Kosher hotdogs and pickles

[AvenueB-dude]

If kosher means no pork or all beef (either one) where do they get off calling pickles kosher when their obviously not made of pork or beef?

[TomH]

Kosher doesn't mean all beef.

Certain foods are prohibited (e.g. pork and shellfish). Meat must come from animals which have been slaughtered in a particular way and meat and dairy produce must be kept separate.

They "get off" on calling pickles kosher because they have been certified by the appropriate authority (in Britain, the Beth Din) as being kosher. This guarantees that no non-kosher food has been able to get into the pickles during their manufacture, for example, because other things are being produced in the same plant.

It also specifies whether they are kosher to be eaten with meat or with dairy produce.

Is it OK to put kosher pickles on a bacon cheeseburger? :)

<font color="#306040">

------------------
The Canadians. They walk among us. William Shatner. Michael J. Fox. Monty Hall. Mike Meyers. Alex Trebek. All of them Canadians. All of them here.

[TomH]

Only during Passover.

[Bricker]

Cecil's take:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_351.html

[AvenueB-dude]

Alright, I have a new question. Say you had a vat with 1,000 gallons of pickle juice and pickles in it. That's not "kosher" or "non-kosher" because there's no animal stuff at all in there.

And you add just a tiny bit, like someone accidently drops a drop of emulsifier in there that comes from an animal.

Does that make the entire batch non-kosher or kosher (whatever way it is) or not?

Also, is there a word that means that concept? (Not either kosher or non-kosher, something outside the rules).

[SoMoMom]

Yes, the whole thing would be not Kosher if the emulsifier came from a non-Kosher source. Everything is either Kosher or not. There are some things that have neither meat nor dairy and are Kosher and that is called Pareve, Parve, or Parevine. No food can be cooked in the same pans or served in dishes that have had pork or seafood in them and be considered Kosher no matter how well it has been cleaned. And if the dishes were used to prepare dairy then it is not fit for preparing beef. Also, it must be noted on packages if food contains or has been processed on the same line with dairy. That's what a "D" following a Kosher mark on packaged foods means. This is the extent of my knowledge which I have only learned because of food allergies to pork and dairy.

I'm still confused what Kosher salt is and I always thought that Kosher pickles were Kosher because they used Kosher salt.

[Akatsukami]

Subject to the corrections of someone who knows more about the laws of kashrut than I (such as cmkeller or CKDextHavn), here's the skinny:


Everything is either kosher or not (the usual term for "non-kosher" is tref, in any of several variant spellings, although that's not strictly correct). If we can be assured that the vat in fact contains no animal-derived products, then it's kosher (I'm leaving out the history of the vat; for purposes of discussion, we'll assume that it's never been tref). It's also pareve; that is, its contents may be consumed with either meat (fleishig) or dairy (milchig).


The status of the emulsifier comes in. If it is kosher, then the vat and contents remain kosher (although no longer pareve). If it's tref...I don't know the responsa on the topic. By Torah and Talmud, a tref product accidentally mixed with a kosher product may be "neutralized", depending on the amount (some tref products are never neutralized, and a deliberately added product is also never neutralized). My HWAG on the subject it that the pickles and the vat are tref; the vat can be re-koshered under certain circumstances, but the pickles are a dead loss from that point of view. However, if I were a mashgioch (kashrut supervisor), I'd have to consult a rabbi on that point.

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[cmkeller]

AvenueB-dude:

Alright, I have a new question. Say you had a vat with 1,000 gallons of pickle juice and pickles in it. That's not "kosher" or "non-kosher" because there's no animal stuff at all in there.

Not true. It is kosher. Kosher means that it conforms to the dietary strictures dictated by the Torah. It is a word that applies to all foods. A food cannot be non-Kosher unless animal matter is somehow involved, but the presence of animal matter is not necessary in order for something to be Kosher.

There is no word for "neither Kosher nor non-Kosher" in the same way that there is no word for "neither true nor false." (unless you count the Bill Clinton definition of perjury) A food is either OK for Jews to eat (Kosher) or it isn't (non-Kosher).

SoMoMom:

No food can be cooked in the same pans or served in dishes that have had pork or seafood in them and be considered Kosher no matter how well it has been cleaned.

Not true. There is a special procedure for making dishes "kosher" again, involving either extremely hot water, or actual fire (depending on the substance that the dishes are made of). There are some substances that can't be made kosher once they're non-kosher, but most can.

I'm still confused what Kosher salt is

"Kosher salt" is actually a misnomer. What it really should say (and used to say) is "Koshering salt." In order for meat to be Kosher, it must contain no blood. The best way for making sure meat is drained of blood is to salt it, specifically using coarse salt (if I recall correctly; I'm not an expert in the procedure myself). Salt that can be used for this purpose is known as Koshering salt, which has since been shortened to Kosher salt.

Kosher pickles have nothing to do with this specific kind of salt. They are kosher because they were made using no non-Kosher ingredients.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller@compuserve.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[Cap'n Crude]

No food can be cooked in the same pans or served in dishes that have had pork or seafood in them and be considered Kosher no matter how well it has been cleaned.
Mostly true, but you can re-kosher a cooking pan. IIRC, it involves a thorough cleaning, followed by burying the pot/pan, filled with stones, in the ground for a month. Not really worth the effort, but it can be done.

I'm still confused what Kosher salt is and I always thought that Kosher pickles were Kosher because they used Kosher salt.Kosher salt is the salt used to kosher meat. Kashruth is more than just what animal it comes from and how you kill it -- kosher meats are treated with salt (either crusted with it or soaked in a brine) to leach out any remaining blood or contaminants, and otherwise finish the process.

