Jump to content

Talk:Kashrut/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

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)
Probably depends on the product and market. If you are selling high value products in New York it's probably worth it, if you are selling beans in Mexico probably not. The only similar standard I can think of is the Vegan and Organic certification. Kosher marks aren't very common in Europe, although Halal butchered meat is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.93.229 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 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.


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)

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)

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)


Yeah, it is NOT Halal nor visa versa.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.238.95 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Zybek didn't ask whether kosher and halal are the same. Zybek asked whether meat that is kosher is also halal. The answer is that in almost all cases yes kosher meat is also halal meat. It is also true that halal and kosher are not the same, but, again, that wasn't Zybek's question. The Wiki article cited by MangesianPhoenix gives details but you'll see that most points of disagreement are 1) cases where kosher is more restrictive, 2) involve products other than meat (alcohol for example) and 3) often involve parts of dietary law that only extremely strict followers of halal worry about. Interlingua 14:08, 23 June 2010 (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)

"Kosher" currently redirects here to "Kashrut". Is that what you want or do you want it to redirect to "Kosher (disambiguation)"? The current redirect makes more sense because most people searching for "kosher" are searching for this article, not for the disambiguation page. -- -- -- 09:17, 2 July 2013 (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)
The Talmud speaks about finding yourself in a deserted wilderness and coming across an animal missing it's feet -- thus, the cloven hoof status cannot be determined. Assuming one is starving and needs to eat, one may assume the animal is kosher if it has certain dental patterns (consistent with ruminants) and one is certain it is not a camel. For this reason, and others, I don't think the giraffe was 'waiting' for any declaration. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Rumor here says that giraffes are kosher, but their heads have to be cut at a specific point on the neck and we can't really locate it, so in practice you can't produce kosher giraffe meat. However, that may be just a rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.134.207 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I came on wikipedia to work out what food to give a Jewish person and the entry goes on about Giraffe. WHO EATS THAT! Its probabally illegal anyway, why not mention aliens are they Kosher? Human flesh?? Worms?? Giant Panda?? I could go on. This kind of entry gives wikipedia a bad name as a source of useful information. This information is acedemic and not useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.191.93 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The article offers much more information, besides giraffe. If you have any specific questions which are not addressed in the article, kindly post your questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, and remember to sign by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. -- -- -- 09:46, 2 July 2013 (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)
But when permitted, the blessing is Shehakol. Chesdovi (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "kosher" may also refer to something other than food, for example: "kosher" or "non-kosher" music (by Michael Jackson, for instance?). This is explained at the end of the article. -- -- -- 10:57, 2 July 2013 (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)


Actually that is because most Kashmiri Muslims are descended from the tribes of Israel that fled to Afghanistan and further East after the first destruction. Afghanistan history documents this fact, and the 47th generational descendant of King Saul attempted to return the people to Israel just after the second Temple was built but he was denied entry by the Babylonians who ruled Israel at that time. Its a fact, check it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.238.95 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2010 (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)

Shechita is always done with a sharp knife -- sort of one of the fundamentals. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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 — Previous unsigned comment was added by IP 24.193.61.243 at 23:34, 25/June/09.

Vegetarianism and Dr. Katz's opinion

Okay, let's get this perfectly clear before you read any of the drivel below:

Vegetarianism is NOT Kosher, by default! There are VERY strict laws governing plants for Kashrut, that the typical American Jew refuses to learn, and thus mistakenly believes they are "eating Kosher" when they are not. I say, "American Jew" because this is where this nonsense started, in the US. Well trained Jews know better.

— Previous unsigned comment was added by IP 129.82.238.95 at 20:30, 8/Mar/10.


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."[1]

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)
Refraining from meat does not guarantee that you're eating kosher. If you eat from a plate someone ate a steak on, and you washed the plate, and you're eating a cheese sandwich from it, it's not kosher as far as I know. An orthodox vegetarian friend of mine wouldn't eat kosher McFries because she doesn't want to have to refrain from dairy products for the next few hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.134.207 (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2010 (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:

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)
Grorland, you are trying to change from "Some" to "Many" in the statement, "Some animal rights groups object to kosher slaughter…" The problem is you have not brought a source to support that change. Your argument has been that you have looked at animal right's group sites and have found them to be opposed to kosher slaughter. But I think that is original research. I think what is called for is a third party source that comments on this. The change that you are proposing making is only exacerbating an already existing problem. Though I have not come across Wikipedia policy on this, my reasoning is as follows: Terms like "some," "many," and "few" serve to quantify. The word "some" is a moderate term in this respect. But terms such as "many" and "few" tend to express either extremely large or extremely small quantities. I think they call into need a source even more than a term expressing a moderate quantity. Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely the point, the word "some" is moderate, implying that just a few groups are against ritual slaughter, while others (possibly a majority) have no problem with it. As already explained, I have presented primary source evidence that the opposite is actually true, thus fulfilling this condition on NOR:
"To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
While it is true that it is hard to find a third party source saying that many animal rights groups are against ritual slaughter (no doubt because the statement is self-evidently true), there is no need for such a source when sufficient primary sources for the claim are available.
You seem very resistant to this edit despite all the evidence presented. Do you honestly believe there exist animal rights groups who have no problem with ritual slaughter?
Regarding the quantative issue, would you be happier with "most" rather than "many"? This claim is also clearly substantiated by the primary sources.
Gavin (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with user Gilabrand, who has just edited the article, that this was original research and have now found third party sources supporting my exact wording anyway. Nonetheless, I'm perfectly happy with the new edit, so hope this issue is now closed.
Gavin (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles

"Generally any animal that eats other animals" it's not clear whether this section means that these are allowed or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.93.229 (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Non Mixing of Dairy and Meat is Non, Repeat Not a Kosher Rule

Now that I have gotten your attention I recant that statement. But only partially. I was raised Jewish and to respect and honor Kosher rules. However this is Rabbinic Kosher rules, not Torah (Biblical) Kosher. It is true that Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy all state basically that we are not to "boil a kid in it's mother's milk," however the context of the statement is not within the confides of the dietary requirements found in Levitcus 11th chapter. The rules for separating dairy & meat come from a section of text where one would find the sacrificail rules (not dietary). The Talmud (or Oral Torah) is what expands upon those text about dairy and meat which make them non-kosher, not the Torah itself. After all the passage is not really clear that is dietary or not because it does not say specifically. It is therefore nothing more than an opinion. I therefore do not follow this text as I believe it to be the opinion of mankind and not a direct dictate from Ha Shem himself. I may be wrong but for the sake of argument I believe that letting those who read about Kosher here in Wikipedia that it is more a tradition or a part of the Talmud (Oral Torah) would be more appropriate than an outright dictate that it is a Kosher rule.
(JCSR (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

Sorry but I see no valid point, since HASHEM gave the jews the right to transform his laws into something that they could apply and have use off. The only jewish (some people whouldn't call them that) group i know of that feels this way about halacha is the karaites. (probably some reform might see it like this but that would be odd..). I think wikipedia have to select a grounding that is able to teach and help people learn, that is ortodox and then make comparsions from that, or write subs that tell the view point of any other movement or group. blambi (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You have very false information Blambi. The Karites do NOT believe in changing G-d's laws, and no REAL Jew believes that G-d gave him the right to alter G-d's laws.... Where did you hear this nonsense? 129.82.238.95 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense? These "laws" are nonsense. They did not come from any "God" but were made up by people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.186.47 (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the terms "kashrut" and "kosher". These terms overwhelmingly refer to the rules as set down by the Talmud and later Orthodox rabbis. According to Orthodox Judaism, the rabbis were and are the only authority given the right to interpret the Torah according to the traditions they received. These include the rabbinical tradition that dairy and meat was prohibited by the Torah itself and yes, that the rabbinical tradition goes back until Moses who received these traditions from God Himself. -- -- -- 07:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
op is correct but Wikipedia doesn't care about truth but "verifiability" and some lies are verifiable 172.56.8.107 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding honey to the list

From what I understand, honey is also kosher, although it is produced by the bee, which isn't kosher (of course producing endless amounts of discussion). Of course, there are many references in the scriptures to eating honey. Can honey be included in the list of kosher things to eat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.198.113.130 (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


YES, honey is ALWAYS Kosher, by default. Any Rabbi who tells you otherwise needs to have his Smicha taken away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.238.95 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What about mixing eggs with meat?

Is it also unkosher to mix eggs and meat, specially poultry? If so, should eggs and meat be cooked separately? In different pans? With different utensils? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.46.27 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is permitted to cook eggs with meat together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.153.134 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This article should be renamed

Per WP:COMMONNAME this article should be renamed to Kosher. Over 8 million Google hits for "kosher," only 243,000 for "kashrut." This is the English Wikipedia, and in the English-speaking word, "kosher" is the correct term. *** Crotalus *** 15:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about the term "kosher" which has a wider meaning, but is about just the applicability of such a concept to food. Kashrut specifically refers to food. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is out of place

The paragraph starting "In the summer of 2004, a controversy arose in New York City" is in the section "Non-Orthodox outlook", that is clearly the wrong place for it.

Perhaps a new section on recent controversies would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be removed altogether. What is the point of it? There are so many "controversies" in kashrus. Yossiea (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Slashed. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Junk Food and Soft Drinks?

If one of the reasons for having Kashrut is to preserve health, why haven't the Biblical rules been updated for living in the 21st century? Soft drinks such as Coke, Pepsi and Sprite are full of sugar or corn syrup, many with caffeine and some with stimulants such as denatured cocaine. These drinks cause obesity, diabetes, tooth-decay, hyperactivity and are habit forming, and no mention of their deleterious effects is ever mentioned by the rabbis - why not? In fact, Coca Cola even makes a version of their product suitable for Passover. Junk foods full of hydrogenated oils should also be declared un-kosher due to their health risks. Also, if another reason for having Kashrut is to reach the laws of G-d, then why do the rules make no mention of products which oppress human beings in their manufacture? Coca Cola for example exploits workers and pollutes the environment in some countries (please see Criticism of Coca Cola, and yet Jews continue to buy and drink it.Horsechestnut (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gelatin fix

Under Ethical Eating, in the Vegetarianism section, the article states the following: On the other hand, kashrut does recognize some processes as capable of converting a meat or dairy product into a pareve one. For example, rennet is sometimes made from stomach linings, yet is acceptable for making kosher cheese,[48] but such cheeses might not be acceptable to some vegetarians, who would eat only cheese made from a vegetarian rennet. The same applies to kosher gelatin, which is an animal product, despite its pareve status. Eggs are another food that is considered pareve despite being unsuitable for many vegetarians; Mayonnaise, for instance, is usually marked "pareve" despite nearly always containing egg. Gelatin derived from swine is prohibited. 195.234.27.10 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kashrut vs Kosher?

Since "Kosher" is the english version of "Kashrut", and since this is the "english" Wikipedia, and since everyone and their mother knows the word Kosher, what are the compelling reasons to list this article under "Kashrut"? For example, we talk about "Germany" in english Wikipedia, not "Deutschland".--Axcelis555 (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Kashrut is a noun and Kosher is an adjective. You could say that kashrut is the practice of keeping things kosher, but not the other way around. Kashrut laws tell us which foods are kosher, and not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.134.207 (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
So? Kosher is the most common word for it in English. Plenty of articles are at adjectives—halal, for one. It can easily be said the other way around: Kosher foods are those that adhere to kashrus. —Wiki Wikardo 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, according to Wiki conventions the article SHOULD be called "Kosher" but I don't expect it to ever be changed and if you try people will complain for no reason. Honestly, how many people search for Kashrut instead of Kosher when looking for this page. I would say not even a tenth. English Wikipedia so it should use the most common word in English.72.89.142.185 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

{“Update”} request in 'Animal Welfare' section, and other WP:MEDRS issues

This article contains 1978 research, regarding a controversial subject. I'm a biological researcher, and there are improvements in technology to measure animals' neurological reactions, and methodologies of WHAT to measure and HOW were most likely refined, during the past 3 decades LOL; compare to the recommendation of what is considered 'recent' research in the WP:MEDRS guidelines ("Look for reviews published in the last 5 years or so"). The next paragraph exposes even more faults besides the age of this study. The cited study may or may not be outdated...but is likely to be and therefore should be reviewed by someone with expertise _in this field_ (and who can show whether newer, and larger-scale, studies have confirmed or refuted this single study), please. I focus on a different area of bioscience, so I can notice the flaws but not repair them as time-efficiently as anyone who keeps current in this area of research.

