Talk:Kashrut/Archive 5

Spelling of Treif
Treif has 2 other spellings:
 * Tref
 * Traif

A Google search on Kosher followed by traif or tref or treif gives a ratio of 1:1:10, making treif the most common spelling on the web. Should the other spellings be shown in article? Rellis1067 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would retain "traif". "Tref" is linguistically more tentative. JFW | T@lk  21:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've certainly seen "treif" much more often; that would seem to me to be the better choice. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.treif.com/ Gzuckier 02:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Treifa(h) is more common, on the web, I'm sure, than either "tref" or "traif". Even if only in reference to the Treifah banquet...  Tomer TALK  06:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

TO: cupcaketwinkie, a thank you
Thank you for restoring the information published by Johns Hopkins (Bulletin of the History of Medicine), Lancet, and Bible Archaeological Review).

I am referring to the information below:

In 1953 Dr. David I. Macht of Johns Hopkins, conducted toxicity tests on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the toxicity of Levitically "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%. Dr. Macht used a toxicology test cited in the peer reviewed literature that Dr. Macht reported was particularly good for zoological toxins which of course is relevant for testing kosher and non kosher meat/fish/poultry. In addition, Dr. Macht had research indicating the harmful physiological effects of meat and milk combinations. Lastly, Dr. Macht compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat.

Macht's conclusions were challenged by some scientist in a Seventh Day Adventist publication although one partially affirmed his study  Seventh Day adventist believe in eating kosher but Christians are in general agreement that they can eat the food that was declared unclean in the Old Testament (Galations 2: 7-16 and 1 Timothy 4:1-5). Some of the criticism of Dr. Macht's study is regarding controversy about what animals are kosher and what animals are non-kosher (see: reference section and various Scipture translations). For those who are interested in the toxicology test Dr. Macht used in greater depth, Dr. Macht discusses the reliability of toxicology method he used in relation to zoological toxins in the peer reviewed science literature (see reference section). Perhaps in the long term is eating food that is more toxic and that the Torah declared unclean is less healthy or perhaps it makes no difference. In the short term eating non kosher food often appears to have no dramatic ill effects in general. For example, the Arabs who do not eat kosher consider camel to be a delicasy. Clearly, non kosher Arabs do not fall dead right after eating camel meat. However, the long term optimality of eating clean versus unclean meat though is an unanswered question of science. Also, eating non kosher foods clearly has some nutritional benefit. For example, shrimp and pork contain protein. Perhaps, the benefits outweigh the cost and clearly there is some nutritional goodness in foods that the Torah declared unclean. What foods are good or not good or optimal from a empirically tested science viewpoint is often controversial. In short, in regards to eating strictly a kosher diet versus a non kosher diet science has no definitive answers at the present time.

A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant relationship between cirrohosis and pork consumption (Dr. Macht found that swine meat was more toxic than food the Torah declared clean). However, in relationship to the Torah it must be admitted that modern day pork raising is different than ancient methods. Perhaps, modern swine ingest or are exposed to toxins in the modern commercial swine raising industry. Of course, as noted earlier even unclean foods have their benefits and what is nutritionally sound in the long term from a empirical science standpoint in relation to clean and unclean food in general appears to be an unanswered question.

Jane Cahill reported in Biblical Archeological Review (Jane Cahill and Peter Warnock, "It had to happen, Scientist Examines Ancient Bathrooms of Romans 586B.C." BAR May/June 1991 ) that the toilets of a Jewish household in Jerusalem were examine and no parasites or infectious agents were found. A similar study done regarding Egyptians revealed eggs from Schistosoma, Trichinella, wire worm and tapeworms, all found in pork. These organisms can cause significant chronic diseases. Of course, this is only one finding but perhaps noteworthy.