While we're on the subject: the part of the animal from which you get the meat also affects its kosher status -- the hind quarters are off limits. Thus, beef can be kosher, but cow rectum is not. Granted, nobody would eat that anyway, but things like rump roast are verboten.

Smilies rock da hey-ouse!!

------------------
--Da Cap'n
"Playin' solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one."

[Cap'n Crude]

Lantsman mit die simul-post! :D I defer to cmkeller's statements where they differ from mine -- he follows the rules, I'm just familiar with them.

------------------
--Da Cap'n
"Playin' solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one."

[Bricker]

The status of the emulsifier comes in. If it is kosher, then the vat and contents remain kosher (although no longer pareve). If it's tref...I don't know the responsa on the topic. By Torah and Talmud, a tref product accidentally mixed with a kosher product may be "neutralized", depending on the amount (some tref products are never neutralized, and a deliberately added product is also never neutralized). My HWAG on the subject it that the pickles and the vat are tref; the vat can be re-koshered under certain circumstances, but the pickles are a dead loss from that point of view. However, if I were a mashgioch (kashrut supervisor), I'd have to consult a rabbi on that point.

Assuming the emulsifier is tref, which makes it issur (forbidden)... As far as I recall, there are two possibilities. The first, based on the Gemorah, is that the entire pickle vat becomes nevalah (prohibited in the same manner as the meat from an animal slaughtered in other than schita). The animal emulsifier (issur will osser (forbid) the pickles and their juice in their entirety.

The second view is that the "one part in sixty" rule would apply. I seem to recall that there is halachic authority for the proposition that [/i]issur[/i] in the mixture will only osser the mixture only if it is at least one part in sixty of the mixture. If it's less than that proportion, it's neutralized (as suggested above) by the majority and all the rest of the vat will be heter (permitted).

This is IIRC the din (law) of chaticha na asit nevalah abbreviated chanan).

Or maybe not. I just did a web search of "chanan" to no useful results, so either I am misspelling or misremembering. Don't ask me; I'm Catholic :confused: .

- Rick

[Keeves]

I am not aware of any variety of pickles which requires any non-kosher ingredients in its recipe. In other words, virtually any variety of pickles can be made to satisfy all the Jewish dietary requirements as explained above, and in fact, in the supermarkets in my area, almost all the brands and flavors of pickles do in fact have the mark of a kosher supervising organization.

The above paragraph is obviously talking about pickled cucumbers, pickled tomatoes, and pickled peppers, but not pickled pigs knuckles. :)

So, just to get back to the OP, what is the difference between "kosher pickles" and "sour pickles" or other named varieties? I think it simply means "Jewish pickles", or "pickles of a flavor that used to be sold in ethnically Jewish areas before everyone else found out how good they are". I also suspect (but might be wrong) that the recipe is exactly the same as for "dill pickles", hence the term "kosher dills".

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Keeves:
I am not aware of any variety of pickles which requires any non-kosher ingredients in its recipe.

I beg your pardon, Keeves, but I direct you to Cecil's answer to this question, for which a link is posted above in this thread. He states:
Polysorbates, derived from animal fat, are sometimes added to the pickle brine as an emulsifier.

It is beyond cavil that anything derived from an animal, however remotely, has a clear potential to be trefe.

- Rick

[Jinx]

The arguement is technically valid, but a CRITICAL point is lost here. "Kosher" can also refer to a style. There are "kosher" style hot dogs and deli which are NOT technically certified "kosher".

"Kosher" style pickels, etc. is a term used by advertisers to describe a particular taste reminiscent to New York style deli meat. Other inferences may exist, too.

I didn't see where anyone mentioned this.

------------------
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy - Hawkeye 4077th

[bda]

what the frick do pickles have to do with meat? . . if your buying pickles that have meat-by products in them; i dont where the frickin picks come from . .

[Bricker]

I didn't see where anyone mentioned this.

Good point.

Anyone can claim their product is kosher. In fact, from another Cecil column:
The unadorned K, being a simple letter of the alphabet, can be used by anyone who wants to claim his product is kosher. The circled K, on the other hand, is a registered mark and can only be used with the permission of its owner, the Organized Kashruth Laboratories of New York, a private certifying concern. The circled U is similarly controlled by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the undisputed heavyweight of kosher-certifying organizations.

So if it's just that the product "tastes" kosher, it won't have the circled K or circled U on it...

- Rick

[Bricker]

Originally posted by bda:
what the frick do pickles have to do with meat? . . if your buying pickles that have meat-by products in them; i dont where the frickin picks come from . .

bda: Polysorbates, derived from animal fat, are sometimes added to the pickle brine as an emulsifier.

Man, I wish I had thought to post this earlier in the thread.

- Rick

[Jinx]

Pickles have nothing to do with meat, but pickles have many styles. Of which, it is the "kosher style" that is often a favorite with deli (lunch meat, cold cut) sandwiches.

[Chef Troy]

The question of kosher salt came up in my cooking tips forum a while back. My resources say that kosher salt is so designated because it doesn't have any additives, e.g. iodine, and is manufactured in accordance with the aforementioned dietary rules. It is preferred by chefs (even us goyim) because it takes the form of tiny flakes rather than granules and stimulates the palate better than regular salt. I can dig out the cite if anyone wants me to.

------------------
Live a Lush Life
Da Chef

[John W. Kennedy]

There is no word for "neither Kosher nor non-Kosher" in the same way that there is no word for "neither true nor false."

So.... Have you stopped beating your wife?

(You're right about Kosher and non-Kosher, but there are plenty of propositions that are neither true nor false.)

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[cher3]

Isn't there a term (pareve?)for foods that can be eaten with either dairy or meat? They are effectively neutral, but, I guess, still Kosher.

[cher3]

Oops, sorry about that.

