Talk:Kashrut/Archive 3

Manipulative use of hekhsher
I should note that the determination of kashrut according to the condition of the food is the ideal situation, the na&#239;ve look at it. In reality, at least in the state of Israel at the present day, the hekhsher is often used by the rabbis as a manipulative tool for achieving their dominance. A restaurant in Israel can lose its hekhsher by being open on Saturday. What has Sabbath-keeping to do with the kashrut of the food? Nothing really, except that the hekhsher has long ceased to be about food only. Recently, a restaurant operated by religious Jews (therefore not open on the Sabbath) lost its hekhsher because it came to be a meeting-place for religious Jews of both sexes (sexual interaction of any sort apart from marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism). It would be accurate to say the kashrut business is no longer kosher. --Shlomital 14:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)


 * If you feel this should be represented on Wikipedia, it should be in hechsher, not on this page.
 * Indeed, a rabbi has the full right to withdraw a hechsher if a restaurant violates other precepts of Jewish law. There is nothing coercive about that - it's a "take it or leave it". A restaurant may also lose its hechsher if it engages in money laundering - is that coercive? Jewish law frowns on stealing, and the rabbi is actually encouraging honest business!
 * I cannot verify your story about the restaurant acting as a meeting ground. In certain areas of Israel, such a place would be disruptive for the community (and endanger the reputation of the youngsters), and the rabbis would act in good faith by removing this lifnei iver! JFW | T@lk  20:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this could be covered in a more relevant fashion on hechsher, specifically in regards to what other standards aside from kashrut are used in the granting of a hechsher.

It might be worth noting (if it can be cited with credible references) which marks are granted solely on the basis of kashrut. It would be misleading to imply that the mark is solely a sign of kosher practices if it is in fact being used as more than that.

I do not think that Wikipedia can call someone "manipulative" in condemnation -- that is not what we are here for -- but we can certainly point to specific criticisms and studies made elsewhere. --FOo 20:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nekudot
Nekudot -- why was the addition reverted? Seems to me like it was a good addition, as well as factually correct Mikeage 15:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. Nequddoth are excellent detail, and deserve their place in the articles, just as much as Arabic vowel diacritics and katakana/hiragana next to Japanese kanji. - Gilgamesh 02:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Jfdwolff, I use Firefox and I see the nekudos. Are you sure they are a problem? Jayjg  |  (Talk)  17:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Could it be an issue of installing Hebrew screen fonts in Windows? Gzuckier 19:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have any installed on this computer. Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have Hebrew fonts, and only use Firefox. I see them just fine.


 * Hebrew Vowel Marks will work in any Unicode compliant browser, as Unicode has been incorporated into all modern browswers (and unicode support is required in standards), it should be kept into the article.--Josiah 23:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

When I use Explorer at work, the nekudot look great, but the (U) symbol is just an empty square. When I use Firefox at home, the (U) looks fine, and the nekudot are visible, but the nekudot are between the letters instead of below them. When I use Explorer at home (which I stopped about a month ago, but went into it just now only to check this out) the (U) is only a square, and the nekudot are below the letters, but several of the letters are simply vertical bars. I hope that info is meaningful to someone. --Keeves 03:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed
In the section on vegetarianism, the article reads: "Since there are few laws of Kashrut restricting the consumption of plant products (except for fruits, harvested from a tree, less than three years after its planting -- which isn't done anyway for practical reasons), it follows that a truly vegetarian meal would be inherently Kosher."

This seems incorrect, although it isn't clear what the author considers to be a truly vegetarian meal. Three examples: first, consider the case of wine: wine and other products made from grape juice are only Kosher if produced by Jews, unless pasturized first. (See Kosher foods.) Second, milk is only kosher if it comes from a kosher animal. Third, vegetarian food might also be non-kosher if prepared with a non-kosher implement, even if that implement (for example, a pan, or an oven) contains no residues from an animal product. (That implement may still need to undergo ritual purification for it to be kosher.) Unsigned by User:131.215.6.187


 * Please do not insert the template if it is not necessary. Your comments here are heard and taken seriously. Your are correct that wine and milk have kashrut restrictions, and that the utensils may have a beli'ah (absorbed taste) that may invalidate the kashrut of the vegetarian product. I will edit the article accordingly. JFW |  T@lk  10:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added four examples of differences between pareve and vegetarian, without even getting into things like wine or bishul akum. But then I noticed the article on Kosher foods and I really think that these two articles need some sort of overall editing cleanup. I think that the material in these articles should either be merged into a single article, or there should be a clearer distinction on what goes where. --Keeves 03:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I have the same problem, I was wondering what was up with that--69.14.120.79 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Disputed Vegetarianism of Rav Kook
Also in the section on vegetarianism, one sentence begins: "Some prominent rabbis have been vegetarian, among them the first Chief Rabbi of pre-state Israel, Abraham Isaac Kook..."

