Talk:Kosher foods/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Offensive

I am new here, I just logged/join on to point this out to an administrator or moderator, I am not jewish myself but I don't think a jewish person would particularly like what someone wrote in the Kosher mammals section:

[The offensive material was removed from the talk page, because reproducing the offensive material here would be equally offensive. --Lance ^talk 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC) ]

I think that is very offensive and uncalled for. There must be a way to see the IP address of the user or person who wrote that to put a ban on him/her.

Thanks for pointing that out. Looking over user 209.202.75.74's edit history, it appears he does nothing but vandalize. I've put a temporary block on him. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That IP is somewhere around Winsdor, Canada. Thought you would like to know...

References

This could use some more scripture references. For example, which verse is the no mixing of milk and dairy based on? Is it Exodus 23:19? (I'm not Jewish, so I'm not sure.) --Steven Fisher 06:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, but it is mentioned again in two other instances. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, do you know what they are? Don't worry, I'm not here to argue the point: I just wanted to look up the verses and thought they'd be a good addition to the article. :) --Steven Fisher 05:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kosher Rennet

The section about cheese is confusing on the issue of Orthodox use of Rennet. While I do suppose that Rennet derived from a Kosher animal that was shecheted properly would indeed be itself Kosher. If, however, you used that rennett to make cheese, it would be considered mixing of milk and meat by Orthodox Jews, and thus not Kosher. I think that section needs revision. Elipongo 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the above writer is mistaken. Rennet from a kosher animal is used in cheese making and is considered perfectly kosher, as long as it was done by a Jewish person or in the presence of a Jewish person as to avoid mistakes (sort of like wine). The proportion of meat to milk is such that the meat is considered Batel, meaning, insignifcant. a proportion of 1/60 is needed for an ingredient to be considered Batel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.109.240 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed in overview

This sentence in the overview.. Reasons for food being non-kosher include the presence of ingredients derived from non-kosher animals or from kosher animals that were not properly slaughtered, a mixture of meat and milk, wine or grape juice (or their derivatives) produced by only a Rabbi, the use of produce from Israel that has not been tithed, or even the use of cooking utensils and machinery which had previously been used for non-kosher food requires clarification. It is a run-on, and the further you get into it the more confusing it becomes. It needs to be re-worded. I added a tag for needing clarification, this was then removed by User:FeldBum, who stated as justification that the overview doesn't need citations. I'm not asking for citations, but for clarification. I'm leaving this note here and on FeldBum's talk page to clarify my intentions in reverting his reversion. 173.24.56.177 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Misread clarification as citation. No more late night wiki'ing when the kid wakes up. Do you think wiki anchor links to the appropriate sections below would help? --FeldBum (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Glatt v. non-glatt

The article might explain the difference between "glatt kosher" (preferred by most Orthodox US Jews) and "non-glatt kosher," a less restrictive and less expensive standard preferred by many Conservative US Jews. See for example: http://www.forward.com/articles/478/ Lack of Meat Choices Not Kosher, Say Conservative Shuls in St. Paul By Nathaniel Popper Published July 21, 2006, issue of July 21, 2006. [article omitted] Hcunn (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Glatt

As far as I know, the word "glatt" does'nt mean "lung", it is "smooth". Also - it is written "גלאט" and not as spelled in the article. 24.80.33.230 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Glatt" is a German word, so it's written "glatt." --FergusM1970 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture removed

Hi,

I am removing the picture "A Jewish man eating kosher food in a restaurant in Israel". Reason: this picture is not representative of kosher food. It just shows some falafel balls, pittas and a salad. While these items are kosher (if prepared properly!), they do not seem to be especially representative in any way.