[Shayna]

Originally posted by bda:
get over the "kosher" thing . . last time i looked. . it was year 2000.

My goodness, bda, where did all this anger come from? I don't follow Jewish dietary laws, a) because I was not raised to do so, and since my mother allowed me to develop and enjoy a taste for shellfish and pork, I'm not willing to give it up, and b) because I simply don't have the patience to do it - it doesn't fit in with my lifestyle (and I'm not willing to change it).

However, I would never, ever, EVER be so disrespectful to those who do choose to follow the dietary laws of their religion as you have. I almost want to scream, "how DARE you?", except that I don't want to appear as rude, insensitive and condecending as you.

And for the record, the last time I looked, it was 5760, not merely 2000. So Jews have been following these rules a lot longer than you suggest, and I'm sure will continue to do so for the next million years, whether you agree with it or not.

I implore you to, please, in the future, at least try to exhibit a modicum of respect. Escpecially if you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Thankyouverymuch.

------------------
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." - Anne Frank

[Shayna]

grumble grrrr #@%^&# - I want spell check!

Especially

I DO know how to spell that word. Apparently, I just can't type it.

------------------
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." - Anne Frank

[Rodd Hill]

On a slight tangent...

the 1943 US Army Guide to North Africa gives the helpful advice:

Never offer pork to a Muslim, even in fun...

[TomH]

I was in the supermarket this evening and I discovered that many of their low-fat desserts (trifles, yoghurts and such) contain pork gelatine. Who'd have thought it?

bda, That is one of the most casually, gratuitously offensive posts I have ever read.

[Cartooniverse]

bda? Temper, temper.
I remember...lo, those many years ago. Sandee Huberman had an entire set of dishes. Nice ones, too. She was about to move in with a girl who kept Kosher ( Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn. I mean, KOSHER). Sandee had TWO choices. She could ship said dishes to Vancouver, and leave them untouched for a year, OR she could hie them down to Coney Island ( the closest seashore ) and perform a ritual ceremony, and thus cleanse them again. They had never had trafe upon them ( she wasn't THAT fallen of a Jew ) , but they were not used in a strictly Kosher household.
I got invited to visit after she moved. Her roommate was HIGHTLY agitated by my presence. Me....an Abraham ! Go figure. Anyway, I was invited over JUST as the sun set. You guessed it..." Hey, can ya turn on this light for me, on your way out?" I didn't stay for dinner, but did flip a lot of switches.
Good Ole Sandee. Converted to Hasidism, and married the head of the Simon Weisenthal Center, in Los Angeles........

Cartooniverse

" If you want to kiss the sky, you'd better learn how to kneel "

[Bricker]

Cartooniverse, there are an amazing number of rules that you'd never even think would exist... the observant roommate would undoubtedly refuse to drink a glass of wine if she thought you might have poured it, for instance. I don't recall the name of that din, but it was prohibited based on the supposition that the wine might have been intended for idolatry.

- Rick

[bda]

what the frick does salt have to do with meat? salts not a meat by-product either.
salt/pickles . . excuse me while i go eat a salty pickle and a pork chop . . wow . . livin on the edge in the year 2000. maybe the salad you had last night contained lettuce a pig peed on . . are you gonna die? . . maybe a cow drooled on that head of cabbage you steamed 2 nights ago . . are you gonna die? well guess what . . WHATEVER you are eating . . is not kosher. . because the soil it has grown in contains animal by-products . . soil in itself is composed of "dead" oganic material . . (ie; plant and animal material) . . there is no way to escape it. you are eating someones ancestors . . so your a cannibal . . like it or not. get over the "kosher" thing . . last time i looked. . it was year 2000.

[Jinx]

BDA, you should be enlightened to know that such traditions and customs have a wee 2000 years beated by a long shot! As you enjoy eating some ribs or steaks tonight, just be glad the USDA keeps the pee and poop away from your steak with their own "traditions and customs"!!!

[bda]

but that beef/pork has pee/crap in it; through the topsoil . . which is pee/crap/leaves/etc . . the same topsoil your chicken was raised in . . yet your chicken is kosher? get real

[bda]

earth to earth . . dust to dust . . . nothing can be "kosher" give it up

[Bricker]

bda, the word 'kosher' simply means following the rules. Eating something grown in dirt is OK, under the rules. Eating something that has animal fat in it may not be.

Now, these rules may not make sense for the year 2000, as you so warmly suggest. That being the case, you are welcome not to observe them. But the question wasn't, "Does this make sense?" The question was, "What are the rules?"

By the same token, I could watch a football game and scream, "What do you mean, the ground can't cause a fumble! Of COURSE the ground can cause a fumble! Get with it, NFL!"

But I'd be doing the same thing you're doing. The issue is not, "Should hitting the ground and losing the ball because of that be considered a fumble?" It is, by rule. So if someone asks, "Was that a fumble," the answer is NO, if the ground caused the loss of the ball.

In this thread, the issue is, "What are the kosher rules?" Not if they make sense, or to what degree they make sense.

- Rick

[bda]

bricker . . point accepted

[John W. Kennedy]

Hey, can ya turn on this light for me, on your way out?

Some "observant"! It is just as much a violation for a Jew to ask a gentile to perform labor on the sabbath as for the Jew to perform it himself. (A Jew may, however, take advantage of something the gentile has done for the gentile's own benefit.)

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[SoMoMom]

Thank you cmkeller and Cap'n Crude. I was just talking about soap and water and a Brillo pad or something when referring to cleaning. Being severely allergic to pork, I can't get some people to realize they can't even touch my food with the same fork they touched pork with without causing me much distress. This is why places that serve Kosher food are so wonderful for me even if I don't understand every little detail.

Thank you for explaining the salt. I always wondered how a salt could be Kosher or not.