This article also fails to mention that the researchers themselves noted: “...critical essays on the effectiveness of current methods of stunning animals for slaughter are on the increase,” which is essentially the authors' acknowledgment that, in 1978, their conclusions were not strongly supported by others. (They did cite a few researchers who said one thing, but also a few researchers who had the opposite conclusion, suggesting a consensus wasn't clearly for nor against them). This source fails the tests of 2.2, 2.3, aaaaaand 2.4 of WP:MEDRS; but the question that's even more important is: Do its conclusions support the scientific consensus _today_? (MEDRS says it should, to be considered a worthy source.) If so, please prove it), and if the strength of results of their research were disputed by other experts, let alone from the researchers themselves, that should be noted in the article.

It's probably more worthwhile to just start over with a recent meta-study, rather than this single, 1978 research-group's study, as WP:MEDRS deprecates the latter... Unless someone wants to re-add this & address the above failure to meet several WP guidelines, the rest of my blathering is less important:

This 1978 study was published in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal...but the point of peer-reviewed research is not to just say “hey, peer-reviewed research said so” but rather to look at the peers' reviews (the whole point of the peer review process is to read that feedback & adjust one's view of the initial research's validity, accordingly.), and then one needs to look at similar studies, esp more recent ones that have adjusted the methodology to correct for flaws that often are pointed out by peer-reviewers (i.e. look at the whole corpus from the scientific community, esp newer research...and this is best done by a Wikipedian whose area of expertise this is, rather than the religious website that takes a clear POV and is translating --perhaps with religious bias (another source of WP:RS problems?)-- this 1978 study. The 2nd paragraph of 2.2. of WP:MEDRS agrees with the basic contentions I'm making in this paragraph, but I'll just expand upon some of the reasons WHY it's good for WP to have that policy: (1.) I'll often see a layman's website which cites such outdated studies if the study supports the bias of the webmaster or group, who are laymen and desperately want to believe that their personal practices are great [as this was pulled from a religious/pro-Halal website, I suspect the worst. I say the same about some of their opposition (PeTA) and deprecate their reliability accordingly; i.e. I make sure the readers of WP realize that it's an activist/POV & non-scientific source unless I find independent confirmation of their claims.], and such groups are often tempted, subconsciously or not, to cherry pick a certain study which reinforces their worldview, even if (2.) the study has been proven to be misleading by 5 or 10 newer, larger-scale, peer-reviewed-and-universally-approved studies, and (3.) sometimes, even the original researcher will update his own work --from, e.g., a 1978 study-- based on the feedback he received in the peer-review process which can cause him to re-publish a different conclusion, 2 or 3 years later...these are just a few of the reasons that it's crucial for someone with related research-experience to review, and {update} the whole paragraph if needed. Even most middle aged laypeople today remember the big scare about the dietary-cholesterol in eggs, so let's use that as an example: consider that anyone on teh interwebs could cite the old studies which 'proved' dietary-cholesterol, not saturated fat, is the most dangerous and caused the most 'bad' BLOOD-cholesterol, and thus they'd regenerate the panic about eggs from decades ago...except that that one was so well-publicized that people today know eggs --and DIETARY-cholesterol, more generally-- isn't that bad for you (not that I'm saying you should eat 6 eggs each day, here... ;) but more healthy than previously believed). Even if a study was peer-reviewed, in 3 decades it's likely to have been either confirmed by other researchers or else updated (refuted by heavy contrary evidence).

In 1978,[unreliable medical source?] a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skulls of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals), but that when Captive Bolt Stunning (CBS) was used, which is common in normal (non-kosher) slaughtering,[2][unreliable medical source?] "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli."

