Talk:Unclean animal

message: Moved per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (singular vs plural). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back per: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#SOME_article_titles_should_be_plural and the fact that when referenced it is always MORE than 1 animal, per that rationale it belongs at the plural form.  ALKIVAR™ 10:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A note

message: I have removed this whole section from the article for now as it is poorly written and very old:
: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 (Galatians 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.
Garglebutt / (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put back in the important content of this gibberish.  ALKIVAR™ 09:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited it a bit.  I have to say the paper looks like a load of rubbish to me. Townmouse 13:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's simply a style attribute added to the blockquote, I think it helps the quote stand out more clearly. More of a stylistic preference than anything else really. As for the fins and scales law... if i included that I would have to  include all of the other specific rules from Leviticus and Deuteronomy... as that would push the Judaism section to almost double its current size I felt it was better to leave links to the chapters and just mention specific cases instead.  ALKIVAR™ 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Amazing Facts has been listed on Donor Alert, meaning the public should stop donating to this organization. Please see: http://www.ministrywatch.com/profile/amazing-facts.aspx Ancos (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I wonder whether the section on Christianity could include Matthew 15:11, where Jesus says (KJV) "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." He wasn't talking about unclean animals directly, and it's highly unlikely he ever ate animals considered unclean by Jewish tradition, but still I think this line has been used to justify Christians' nonobservance of the Mosaic cleanliness laws. --Angr/ 12:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, most of what I've read regarding christian observance of the mosaic laws refers to Peter's vision and Pauls letters. Basically the conclusion was "all has been made pure by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ" in 95% of the materials i've read so far yet it is incorrect! Thanks for a pointer in a different direction.  ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are landing yourself in deep theological waters here. In short, Jesus said to the Pharisees to learn what mercy means, that He desires mercy and not sacrifice--yet God said that what is good and just is more important than sacrifices (sacrifices excluding goodness & justice/above goodness & justice). Later He said basically "because you would not learn what mercy means" . . .idea quoted. Somehow the Matthew 15 shows that hormones, as I view it, (flight-fight) in pigs, for example, make people react (hormones transmitted). However, Jesus said He came to fulFILL the law, not to abolish it. (That also means tithing--and there is an exception to the Sabbath, when the "ox" is ill, or someone badly needing help including you more time, yet that is to be only An Exception. . .--is kept, each giving "in keeping up with salary" Not meaning "in Not keeping up with his income" so, to do keep up with .10/income receive (the usual).) Also, God said gayness/bisexuality/YES, also prostitution, bad. . .sadly (maybe). Things brought up based on Peter's vision is taken out of context. Sorry! Mark 3:1-6 is another example; it's important to note that man with the paralyzed hand is not in danger of his life. At any rate, the congregation in Jerusalem, which consisted mostly of Jews, and whose leaders were St James the Great and Saint Peter believed it was a good idea to follow Jewish customs, and St Paul thought it was counterproductive to have non-Jews follow a tradition they were not brought up in. Matters were eventually discussed at the Council of Jerusalem (the article next door at de:Apostelkonzil has more pertinent research), where St Paul won out. We have Paul's account in the Letter to the Galatians; Luke also has an account in the Acts of the Apostles. Pilatus 14:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: The introductory illustration is a bit misleading. The section on Judaism deals with the dietary laws. For a practising Jew it is permissible to keep cats, dogs or any other non-kosher animal, one just may not eat them. Now the pig, probably because is it the archetypal unclean animal, is different; one may not keep pigs or derive benefit from them in any way. Pilatus 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashrut and the pig 

message: I just removed an image of pizza which referred to the dietary restriction of not having meat and dairy together.  Reason being, the article here is on unclean animals.  There is another article for dietary restrictions in general.  NickelShoe 05:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Topicality

message: And how.  A sentence in the History section reads "The first time in the bible that an actual list of "clean" and "unclean" was specified falls in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, however this is not the first time it's mentioned in the bible." Could be explained better, and that "it's" would be better full out as "it is". Moriori 21:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason its ambiguous is because it still is to scholars. No one can actually date when specific portions of the bible were added, to the best of my knowledge it is generally accepted that Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the oldest "unchanged" books of the bible, but no one is sure when genesis was originally written, we are however quite sure that it was revised after the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written. As such it is impossible to state which passage first refers to the concept of "clean and unclean" animals. Chronologically that is unanswerable at the moment, biblically we refer to Genesis as the first book of the bible and hence it comes prior to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Does this help clarify why its ambiguous?  ALKIVAR™ 23:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even for scholars it is hardly encyclopedic to say  "the first time X happened is not the first time X happened". You say here that no one knows when the bible first mentioned clean and unclean. The sentence should say precisely that, to prevent ambiguity. Do you want to amend it accordingly? Cheers. Moriori 23:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is ambiguous

message: Is there a better source for Mohammed being superstitious than the one in the article, which is some kind of Christian evangelical website?  If not, I think the article ought to make it a little clearer the bias these Quranic scholars have.  I took the article as meaning Muslim Quranic scholars until I actually followed the link. NickelShoe 06:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My main issue is the use of the word superstitious which will be seen as negative POV by followers of Islam. There are apparently incosistent rules and beliefs in most religions and exploring them is valid as long as it is an objective assessment in neutral language. Garglebutt 12:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Superstitious is actually the word the source uses, so it's not really POV to simply say that's what they're saying.  But I'm all for paraphrasing in neutral language--that is, if we can verify this source. I'm not liking this source much. NickelShoe 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that the source is not really NPOV itself so although the information may be valid it is already skewed in perspective and we need to unskew it to avoid edit wars. Garglebutt 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've decided to stay the hell out of this argument... you folks come up with a better wording. I attempted to get SOMETHING put together for this article, and even after Peer Review still got no real significant help from anyone else with it. So I'm pretty much done with MY contributions to this article. Ya'll have fun, its no longer on my watchlist.  ALKIVAR™ 03:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mohammed's superstitious beliefs

message: I just merged the Clean Animals article. I think most of it needs to go, but I decided to merge everything so we can make the choice now. Would anyone mind if we renamed the article "Clean and unclean animals"?
To keep the article from getting too big it might be a good idea to make separate articles for "Clean and unclean animals in Judaism" and Clean and unclean animals in Islam". Then we could put all the long lists into them and only have a summary in the main article. Pax:Vobiscum 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure 

message: This article is a huge mess! It's mixing up 3 semi-related subjects into a jumbled mess.
There are 3 different types of 'Unclean' animal in the Torah:
* Not Kosher.
* Sheretz
* Pig
:Yes, the article concentrates on good/bad to eat. But an animal can be bad to eat and allowed/disallowed to touch or use. This is only mentioned in the section on dogs and Islam. --Error 13:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is a huge mess 

message: This animal gets a special mention for this reason: externally it looks Kosher (it has Hooves), but actually it is not (it does not chew it's cud). Because it attempts to deceive a person, it gets singled out.
Is there any discussion of kosher animals/preparations that harbor diseases?  I understand the argument that pigs are considered impure rather than simply unclean, but are there unclean animals that are pure? Is it a matter of granularity? (ie, if you look too close, everything is dirty)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.77.10 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pig

message: This article needs to make it clearer to the reader that these are religious ideas, in the same way that articles which describe works of fiction needs to explain that they are based in fiction and provide non-fictional perspectives.
Technically, this article may not be unbalanced, but the "unbalanced" tag was the most appropriate tag available. The other almost-appropriate tag would be this one, which addresses the "in-universe" problem:
The point being that this article discusses its topic in a way that is confusing to non-believers, particularly because it cites religious texts as examples. Perhaps a new tag should be created that addresses this problem.
:Perhaps you should read the fifth word in the article? I removed the tag. Although the article has major problems (as described earlier under 'article is a huge mess') unbalanced it is not, nor is unclear what it is talking about. Do you want the  tag instead? That might be appropriate, but you'll need to write down each concept you come across that is unfamiliar to you, so someone can elaborate. Ariel. 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a new tag

message: -"Unclean" animals are clearly listed in the Bible and Biblicaly verifiable. God tells us his unclean animals very clearly.
-"Kashrut/Kosher" is a modern, Biblically un-verifiable, man made system of 'foodcraft' that has little to do with God's unclean animals.
Kashrut has very little to do with the Bible and is not Biblically verifiable at all. Not only is there no evidence for Kashrut, on the contrary we actually find butter and meat being eaten together in Genesis 18:8 as Gods wisdom must have forseen this happening - but notice at this point we're off the simple topic of unclean animals. Its not very complicated. I personally find it 'blasphemous' to put these 'food practices' beside our loving Gods unclean animals as they are basicallly two completely seperate things. In my opinion, Kashrut should just have a link to another article because these 'practices' and their spinn-off effects to Judaism as a whole are a serious, serious violation of Torah in many respects. I think its the only time one of Gods commandments has been completely replaced with another which would be a first time in history. (Note: several schollars including Rambam all noting that it's punishable by Eternal damnation (no share in the world to come) to replace a commandmen - even under the authority of 'God told me' which is specifically mentioned so this sort of thing couldnt happen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedavid00 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps a difference between tamei (impure) and tahor (pure)? Note that the term treyf is not traditionally the term for any non-kosher food but rather that which was torn from a living animal. Tamei is probably the closest accurate word we have and could be translated as impure or unclean. However there is a term that goes further, to describe the effects of touching animals considered to be abominably unclean, sheketz, disgusting, which would render the person who comes into contact with it ritually impure. I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that in Islam, coming into contact with a pig renders one ritually impure. I think previously that dogs were considered the utmost in ritual impurity in Judaism, something which is utterly ironic today as dogs are "man's best friend". That was a total tangent, but I think unclean animals would suffice as describing animals that are not considered kosher, at least in terms of Noah's Ark and the lists in Parashat Shemini in Leviticus. Valley2city 02:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Judaism, the concepts of kosher and tamei/tahor are logically quite distinct. Not all non-kosher food is tamei; not all tahor food is kosher. In the days of the Temple in Jerusalem this distinction was clearer and more commonplace: lots of kosher but tamei food could not be offered as a sacrifice yet could be eaten as ordinary food. But traditional Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism, retains it. Touching a tamei animal may require ritual washing but doing so merely involves a change of ritual state with no concept of sin involved. Eating a non-kosher animal is a sin with moral implications. As an example of the moral difference involved, the Talmud suggests that a  rabbi deliberately touch people with an tamei animal to make them unclean under certain ritual circumstances and considers doing so a morally acceptable solution to certain religious problems; rabbis would never ask people to eat a non-kosher animal except as the only way to avoid dying. Completely different religious amd moral concepts, completely different practical consequences and actions. --Shirahadasha 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Dogs were never considered impure in Judaism, much less "the utmost in ritual impurity". The utmost would be a dead human body. In regards to animals it would be "The 8 Shartzim" (see higher up on this page). The only mention of dogs in the Torah that I can think of right now is that during the exodus the dogs of Egypt didn't bark, and so were rewarded by the commandment that non-kosher food (meat mainly) is to be given to them. Perhaps you are thinking of Islam? Ariel. 18:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unclean" 

message: I took a smack at cleaning things up a bit. The jewish 'unclean' lists are vague, can't be completed, are clumsy and blocky, and so should be removed, except for the specifically allowed list, which is much smaller, and is clearly limited and defined. I'd suggest instead of the current three lists, expand the one important list, that of the foods permitted by halacha. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  another cleanup section 

message: The edits made by 41.3.88.235 on 15th Jan reek of weasel words to me. "Some Christians believe that there is proof" ... "The fact that Christ was circumcised and kept every tradition & feast of the Law of Moses - including the Passover - also srongly points to the fact that He expected future Christians to do the exact same thing." (emphasis mine)
I don't think I have the authority to edit a topic I know very little about, but I was surprised to see this section of poorly articulated religious opinion sticking out like a sore thumb from an otherwise balanced article. 82.32.185.12 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits in Christianity section 

message: Although dogs are considered unclean animals in Islam, yet it is allowed to own them for hunting, guarding, leading blind people, sporting, or for any other usefull objective. As Saluki dogs are popular racing dogs in many muslim countries, specially in the gulf area, they are cherished by tradition and not as an exception to the general rule. Ifadly (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saluki Dogs are Dogs 

message: It looks like an IP -- 79.71.70.187, with no other edits -- threw in some nonsense in the History section, talking about how the origins of clean and unclean animals are lost to prehistory "for all those who do not believe in the Bible as the word of God". Speaking as a serious Catholic, I disagree: the Bible doesn't give the origin of the idea, even for those who believe in it -- and the kind of phrasing used here is trolling. I've reverted the section to the good version by Jafeluv at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unclean_animals&oldid=309236740 ; my edit summary may have sounded like I was taking offense at later editors, but I wanted to make it clear that this wasn't the case. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in History section 

message: The article talks about "meats offered to idols," and has to include a footnote to clarify that this is "foods," not meat (in the modern sense) in particular. This is particularly jarring in that only a couple of paragraphs later, the article is talking about Catholic obligations to abstain from meat, and by "meat" it means "meat." This is not exactly "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (remember, David slew Goliath), but why should we keep KJV text with a footnote when we could avoid the footnote altogether by using something more recent? Would anyone object if I changed this to use the RSV? ExOttoyuhr (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to use the American Standard version on Wikisource; not sure if the RSV is available for use here, from copyright issues. Apologies for taking so long. 38.113.0.254 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to log in. Now everyone knows my IP address. :) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For some reason the article used KJV throughout, it looks like someone is trying to make it obscure and hard to read for some reason. A modern English version, NIV, (N)ASB or such should be used. 91.108.143.205 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity section: Meats and Meat 

message: 5:4 is given as reference but I think it is actually should be 5:5 Halconen (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam section: food of Jews and Christians 

message: Added "dubious" to the sentence "Pigs are also common vectors ...". I think this fact is unrelated to the article since its pretty unlikely that it had anything to to do with placement of the pig in the "unclean animal" category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.71.219.253 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section: The pig and the flu 

message: Actually it ended with the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 (read Acts of the Apostles, Apostolic Christians continued to go to the Temple, even Paul, until it was destroyed, example: ). It will presumably return with the future Third Temple. 75.15.202.246 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "The majority of Christians agree that the sacrificial system was done away with at the cross"

message: The Christianity section needs some cleanup:
:It reads more like an article from a religious magazine, by believers to believers, than an encyclopedia article for a general readership.
:It has too many literal quotes.  In many cases, it would be enough to paraphrase/summarize, with a <ref> to the chapter and verse.
:It goes into Christian dietary laws in general, beyond the scope of the article (unclean animals).
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity section needs cleanup 

message: A couple more sections (at least) are needed:
* Hunduism (The pig is unclean, isn't it?)
* Buddhism?
* Non-religious cultural views: animals that are considered disgusting to eat (dogs and insects in the west, horses in the US, etc.) animals that are unclean to have around (roaches and flies), 
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More sections needed

message: The article states that the Seventh-Day Adventist (SDA) doctrine requires adherence to the Levitic food laws.  However I cannot find that point in SDA documents on the net.  Is that affirmation correct? Os was there a confusion with the Church of God (Seventh Day), which does have that requirement?  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventh-Day Adventist position 

message: I made a quick change to the insect section. It made the claim that honey is just collected and concentrated nectar. This is not true. It goes through a process of regurgitation. Meaning that honey is indeed made by bees. The statement's logical opposite is honey is not kosher, because of this.  
I need to make another change. After rereading levitcus 11:20-23, only insects with four legs are banned. Since there are no such things, all insects are good.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.115.69 (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insects section 

message: Why no mention of myriad parasites which are found in pigs that can be zoonotically transferred to humans? The Levitical law is not based in mere superstition, it is scientifically demonstrated that consumption of pork bears greater health risks than, say, beef or mutton.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.186.24 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pig-borne parasites