HOME WEB NEWS IMAGES CLASSIFIEDS YELLOW PAGESPOLLS - SURVEYS WIKI COUNTRIES PHOTOS US UK INDIA
Cities Stocks Weather Movies Coupons Travel Blogs Health Horoscope Maps ASIA EUROPE Classifieds Yellow Pages
|
 1
|
The circled U indicates that this product is certified as kosher by the Orthodox Union (OU). The word "pareve" indicates that this product contains neither milk nor meat derived ingredients
Kashrut (also kashruth or kashrus, כַּשְרוּת) refers to Jewish dietary laws. Food in accord with halakha (Jewish law) is termed kosher in English, from the Hebrew term kashér, meaning "fit" (in this context, fit for consumption by Jews according to traditional Jewish law). Jews may not consume non-kosher food (but there are no restrictions for non-dietary use, for example, injection of insulin of porcine origin). Food that is not in accord with Jewish law is called treif, (טרייף or treyf, Hebrew טְרֵפָה trēfáh). Treif meat is meat from a non-kosher animal or a kosher animal that has not been properly slaughtered according to Jewish law, but the term is applied by extension to all non-kosher food.
Many of the basic laws of kashrut are derived from the Torah\'s Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, with their details set down in the oral law (the Mishnah and the Talmud) and codified by the Shulchan Aruch and later rabbinical authorities. The Torah does not explicitly state the reason for most kashrut laws, and many varied reasons have been offered for these laws, ranging from philosophical and ritualistic, to practical and hygienic.
By extension, the word kosher means legitimate, acceptable, permissible, genuine or authentic, in a broader sense.For example, The Babylonian Talmud refers to King Daryavesh (Darius the Great of Persia), who assisted in building the Second Temple, as a "kosher king". The translation refers to \'kosher\' being used in the sense of \'virtuous\'. Tractate Rosh Hashanah 3a, Schottenstein Edition, Mesorah Publications Ltd.
Islam has a related but different system, named halal, and both systems have a comparable system of ritual slaughter (shechita in Judaism and Ḏabīḥah in Islam).
Contents |
The laws of kashrut derive from various passages in the Torah, and are numerous and complex, but the key principles are as follows:
The following rules of kashrut are not universally observed:
Conservative Judaism follows a number of leniencies, including:
Although Reconstructionist Judaism and some perspectives within Reform Judaism encourage individuals to follow some or all aspects of the kashrut rules required by the more traditional branches, these branches do not require their observance and do not maintain their own sets of required rules.
For more details on this topic, see Kosher foods.
Foods are kosher when they meet all criteria that Jewish law applies to food and drinks. Invalidating characteristics may range from the presence of a mixture of meat and milk, to the use of produce from Israel that has not been tithed properly, or even the use of cooking utensils which had previously been used for non-kosher food.
For more details on this topic, see Hechsher.
Store-bought foods can be identified as kosher by the presence of a hechsher (plural hechsherim), a graphical symbol that indicates that the food has been certified as kosher by a rabbinical authority. (This might be an individual rabbi, but is more often a rabbinic organization.) One of the most common symbols in the United States is the "OU", a U inside a circle, standing for the Union of Orthodox Congregations (or "Orthodox Union"). Many rabbis and organizations, however, have their own certification mark, and the other symbols are too numerous to list.
Many kashrut certification symbols are accompanied by additional letters or words to indicate the category of the food. In common usage is "D" for Dairy, "M" for Meat or poultry, "Pareve" for food that is neither meat nor dairy, "Fish" for foods containing such, and "P" for Passover (not to be confused with Pareve). Note that many foods meet the US FDA standard for "Non-Dairy" while they do not meet the Jewish standard for "Pareve" and are labeled with the "D" next to the kosher symbol.
A single K is sometimes used as a symbol for kosher, but as a letter cannot be trademarked (the method by which other symbols are protected from misuse) in many countries, it only indicates that the company producing the food claims it is kosher.
The hechsheirim of certain authorities are sometimes considered invalid by certain other authorities.[citation needed]
It is not sufficient to read the list of ingredients on a product label in order to determine a food\'s kosher status, as many things are not included in this list, such as pan lubricants and release agents (which may be derived from lard), flavorings ("natural flavorings" are more likely to be derived from non-kosher substances than others) and others. Reading the label can, however, identify obviously unkosher ingredients.
Producers of foods and food additives can contact Jewish authorities to have their products certified as kosher: a committee will visit their facilities to inspect production methods and contents, and issue a certificate if everything is in order. In many cases constant supervision is required.