[Akatsukami]

WRT AvenueB-dude's second post ("What if a tiny bit of emulsifier is added to a huge vat of pickles?"), I asked a rabbi, since I wasn't sure of the answer. The reply that I got was:If the emulsifier is not considered to be edible the pickles retain their status. if the emulsifier is edible(!) then there must be at least sixty times the amount of emulsifier in the vat for it to be Kosher.

Just as an aside, even assuming that the halachic status of the pickles remains unchanged if the emulsifier is poisonous the pickles should not be eaten.


------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[Krispy Original]

This is a very interesting thread for me. I don't really know much about Jewish religious customs.

May I politely ask what the basis is for the importance of being kosher? That is to say: Are their health risks of being un-kosher?

Do I explain my question and curiousity well enough? I'm just trying to understand why or how this kosher thing came into being 5760 years ago...

Thanks, and I want to assure you that this is being asked respectfully and in order to educate me...

------------------
Krispy Original -- voted SDMB's 19th most popular poster (1999)

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Akatsukami:
WRT AvenueB-dude's second post ("What if a tiny bit of emulsifier is added to a huge vat of pickles?"), I asked a rabbi, since I wasn't sure of the answer. The reply that I got was: "If the emulsifier is not considered to be edible the pickles retain their status. if the emulsifier is edible(!) then there must be at least sixty times the amount of emulsifier in the vat for it to be Kosher.

Just as an aside, even assuming that the halachic status of the pickles remains unchanged if the emulsifier is poisonous the pickles should not be eaten.

I gather from AvenueB-dude's question he was referring to the emulsifier used as a preservative, and therefore edible -- and in any event, not poison. But the rabbi's advice with respect to poison is good. :)

- Rick

[WhiteNight]

Krispy:

Kosher is basically stuff you couldn't eat back then without taking risks with your life, that you didn't understand how to avoid + some other stuff.

Shayna:

While bda might not have expressed himself well, he does have a valid point. Assuming god isn't a jerk, the rules which are essentially his irect word, via divinely inspired prophets, are for our own good. When we fully understand a rule, and are no longer in the situation it applied to, it makes sense to ask why the rule is still applied.

Pork and shellfish are no longer a risk if you understand how to select them properly, and prepare them properly. Thus, kosher laws are somewhat obsolete, or should be modified to say "don't eat pig, without proper cooking."

And yes, as someone said, it is off topic, because the thread is 'what', not 'why'. But that doesn't mean the question itself is rude.

The question could also be taken to mean, how much of Kosher is based on reasonable health guidelines, and how much is based on 'mere religion'. For instance, not eating pork (at least until you know how to cook it) is a good idea, but why is burying a pot with rocks for a month a better idea something else? It's just that one method of purification (making safe) was mentioned and another wasn't, over time it changed from a making-safe to a ritual.

If kosher was said to be just a religious rule, like no work on Sunday, or prayer, etc, something based on pleasing a god, then it would be understood as such. If kosher is presented as just dietary rules, then it IS reasonable to question if they have any validity anymore. Nobody questions Easter, it's a religious thing, perhaps irrational, but accepted as such. But the date, if you claim it to be the literal date of resurection, then you'll get people questioning the calendar, the dating methods, the similarity to pagan festivals, etc.


So bda, be more polite. Everyone else, decide if it's a religious rule (do it, just because) or a guideline for your own good, what you decide it as changes things.

For instance, if less than 1/60th of something lands in something kosher, it might remain religiously kosher, but if that contamination was raw pig's blood on salad (uncooked) then you may want to reconsider the whole thing, even though technically proper.


And hey, don't sweat the typing. It's been proven (I'm sure Cecil would agree) that spelling nazis who pick on typos are even worse than the regular spelling nazis, and deserve all sorts of bad things like locusts, scurvy, an BSsOD.

[Bricker]

I beg your pardon, WhiteNight, but you are assuming a fact not in evidence.

You draw a line between a religious observance such as Easter and the observance of the dietary laws; as to the former, you speculate it is strictly religious, while as to the latter you assert that it's dietary and therefore subject to continued questioning.

All the Kosher laws are held to come from the same source: the Lord God, Master of the Universe. They are obeyed not because of a concern for health, but because they are mitzvoth, commandments, from God.

Under your analysis, where would the din of shatnes fit in? It's a prohibition against, among other things, mixing linen and wool in the same garment. Is it for some comprehensible reason, and can now be questioned, or is it to be accepted because we don't know the reason?

The entire body of kasruth law derives from a religious source, and may not be cavaliarly dismissed with, "Oh, that was for health reasons and we can safely disregard it now; the other was for religious reasons and we are still bound."

- Rick

[Akatsukami]

WhiteKnight, you may have some misconceptions about kashrut.


Kashrut is often interpreted to be a set of primitive hygiene laws. However, this focuses only on those details of kashrut can be fitted into that interpretation, whilst ignoring the rest. Thus, pork is said to be tref because of the possibility of trichinosis...but that does not explain why hare and camel are also tref. Likewise, shellfish are claimed to be tref because of the ease of spoilage...but this does not explain why sturgeon should be tref.


We actually do not "fully understand" the laws of kashrut. They are generally considered chukim, "statutes", those mitzvot for which clear and obvious reasons are not known, but are nonetheless required. Rabbi Samson Hirsch writes:Even, therefore, if every Divine precept were a riddle to us and presented us with a thousand unsolved and insoluble problems, the obligatory character of the commandments would not in the slightest degree be impaired by this. Whatever command or prohibition of G-d it may be that prompts one to ask why one should do this and not do that, there is but one answer: Because it is the will of G-d... andAs in Nature, the phenomenon remains a fact although we have not yet comprehended it as to its causes and connections, and its existence is not dependent on our investigation, but vice versa, thus also the components of the Torah remain the law even if we have not discovered the cause and connection of a single one. And Parshat Kedoshim statesRabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said "A person should not say, 'I do not like meat and milk mixtures'... rather, he should say, 'I would like it but what can I do? My Father in heaven has decreed upon me (not to partake of it)."


