Talk:Kashrut/Archive 2

message: It Would Be Great If someone whose knowledge was more than my little bit would add the criteria for wine to be kosher, including mevushal and its significance. Salsa Shark 05:19, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wine and mevushal

message: External links have been my pet peeve for the last little while, because people (often anonymously) insert them into articles to push a POV, then leave and other don't bother to check if they're relevant to the article body.<BR>
The links at the bottom are all totally irrelevant to the article. There's anough to say on Shechita to make it stand like an article - one of the reasons being the animal-rights movement taking on ritual slaughter as cruel. I suggest all the present links be removed, and will in fact do so in a few days if this comment goed unchallenged... JFW | T@lk 19:55, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: "Incidentally, it is a myth that giraffes are not eaten because we do not know where on the neck to slaughter them. You can slaughter them anywhere you want. The reason why we do not eat giraffes is mainly that they are extremely expensive." See http://www.zootorah.com/Content/identification.html and http://www.zootorah.com/essays/unicorn.html.  Also, "Let's first dispense with the myth that we don't know exactly what spot on the long neck to shecht it. Actually, since Sh'chitta is permitted anywhere on the neck, this cannot be the problem. (source: Tosefta Chullin 1:11; Code of Jewish Law YD 20:1-2; "Tzohar" pg. 262, by R' A. Ben-David)."  See http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=giraffe&f=tqak&offset=1 Jayjg 18:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths about giraffes 

message: This article mentions that the kashrut of certain packaged foods is suspect, even if marked with a K.  Is this also true of foods marked "Kosher pareve"?  What is the connection between Passover and pareve food? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:40, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
:If food does not indicate who the supervising authority is, then it is suspect.  There is no specific connection between Passover and pareve food. Jayjg 18:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pareve status of packaged foods? 

message: BEVERAGE GLASSES
Q: Can one use the same glass beverage glasses for both dairy and meat meals?
A: Yes.
Q: Can these glasses be used for both hot and cold beverages?
A: Yes. 
http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-containers-glass.htm
"pareve utensils like salad bowls or drinking glasses can accompany both milk and meat meals." http://www.kosher.org.uk/what.htm
This is a very common practice, even in Haredi homes. Jayjg 18:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the London Beth Din is often not accepted by many Orthodox. Unsigned by User:Mikeage
Why are you saying this? JFW | T@lk 14:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: This is the opinion of the Bies Yosef that glass does not absorb, but the Ramo argues. IIRC everyone agrees if glass reaches a melting heat/or enough that it can be bent with out breaking, it does absorb the status of meaty or prave, could a Rabbi please explain this. (BTW JDF, are there any others in Wikipedia Judaism project that are Rabbis other than user:PinchasC) 220.233.48.200 16:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drinking glasses for meat and dairy 

message: In its most common usage, "kosher" refers to food, but it isn't really limited to that.  "Kosher" means "suitable" and can also refer to witnesses, inscribed parchment in Torah scrolls and mezzuzot, etc.
So what I'm suggesting is that "kosher" should not automatically be rerouted to "kashrut," but that an explanation should be provided for the general meaning of the term. Unsigned by User:Leifern
:For the English reader, the main use of kosher is in its context as "suitable according to the Jewish dietary laws". IMHO, the redirect should remain the same, with a brief mention of your conundrum in the intro. Indeed, the use of kosher in its food context is very recent. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosher ambiguity 

message: In the Produce paragraph, there is a sentence that includes the phrase "some companies now sell thoroughly washed and inspected produce for those without the time or patience to do it themselves" (emphasis added).  In the context, this strikes me as mildly insulting to the members of the Haredi Jewish community, since it implies that their refusal to eat broccoli comes from a lack of patience.  I would suggest deleting the entire "for those" clause entirely, or replacing it with a different description of the target market. --LostLeviathan 15:56, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that was not the intent, however, if one person interprets it that way, then obviously it can be interpreted that way, and no doubt there are others, so OK. Gzuckier 18:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Hey, who wants to eat bugs? Gzuckier 20:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's remember, that to properly check "easy" vegetables is a few moments, "medium" vegetables (such as romaine lettuce often requires soaking, washing, and examination of each leaf with either bright sunlight or a light box, and "difficult" vegetables will often require the disposal of more than 50% of the pieces due to severe infestation. Based on those standards (which may or may not be your standards), do you really think it's a laziness thing? --Mikeage 13:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Have you ever tried removing every visible insect from a broccoli stalk? JFW | T@lk 14:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That's why I don't grow it in my little pesticide free garden any more. Gzuckier 15:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insects and produce