Bazuz (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I make falafel quite regularly and I consider it to be "properly" prepared. Part of this preparation is frying it in bacon fat. Kosher ≠ proper. --FergusM1970 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Accusations of antisemitism are serious, and need proper sources. We can not check for certain whether you are or aren't who you say you are. We try not to blood libel people without strong evidence. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Eggs

“

The consumption of eggs which have started to hatch was regarded as falling under the ban on eating parts of live animals; the Yoreh De'ah argues that if there is blood in the yolk, then hatching must have begun, and therefore consumption of the egg would be forbidden

”

Is this talking about eating of raw eggs? How can something be considered "living" if it's e.g. fried and scrabbled even if there is blood. If this is talking about all eggs (raw and cooked) then can someone with more knowledge please expand on it? 71.155.243.176 (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

These laws are the product of thousands of years of arguing, "interpretation" and one-upmanship among religious scholars. Don't expect them to make any sense. The bible's prohibition on cooking a kid in its mother's milk has somehow turned into "thou shalt not put Parmesan on your bolognese" and so far nobody's questioned the utter stupidity of it, so by comparison thinking fried eggs are alive is almost sane. --FergusM1970 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Milk and Meat

Does the prohibition on mixing milk and meat apply only to red meat, or are poultry and/or fish included? 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Mixing milk and poultry is prohibited, but milk and fish is OK. Pontificake 20:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

which always made me wonder why. Gzuckier 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Milk and meat was the original prohibition. It was extended to poultry in talmudic times because poultry closely resembles meat. Some Sephardim also don't mix milk and fish, but this is based on a misprint in the Shulchan Aruch. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Poultry doesn't closely resemble meat. Poultry is meat. --FergusM1970 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

permitted and forbidden animals

This section is a bit confusing. E.g. "The Torah permits only land animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves." I think perhaps what is meant is "Among land animals the Torah permits only those that chew their cud and have cloven hooves." The first implies that only land animals are approved, and only some of them. Then, "The Torah lists winged creatures that may not be consumed." Does that mean anything else that is winged that is not mentioned here is permitted? This should be explicitly mentioned. (note: the list of forbidden winged creatures given here is not comprehensive - the Torah also explicitly forbids e.g. ostrich, no?) Does the Torah explicitly forbid monkfish? If not, why is it listed here? Eel would be a more common example of a forbidden sea creature. Stick to what Torah says, or Talmud, or rabbinic councils, and leave out examples. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Literalness

Some Jews take the not cooking a calf in its mothers milk more literaly than others and thus have different iterperatations so many things arent 100% agreed upon concensus (for that law) and I believe it should be stated that some believe it to different extents. Or maybe it should go in the kosher/kashrut article this is just an observation--Shimonnyman 11:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about what "some Jews" believe, or what various streams of Judaism say? If the former, "some Jews" believe just about everything - you can't document every belief of every Jew. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Calf? Anyway, the Karaite view can be briefly touched upon in kashrut. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not speaking Karaite as I know people from many denomonations of Judaism who say Leviticus is to be taken in as plain straightforward literal truth but not nessasarily each book as literal truth. --Shimonnyman 17:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, Jews believe all sorts of things. However, Orthodox and Conservative insist on strict separation of meat and milk, and Reform does not consider halakha binding. Oh, and the meat and milk restriction is certainly not a literal reading of Leviticus. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

That was my point that some people take it as in literaly not dont mix milk and meat. For the record a lot of Reform Jews I know agree with the common interperatation as a lot of reform and non-reform Jews I know take it literal --Shimonnyman 04:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

and by the way I'm not going to push for this anymore as everyone has pretty much agreed this is the wrong article and it should be the other one if any I just wanted to explain in responce to arguments againts the actuall statment clarifying what I meant compaed to what actually came out of what I said. --Shimonnyman 04:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

209.226.132.100 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't mention anything about the growing concerns on just how humane Jew-Kosher slaughter 'techniques' are on cattle. I have a movie I could donate for this subject if any Wikipedians wish it so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.132.100 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 November 2006

Update: The signing was done by me, Daniel Thomase Ainsworth. There should be no problem here and my addition/recommendation is legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.138.86 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 29 November 2006

You can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~) in a row, or you can hit the signature button in the toolbar at the top of the edit box. The issue you raise is beyond the scope of this particular article. It is addressed here Kashrut#Kashrut and animal welfare. I wouldn't advise uploading a video because there would likely be copyright issues. --Elipongo 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I found another article that addresses your point, Shechita#Animal Welfare controversies. Be sure to follow the link to past, present, & proposed bans on ritual slaughter. --Elipongo 02:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Capybara

This animal was a matter of discussion on the Mexican Hebrew Community about if is or not Kosher. I think it is but I am not sure. Does anyone can see information about this?