Now, there are humanly conprehensible reasons that can be given for the laws of kashrut: self-control and discipline, kindness towards animals, justice towards men, the symbolism of the animals permitted, religious cohesiveness, and esthetic values towards foodstuffs. As Hirsch, following Rambam (Maimonides) and Ramban (Mahmanides), and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel indicate, however, these humanly comprehesible reasons do not validate or invalidate the laws of kashrut.

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[Shayna]

Originally posted by Krispy Original:

May I politely ask what the basis is for the importance of being kosher? That is to say: Are their health risks of being un-kosher?

Do I explain my question and curiousity well enough? I'm just trying to understand why or how this kosher thing came into being 5760 years ago...

Those are great questions Krispy, and I'll be happy to answer what I can.

The simple answer is that Jewish dietary laws are what they are because G-d has spelled out what can and cannot be eaten in the Torah. There are some instances where there are health benefits, but in most of the customs, health is not the reason; it is done "because it is written."

For instance, there is no reason why rabbit meat is any less healthy than cow meat, but rabbit is not kosher and cow is. There is some evidence that eating meat and dairy together interferes with digestion, therefore eating them separately does provide a health benefit, however that is not the reason it's done (which is explained below).

The Torah doesn't give any reason for most of these laws. The one exception is in Lev. 7:26-27 and Lev. 17:10-14 where it prohibits the consumption of blood, and states that this is because the life of the animal is contained in the blood.

Other rules that are spelled out, but no specific reason is given are:
You may eat any animal that has cloven hooves and chews its cud. (Lev. 11:3; Deut. 14:6). The Torah specifies that the camel, the hare and the pig are not kosher because each lacks one of these two. Cattle, goats and deer are kosher.
You may eat anything that has fins and scales (Lev. 11:9; Deut. 14:9). Therefore, all shellfish is forbidden, as is shark, but fish like tuna and salmon are allowed.
The Torah forbids consumption of certain birds (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:11-18). All of the birds on the list are birds of prey or scavengers, therefore it is inferred that this was the basis for the distinction. Other birds are allowed, such as chicken, ducks and turkeys.
Rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and insects are all forbidden (Lev. 11:29-30, 42-43).

Aside from listing specific animals, or criteria for distinguishing animals that can or cannot be eaten, there are also rules about how food must be slaughtered (Deut. 12:21). We may not eat animals that died of natural causes (Deut. 14:21) or that were killed by other animals. Animals must also be free of disease at the time of slaughter.

And animal lovers may be pleased to note that the method of slaughter (a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade) is supposed to be painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible.

The most common question about keeping kosher concerns the separation of meat and dairy. The Torah tells us that we are not to "boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21), and the practice was extended to include not eating the meat of the animal along with the milk (or milk products).

While these are not the only rules in kosher dietary law, I hope that it helped give you a better understanding. Perhaps someone who keeps kosher (I do not) can expand upon this.

------------------
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." - Anne Frank

[Shayna]

That'll teach me to take so long in composing my reply ;) . I see that there are already several responses that precede mine. Hopefully between all of us, what I missed was covered in one of the other replies.

[Shayna]

Bricker, I stated in that MPSIMS topic that my reason for your inclusion on my list is that you always keep me on my toes. You have done so again :)

You are correct when you say, "Even the most devoted of Orthodox Jews recognize the need to interpret the Torah, for from the Torah they derive the Oral Law."

When I wrote, "...the Torah's laws are not subject to interpretation...," in my haste I omitted the word "dietary." Given that that's the context of the discussion, I took for granted that it would be known that I was only referring to the laws of the Torah as they pertained to keeping kosher. If my statement is taken out of that context, it is, of course incorrect.

What I should have said, in order to be more clear, was, the Torah's dietary laws are not subject to interpretation to those that follow them. That is one of the things that is done for no other reason than, "because it is written." To Orthodox and Hassidic Jews, the laws of kashrut fall into the category of "chukkim;" laws for which there is no reason.

In the case of kashrut, the Oral Torah does offer clarifications for the specific exclusions, however it still doesn't attempt to determine why certain foods aren't allowed. And those who follow those rules don't seek any further reason other than that it is the word of G-d. It is only those who seek a reason not to follow kosher laws, who attempt to interpret meaning in them beyond just that they are written.

All of the above is as I understand it. If any of it is still incorrect, I welcome any corrections.

[torq]

Rodents, reptiles, amphibians, and insects are all forbidden (Lev. 11:29-30, 42-43).


Insects fall into the category of "creeping things" or "flying creeping things" which are generally forbidden, but some are specifically singled out and exempted from that prohibition in Lev. 11:22:

Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

[torq]

Oh, just in case anyone might think otherwise: I am not Jewish, and I don't know how that particular passage is interpreted in re kashrut. I'm just pointing out that the scripture itself seems to explicitly permit eating four kinds of insects while forbidding all others.

[kathmandu]

This is sort of a tangent, but I'm really curious...

I'm not all that knowledgeable about how foods are certified as kosher or non-kosher - I believe it has something to do with the plant producing/slaughtering the food being inspected by a rabbi and certified kosher.

However, it seems to me that a lot of companies whose foods are designated as "kosher" aren't companies that cater specifically to Jews, but rather to the public generally. My question is, are there any safeguards in place to ensure that, once a production method is deemed "kosher", the company doesn't revert back to using ingredients or methods which render the food non-kosher again (due to convenience or expense). Also, does Jewish scripture provide a dispensation (for lack of a better word) for Jews who unknowingly eat non-kosher food believing it to be kosher?