N.B.: The researchers cite the 1972 animal ("Tier") law and noted that animals must be stunned; Germany today allows slaughter without stunning, for ritual slaughter only, as a good citation shows in the "Germany" section of Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. This most likely creates another fault, because In this study the animals appear to have been stunned before the aforementioned “ritual cut” and kosher butchers throughout Europe may be exempted from that precaution in REAL-WORLD kashrut practice,[3] <--The same "painless" results achieved in this study are not necessarily achieved in pragmatic, real-world practice by Rabbis. This fact should also be noted in the article, even if this citation's other short-comings can be addressed and it is re-added.--> The failure to stun the animals is an issue that provokes accusations of cruelty in and of itself.[4] (I'd need to read it more fully before I'd put my word on the following; sorry but this study doesn't report its results nearly so well as most research reports I've read; not sure if it's a bad translation or what.) The researchers appear to suggest that the "reformed" law should ban stun-less slaughter (and the last 2 citations show that is not banned today): "This binding general provision of the TierSchG must equally be the basis of the reformed Law on slaughter." As the third and final critique in this paragraph: Study doesn't appear to attempt to measure pain during the stunning process, only during the death process? (Again, I wouldn't put my word on the 3 critiques IN THIS PARAGRAPH, but this source doesn't meet WP content policies due to the other reasons, above this paragraph.) The actual "ritual cut" (death) may be "painless," but this study does not address the Animal Welfare concerns if the animal is in severe pain as he's being stunned and they don't measure the animal's pain as he's being stunned, only after he is stunned (i.e. as he's being killed). (I'd need to read it more before saying that I'd put my word on that...but first, several other issues, identified above this paragraph, need to be addressed for it to simply even meet WP's content guidelines). 24.155.22.27 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The external link, “Laws of Judaism Concerning Food” at http://www.religiousrules.com/Judaismfood00table.htm is a thoroughly documented, detailed and useful reference site. It has apparently been listed on this page as an external link for years at its previous location, http://religion.atspace.com/Judaismfood00table.htm, which was labeled “Dietary laws from the Torah and the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah).” The URL was updated to its new location and that caused it to be immediately deleted as a “personal website.” I have reversed the deletion for these reasons. Please do not delete it again without further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a personal website alright.
It contains some source material. Maimonides is not the final word on practical Jewish law.
If it was an actual reference, it wouldn't be in the "external links" section.
Could you please read WP:ELNO and attempt to understand my position? JFW | T@lk 21:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Table

I've added this table as someone has put a lot of work into it and it looks useful. Quite possibly it needs further work, but please don't just delete on reflex. PiCo (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding vegetarian/vegan and kosher foods

This statement is errant: "Strict vegetarians, Muslims, Hindus, and people with allergies to dairy foods, often consider the kosher-parve designation as an assurance that a food contains no animal-derived ingredients, including milk and all of its derivatives."

Kosher foods are NOT necessarily animal-free as they can contain fish (and possibly egg) ingredients. Thus, strict vegetarians (which I assume means vegan?) cannot rely on the kosher-parve label to be sure a product has no animal-derived ingredients. An example is marshmallows made with fish gelatin that contains no dairy or egg products. Sam metal (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement does not assert that Kosher foods are necessarily animal-free. It asserts that strict vegetarians often consider the kosher-parve designation as an assurance this is the case. The cited source supports that, saying, "Only two million of the kosher consumers are Jewish. The other eight-plus million are people who choose to eat kosher for religious (Moslems), idealistic (Vegans and Vegetarians), and health reasons." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Source

ISBN 0899061036 (index here) seems to be a good secondary source to support the slightly more technical aspects. It also has a good list of all forbidden foods and mixtures in its introduction. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit reverted

I've reverted this edit, for which no source was provided. These two sources seem to counter it:

1. ) New York Times: "For Some, ‘Kosher’ Equals Pure"

2. ) ADL: "The cost to the consumer for this service is a miniscule fraction of the total production overhead..."

Also of some relevance might be the article Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some updating

I have finally found the time to provide a general list of all kashrut prohibitions, which is quite effectively summed up in the first chapter of Forst's 1994 "Pischei Halacha" published by ArtScroll/Mesorah. Some of the laws could benefit from more direct sourcing to Biblical laws whereever possible to clarify beyond doubt what the origin of each law is.

I have also reshuffled a lot of the other content without modifying the text. Some time ago someone shuffled everything around and made all sections level 2. This led to complete chaos. I have now tried to arrange everything conceptually (e.g. everything relating to supervision and marketing into one section).

With regards to sourcing, we still have a long way to go. Forst is a pretty good secondary source, and once I get my hands on a copy of Grunfeld's work we can use that also. Other suggestions for secondary sources are welcomed. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


just a supplimentary note of an error for updating/revising(?). this article frequently makes reference to rabbitical and biblilcal passages for support. the problem is with the usage of "biblical". judiasm does not believe in the christian bible so this phrasing is out of place and perhaps insulting. and christians are not kosher and are not required to be (which again makes this phrasing out of place). perhaps reference should be to jewish scriptures or the torah instead of the bible. for ex. "origin of the prohibition (Biblical or rabbinical)" should instead replace `biblical' with: torah/tanakh/masoretic text or miqra or something appropriate. the biblical references should be replaced with the jewish equivalent, or at least supplimented with it. Newtonsghost (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

traif?