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmordon (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 December 2006

According to the article on Capybara, they have toes, not split hooves; therefore they're not Kosher. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fungi

Does any one know if fungi like mushrooms can be eaten or not according to Kosher rules? it is not green or a plant —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry White (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Fungi are kosher, subject to the condition that they aren't infested with non-kosher animals. Pontificake 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A Joke?

One of the Kosher Mammals is down as: Beef Taco Hot Pockets (shown below)

Image:Http://www.hotpockets.com/graphics/hot/products/db/beeftaco 400.jpg

A Joke? Edwardando 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather a bit of vandalism that another editor has reverted. Such things happen all the time. The only reason this one stayed up as long as it did was because it was done during Shabbat. --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The External links section

A link was just put up to the British Columbia Kosher website. I haven't removed it, but my feeling is that it should be removed along with the links to the OU, the O-K, and the Star-K. We'll end up with a link farm to every single hechsher out there if we let it get out of hand, IMHO. Thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that would be exactly the right idea. Topic under "Kosher Foods": hekshure with a short summary and a "link farm" to a long list. Informative, balanced. -- Deeptext

Passover cleaning

The article mentions rigorous cleaning for Passover, but does not describe the ritual of it. I think that would be sensible to add. (Feather, candle, crumbs. I don't have the time right now to check my memory of the timing and procedure.) --156.56.195.52 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kosher gelatin

Kosher gelatin can be made from pig skins??? --Inahet 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, after a lot of consulting with authorative sources and yeshiva students and such, I gather that the basic reasoning is that since pigskin isn't a food, it can't be described as nonkosher food, and therefore anything which is a food which derives from it is sort of newly created as synthetic and does not partake of the original pig's nonkosherness. I wonder if that also applies to cochineal dye, which derives from the shell of the cochineal beetle, and is considered nonkosher although it sure seems like a parallel process.Gzuckier 19:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On chewing the cud

The hyrax article suggests that zoologists now reckon they don't actually chew the cud. Has there been any Jewish reaction to this idea? (Probably not "Yippee!! break out the hyrax!!") Also, the list of examples doesn't include any animals which neither chew the cud nor have cloven hoofs: should it be made clear that they're not kosher? jnestorius^(talk) 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, hares and rabbits don't chew the cud either; they eat their own droppings instead. I haven't heard of this making any difference to their non-kosher status. Perodicticus 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we don't necessarily know that the Hebrew word "shafan" means "hyrax." One thing that jumps out at me is that the two animals whose translations we are fairly sure about - pigs and camels - were domesticated. Perhaps this means that shafan and arnevet were domesticated as well... At any rate, hares and rabbits are not kosher. --Eliyak T·C 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Souldnt this factual error of the kosher law be pointed out somewhere in the article? Narmical 17:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a statement about hares rabbits and hyrax not chewing cud. added the asked for referances

