea that pork is prohibited to Jews because it is uneconomical to produce in the middle east is one of many Marxist fascinations. The point is there are material reasons why pork (and quite a number of other things) are forbidden in the Bible, and health is a primary one. Trichinosis is easily avoidable by thorough cooking, but the point is that they didn't have microbiology in biblical times and didn't understand that trichinosis could be "easily avoided" by cooking. If they had, then trichinosis wouldn't have been endemic among, for example, the Egyptians. If you see eating something makes somone sick, you say "don't eat that." -- Cecropia 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

first of all, how is it a marxist concept? i don't get it. secondly, i've heard (from my aunt) that kosher laws were designed to counter pagan rituals or something. like, eating a bloody animal is akin to some pagan ritual or something. i think some kosher laws have biblical significance, obviously. Like that one story where Israel has a little wrestling match with god, and gets his hip dislocated, so meat from the hip of some animals isn't kosher.

I think the article addressed this issue. One purpose of the Mosaic law was to make the Jewish nation "holy" or "seperated" from the pagan neighbors.

---

The bit about the shellfish and "bottom-feeders" seems inaccurate. The main issue about them is that they may eat the remains of dead creatures and hence become "unclean". I truly doubt that the pain of shellfish was a big issue. If pain was a reason, then fish would be just as problematic.

---

Prohibiting residual blood in meat is mentioned as an example of a part of the Jewish dietary laws that is not explained by the "hygiene" hypothesis. Perhaps before refridgeration, not draining the blood well from an animal would have caused meat to spoil sooner? Orientals believe this to be the case and still prefer to let the heart pump the blood out through the slit throat of animal while it hangs upside down.

Not that I'm an expert, but I doubt it... the vascular system of an animal who is not sick is generally sterile, so it wouldn't cause any faster spoilage. Gzuckier 15:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The question of secular reasons for Kashrut laws is highly controversial. Wikipedia shouldn't present any such reasons as fact, but source and attribute them as various people's hypotheses. Best --Shirahadasha 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

wine, bread, etc.

what makes a wine or bread kosher/ not kosher?

Bread contains lots of ingredients - check the label! - many or most of which miight come from nonkosher sources. And even if the ingredients are all okay, one would still have to be sure that the oven and other equipment are kosher. More details at the Kosher food article. Wine is a lot more complicated; check out Kosher_foods#Wine_and_grape_products. --Keeves 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All bread (assuming no lard etc) is kosher according to שלחן ערוך under the category of pat palter. EVEN if cooked in nonkosher over (bdieved). The fact that people are so paranoid re bread and other necessities stems, some would say, from kashruth orgs and their need to certify products, rather than from the laws of kashruth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

Jim, there is no definitive understanding. The Torah does not give reasons for most kashrut laws, and there are numerous views on their exact rationale. JFW | T@lk 07:08, 4 April 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)

Rambam citation

The first note in the article cites Mishne Torah, Korbanot, Temurah 4:14. In my MT (Ed. Frankel, the new one,) Temurah ends at 4:13. Anyone have the correct citation?

I just looked and in Frankel it is, in fact, 4:13. I don't have Rambam L'Am or the other popular ones on hand to know if 4:14 is an alternate or just a typo. I'll update the article accordingly for now, but if anyone knows where 4:14 is from, please let it be known. --Mattcarl 07:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Have archived

If you can't tell, I got out my machete, and archived the talk on this page. If anyone notices, the dates on the archives overlap a little. This is because of the natural overlap of discussion topics. If you object, bearing in mind that the page was VERY LONG (some 95 kilobytes), feel free to revert. MyNameIsNotBob 12:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition required for parve

The term parve is introduced without any explanation, definition, or link.

I looked it up in a dictionary, so it's not a big deal, but it'd probably be better for someone more complete knowledge to make a parenthetical insertion that briefly defines the term.