 * Consumers’ FAQ’s on Kosher fish- Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America by rabbinical scholar Chaim Goldberg
 * KASHRUT.COM - Kosher and Non-kosher fish
 * Kline, Monte Ph.D., The Dietary Law
 * Macht, D. M.D., (1953). “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 27. 444-450
 * Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. : Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1941, 26: 597
 * Macht, D. I. Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184
 * Macht, D.I., Science 1930, 71 :302
 * Ministry Magazine, March 1953, p37-38 "This Question of Unclean Meats" Responses to Macht's study from heads of biology depts.
 * Nanji AA, French SW. Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. Lancet. 1985 Mar 23;1(8430):681-3.
 * Ohr Somayach Website – Ohr.edu - Ask the Rabbi - Are swans kosher?

ken 16:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * Hmm.... When I read the article, especially the "toilet research" made me think. So, they looked at Jerusalem toilets and toilets somewhere in Egypt and found parasites found in pork in the egypt ones. But, most Egyptians are muslims, and would probably never eat pork. Of course, there arealso many secular muslims, but I have many muslim friends, and even those who are totally secular, don't attend religious services on a regular basis, and are even heavy drinkers for some reason never eat pork. So, where did they find the "pork-contaminated" toilet? Or could it be that these parasites are not specific to pork at all, and the studyperhaps just says something about hygiene standards in Egypt? --222.13.236.80 07:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

TO the person who deleted the Johns Hopkins/Lancet/Biblical Archaeological Review material again
Johns Hopkins, Lancet (UK's premiere medical journal), and BAR are all mainstream science. I also see that one person restored what you deleted with no commentary in the talk page, thus I see no general reaction that the material should not be there. I also offered opposing arguments so it is not POV. I am returning the material to the article. I respect your right to disagree but I do not believe in arbitrary exclusion. I have no desire to get into a edit war. That is why I offered opposing arguments. Please be reasonable here.

Now science is probabilistic and provisional. If you have studies controverting the Macht/Johns Hopkins, Lancet, and BAR material I would be happy to hear about them.

ken 16:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * Perhaps it helps if you're concise and cite 1-2 references only. JFW | T@lk  19:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

TO: jfdwolff, regarding conciseness
You wrote to me:

"Perhaps it helps if you're concise and limit yourself to 1-2 references. Wikipedia need not be the final word. JFW"

I welcome your suggestion, however, if it is shorter than two things will happen:

One, it will be called non-mainstream science (original research) because it does not have the support of Dr. Macht/Johns Hopkins publication, Lancet (UK's premiere medical journal), and BAR.

Two, it will be called POV because it does not give both sides.

I believe I was concise it giving both sides of the germaine issues and used mainstream sources. For example, Dr. Macht's study was published in a Johns Hopkins publication and Dr. David I. Macht has a excellent biography.

ken 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * Let's rephrase this: could I suggest you limit the section on Dr Macht's work to a few paragraphs, with the mordicum of references. Dr Macht is only one of the many voices in the rich debate on the function of the Biblical dietary laws, and to devote a long section to him would create the impression that he is a world authority on the subject, quod non. You are right that he needs to be mentioned, but the best way of doing that is briefly. JFW | T@lk  20:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

jdwolff, made it more concise and.....
I am glad we agree that Dr. Macht needs to be mentioned. I did make the Dr. Macht section smaller plus added a reference to his other Torah food work.

Next, if you want to add other sources in addition to Dr. Macht or develop other potential positions by all means do so. I do know I gave the opposing sides though in relation to his study.

I am looking for "world authority" sources. I do not think the sources I used are the only "world authority" sources and welcome other sources. With that being said, I do think "world authority" sources are important. Johns Hopkins is one of the premiere medical research institutions and Dr. Macht was employed by them and published his article in a Johns Hopkins publication. And again, Dr. David I. Macht has excellent credentials in medicine and toxicology. Lancet is a impeccable source in regards to pork consumption journal articles. BAR is a internationally distributed and highly regarded archaeology source.

Also, I do think these sources are important and should be alluded to in the article and references as they give the peer reviewed science/medical articles on the test Dr. Macht used so readers do not have to be overly influenced by the Seventh Day Adventist scientists opinions which were expressed. I am referring to these references:

Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. : Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1941, 26: 597

Macht, D.I., Science 1930, 71 :302

I realize these articles are older but it is the validity of information and not the newness of information that is important. Otherwise, we descend into appeal to novelty illogical fallacy type thinking. And again, if anyone has better information in relation to toxicity and clean/unclean animals it is most welcome.

I do not want to belabor the point though and I am glad we came to an agreement. ken 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo


 * In what sense has the section become shorter? I notice no changes. JFW | T@lk  22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

TO: jfwolff, here is how it is shorter
I removed these sentences:

"Perhaps in the long term is eating food that is more toxic and that the Torah declared unclean is less healthy or perhaps it makes no difference. In the short term eating non kosher food often appears to have no dramatic ill effects in general. For example, the Arabs who do not eat kosher consider camel to be a delicasy. Clearly, non kosher Arabs do not fall dead right after eating camel meat. However, the long term optimality of eating clean versus unclean meat though is an unanswered question of science. Also, eating non kosher foods clearly has some nutritional benefit. For example, shrimp and pork contain protein. Perhaps, the benefits outweigh the cost and clearly there is some nutritional goodness in foods that the Torah declared unclean. What foods are good or not good or optimal from a empirically tested science viewpoint is often controversial."

I don't want to remove more or it will remove the core material and then the missplaced "original research" or non-supported charges will occur and it is important that material be supported.

Three paragraphs are devoted to PETA/animal welfare. I don't think a pro and con paragraph each for Macht is excessive given the relevant issues.

ken 00:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Grey Area
Can we have a section for grey area foods? I know that there are some borderline cases that a lot of people might turn to an encyclopedia to figure out if it is kosher or not- generally, your more uncommon meats such as: Make some people scratch their heads. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:20, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * eel
 * deer
 * rabbit
 * duck


 * Don't the rules listed cover them? There are all sorts of different kinds of animals, how would one decide which to include?  P.S. Not kosher, kosher, not kosher, kosher. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, where are the rules listed? In either case, I thought it might be useful to actually list the kashrut status of common foods, so you don't have to click through the article to determine if a particular fish has scales, or to see if a certain animal has a cloven hoof, etc. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * They're listed in the Kosher foods article, which I think covers most of this. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV section
This text sounds a bit POVish to me, as well as generally reading poorly due to redundancy and general sloppiness:

In 1953 Dr. David I. Macht of Johns Hopkins, conducted toxicity tests on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the toxicity of Levitically "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%. [1] Dr. Macht used a toxicology test cited in the peer reviewed literature that Dr. Macht reported was particularly good for zoological toxins which of course is relevant for testing kosher and non kosher meat/fish/poultry. In addition, Dr. Macht had research indicating harmful physiological effects of meat and milk combinations and Dr. Macht also compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat [2].

Macht's conclusions were challenged by some scientist in a Seventh Day Adventist publication although one partially affirmed his study [3] Seventh Day adventist believe in eating kosher but Christians are in general agreement that they can eat the food that was declared unclean in the Old Testament (Galatians 2: 7-16 and 1 Timothy 4:1-5). Perhaps some of the criticism of Macht's study by the scientists was invalid due to a misunderstanding of kosher classification and Scriptural translation issues.[4] [5][6] Also, Macht states in the peer reviewed journal Science that his technique is particularly good for detecting zoological based toxins (as opposed to plant based toxins), and therefore perhaps one could conclude it was was suitable for testing fish, meat, and poultry. (The toxicological method that Dr. Macht used was also cited in the Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. See references). Lastly, the long term effects of eating kosher/non-kosher is not yet determined by science if non-kosher food is more toxic.