These are statements in the Bible; this article doesn't need your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter anyway? Neither animal has split hooves, that makes them unkosher. We don't really need to know whether they in fact chew their cud or eat their droppings because either way it won't change their non-kosher status one whit. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research? i pointed out where the information came from. there were plenty of sources other than myself. What does it matter? the rabbits chewing cud is wrong. Someone reading may take the bible statment as a truth. I think my edit is relevent.Narmical 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start a page on biblical errata, go right ahead, but your addition is rather out of context here.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is using a quote from a literary source that claims a certian fact which isnt true. Bible or not, its something that sould be pointed out for the integrity of the information and the benifit of the reader. Narmical 12:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? How do you know for a fact that it's wrong? I don't speak Hebrew, but I'd speculate that there's perhaps a shade of difference that's lost in the translation. The Coprophagia article states that the feces that rabbits eat are different from their regular feces which they do not eat- the article also states that they do this for basically the same reason that ruminants chew their cud. I'm sure that this behavior was well known in biblical times and is covered by the Hebrew term. Therefore I don't see that there's anything factually wrong with the article that needs a "correction" —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Actually, this really needs to be changed. Explicitly saying they were wrong isn't necessary. However, presenting a falsehood as a fact is clearly unacceptable. The options are to change it to a direct quote of any acceptable translation (since the factual accuracy would then be irrelevant), or to change it to, "The hare, because it was believed to chew its cud but does not have cloven hooves (Leviticus 11:6)".
The current phrasing directly asserts that it chews its cud, which appears to be false. I have no desire to challenge people's interpretations of scripture or religious values. However, in an encyclopedia, facts and beliefs shouldn't be used interchangeably. Bladestorm 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Bladestorms sugestions. any opinion as to weather the "was beleived" or the direct quote method should be prefered? Narmical 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I think the direct quote would be the better of the two choices. I shall find and copy the translations in the next few days, if there are no objections- I use the Artscroll chumash. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Breast milk

It says that breast milk is considered parve, but does not give a cite. Furthermore, is it permitted for adults to drink it (ugh) or only infants? Rpresser 17:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

parve discussion

I think there should be a parve section about whats parve Why fish and milk can go together that mushrooms are parve even tho they arent plants. I am not very good at this and someone who knows more about this stuff should consider it.Barry White 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)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)

why so many articles on kashrut

What is the difference between this article and the articles called "kashrut" and "kosher"? I think they should all be merged. --Gilabrand 09:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

sturgeon

According to this blog post [2] by Professor Marc B. Shapiro, it seems that sturgeon may well be kosher. --Dj789 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are cruel conditions on the farm that animals are raised in unkosher?

If kosher laws prohibit the animal from suffering in the slaughter and PREPARATION of the animal (as it says in the wiki article), does that preparation include the conditions of the farm that the animal is raised in? In other words, are factory farms with caged animals unkosher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.198.26 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The laws of kashrut don't directly prohibit suffering.

The reasoning people impose on the halakha is that it "must be" in order to minimize pain and suffering. The law doesn't give explanations and reasons why, it just says what it says.

Really, what must be stressed, is that it is 'more' humane than the alternative. A shekht animal was still slaughtered, and the animal probably did not find it a pleasant experience. No, probably did not find it enjoyable at all.

The rules you are thinking of are probably 1) that the blade must be smooth - without a nick 2) so the meat does not pull and 3) that the animal must be healthy. In order to accomplish 1 and 2, you have a smooth and sharp blade and, generally, one slice. Even as humane as this method may be, there is still the likelyhood that the animal feels pain, and still a short possibility that the animal does not die right away. If the animal does not die right away, there are two choices: shooting the animal (or similar "euthanasia") will render it unkosher, but the alternative (letting it die on its own) definitely allows the animal to suffer. It is up to the policy of the meat producer which they will choose ... the kosher meat is worth more, but the bad publicity might not be worth it.

Number 3 is a longer topic, but it touches on the topic humane slaughter (or humane-er slaughter) a couple of ways. It effects how the animals are raised, for example: some hekhshers will not allow for the animal to be penned (white veal) or legs tied (frois du gras -- pardon if I got the words wrong, it's a duck). It also effects the slaughter itself, for example: you can't just cut off a diseased leg and have the rest of the animal be kosher.

As for what the article itself might say, things could always be written better, which is the whole idea behind Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.63.24 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The animal, of course, does not die right away. Whatever the ancient framers of "law of kashrut" had in mind with their rules, they also knew the for meat to keep longer the blood must be drained. The difference between this and modern non-kosher slaughtering practice is that in the later the animal is rendered unconscious before exsanguination. --bonzi (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Availability

I think that statement "Koshat is now available either directly in local stores or by order everywhere in the world" is somewhat overly generalized. --bonzi (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought of changing it to the developed world, but decided to delete it entirely based on the fact that it was off topic for that section and I see no need to include it in the lede. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

I heard somewhere that the prohibition against blood had something to do with the fact that animals eat meat that has blood in it, and the Jews wanted to separate themselves from the animals in terms of how they ate. Can anyone confirm/deny this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.210.194 (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone has a moment (and the knowledge) would it be possible to discuss the meaning and root of the related Hebrew terms parve, pareve and kashrut as well as perhaps the English (?) term kosher? I'm curious. Thanks. jengod 08:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The term kosher is elaborated on kashrut, which is adjective vs noun. As for parve, this is food that contains neither dairy nor meat, and may therefore be used with either without the risk of producing a forbidden mixture. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Pareve is just another spelling (and pronunciation?) of parve. Parve is, incidentally, Yiddish, not Hebrew. I don't know that its etymology is known. And JFW forgot the case of fish... Tomer ^TALK 17:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fish != meat. JFW | T@lk 17:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Posqim generally prohibit preparing or eating meat and fish together, eventhough they can be eaten in succession (following rinsing), and fish can be prepared in and eaten with meat kelim and dishes (i.e., plates and forks). Tomer ^TALK 20:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, for the purposes of Wikipedia it would be immensely unhelpful to mention an issur torah in the same line as a minhag. Many Jews would not mix meat & milk but are not very bothered by the Shulkhan Arukh's statements about meat & fish. JFW | T@lk 16:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it necessary?

Is the picture of a winged-insect on a stalk of celery really necessary? Bugs on food seems to be a random picture at first glance to most. Shouldn't pictures reflect the main topic of the page? Insects on food isn't closely related to Kosher foods. It's the equivalent of posting a picture of a murder on a page about laws because murders aren't allowed according to laws. Occamsrazorwit (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

kosher beef

Just wondering- the ad for Hebrew National shows they only use "kosher cuts of beef". what makes some cuts kosher and others not, if it's the same animal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousnonjew (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My own perception is that the word "kosher" modifies the word "beef" rather than just the word "cuts", in other words they could just have easily written "cuts of Kosher beef" but it probably didn't sound as alliterative. There is also the point, as explained in the article, that in North America the carcass's hindquarters are usually sold as non-kosher because they are much more labor-intensive to kasher. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

not all parts of an animal are considered kosher, these are however still sold to non-jews of course! Markthemac (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kosher Candles?

Can't seem to find the page ... what makes a candle kosher? ie: Shabbos, Havdaloh, Channukah, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.12.229 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the concept of something being "kosher" applies to candles. I don't have expertise in this, though, and I hope someone else will weigh in with a response. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a hechsher on any of the four different brands I have, including one from Israel. Obviously, it can't be made out of pig fat or non-kosher beef fat, but you'd have a hard time finding a candle made from animal fat anymore.Dosbears (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

When Life is at risk

@Debresser:) You reverted my edit, and cited WP:BRD, but then you violated that process by not "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary". I would like to know your reasoning; I thought mine was clear in my edit summary: "off-topic subject is an almost universal rule in Jewish law, not specific or related to kashrut", but I can elaborate, if its unclear to you. —Boruch Baum (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit has been undone. That already means that your edit does not have consensus, especially when your edit removed something that was in the article for a long time. Please refrain from edit warring, see WP:EDITWAR.

Unclear? The fat that I disagree with you does not mean that I failed to understand something. If anything, you fail to understand why I and the original writer of that text and all those who saw it before and didn't remove it think it is relevant. Especially since the source is directly about kosher food. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Nu, so where's your explanation? You haven't responded to the substance of the basis of my deletion. The reason that your reference to the source in Yoma 83a is totally irrelevant is for the reason I stated in my original edit summary - pikuach nefesh is an almost universal rule in Jewish law, not specific or related to kashrut. Pikuach nefesh is its own topic, totally independent from kashrut; You could find a source to apply pikuach nefesh to ALL (but three) laws of Judaism. The fact than you can find an application of ppikuach nefesh to the laws of kosher food has nothing to with kosher food. The thinking behind your position would require all articles on all Jewish laws to include sections on all other laws that have potential intersections.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I did explain. The fact that you don't recognize my reply or don't understand it, is your problem. You can ask any third party to help you understand. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what it says insofar as it is completely unreferenced. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (WP:V) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, @Debresser: The paragraph isn't footnoted, but the paragraph text does claim a source: "B. Yoma 83a", which would be a folio of the Babylonian Talmud, —Boruch Baum (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. there is a source, so I don't understand what Finnusertop means. Debresser (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I mean the kind of reliable, secondary sources that WP uses for verification. Currently there is a source that supports the quotation, but none that support the assertion that all Rabbinic authorities agree or that there are dozens of sources for this religious law including multiple in the Talmud - you are merely quoting (with proper attribution) one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Since when do "all rabbis" agree on anything? :) Why bring all sources? Just one good source, that's all that's needed. And that is the Talmud, the first source for most Jewish laws. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia is that all information is verifiable. The text says all Rabbinic authorities agree - if that's the claim you want to pursue you need to present sources that explicitly support this. Otherwise it's original research that does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm not asking you to cite all rabbis, I'm asking you to cite a scholar who has made the assessment that all rabbis are in agreement. "One good source" is simply not enough insofar as it doesn't verify what's claimed. That it's the Talmud doesn't exclude it from our policies regarding sources. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser, Settleman, and Finnusertop: At this point, the way the article is currently written, I'm withdrawing my objection. (see also section #Third Opinion, below) —Boruch Baum (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I would suggest taking this question to WP:WikiProject Judaism. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Boruch Baum: I fail to see how this little section harm the article. You are right about it being a general rule and it might need some downsizing but in general, it can/should be included. Settleman (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Inclusion of a section on Pikuach nefesh):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Kosher foods and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I note that:

an alternate opinion has been provided by Settleman; this has not influenced the opinion presented here, but may be considered to obviate the third opinion process.
the content in question has been substantially amended to better reflect the sources referenced, such that the issues w.r.t WP:OR/WP:SYNTH have been resolved; consequently, I will not further opine on those aspects.

W.r.t the dispute at hand, the core question appears to be Is a section on "Pikuach nefesh" in this article WP:UNDUE?
Given that:

our expectation must be that readers will not necessarily be intimate with the principles of pikuach nefesh;
each of the secondary sources now included explicitly mention the application of pikuach nefesh on kashrut;
the Talmudic source (B Yoma 83a) previously included explicitly mentions the application on kashrut;

I do not believe that inclusion of a small section (either here, at Kashrut, or at both articles) is WP:UNDUE; and I support the inclusion.
Finally, I reiterate the excellent advice provided by Robert McClenon; if a wider consensus is required, suggest referring the question to WP:WikiProject Judaism.
Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72, Debresser, Settleman, and Finnusertop: OK. I'll withdraw my objection. —Boruch Baum (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Kosher status of brandy (and other "hard liquors" distilled from grape-wine) as opposed to, e.g., corn whiskey or potato vodka?

My understanding is that this is a subject of rabbinical debate, and I have no idea what the consensus (if any) might be, but I assume that the "chemical transformation" of the distillation process might be a factor. (I'm not even Jewish, but I vaguely recall hearing about this issue when some French company launched a premium-priced vodka based on grapes -- not a grape-flavored vodka, mind you, but a neutral vodka distilled from wine.) Anyway, would it be worthwhile adding a sentence or two about this to the wine discussion? Throbert McGee (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Since, as you correctly say, this is an issue on which there are diverging opinions, I think it is better to leave this out. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kosher foods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)