Talk:Kashrut/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cows and sheep and trichinosis

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

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

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

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

Request for references

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

Companion animals?

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

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

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

Food Taboos

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

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

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

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