I have looked into Rav Kook's vegetarianism mostly using articles on the web and while it is disputed (I found a source that said his son said Rav Kook was vegetarian and another source that said his son said Rav Kook was not vegetarian) the consensus seems to be that Rav Kook was an almost vegetarian (if you can be such...some would argue it is like being a bit pregnant). He advocated a religious line of thought that provided some of the strongest arguments for vegetarianism in Judaism. He was vegetarian during the week, but it is reported that he would eat a very small quantity chicken on Shabbat in order to serve as a reminder that the Messianic age (with which he associated Vegetarianism) had not yet arrived. A source for this is prominent Jewish vegetarian, Richard Schwartz in "The Vegetarian Teachings of Rav Kook" at http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/kook-expanded.html.

Perhaps it should read "Some prominent rabbis have been vegetarian or virtually vegetarian.." Maybe better would be to extract Rav Kook's name from the list and state in a following the sentence that while it is disputed whether Rav Kook was a vegetarian, he was either vegetarian or very nearly so. Although they may not carry the same "halachic" weight as Rav Kook and Rav Goren, I would suggest adding Rabbi David Cohen (1887-1973), "The Nazir of Jerusalem." and Rabbi David Rosen, former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, to the list of prominent vegetarian rabbis. Sam 02:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shellfish and Pain; Bottom Feeding
In section 3.5 "Other reasons", the article reads: "Like the laws for the slaughter of animals, laws against shellfish could actually be for the good of the creature. There is no painless method for the preparation of "bottom feeding" lobster and crab."

There is scientific dispute that lobster and crab do not feel pain when cooked. Read for example http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7557037. At the very least, this article should not state as fact that "there is no painless method" with respect to shellfish.
 * according to Alton Brown, there is a painless way to cook a lobster, by separating it's brain and brain stem with a large, sharp knife prior to cooking. it is just as likely that there are ways to cease the functioning of any creature, painlessly, in the same manner. the case i see against eating of "botton feeders" is these animals feed by filtering, possibly feeding on toxic material.

The statement could be qualified, e.g. "Some believe there is no painless method" etc. But I'm not sure these two sentences form a strong enough concept to be worth keeping in the article in the first place. Frankly, they read like something the author invented through personal reasoning, as opposed to an actual documented belief held among Jews or a theory debated by Kashrut scholars. If the shellfish pain idea really does have a basis in tradition or scholarship, then I think it's worth amplifying these statements. For example, I would find it interesting to learn if Rabbinical authorities have taken a stand on whether or not crustaceans feel pain in the context of Kashrut.

If this is editorial postulation, then, respectfully, I think it's weak. It suggests that pain-free slaughter is always the goal of Kashrut, but it seems that this suggestion is easily toppled by the example of (finned, scaled) fish, which are parve and AFAIK do not require a slaughtering technique. That fish feel pain may be disputed, but there is modern scientific evidence that they do (read for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2983045.stm). Since there does not appear to be a reevaluation of parve status for fish as a result, I find it a bit of a leap to believe that pain is meant to be a major part of the equation WRT lower-order animals. Why protect the lobsters, which don't feel pain, and not the fish, which do? It seems to me that the seafood discussion pretty much ends at fins and scales. Granted, Kashrut can be arbitrary, but that argument is covered in other sections. Absent an external source of support for it, the shellfish pain argument is only casually plausible, and as such it weakens the article.

The "bottom feeding" argument thrown in there is unclear. Presumably bottom feeding isn't in and of itself a problem. Catfish aren't Kosher, but that's because of the lack of scales, not where they eat. Carp are Kosher, and they are bottom feeders. Do you mean to draw a parallel to carrion birds? Lobsters mostly eat live things (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq7.html), though I would agree that popular wisdom has it otherwise. Incidentally, carp will feed on dead animal material. I do not believe Kashrut demands only grain-fed, farmed catfish, though I would be interested to know if that's not the case.


 * You make a number of good points. The information seems dubious at best, and if the arguments can't be sourced, they should be removed as original research. Jayjg (talk)  18:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)