Talk:Kashrut/Archive 5

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

text: 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)
replies: text: http://www.treif.com/ Gzuckier 02:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling of Treif 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: TO: cupcaketwinkie, a thank you

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

text: 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)

text: In what sense has the section become shorter? I notice no changes. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TO the person who deleted the Johns Hopkins/Lancet/Biblical Archaeological Review material again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: TO: jfdwolff, regarding conciseness

message: 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)
replies: text: In what sense has the section become shorter? I notice no changes. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: jdwolff, made it more concise and.....

message: 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)
thread_title: TO: jfwolff, here is how it is shorter

message: According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Article Name