So, why does "traif" redirect here, when this article doesn't even have the word in it anywhere?? I saw it mentioned in an article elsewhere, and wiktionary was useless, so I tried wikipedia to find out what it is. It redirects here, which is another dead end, because unless you already know what it is, you can't tell what part of this article relates to it. 67.169.111.181 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

it's in the 3rd sentence of the lead. fairly prominent. Soosim (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)!
Now redirects to Treif which is a short article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Animal welfare concerns section

This article is missing this section while the Halal article has the section which mentions both Kosher as well as Halal. Maybe both articles should have this section rather than just the Halal one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.10.100 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Halal#Animal_welfare_concerns. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Animal advocates have engaged frequently with the issue of ritual slaughter (in both Kashrut and Dhabihah forms) and are a major factor in how these slaughter methods are perceived by society. Users "Gavin" and Bus stop argued above in 2009 about the proper way to characterize the perspective of animal rights (or animal welfare) advocates in this article; it appears that this perspective is no longer represented at all in the current version of the article. However, because shechita has its own page, I think this could be settled by giving a clear "main article" link under the "Kosher slaughter" heading. Delmonte (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Not applicable to non-Jews

Removed a sentence from the prohibited foods list that read "considered applicable even to non-Jews", since by definition it doesn't, and had been twice questioned (clarify, citation). Rather than add a third question (who?), I removed it instead. Do not reinstate it unless you can cite why a Jewish law applies to non-jews, who says so, and why this line and not others. Also, trhere are many needed sources for comments on this section. Should perhaps be revised by a knowledgeable NPOV editor. wolfe (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On second reading, this section at the moment includes a number of Rabbinically(sic) prohibited foods without any citation of source, Rabbi or rationale. They seem to originate several months past, but typing patterns (lack of ending period, tacked to end of sentence) suggest a common editor. I have removed them by being bold regarding unsourced statements, and changes are visible in the history (in brief: non-Jewish milk/cheese/bread/wine, things that apply outside Israel). Someone knowledgeable in the topic should review the Forst citation to see if it applies to any of these items. Please reinstate if sourced and justified. wolfe (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I am the editor who included the content based on the Forst source. This is a highly authoritative work on the practical aspects of Kashrut. There is such a thing as a rabbinical prohibition (usually enacted as a safeguard against a Biblical transgression or another). In previous versions of the article, these laws were sourced to the relevant section of the Shulchan Aruch, but seeing that this could be construed as a primary source I preferred to use a secondary source in English.
As for dietary laws applying to non-Jews, ever min ha-chai (a limb torn from a living animal) applies to non-Jews as it was Biblically ordained to Noah (considered the forefather of all mankind) - see Genesis 9:4. Its applicability in practice is based on Talmud Sanhedrin 56b, Maimonides (Yad, the Laws of Kings chapter 8) and subsequent works. This is not actually controversial. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"This is not actually controversial." What??? These dietary "law" are not laws but neurotic proscriptions applicable only to those taken in by them. You can say that Noah is "considered the forefather of all mankind" but that does not make it so. We don't come from Noah! Looked at objectively this entire topic is utter nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.186.47 (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I added clarification. And by the way, this article is about Jewish law, and Jewish law acknowledges that according to the Hebrew Bible, all current members of the human race are descendants of Noah. -- -- -- 08:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Purity and Danger

How is it that a work so influential is completely overlooked here?
See here:
http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/douglas.htm

Secondary Sources:

http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195189766/student_resources/Supp_chap_mats/Chap13/Abominations_Leviticus/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_and_Danger
142.1.203.249 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary source citation request

Scholar Lester L. Grabbe, writing in the Oxford Bible Commentary on Leviticus, states that "[a]n explanation now almost universally rejected is that the laws in this section [Leviticus 11-15] have hygiene as their basis. Although some of the laws of ritual purity roughly correspond to modern ideas of physical cleanliness, many of them have little to do with hygiene. For example, there is no evidence that the 'unclean' animals are intrinsically bad to eat or to be avoided in a Mediterranean climate, as is sometimes asserted."