[Akatsukami]

katmandu,

The processing of kosher foods (exactly what processing is dependent on exactly what foodstuff) is under the supervision of mashgiochim, laymen knowledgable in the laws of kashrut. After initial certification by a rabbi, supervision will effectively be periodic surprise inspections by the <mashgiochim[/i], to check the various ingredients, their sources, use of machinery, etc.

Could separate stocks of ingredients, different machinery, etc., be used to fool the mashgioch? Sure; he's only human, and recent (lack of) enforcement of secular regulations shows that no earthly system can be considered perfectly. However,
[list=1] Depending on the frequency and thoroughness of inspections, it might actually be more expensive to switch everything around to fool a mashgioch, and then back for normal production.
A firm caught at evading kashrut would certainly have to be re-certified. I don't know what (say) OU's policy on this would be, but it would certainly be something between tiresome and ruinous for the company involved (the latter if most or all of their business is kosher).
[/list=1]

As for unwitting transgression of a mitzvah, the Torah provides animal sacrifice as a means of atonement. As the Temple is not standing at the moment, however, sacrifice cannot be performed, and prayer is substituted (reading tractate Kodashimis not a bad idea, either, although by no means mandatory).

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[yamo]

About 5-6 years ago a restaurant in NYC ( a converted Boat?) was threatened with losing it's kosher certificate because it allowed couples dancing. My town has a kosher hot dog stand. Is it wrong to want saurkraut on my knish? Best sandwiches in the world-kosher deli.

[Shayna]

Yowza! WhiteNight, you make some interesting (and in some cases valid) points, but may I please correct some of your statements?

Kosher is basically stuff you couldn't eat back then without taking risks with your life, that you didn't understand how to avoid + some other stuff.[/qutoe]

See my reply below. That's simply not true. While some of the dietary laws do provide health benefits, or it was [i]inferred[i] that the reasons were for health benefits, health was never actually stated by G-d to be the reason for His laws.

[quote]While bda might not have expressed himself well, he does have a valid point.

bda isn't guilty of simply not expressing himself well, he was downright rude. However, that doesn't excuse my rudeness in response. Since it's not likely I'll be in communication with bda during the High Holy Days, let me take this opportunity to ask forgiveness for my sharp tongue, and forgive bda for his. My sincerest apologies.

Assuming god isn't a jerk, the rules which are essentially his direct word, via divinely inspired prophets, are for our own good.

While that would seem to make sense, and in many aspects of kosher law it does, it is not the rule across the board (again, see my respones below). What is "for our own good" about not eating rabbits, for instance?

When we fully understand a rule, and are no longer in the situation it applied to, it makes sense to ask why the rule is still applied.
And that is the generally accepted reason why most Reform Jews don't keep kosher. However, it doesn't answer the fact that any "understanding" of kosher laws is open entirely to interpretation, as no reasons were ever given (with the exception of the consumption of blood). We only assume that shellfish were prohibited because they live in their own excrement, thereby making them dirty and unhealthy. Not that that's a bad assumption, but again, that was never specifically spelled out, it's simply inferred.

Pork and shellfish are no longer a risk if you understand how to select them properly, and prepare them properly. Thus, kosher laws are somewhat obsolete, or should be modified to say "don't eat pig, without proper cooking."
You are correct; pork and shellfish are no longer a risk healthwise, as we assume them to have been in the past. But Jews who keep kosher do so for reasons well outside of the health ramifications of consuming certain foods. In the celebration of most all the Jewish holidays, the most important thing is remembering and honoring our ancestors, their traditions, and their suffering so that we might be free to live our lives as Jews. Maintaining kosher dietary laws in spite of the fact that certain foods may no longer be unhealthy, reminds those who do so to remember and honor the ways of our ancestors. In essence, it elevates the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. And sometimes, tradition is the only reason anyone needs to maintain a certain rite.

If kosher was said to be just a religious rule, like no work on Sunday, or prayer, etc, something based on pleasing a god, then it would be understood as such. If kosher is presented as just dietary rules, then it IS reasonable to question if they have any validity anymore.
But it is understood as such. It's just that Reform Judaism has chosen over the years to reinterpret those laws as they (we) saw fit. And therein lies the difference between Reform Jews and other sects who do follow kosher dietary laws. Reform Jews do feel that the list of forbidden foods in the Torah are simply dietary rules set forth at a time when methods of sterilization and refrigeration were such that consumption of those foods was unhealthy. It's a matter of interpretation to us, whereas to most Conservative, and all Orthox and Hassidic Jews, the Torah's laws are not subject to interpretation, but should be followed to the letter out of respect and reverence to G-d.

------------------
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." - Anne Frank

[Bricker]

Originally posted by Shayna:
Hopefully between all of us, what I missed was covered in one of the other replies.

Not bad for a nice Catholic boy, eh? :)

- Rick

[Shayna]

PREVIEW. Administrators; I want PREVIEW. LOL Please forgive the use of emphasis throughout my above reply. I really did try to proof it before posting. *sigh*

[Shayna]

Originally posted by Bricker:
Not bad for a nice Catholic boy, eh? :)

- Rick

Not bad at all, Bricker. In fact, you had me fooled for quite a while (although not intentionally). I thought you were Jewish until I read a response from you somewhere (I can't remember which topic now), where you mentioned being Catholic.

Off topic, but FYI, in case you don't read the MPSIMS board, you made my list in the topic about posters we'd date if they weren't married or otherwise spoken for :) Of course being Catholic automatically eliminates you from that ever becoming a reality as well, but I thought you might like to know that I find you to be an interesting and enjoyable person to post with, and therefore someone I wouldn't mind knowing IRL.