-- EmmetCaulfield 21:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I added a link for the first place where "pareve" appears in the vegetarian section, and changed all spellings of "parve" to "pareve". --Keeves 11:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Broken Links

The link to the "What limit religious freedom? The ban on kosher meat in Switzerland" article under the External links "On ritual slaughter" section is broken. (as of May 17th, 2006)

Criticism Section

Sevral sects of reform judaism reject the kosher laws. Might it be prudent to add a section on modern jewish interpretation and criticism of the laws, as well as the views of other religions? Tobyk777 03:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. My answer would be that such sections should be carefully relevant to the specific article. If they have criticism of kashrut in particular, that could be put here, but if their criticism is only an example of their general rejection of Jewish law, then this is NOT the place for it, and it should go in the Halacha or Reform Judaism articles. --Keeves 12:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a section about new companies who are embracing the laws of kashrus and are making their products kosher. They deserve recognition such as Shaklee’s Kosher Diet Plan

I came onto this page thinking there should be a criticism section and I am heartened that others have brought it up. Specifically, criticism of Kashrut from a non doctrinal standpoint. EG the exploitation of kashrut and extension of certification to things that do not need certification for monetary gain and the subsequent controversy generated by those who still wish to "read ingredients." Specifically the controversies around R Abbadi and his kashrut.org website. 72.229.30.16 (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Josh72.229.30.16 (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this would be regarded as criticism of kashrut, but rather, disagreement with particular interpretations. There are many disagreements on what does and does not need to be certified. By way of analogy, there are many disagreements between liberals and conservatives about how to interpret the United States Constitution, including heated arguments similar to yours that the other side's interpretations are illegitimate, self-serving, etc. But because each side claims its interpretation is loyal to the "true" constitution, the consititution itself isn't being criticized by these disputes. Same here. I don't think critics of kashrut.org have a "non doctrinal standpoint." They simply have a different doctrinal standpoint from R. Abbadi. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that much of the kashruth info on the page DOES come from OU and other kashruth orgs that might require certain non/pan halakhic stringencies. When I said non doctrinal I shouldve said intra-Orthodox or intra-traditional~~Josh72.229.30.16 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Objective reasons for Kashrut...

If we were examining the reasons behind some ancient Babylonian goat-sacrifice law, or when addressing the historic context of the burqa or Christmas tree, we would list...among "reasons for"...objective historic reasons, like "the practical need to cover one's face in harsh weather created a habit, which became a ritual, then a taboo, then a religions requirement". Likewise the goat-sacrifice law might be described as having been a useful way for the Babylonian priests to acquire a steady supply of food.

There should be a similarly objective section on Kashrut, discussing how historians say its strictures may have arisen simply as a series of habits cum-taboos codified into law out of sheer force of cultural habit. All the examination of the ostensible god's reasons for the rules are perfectly valid, but not sufficient alone. NPoV requires that all explanations of any significance be listed...and the god of Israel has no more exemption from objective, scientific examination than the Christian or Islamic versions, or any other deity. --Kaz 20:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to your use of the word "objective" in this context. "Kashrut is because of XYZ" is no more objective than "Kashrut is because God said so." That said, I do agree that NPoV requires us to include other reasons. I don't know of any myself, but if you or someone else can supply them, amply documented per Wikipedia standards, then please do so. --Keeves 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the question reflects a basic of understanding on what is meant by "objective". It implies a faith in historians' omniscience that seems astonishing. The idea that someone could believe that there is an "objective" historical reason for the burka or Christmas tree strikes me as difficult to fathom. --Shirahadasha 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

merge?

The {{merge}} template has been on this page since February of this year, and I can find no discussion relating to it either here or on Talk:Kosher foods. Does anyone feel that discussion is necessary on this, or can these templates just go away? -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Obviously, no merge is required, as per the tacit approval of the learned Judaic editors who compiled both articles that deal with separate issues on this general subject. I will thus forthwith remove the merge template. Thank you. IZAK 09:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone back this up?