Is anyone able to find Grabbe's sources for this claim? I think a citation or reference to them would really improve this section.Tiredgrad (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Secondary sources are preferred over the primary sources. If someone has access to the work, perhaps they could be so kind as to respond to your request. JFW | T@lk 17:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Samaritan Torah

Aleksig6 has twice added a statement about a passage in the Samaritan Torah to the information about basar be-chalav. The relevance of this addition is unclear. There seems to be a suggestion that this places the prohibition in the category of idolatry. That is not the mainstream Jewish thought, even for Maimonides (who makes this statement about numerous other prohibitions). JFW | T@lk 15:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Where should I put it. Its important piece of information that clarifies the prohibition. SP is considered an extremely important manuscript so it should be included. Aleksig6 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Aleksig6 It might be a historically important manuscript but I am really unsure why it is relevant here. I would argue that in the present context it should not be included on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I'd like to add that in general, I see little relevance in Samaritan sources regarding mainstream Judaism. Debresser (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Debresser, Jfdwolff So can you please answer my question? Where can I put it? I am afraid of editing anything else because it pisses off so much people. How about "Samaritan Torah" article? Can I put it there? Also, it is my understanding that minority sources must be included in Wikipedia article if all primary sources provide the same opinion. At least it was my understanding. Also, Samaritans is a significant and well accepted group of Hebrews, so I do not understand why you do not want to include their opinion, unless you are pro-Judaism or have some kind of agenda... Aleksig6 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It is something that would be best discussed on Samaritan Pentateuch. It should not be included here for reasons of WP:WEIGHT. I would also suggest that you don't reinsert the content until we can achieve some sort of consensus.
For reference, the article being quoted is doi:10.1163/004249310X12609401262194. It is about the entire context of the prohibition, so perhaps you might consider adding it to Milk and meat in Jewish law. JFW | T@lk 12:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

European Kosher meat tax

The claim in the article that In some European communities there is a special tax imposed on the purchase of kosher meat to help support the community's educational institutions. I find very questionable, I know of such a tax in 18th+19th century Germany, but such a tax in any modern EEC country (most of Europe) would almost certainly be illegal from my understanding. The source is J-weekly/Jerusalem post quoting a European Jewish organisation spokesman. At the least, if it is true that SOME countries charge such a tax, should they not be named and a better, more local source found. Pincrete (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC) … … Having read this,I wonder whether this a Jewish community imposed 'tax', rather than a 'national tax', the general use of 'tax', if so I think it should be made clear. Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dr. Ya'akov Katz, "To be a Jewish Vegetarian" in Avraham Drori (ed.) "Round table on Late Twentieth Century Judaism", Tel Aviv, 1987 (In Hebrew) - noting some difficulties he encountered as a vegetarian, in congregations in both New York City and Petach Tikva, Israel
  2. ^ Schulze W, Schultze-Petzold H, Hazem AS, Gross R. Experiments for the objectification of pain and consciousness during conventional (captive bolt stunning) and religiously mandated ("ritual cutting") slaughter procedures for sheep and calves. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 1978 Feb 5;85(2):62–6. English translation by Dr Sahib M. Bleher
  3. ^ Official Journal of the European Union L 137 , 02/06/1988 p. 0027 – 0038 "European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter": "Each Contracting Party may authorize derogations from the provisions concerning prior stunning in the following cases: – slaughtering in accordance with religious rituals ..."
  4. ^ BBC, 10 Jun 2003: “FAWC said it wanted an end to the exemption currently allowed for Kosher and Halal meat from the legal requirement to stun animals first.”

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kashrut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

American Jews

This is an article about jewish dietary rules, not American ones. So why the statement that "about a sixth of American Jews or 0.3% of the American population fully keep kosher"?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The large number of Americans in Wikipedia often results in references to America, with other countries not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.1.178 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Necessity and breaking of kosher rules

What happens if a practising Jew breaks the kosher rules out of necessity? eg. is stuck on a desert island with nothing but pigs running around. What happens if or a practising Jew breaks the kosher rules because of lack of information? eg. eating something that has been mislabelled as kosher. Is there some sort of ritual or penance that the practising Jew needs to undergo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 25/Oct/16

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Kashrut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Checked, and one corrected. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kashrut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Checked. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kashrut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kashrut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashrut/Archive_8&oldid=1064236181"