I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...



------------------
"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." - Anne Frank

[Bricker]

Off topic, but FYI, in case you don't read the MPSIMS board, you made my list in the topic about posters we'd date if they weren't married or otherwise spoken for :) Of course being Catholic automatically eliminates you from that ever becoming a reality as well, but I thought you might like to know that I find you to be an interesting and enjoyable person to post with, and therefore someone I wouldn't mind knowing IRL.

sigh

Another cross I must bear for Christ.

Ah, well. :)

Thanks for the plug in MPSIMS; I think I have posted twice in that forum... somehow, it just doesn't grab me. But I was pleased and honored to be on your list!

In any event:
It's a matter of interpretation to us, whereas to most Conservative, and all Orthox and Hassidic Jews, the Torah's laws are not subject to interpretation, but should be followed to the letter out of respect and reverence to G-d.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with that. Even the most devoted of Orthodox Jews recognize the need to interpret the Torah, for from the Torah they derive the Oral Law. The basic premise is that the Torah contains both plain meaning and concealed things (devarim stumim). An execellent example of devarim stumim is the mitzvah of tefillin, for which there is no clear Torah instruction. How then must a Jew observe this [i]mitzvah[i]?

(Just imagine that last line read with the classic sing-song candence of talmudic reasoning: "Ho-ow, then must a Jew o-observe this mitzvah?" But I digress.)

It is proper to resort to the commentaries to discern God's intent, if the intent is unclear from the Torah. Many dinim (rules) reference multiple shitot (systems) from the different commentaries, and each issue is dissected in minute detail, so you have to wade through acres of "because this is the pshat of the Gemora according to Rabbi Yahuda and Rav against Reish Lokish and Shmuel." Or something.

In any event, it's beyond cavil that the Orthodox brook much less in the way of interpretation of Torah if Torah is unambiguous on a point, while the Reform tend to put the whole thing up for grabs of one sort or another. :)

- Rick

[Bricker]

Dang it!

I second Shayna's motion for preview.

Rats. I am so meticulous adding italics for the Hebrew; I KNEW that would bite me in the butt one of these days. GRRR.

[WhiteNight]

Bricker:

You draw a line between a religious observance such as Easter and the observance of the dietary laws; as to the former, you
speculate it is strictly religious, while as to the latter you assert that it's dietary and therefore subject to continued questioning.

I'm not the one asserting, many times I've seen it said, or heard one of my jewish friends say that kosher is a dietary law, and was written with the people's safety in mind, much like telling people not to keep pet grizzly bears.

If kosher is merely a set of dietary rules, as many believe, then they should treat it as such. This is why I said "everyone else, decide if..." If you believe it's a religious rule, not required to make sense to us, then follow it to the letter. If it's just a suggestion, then treat it as such.

You can't have both, it can't be a suggestion that made sense, and thus not an arbitrary rule, and at the same time be part of the 'truths' handed down. If you claim that it's a suggestion, to make it seem more logical, then when it outlives that logic, you have to get rid of it. If you don't make those claims, then you're free to follow all the specific rules.

Note that 'you' here means each practicioner individually. Friends of mine have stopped following kosher at all, reasoning that it's a suggestion, like never starting a sentence with 'because', but once we understand the situation in depth, we can decide better for ourselves. Other friends are more orthodox, and they follow kosher, along with all the other laws, reasoning as you do, that it is not for us to reason why. Either makes sense, but a combination doesn't.

The entire body of kasruth law derives from a religious source, and may not be cavaliarly dismissed with, "Oh, that was for health reasons and we can safely disregard it now; the other was for religious reasons and we are still bound."

Perhaps not, but if you apply these strict ideals to kosher, then you'd be hypocrit if you didn't follow all the other rules to the best of your knowledge an ability.

I beg your pardon, WhiteNight, but you are assuming a fact not in evidence.

I don't think so. I understand you can't be orthodox without following every rule, but I know very few orthodox people, of any religion. Almost everyone decides to cut out some annoying (to them) rituals and to practice what they feel is the most important part of their god's message.

Akatsukami:

WhiteKnight, you may have some misconceptions about kashrut.

I readily acknowledge holes in my unerstanding of jewish religion, but I don't think any of them are relevant to this discussion.

That's why I said "Kosher is ... + some other stuff." The kosher dietary rules are what were being discussed, and I felt that this is what the question was about, not the related topic of all restrictions and duties involved in being jewish.

Shayna:

bda isn't guilty of simply not expressing himself well, he was downright rude.

Agreed, he asked things in a 'tone' I'd have found offensive, were I in a position to get offended by someone insulting my religion.

I was simply pointing out that if you explained what kosher was, and why it is/was, as best 'we'(not including me) understand it, that he'd probably be less insulting in the future, having seen that your religion isn't just a bunch of incomprehensible rules, but does have good ideas to guide your everyday life.

What is "for our own good" about not eating rabbits, for instance?

Perhaps that you can (I read somewhere...) grow malnourished on a mainly-rabbit diet because they don't contain vitamins we need. Perhaps it was all too easy to eat mainly rabbit.

But, point taken, kosher rules, as a whole, do include more than just pigs and shellfish.

These rules can either be 1) followed religiously, 2) ignored because they seem to be unimportant or 3) follow them until further notice, based on the evidence that the advice on pigs and shellfish were both right.

But Jews who keep kosher do so for reasons well outside of the health ramifications of consuming certain foods. In the celebration of most all the Jewish holidays, the most important thing is remembering and honoring our ancestors, their traditions, and their suffering so that we might be free to live our lives as Jews. Maintaining kosher dietary laws in spite of the fact that certain foods may no longer be unhealthy, reminds those who do so to remember and honor the ways of our ancestors. In essence, it elevates the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. And sometimes, tradition is the only reason anyone needs to maintain a certain rite.