 * It was inserted by a POV pusher. I think it can be narrowed down to 1-2 lines of NPOV. JFW | T@lk  07:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. With any luck they have moved on, and it can be briefly summarized. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that those who push the views of Dr. Macht have missed the point of this article. That section is not about scientific research into the possible health benefits of kashrut. Rather, it is about an entirely different topic: What did Jews believe, such that they followed and developed the laws of kashrut? What was the rationale for these laws? I am fairly sure that the Mishnaic sages Hillel and Shammai didn't base their views of Kashrut on 20th century research! In other words, the views of Dr. Macht have no bearing on how and why the laws of kashrut were developed and followed. They don't belong in this section. However, we could make a link from this section to a separate article onto modern day scientific research into this issue. RK 19:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a brief summary would not be a bad idea. It supports the Rambam's assertion in the Moreh that Kashrut was at least partially for health reasons. JFW | T@lk  21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this article yesterday. I do not claim to know for certain whether Dr. Macht's research is on solid scientific ground--it may very well be so--but let me say that from an outsider's perspective the section on his work reads as extremely biased. The language heavily favors Dr. Macht throughout. Only one competing study is cited, and it seems deliberately marginalized. If it is necessary to point out that Seventh Day Adventists published the latter study, why is it not important that Dr. Macht is a Doctor of Hebrew Literature? I find it interesting that, of 9 citations in his toxicology study, 8 are his own work; that the end of the paper is a celebration of the Torah with no bearing on science; and most importantly that the sole method used to determine "toxicology" is the effect of meat juices on plant seeds. Is this plant seed method good science for human toxicology? Are there other studies exploring the toxicology of kosher vs. non-kosher meats? If not, is it because this study is considered authoritative on the subject or because it is considered not to be worth addressing? To summarize my concerns with this section, it sounds like POV quackery even if it may not be. 209.213.198.25 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have slashed this down now to just two papers: Macht's 1953 research and the riposte from the biologists. I do support the mention of the Seventh Day Adventist background: it was in a ministry journal that their response was published. 21:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Machts original study was published simultaneously in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine (which was not peer reviewed), and in the Ministry Journal, which then asked a group of peers to review it AFTER it was published (hence the second article, mentioned above - it is NOT a competing study, its the opinion of the heads of biology departmen on Macht's study.). Macht's study is not up to any kind of scientific standards, most especially since the results were never replicated.  His "phytophamocological" method was one he invented, and which nobody used (or even referenced) subsequently.  See David_I._Macht.
 * MickWest 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that "the correlation [...] was 100%" is potentially misleading. Correlation is a very specific concept in statistics which is commonly applied to this sort of study, but this concept cannot be what is meant in the passage. 70.137.157.131 08:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to the complete deletion of that paragraph. If the last relevant study cited appeared in 1953 there has obviously not been a lot of excitement in the scientific community about this kind of research. JFW | T@lk  22:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Name
According to Naming conventions and Naming conventions (common names), we are to "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Kosher is a far more common term in English (8,550,000 Google hits vs only 375,000 for Kashrut). Based on this policy, the article should be named Kosher with a redirect from Kashrut, and I propose we make that change. However, to play devil's advocate to my own proposal, we also have another policy to "Redirect adjectives to nouns". Since Kashrut is a noun, that would argue for keeping the page here. Thoughts? Johntex\talk 01:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This article is about the system of laws. "Kosher" just means whether a product (or diet) satisfies these laws. I would be opposed to a move. It presently employs the correct terminology. JFW | T@lk  07:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think JFW's comments are a restatement of the preference for naming the articles for nouns rather than adjectives, and I agree with that. I think that the idea of using the more common English term is merely a convenience factor, and is outweighed by using the more correct term, because the redirect will effortlessly bring the user to the correct article in either case. In other words, when a user tries to go to Kosher, he will effortlessly arrive at Kashrut, and the first thing he will learn is the difference between those two words. IOW, leave it as is.--Keeves 11:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Kashrut is the preferred typed way, but most English speaking people say it as Kashrus. Or maybe it just mean there is too many South Africans in Sydney. ;) 220.233.48.200 16:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)