"There is no painless method for the preparation of "bottom-feeding" lobster and crab." Without a brain, how do these animals feel pain? How do rabbis know what marine biologists don't about the suffering of shellfish? Is this an actual reason for why shellfish is not kosher or is it an interjection from someone who wants to make the dietary laws look good? I don't know enough about the Jewish dietary laws, but this looks suspect to me. Caligi 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

The section about animal welfare and the PETA investigation is biased. The OU and many others have criticisms of PETA's findings. 70.129.12.61 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree... Of course, I myself may be "biased" because I don't trust an organizations findings on a meat processing place when they believe all slaughterhouses are cruel... PETA has every reason to exaggerate and make up stories of cruelty. They're on an all out war against non-vegans... Meat Eaters, Milk drinkers, and leather-wearers are Hitler in their eyes. 65.115.123.226 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PETA has been caught out on far too many gross exaggerations and outright fabrications in their supposed "exposes" to be considered a valid source. In a number of their anti-slaughterhouse propaganda pieces (as well as other animal-welfare pieces), the film and video footage supposedly documenting improper or cruel practices were later determined to be "stock" footage from an entirely different source, and not the slaughterhouse in question. In others, footage has been edited, re-arranged out of sequence and out of context, and sound added later to create the impression of activities which did not, in fact, occur. I've personally witnessed this process in action. In this particular case, there is good evidence that the alleged "evidence" was also manufactured by PETA, and it has since been debunked. http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/The_Shechita_Controversy.asp http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/pro/docs/050801_PetaReligion.pdf

This is an organization that has supported the legal defense funds of terrorists and vandals; while many of their officials and animal shelter employees are facing various charges, including felony animal cruelty, for the improper killing and disposal of over ten thousand dogs and cats. http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

They are simply not a reliable source of information, and do not belong in an ostensibly objective informative article. Some additional information: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/peta_crosses_th.html

Glatt kosher meat - real or nonsense?

The following was written by an orthdox rabbi and discussed publicly. I don't know if he has published it in a newspaper, but his view is the same as many other rabbis I spoke to. I have no information to contradict any of this. This should be integrated into the article. Mark3 01:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of glatt is indeed a major problem area. What is glatt? Glatt means smooth. As in the lungs of the animalare smooth. As in no sores. Cows forage for food. Cows eat anything. When I was learning to be a shochet (short lived- I hated it! Became a certified Nikkur man instead{de-veiner} instead), I saw the following items come out of cows - some from the stomach some from the lungs: nails, condoms, a lightbulb (Sylvania 25 watt), a sneaker, a shoe, part of a book, screws, a hat (John Deere-green), and money.

For the lungs to be completely smooth, the odds are stacked against the animal. I have watched runs of animals when only 7 out of 125 were glatt. I once saw a run where 33 out of 125 were declared glatt. The statistics say that 7 is a very low number and that 33 is way too high.

So what is glatt today? A popular buthcher in Brooklyn, NY who calls himself glatt buys animals that have had up to 5 sirchot. Sirchot are lesions on the lungs that can be flicked off with the thumb nail. I know of no source that allows 5 sirchot (or sirches, as the Rabbis say). I do know of sources that allow up to 3 sirchot. But in my book, 3 sirchot is 3 sirchot. And if there are 1, or 2, or 3 sirchot then by definition, the lungs are not glatt. Right? So now we have a situation where the rabbis (whoever they may be) have made something not smooth - smooth. Not a bad trick, eh? In addition, I will tell you that the amount of meat that comes into NYC marked Glatt is way out of statistical proportion to what would seem to be a real possible number. )

When I was the Mashgiach of a local butcher a few years ago, I was amazed at the amount of meat that came in marked glatt. The store was NOT a glatt store. Funny thing, the store where I was also did not pay glatt prices since they didn't put the meat out as glatt, they got it for a cheaper price than did the glatt butcher.

You are raising good questions, but this is not the place to raise them. Wikipedia discussion pages are to discuss what should or shouldn't go into the main article. --Keeves 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is why I noted this issue. it should be discussed in the main article. It is a big real-life issue in Judaism. See Marc Shapiro's new article. Mark3

Glatt Kosher Meat Is Not All It Is Cut Out To Be

Marc Shapiro | Fri. August 18, 2006 http://www.forward.com/article/glatt-kosher-meat-is-not-all-it-is/

Due in no small part to the recent controversy at the AgriProcessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, there has been a lot of talk of late about how glatt kosher meat is produced. Yet for all the sensational headlines about whether the standards of kashrut are being met, little attention has been paid to how those standards are actually determined.

In nearly every Orthodox community today, glatt kosher has come to stand for unquestionably kosher, with the result being that food carrying the regular kosher label is shunned. This is more than simply an issue of certification. It is a significant transformation in the religious lifestyle of the Orthodox, a group that, ironically, claims to embody religious continuity.

.. .. ..In the Ashkenazic lands, regular kosher was the standard, with glatt being reserved for the exceptionally pious, who were also willing to pay more. This is also how matters were in America until about 30 years ago. Since then, the Orthodox have adopted a new standard in kashrut, one that defines only glatt kosher as acceptable. Regular kosher has been relegated to Conservative Jews and others who don't take kashrut as seriously as the Orthodox.

.. .. ..In previous years, it wasn't simply the masses who ate regular kosher. The great rabbis did as well. Many of them, including Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, even provided hashgachot, or kosher supervision, for non-glatt kosher meat. So how did we reach this point in the United States where a practice that was basic to Orthodox society simply disappeared and came to be no longer regarded as acceptable? Much of the blame - or praise, depending on your outlook - falls on the Orthodox Union,

I suggest that the article explain what kosher slaughter is and give some understanding of how inspection works and what is inspected for before going too far into nuances about the issue of Glatt. --Shirahadasha 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Meat Choices Not Kosher, Say Conservative Shuls in St. Paul

http://www.forward.com/article/lack-of-meat-choices-not-kosher-say-conservative/

...Markon had grown increasingly bothered by her limited choices when it came to buying kosher beef. The woman, who belongs to a conservative synagogue, could find only meat that was certified glatt kosher, a more stringent — and ultimately more expensive — standard embraced in recent decades by most Orthodox authorities and consumers.. ..earlier this year she helped kick off her synagogue’s campaign to increase the availability of non-glatt kosher meat, dubbed “Choice in Kashruth.” This was easier said than done.

...First, Markon and the Conservative rabbis she worked with ran up against the Orthodox supervision board, or Vaad, which would not allow non-glatt meat into the existing kosher supermarkets, according to Conservative rabbis. Next, Markon and the Conservative rabbis enlisted a new store — not under the supervision of the Orthodox Vaad — to order non-glatt meat from the local kosher distributor. The only problem, Markon said, was that after putting in orders for non-glatt meat, it rarely arrived; the manager of the store, a SuperValu, says she was told that the distributor was “pushing” glatt meat.

Finally, Markon and the SuperValu she enlisted went directly to AgriProcessors, the Postville, Iowa-based company that is the country’s largest producer of glatt and non-glatt fresh meat. When the first shipment came in last week, there was no non-glatt meat inside — and no explanation...

Sounds fishy to me.

What is your point, and what do you expect Wikipedia to do about it? Translation: This is not the place to publicize such things. --Keeves 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is clear - the article fails to discuss a big issue in kashrut. Glatt is a big issue in Orthodox and Conservative Judaism. It is discussed in Orthodox and Conservative rabbinical journals. It is discussed in the Jewish newspapers. Why is no one writing about this in an encyclopedic manner? There is nothing shameful about noting this issue. It is an issue of religious law, economics, and modern religious Jewish concern.

I don't think that Wikipedia should "do" anything about kashrut, or about Judaism. Or about anything at all. Its a place for information, that's it. Wikipedia should merely describe issues as per your neutral point of view mandate. If someone wants to do something, let them vote with their pocketbook. Mark3

I would like to see a brief overview of Modern Orthodox, Charedi, Reform, Conservative, Chasidic & Reconstructionist points of view.

My suggestion is that this article explain what kosher slaughter is in the first place and how it works (which it doesn't currently do) before tackling issues like Glatt or a contemporary news article on AgriProcessors. --Shirahadasha 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosher?

Is it kosher for jews to drive VW's? Isn't that almost like buying 60 year old german lampshades?

Actually, many Jews of the approrpriate age bracket, in particularly those who actually went through the Holocaust years in Europe, will not purchase any German car, or other product. This feeling is less prevalent in the next generation, and even some of those who originally felt that way have softened their views over the years. In a similar sentiment, many Chinese people of appropriate age would not buy a Japanese car, although it is almost impossible for them to avoid all Japanese product. Gzuckier 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with the Jewish dietary laws and is not a religious rule. A discussion of Jewish reactions to Germany after the Holocaust does not belong in an article on Kashrut. --Shirahadasha 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Principles

I find myself astonished that the article in its current state has a huge section on speculation about the reasons for the rules and has a number of details, but has no basic summary of the key rules themselves in a form accessible to a general reader. Details keep popping up in obscure ways, presented as if people already knew about them. As but one of many examples of the problems with the present article, Bishul Yisrael is brought up only as an objection to a claim that a vegetarian would automatically be keeping kosher. But the Bishul Yisrael principle (and many others) is never presented, let alone explained, as a principle of kashrut in its own right. This situation appears repeatedly, the article addresses various details and peripheral controverisies without providing any comprehensive exposition of what Kashrut involves or requires. Core principles first, please! This is an encyclopedia. --Shirahadasha 20:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to provide a start on a summary of principles. I would urge work to cease on the speculations and details until the basic summary is in decent shape. --Shirahadasha 20:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are so right on this! Thanks, and I'll try to help out. --Keeves 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization: Spinning off sub-articles

Most of the substantive rules of kashrut, from Shechita and Kosher foods to Kosher wine, Cholov Yisroel, and Bishul Yisrael, seem to have been spun off into their own articles, while the Kashrut article is weighed down with kashrut-and-society sections like beliefs about Kashrut, laws, Kashrut and vegetarianism, etc. I propose spinning these topics off into their own articles so that the Kashrut article itself consistently provides relatively brief summaries of the issues and points the reader to the main articles, rather than having extensive discussions of some topics and practically none at all of other, central ones. The article also duplicates some material which was already spun off (e.g. the PETA controversies, which were added to Shechita and then added to Kashrut). I propose eliminating such duplication. Since this is a substantial reorganization want to await input from other editors before acting. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Veal and foie gras

Should we mention here the current controversy over the force-feeding of calves and geese and the subsequent declaration by many rabbis that veal and foie gras are therefore treyf? Valley2city 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

Is it just me or did the recent edit by 75.15.208.118, do nothing more than eliminate some useful links to other articles and link to a non-existent article? These changes seem pointless and I suggest they be considered for reversal. What do other people think? Perhaps 75.15.208.118 could explain the need for these changes? DBJC 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are convinced an edit is removing information and introducing nonsense, be WP:BOLD and revert. Wikipedia articles are vandalized all the time, and sometimes inexperienced editors will make inadvertent mistakes, but at any rate an edit that clearly does no good (removes content without explanation, adding nonexistent links, etc.) should simply bw reverted. Obvious vandals should receive warnings on their talk pages as called for in the blocking policy. Use the {{test1}} or {{test2}} template for editors with no prior history, {{test3}} or {{test4}} for offenders with prior warnings. I generally try to assume an editor with no previous warnings made an honest mistake unless the content added prevents this. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. I believe the editor was attempting to make a legitimate edit but may not have been familiar with the way links work or with some of our policies. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosher non food-products

In Israel I noticed that many non-food products were labelled as kosher as well. Kosher toothpaste or dishwashing liquid may be understandable as you put it into your mouth or clean the dishes you eat from, but why is floor cleaner labelled kosher? (not wanting to be offensive here, just wondering...). And why do cigarettes not have to be kosher? After all, the smoke passes the lips...and cigarettes are more akin to food than household cleaning products. I asked some orthodox looking Jews (who smoked) whilst in Israel, but they had never considered this question before. may be you know more?

About the word "Kosher" -- the word simply means "religously valid" and can apply to essentially any rule which has a test for validity. It's perfectly normal for religious Jews to talk about a kosher Sukkah, a kosher Kohen, or Kosher sex. However, the word "Kashrut" is generally understood to mean the dietary laws. Most of the things you listed, however, are relevant to the food rules. Strictly observant Jews may want a kosher floor cleaner so that if a hot dish drops on the floor, there won't be any issue about substances on the floor rendering it non-kosher. Dishwashing detergent is even more straightforward -- it comes into contact with hot dishes directly. --Shirahadasha 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

About not everything having a symbol -- For a number of things, there have been historical leniencies by which manufacturers are trusted not to add impurities. This is true not only for cigarettes. The very strict Chicago Rabbinical Counsel, for example, advises that, among other things, "All unflavored beers, domestic and imported, with no additives listed on the ingredient label are acceptable, even without a Kosher certification." It should be noted that the idea of Jews being permitted to inspect a non-Jewish establishment would have been an unthinkable violation of social norms in many times and places in history, and Jews sometimes lived under harsh laws which forbade them from making certain things. Some leniencies reflect this past. It should also be noted that observant Jews today have generally gotten stricter, and have rabbis inspect more things, than they did in the past. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

fungi

Where does fungi stand according to kashrut like mushrooms? and stuff

All fungi are kosher. They do have to be checked to remove any visible insects, of course. Mark3 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I think someone should add a part about kosher plants and fungi, I am not sure but i think somewhere in the old testament there is a reference to poisonous plants and maybe fungi that are poisonous that it is not kosher to eat oh well.Barry White 06:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a specific source then perhaps we should mention that fungi are always kosher. Interestingly, the ancients seemed to have understood that they are not plants - the blessing on fungi is shehakol, while for plants borei pri ha-etz or borei pri ha-adama said. The Bible makes no mention of poisonous fungi anywhere. Are you sure about what you said? JFW | T@lk 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs improvement

I'm saddened that this article has lost its featured status. There is some need for improvement, but it shouldn't be too hard to bring it up to FA again. I think the sources are the main problem - what is a good source that examines the various explanations for Kashrut? JFW | T@lk 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Remarkably poor POV section

The section on Kasrut and animal welfare is almost incoherent; it borders on vandalism. I've reverted to the previous iteration.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.189.220 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to Kosher

This article should be moved to Kosher, as that is the common English word. --219.180.168.95 07:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tevel

<<and a rule against eating Tevel, produce grown in a manner that violates the Shmita (Sabbatical Year).>> Shviis is the correct term. Tevel is untithed produce. User:Shirahadasha insists that Tevel is correct, but when I tried to talk to her, she did not respond.Davidyonah 02:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Proceed. I regret the error and missing your message. I started the articles on Shmita etc. because nobody else was doing them, but I am not an expert in these subjects and I sometimes make mistakes. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of "kashrut"

Why is "Kashrut" so often capitalized in this article? It's Hebrew for "fitness," not a proper noun, and so if anything kashrut should be italicized. It's like capitalizing "vegetarianism." Rafi Neal 04:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree it should not be capitalised. It should be italicised for being a foreign word. JFW | T@lk 18:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd add something here, but you're just going to remove it anyway as "vandalism"

Okay. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

explanation of parve/add section

I think there should be a parve section saying what is parve and what is not because of the rule of not to mix meat and milk together; yet it is ok if fish and milk are in contact with each other. Also to explain eggs and fungi and other stuff I do not know are also parve although I am a novice I think that if a parve section was added it would make the quality of this article better. I will wait for someone who knows what there doing to do an edit because I hardly know anything about kashrut except of what i have read in the first 5 books of moses and that was years ago and right now i am on Isaiah. Thanks for your time. Barry White 09:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC) ect i know that the blood and fat of animals is prohibited but why is blood from fish kosher?? Barry White 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

retracted by author.

Sephardim eat poultry (sic: birds) with milk????? Where do you get your information from? That is total nonsense. If any rabbis have said that, it is theoretical. Sephardim and Ashkenazim do not practice different forms of kashrut. --Gilabrand 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I feel strongly that this article should employ one type of Hebrew transliteration. While I'm an Ashkenaz-speaker myself, I suspect that the Modern Hebrew transliteration is by far the most useful, given that it has the most speakers numerically and is most likely to be relevant to the lay reader. I'd like to take some soundings before I do a wholesale change-around. JFW | T@lk 16:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be a little bit more specific, JFD? You surely don't want to change the widely used and recognized kosher to kasher, do you? --Redaktor 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Kosher is much more commonly used than kasher. For the more technical terms (e.g. yashan, chalav yisrael), in which there is no such thing as "common usage", we should use a spelling that is accessible. I am aware of your views, Redaktor, so I would really like some other contributors to state where they stand. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

kosher and iron absorption (health benefits)

many iron pills contain the instruction not to consume the pills together with dairy products, and recommend waiting a few hours between pill consumption and dairy food eating, apparently because milk interferes with the absorption of iron from food, and meat is known to be a very good source of iron. i can imagine that in the past, the average person had a much harder time getting a reasonable amount of iron, so its possible that not mixing dairy food with meat helped them absorb a little more, possibly giving the person an advantage. does this sound like a health benefit to anyone? Fdskjs 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Iron together with vitamin C is better still. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mixing meat and milk

The article says it's not kosher to mix meat and milk, but it goes back to "you should not boil the lamb in it's mother's milk" or something. When we was having a party and making a chicken soup with cream cheese we asked a Jewish friend who was coming over about if that was a problem and she said that since chickens don't produce milk it's OK. She is ofcourse secular rather than othodox so it may not be reliable (and WP:OR as well), but can this be explained? // Liftarn

This rule was extended to birds as poultry can be mistaken for beef, lamb or goat. There is a record that this rule was not kept by some communities in Mishnaic times (Rabbi Yossi ha-Glili permitted it for his congregants), but nowadays the rule is universal. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kashrut of birds

An anon added that not all authorities insist on a mesora for the kashrut of birds. I believe that this requirement is now universal. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Section on U.S. laws: what about other nation's laws? New article?

Does it seem to be a problem that the only discussion of how governmental law regards kosher focuses on the U.S. and no other nations? That's not to say non-U.S. residents would necessarily disagree with what's said in that section, but it would be probably be irrelevant to them. Having only U.S. law here puts a lot of emphasis on the U.S. when kosher is obviously not a U.S. concept per se.

That said, this might be an opportunity for a new article on how governments regard kosher. After all, this section, on governmental law, is very different from the rest of the article, which is about the concept itself. I suppose Wikipedia does not yet have information of how other countries and their political divisions govern the idea of kosher, and if so then here's a chance for some new tertiary research. I've put a "split section" tag on this section. Michael Patrick 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the use of the word "kosher" is regulated anywhere like it is in the USA. JFW | T@lk 23:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As the Legal aspects of ritual slaughter article notes, kosher slaughter is banned in several European countries. Other countries, like France, regulate who can perform it. See e.g. [1]. Focusing on trademark type regulation of the word "kosher" may be too narrow a scope, although perhaps the Legal aspects of ritual slaughter article should be linked for certain matters. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Jeepday (talk · contribs) quite rightly insisted on some sources for the main rules of kashrut. I have done some of this now, and intend to continue doing this piecemeal (depending on whether I have access to a CD-ROM with the Shulchan Aruch on it - allows for searching etc). I try to add Biblical sources whenever possible; if a law is stated both in Leviticus and Deuteronomy I see little point in adding the Deuteronomy source, which according to all views postdates Leviticus. If a law originates in the Oral Law, or there are significant additions made by the sages, I try to cite the relevant source. Any help would be appreciated. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

BC/AD BCE/CE

the article is not consistent in usage. Jcforge (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed one mistake. You can be bold and fix these things yourself! --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PETA Pov again

The PETA section on animal cruelty was so POV it wasn't funny. There is a lot of controversy regarding this issue and I feel it remarkably detracts from an overall excellent article. It has been removed, perhaps a link of somekind to the controversy could be supplied but a full blown discussion doesn't belong on this page.

j_lechem@msn.com 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)jlechem

Given that several European countries now prohibit Kosher slaughter based on arguments such as the one PETA has made, it seems hard to come up with a justificable argument for completely excluding this topic. The standard for Wikipedia is notability and verifiability, not agreeability. If you beleive there is a legitimate reason for removing this content, please cite a Wikipedia policy for doing so. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Agree the content has POV issues but these can be resolved by improving the content, not deleting it entirely. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)