Talk:Kashrut

Restrictions on non diatary use

this text is wrong, it says there are NO restrictions on non-diatery use. it should read there are SOME. for example one can not benifit from cooked meat and milk mixtures even for non-food use

History section is needed

This article would benefit tremendously from a history section. How did the dietary laws evolve? For example, were they already in place at the time of the Roman empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.212.135 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You give us good source, we try to write good section. If you have to believe the Bible, Daniel kept kosher at the Babylonian emperor's palace. But then the Bible itself states that the laws of Kashrut were given to Moses about 3,300 years ago. I am not personally aware of secondary/secular sources documenting adherence to the dietary laws in antiquity. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Related to the history section, I think a section detailing the implications of the laws on the modern food industry should be included. What determines whether or not a manufacturer decides to go through kosher certification? When did packaging start having markings on it? Are there similar laws in place (and similar markings on packaging) for other religions? What did other religious leaders historically have to say about the inclusion of the markings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.16.5 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wild game?

Under the principles section of the article it states the following:

Many wild game would be kosher if they could be shechted but as they are wild and cannot be tamed it would be impossible to shecht without desacrating one of the requirements as well as giving a misconception that all wild game are kosher.

Actually, I would suggest asking a Rav about this, there is a body of halachic literture about hunting that practically no one looks at, because practically no kosher keeping Jewish people live in rural areas where hunting is popular for both sport and table. It's come up in my hillel that it might be tchnically permissible to hunt for table but not for sport. The problem is that animalds are large (freezers, sharing?), and that most Jes in the US have never been exposed to guns ever, both at a shooting range, let alone in a forest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.249.74 (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone fix the article, or just respond here, to explain why a wild or untamed animal can't be shechted? That text from the article is very confusing. Gh5046 (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wild animals are hunted. With the exception of trapping, hunting means killing the animal in the wild, ruining the opportunity for shechita. (I agree that the wording is unclear.) MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Kosher Halal?

There are less restrictions for Halal than for Kosher. When it comes to meat, a proper method is to be followed (the same in Kosher as it is in Halal). So is it safe to say that all Kosher food (except alcoholic wine) is permissible for muslims (or in other words, is Halal) ? --Zybez (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the Halal article, it's "an ongoing debate", with "most Muslim authorities" effectively disagreeing with you. See also Islamic and Jewish dietary laws compared. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed redirect

I think that "kosher" should redirect here and that Kosher should be moved to Kosher (disambiguation). Does anyone agree or oppose? MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Giraffe

Someone kindly added a Daily Telegraph link that the giraffe has now been declared kosher. The article is internally inconsistent though. The principle of chalav tamei eino ma'amid doesn't work the other way round, i.e. one cannot declare an animal kosher because its milk exhibits certain properties! Does anyone have a better source on this - which beth din decided on it? JFW | T@lk 11:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Did read earlier in a comment on the word zamer (זמר) Parshas Re'eh 14:5 (ArtScroll Chumash) that both R' Saadyah and Radak belived that the zamer was the giraffe, but they also point out in the same comment space that Chullin 80a seems says its a wild goat. blambi (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Some googling around turned up Rabbi Air Z. Zivotofki, What's the Truth About Giraffe Meat!, Kashrut.com. I've added that cite to this article and to the Kosher animals article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Michael Jackson kosher?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220353263659&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

One of his daughters is I think, or sons. I mean is Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.119.33 (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In general human flesh is not kosher, regardless of who the human being is or was. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kashmiri Muslims Call Halall as Kash

Kashmiri Muslims call Halal as Kash (Abbr of Kashrut). This is perhaps because of a longstanding jewish influence in Kashmir(Probably coming from Persia) noted by travellers including Alberuni(ca 1000 A.D)scribe (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In comparison and contrast to nearby cultures

Can someone please explain this recent edit to me? I don't know what it's the inverse of or what sense it makes, or why it should be in the article. Does "original bible" mean Old Testament, re-definitions of what?

Inversely, the abandoning of Kashrut food practices that are detailed in the Torah (original bible) during the re-definitions of the new testament, is a signifyer of mainstream divergence from the Jewish practice, way of life, and creed.