Agreed. Even me, athiest boy, can see the value of traditions. If kosher is what makes you feel good, and bind your community, along with the other traditions, then follow it, by all means. But in this case you're more looking for the circle'd K (any connection with the convenience store?) and the assurance behind that than any specific health benefit, like unleavened bread, minoras, etc.

But it is understood as such.

My mistake, I didn't indicate when I was speaking to a more general audience and I attributed to you the confusion between rule and advice, as well as seemingly directing to you my advice to differentiate between the two. That was to the people in the thread in general.

Administration stuff:

Shayna: PREVIEW. Administrators; I want PREVIEW.

Oh yes, that would be wonderful. That, and a wider/taller text window. It's hard to write a cohesive message when a whole paragraph won't fit in the window.

Perhaps settings for users at > 640x480 could be available, and selectable at post, or via a stored setting, with a cookie.

Speaking of which, anyone notice that their name/password isn't being saved properly anymore? Happened just in the last week, but it works properly on other similar boards, like Slashdot.

[bda]

firstly; i apologize if anyone thought i was making fun of the jewish traditions. that was not my intention, i should of expressed my thought with more sensitivity. let my try again . . a legit question about "what is kosher"? if certain food products, i.e. pork, shellfish, etc. are not kosher, what technically makes them "not kosher". if a veggie is grown outdoors; whos to say theres not "un-kosher" dna present in the soil? after all, everything is recycled thru the soil. so is this a factor? how deep do you take this if you take it serious?

[Bricker]

bda, the rules for what makes something kosher come directly from the Bible's Old Testament, or are derived from the rules that exist in the Old Testament. So what makes something 'kosher' is compliance with that set of rules. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Rick

[bda]

thank you bricker . . but that doesnt answer my question . . if certain food products, i.e. pork, shellfish, etc. are not kosher, what technically makes them "not kosher". if a veggie is grown outdoors; whos to say theres not "un-kosher" dna present in the soil? after all, everything is recycled thru the soil. so is this a factor? how deep do you take this if you take it serious?

[Bricker]

Originally posted by bda:
thank you bricker . . but that doesnt answer my question . . if certain food products, i.e. pork, shellfish, etc. are not kosher, what technically makes them "not kosher". if a veggie is grown outdoors; whos to say theres not "un-kosher" dna present in the soil? after all, everything is recycled thru the soil. so is this a factor? how deep do you take this if you take it serious?

What technically makes pork "not kosher" is that it is prohibited by Leviticus 11:6 (you may not eat "the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.") Shellfish is prohibited by Lev. 11:12 ("Every water creature that lacks fins or scales is loathsome for you.")

A vegetable grown outdoors is not prohibited anywhere. That makes it kosher.

Earlier in this thread, we wondered what would happen if a bit of prohibited food fell on to permitted food. The general answer is that if the ratio of permitted food to prohibited food is 60:1 or greater, no problem. (Unless the prohibited food gives a taste to the permitted food, in which case it's irrelevant how small the amount is - it's all prohibited.)

In the question you raise, then, even if there is "non-kosher DNA" in the soil, it wouldn't be of sufficient quantity to trigger the exclusion rule.

The general question "How far do you take it?" ... well, since I'm not Jewish, I don't take it any distance at all; I don't follow any of the laws. A Reform Jew may choose not to follow any of the laws. I have a friend who was raised Orthodox, and keeps his own version of kosher (for example, he eats chicken and cheese sandwiches because the prohibition is against mixing the flesh of the kid in the milk of its mother, and chicken doesn't produce milk -- his own rule, not the 'official' kosher rule).

So the answer to "how far do you take it" is "it depends". But in no case do "non-kosher DNA in the soil" come into play -- that I am aware of.

- Rick

[John W. Kennedy]

As of a day or two ago, saved preferences seem to be fixed. It may be necessary to do all of the following to clear it up.

Go to Preferences and erase all cookies.

Post a message or reply.

Go back to Preferences and set things.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Bricker]

WhiteNight:
If kosher is merely a set of dietary rules, as many believe, then they should treat it as such. This is why I said "everyone else, decide if..." If you believe it's a religious rule, not required to make sense to us, then follow it to the letter. If it's just a suggestion, then treat it as such.

You can't have both, it can't be a suggestion that made sense, and thus not an arbitrary rule, and at the same time be part of the 'truths' handed down. If you claim that it's a suggestion, to make it seem more logical, then when it outlives that logic, you have to get rid of it. If you don't make those claims, then you're free to follow all the specific rules.

Um... right you are.

I was coming at the discussion from the standpoint of "What are the kosher rules?" Implicit in my approach was the acceptance of the idea (at least for the purposes of the discussion) that these were laws based on God's commandments. But you correctly point out that many people view them as something less, to be followed as pleases them, or not at all. I have a friend, in fact, who keeps a quasi-Kosher home, in that he buys his food at the regular supermarket, but treats everything from the moment he gets it in a Kosher fashion. So he's not worried about how or if a shochet killed the cow, but he won't top his hamburger with cheese.

So - point well made.

- Rick

[John W. Kennedy]

I have a friend who was raised Orthodox, and keeps his own version of kosher (for example, he eats chicken and cheese sandwiches because the prohibition is against mixing the flesh of the kid in the milk of its mother, and chicken doesn't produce milk -- his own rule, not the 'official' kosher rule).

This, of course, involves the traditional rabbinical dictum, "Build a fence around Torah," i.e., made the day-to-day laws even tougher than the Torah actually says, to create a safety zone. Therefore, "Don't boil the kid in its mother's milk," becomes, "Don't mix meat and dairy, period."

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams