Talk:Kosher animals

Mole Rat?

Why is there a picture of an East African Naked Mole Rat on this page? Is this intended as a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.52.111 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A large number of the photos on this page are of non-kosher animals. Some of which are not even mentioned in the article, as of this time. I am assuming it is done to be intentionally misleading about what animals are kosher, as intuition would suggest only pictures of kosher animals would be shown since that is the smaller subset of animalia. A casual, naive reader would be misled about kosher laws, adding to the mis-infomation about Jews and engendering anti-semitism from ignorance. Pictures of non-kosher animals have no positive effect on the article, and add no information. All pictures of non-kosher animals should be captioned as such or removed. Does anyone disagree? The mole rat was the same deal, someone trying subliminally suggest it is kosher.Tseiff (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I found the picture of the fruit-eating bat especially questionable and replaced it with a turtle dove. I would support only Kosher animals be pictured since they are the topic of the article. I will go ahead and make the change if no one objects. Borock (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Capon

I see the list includes capon (something I was unaware until yesterday even existed), but it got me to thinking... Rocky Mountain Oysters are treyf, so how can steers be kosher, in the same way, how can capons be, since they're also missing their betzim? Tomer^talk 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh...to be more precise, I'm wondering whether anyone knows of somewhere in the mishna that it covers the !/acceptability of castrating food animals. Tomer^talk 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This says that capons are kosher.

Rocky Mountain oysters are a different issue. I understand that it's common practice on cattle ranches to castrate large numbers of male calves all at once making steers of them and leaving only a small number to become bulls and reproduce. I suspect this is where the oysters come from and I understand that it violates kashrut to eat any part of an animal cut from its body while it's still alive. Kosher animals must be inspected to be sure they are "unblemished", but I don't know if castration violates this. Even if the testicles are removed post mortem, the processing of any part of the hindquarters of a hooved animal is extremely difficult and expensive under kashrut and seldom done outside Israel. On top of that, there some portions of the carcass that are forbidden under any circumstances, and this may include the gonads. --Steven J. Anderson 08:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I understand it's in the list...if it weren't, not only would I not have asked the question, I still wouldn't know that there was such a thing as a "capon". :-) Tomer^talk 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it from the list because it is really the same animal as a chicken. Also, I am not sure if it is kosher since it may be considered a treifa. Jon513 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So all that remains now is to find a source. :-) Tomer^talk 21:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, I was the one that added capon into the list. I got it from this article, which says they are kosher. That article has a lot of unsourced statements, so if anyone finds sources to this article, they could probably also be used there.--Kirby♥time 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I figured that's where you got it, and doing a google search for +kosher +capon will turn up a lot of equally unsubstantiated assertions elsewhere that they're kosher. This assertion appeared at one point in Kashruth, at least as early as 2005 (see here), so it's hard telling how many of the other sources are using the WP assertion as their "authority". Tomer^talk 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Western people do too eat goat!

Why say that goat is seldom eaten in the west? It isn't as popular as lamb, but it is surely eaten, and is delicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.25.120 (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==Why is honey kosher, when bee is not and sturgent eggs are not because sturgent is not kosher? to follow the logic of the honey would lead to make the stergent eggs kosher?!---

As I understand it, because honey is not the product of the bee itself (it is neither a biological product like eggs, or excrement) but essentially just nectar being transported by the bee, it is kosher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.4.169 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No primates in the Bible?

Re: the comment "except for Primates, which (besides humans) are not mentioned by the Bible at all"

Bzzt. Inaccurate!

1 Kings, chapter 10, verse 22, reads "כִּי אֳנִי תַרְשִׁישׁ לַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּם, עִם אֳנִי חִירָם; אַחַת לְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים תָּבוֹא אֳנִי תַרְשִׁישׁ, נֹשְׂאֵת זָהָב וָכֶסֶף, שֶׁנְהַבִּים וְקֹפִים, וְתֻכִּיִּים." ('Ki ani Tarshish lamelech bayam, im Ani Hiram; Ahat leshalosh shanim tavo ani Tarsish, noset zahav vakesef, shenhabim ve'kofim ve'tukiim.', Which translates to something to the line of "For the king had boats of Tarshish at the sea with the boats of Hiram; Once in three years, the boats of Tarshish came, bearing gold and silver, ivory, monkeys and parrots.")

While it's generally agreed that the 'Tukiim' mentioned were really peacocks rather than parrots (which is the modern meaning of the word), but the word 'kofim' means 'monkeys' or 'apes'. (If Christian translations-retranslations-whatever is more your thing, the King James version translated it as Apes, but I like to refer to the original rather than the-ancient-times-equivalent-of-Babelfish-translated unofficial sequels.) There you have it. Primates in the Bible. >>;

Turkeys?

Turkeys are only found in North and Central America, how is there a tradition?Naraht (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not Jewish or really a Biblical scholar, but common sense says they are the same type of birds as chickens, quail, etc. and from the article it seems that American rabbis agree.Borock (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Cloven hoof?

It's not really cloven. It's two out of five possible toes. Uncloven is one toe. Nothing was ever cleft. Not sure how to include this in the article.Borock (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Water creatures

The term "stereotypical fish" is vague, and presumes the reader knows to what it is referring. Skaizun (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kosher animals. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/kelp_caviar_receives_ou_kosher_certification/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130202231718/http://www.caviarkelp.com/the-process/ to http://www.caviarkelp.com/the-process/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on the Septuagint, insufficient reliance on codes of Jewish law

The Septuagint is irrelevant to the concepts of Kashrut of any surviving Jews, yet too much of the article is devoted to comparing the Septuagint with the Masoretic Text instead of referencing actual codes of Jewish law. At most, the Septuagint should be an aside, perhaps a paragraph toward the end of the article; today it is relevant only to Christians, to whom Kashrut does not apply. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The Septuagint's interpretation of these animals and birds should be of less consequence to Jews as, let's say, to Christians, but many of these animals and birds cannot be eaten anyway, and, therefore, there is no real tradition as to their being slaughtered, eaten and consumed by Jews. What we do find, however, is that rabbinic tradition is rich in its own description and identification of some of these animals and birds, such as what we find discussed in the Babylonian Talmud (Hullin), and in the Aramaic Targumim (Targum Onkelos and the ancient Palestinian Targum), as well as in the Judeo-Arabic translation of the Torah (Pentateuch) by 10th-century rabbi and scholar, Saadia Gaon, or by Rashi, among others. In my view, it would be good to correct the translations of Hebrew words by citing specifically the source(s) from which they are taken.Davidbena (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Where do the quotes come from?

There are multiple sections in this article that include external links to Leviticus, Deuteronomy, or similar followed by something in quotation marks. However in many cases the linked passages do not include the specific words found in the quotes. I think either the links need to be adjusted to point to a translation that matches the quotes, or the quotes need to be removed, or new quotes need to be pulled that match the links.

Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_animals#Flying_insects Link to Deuteronomy 14:19, which reads "And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten", followed by the quote "flying creeping things". Where did these words come from?

I'm not versed enough in scripture to do the relevant research to decide if this is a good idea, but I can certainly go through and find more offending sections if people agree that this is an issue. RassGroots (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)