Bob98133 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for Kosher -- Health Reasons -- Biblical Scientific Foresight

In "1.2.2 Health reasons", the "scientifically discredited theory of biblical scientific foresight" is mentioned. For the sake of accurate reporting, I would like to point out that this theory has not been scientifically discredited by any method I know of, and I feel that it should not be labeled as such. However, I wanted to check what everyone else thinks/knows before I make any hasty revisions. Cheers. Vercingetorix08 (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Terefah

Currently terefah redirects here. I am not sure if it is covered under a different name here in the article, but if it is not, perhaps it should get a mention somewhere (again, since terefah redirects here). See [1] for a comparison. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Temple Grandin

Prof. Temple Grandin is recognized throughout the industry as the expert on behavior of animals at slaughter. Her POV is how to reduce the stress on animals, which benefits the industry as well as the animals. The Kashrut page should link to her work since it facilitates understanding of a major issue involved in preparing kosher meat. Please explain why this link has been repeatedly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several issues. There is substantial criticism of this research, and therefore the "external links" section is not the place to present one viewpoint but not the other. Please see WP:NPOV if this is unclear. Those defending kosher slaughter also claim that shechita is a humane method of slaughter and aimed at reducing stress. If you want to present all viewpoints, it might be more appropriate to leave the kashrut article alone (which is about all aspects of kosher food, not just slaughter) and take this to shechita, where you will find this link again. In that article there is a large section on this topic. JFW | T@lk 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree with you, but I see that the link under Shechita is more appropriate. I have added Shechita to "See also," where, as you say, these issues are discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to tell in what way you don't agree with me? JFW | T@lk 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your implication that Prof. Grandin opposes kosher slaughter or believes that it is not humane. One of the papers on the previously linked site [2] makes it clear that she is simply recommending how to ensure that shechita is done in a humane way – by using a sharp knife, by keeping the animal upright especially avoiding shackling and hoisting (discussed more completely at [3]). It is hard to imagine that any of this can be considered controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and Dr. Katz's opinion

I have several times to insert the following this in the "Vegetarianism" section

As noted by the Israeli scholar Dr. Ya'akov Katz, "(...) Strictly refraining from eating any meat whatsoever technically fulfils the criteria of Kashrut, not to mix meat and milk. However, it does not fulfil the unofficial social function which many people assign to Kashrut - i.e., to set up a daily way of life which sets Jews apart from non-Jews. Being a vegetarian does not fulfil this function, Rather, it sets vegetarians apart from non-vegetarians. Jewish vegetarians have no problem in sharing a table with non-Jewish vegetarians - but they have considerable difficulty in sharing a table with Jewish non-vegetarians."

It was repeatedly reverted by Jfdwolff. on the grounds that this is "a single person's POV" and afterwards "I know Katz is a scholar but he is describing personal experiences and views that are not necessarily highly notable". I want to point out again that Dr. Katz is a scholar, and that he said these things in the context of a serious panel discussion on Judaism and how it interacts with the social norms of the modern Western World in which Jews live. He pointed to personal experiences of his own life to illustrate the point - which is a long-established and perfectly legitimate academic method - but the point itself is highly relevant to the subject and belongs on this page. If Jfdwolff finds it objectionable (which is his privilege) he is at liberty to locate and place on the page an opposing view. That is the Wikipedia way, as I venture to understand it. 79.177.75.195 (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been here for nearly a week and nobody responded, so I am going to post this reference again on the page. Anybody objecting, please place your objections here, thanks! 79.183.135.97 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My objections are that Katz is a historian and not a spokesperson for a particular group or movement. If there is a particular source that confirms him as a spokesperson, then please provide this. JFW | T@lk 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He is an outspoken vegetarian and Animal Rights advocate, whose concern for animals is deeply rooted in his being a devout Orthodox Jew, and he has expressed this opinion in writing quite often. As he said and wrote, both in the sepcific debate which I quoted and on other occasions, he would like other Orthodox Jews to become vegetarians and other Jewish vegetarians to become Orthodox, and has made efforts over many years to convince members of both groups of why they it is in interest of both Judaism and Vegetarianism that they should do so - both when he lived in the US and since he came to Israel. I think all this gives his view on the matter enough significance to have one paragraph mentioning it in the specific section of the specific Wikipedia page dealing with this specific subject. 79.183.135.97 (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would exepct anybody who still has something to say on this subject to either say it here - which is the logical and proper place for Wikipedians to discuss issues with each other - or to refreain from deleting this paragraph if it is put in again. Thanks! 79.178.11.96 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I waited until after Yom Kippur, and I give anyone who has any objections one more day to react. If still no reaction, I am going to post this paragraph again tommow, and I expect it to stay. 79.179.31.166 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When you reinsert the paragraph, please include a link to a reliable supporting source; perhaps an article about him and these issues, an article or articles quoting him on these issues, or his writings on these issues. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Views from animal welfare groups

I just changed the sentence "Some animal rights groups object to kosher slaughter" to be "Many animal rights groups object to kosher slaughter", but this was reverted by user Bus stop, who requested sources for this claim.

Here are some:

• RSPCA
• Viva!
• PETA
• Animal Aid
• FAWC

These are some of the most well known animal welfare organisations.

Unless someone can present evidence of animal welfare groups that have no problem with ritual slaughter, then I maintain it is perfectly acccurate and acceptable to say that "many", or "most" (if not indeed "all") such organisations oppose these methods.

Incidentally I am also of the view that "welfare" is a more appropriate expression here than "rights" because it is less loaded.

Gavin (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The above groups have a problem with every means of slaughter.

"Viva! opposes all slaughter and we promote vegetarianism as the only truly effective way to prevent animal suffering. Viva!’s investigations show that millions of animals slaughtered by conventional means are ineffectively, painfully or incompletely stunned – and the overwhelming majority of the 850 million killed each year lead lives of deprivation and suffering. To find out more about slaughter, click"

The above is from Viva!'s web site.

In some statements they seem to be favoring stunning as a first step to slaughter. Is "stunning" humane? They are talking about religious slaughter and citing pigs. Pigs are not animals slaughtered for Jewish food.

"In both forums I declared that religious slaughter is a vile and merciless way to treat animals, but that I also have concerns about the way bigots jump on the 'ritual slaughter' bandwagon. As to 'humane' British killing, I have personally visited six slaughterhouses and seen, for instance, pigs shackled upside down by one leg, their throats slashed and gushing blood. I've seen them slip from their shackles and crash head first on to the concrete, thrashing desperately and with blood pouring from their throat wounds. This is 'humane slaughter'. At one slaughterhouse I saw a man with a stick mindlessly beat every animal he unloaded from a transporter. At another, I saw a crippled pig kneed and kicked along an aisle to the place where she was subjected to electrical stunning."

The above is from Animal Aid's web site.

Do you have a source other than these web sites asserting what you wish to say?

I find this at WP:Reliable Sources:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Above you state that "The above groups have a problem with every means of slaughter" but this is not true. While some do have a problem with all animal slaughter - and therefore are indeed opposed to kosher - the FAWC, for example, are not opposed to all slaughter. Neither, I think, are the RSPCA. Nonetheless both are opposed to ritual slaughter on the basis of scientific evidence.

I have quoted enough sources. The only questions pertinent to the change are whether these groups are opposed to ritual slaughter, which I have shown they are, and whether you can cite other animal rights organisations who are not opposed to it.

Gavin (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that this is the change you wish to make? If so, shouldn't you bring a source to support the resulting contention? You seem to be justifying that change on your own reading of various sites. Those sites might be relevant, but I think you are reaching your own conclusion. "Original research" is a policy that might apply here. "WP:Reliable Sources" cautions against "…the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the change I'd like to make - the same one I made in the first place. It seems to me these organisations' own statements count as "primary sources". Please simply present an animal welfare group that is not opposed to ritual slaughter, with your source, and you have some counter-evidence.

Also, the quotation you give from Animal Aid, above, though emotive, is irrelevant, because if these practices were really witnessed, they are unnecessary malpractices for which the slaughterhouse could lose its licence, whereas ritual slaughter is judged by these organisations to be unnecessarily painful even when carried out "correctly".

Gavin (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another source for you. It is obvious that many animal rights groups are opposed to ritual slaughter and I have presented evidence enough of this. I think it is only fair that if you cannot produce any sources to the contrary then the change should be admitted.

Gavin (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)