For various reasons, such as changes in manufacturing processes, products which were kosher may cease to be so; for example, a kosher lubricating oil may be replaced by one containing tallow. Such changes are often coordinated with the supervising rabbi or organization to ensure that new packaging, which will not suggest any hechsher or kashrut, is used for the new formulation. But in some cases existing stocks of preprinted labels with the hechsher may continue to be used on the now non-kosher product; for such reasons, there is an active "grapevine", among the Jewish community, as well as newspapers and periodicals, identifying which products are now questionable, as well as products which have become kosher but whose labels have yet to carry the hechsher.
There continues to be a debate among various theories about the purposes and meaning of the laws regarding kashrut.
|
|
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007) |
Traditional Jewish philosophy divides the 613 mitzvot into mishpatim (laws which can be explained rationally) and chukim (laws which cannot be explained rationally). Those categorized as chukim include such laws as the Red Heifer (Numbers 19). There are three basic points of view regarding these laws:
This last view has been rejected by most classical and modern Jewish authorities[citation needed]. For example Maimonides holds that a Jew is permitted to seek out reasons for the laws of the Torah.Mishneh Torah Korbanot, Temurah 4:13 (in eds. Frankel; "Rambam L\'Am")
There is also the view that obedience to the laws of kashrut is a necessary precondition for a Jew to be able to reach his utmost spiritual capacity. According to this understanding, the intention of the laws is to instil obedience in the base, animalistic sectors of a person\'s life in order to achieve obedience and spirituality in the more lofty pursuits of Judaism.[citation needed]
There are numerous examples of biblical commandments which are either too ambiguous or documented in such a concise fashion that proper adherance is absolutely impossible without the details provided by the oral tradition.Rietti, Rabbi Jonathan. The Oral Law: The Heart of The Torah, [2] The rules regarding the forbidden mixing of milk and meat are but one example. As indicated in Exodus 23:19 among other places, a "kid may not be boiled in its mother\'s milk," as a literal translation provides. In addition to numerous other problems with understanding the ambiguous nature of this law, a fundamental problem is that there are no vowelization characters in the Torah; they are provided only by the oral tradition. This is particularly relevant to this law, as the Hebrew word for milk (chalav) is identical to the word for fat (cheilev) when vowels are absent. Without the oral tradition, it is not known whether the violation is in mixing meat with milk or with fat.Rietti, Rabbi Jonathan. The Oral Law: The Heart of The Torah, [3]
According to the teachings of Hasidism when a Jew manipulates any object for a holy reason (which includes eating, if it is done with a proper intention—to provide strength to follow laws of Torah), he releases "sparks of Holiness" which are found in every object. [4] These "sparks" are actually channels of connection with the Divinity, and their "activation" allows the drawing of the Divine Presence into the physical world. [5]
However, there are some types of animals whose products are not applicable for performance of commandments because the "sparks of holiness" cannot be released from their matter. [6] Therefore, we are provided with "signs" of the animals whose sparks can be released [7]. These signs are split hooves (hooves symbolize connection with the material world which, however, is not so complete as to lose connection with the spiritual world), and rechewing of food (food symbolizes Torah or in more general terms, holiness; rechewing of food symbolizes ability to penetrate deeper into some holy concepts or holiness, as is necessary to separate sparks from their matter). For fish (which symbolize sages), these signs are scales (protection from water, which is a symbol of intellectual influence) and fins (that gives fish ability to move in water better, which symbolizes ability to move from one area of Torah or holiness to another).
It must be noted that these are not the causes of these animals not being kosher, they are merely signs that alert us to spiritual characteristics of these animals\' products (namely, whether it\'s possible to activate their "sparks of Divinity") which cannot be seen from the physical perspective.[8] For example, camels do not normally have cloven hooves and so are not kosher; according to Talmud if a camel is, exceptionally, born with completely cloven hooves, it does not thereby become kosher.
Cultural anthropologist Mary Douglas has written on just how the Israelites may have used the idea of distinction as a way to create holiness. Her work, Purity and Danger (1966), is still studied today. One theory is that the laws serve as a distinction between the Israelites and the non-Israelite nations of the world. Gordon Wenham writes: "The laws reminded Israel what sort of behaviour was expected of her, that she had been chosen to be holy in an unclean world."
Similarly, according to this theory, the practice of kashrut serves as a daily exercise in self-discipline and self-control, strengthening the practitioner\'s ability to choose other difficult paths. The ability to rationally curb one\'s most basic appetites can be seen as the prerequisite to living in a civilized society. Also, Jews consider the aspects of kosher slaughter which emphasize and incorporate the need to avoid unnecessary suffering of the animal a reminder to the believer that having the power of life and death or to cause suffering, even to a farm animal born and bred to be eaten, is a serious responsibility rather than a pleasure to be sought after; and that to actually indulge in pleasure in the power to cause suffering, even in so common a practice as hunting, is to damage our own moral sensibilities.[citation needed]
The prohibition against eating the fruits of a tree for the first three years also represents a capacity for self-discipline and self-denial, as well as a lengthy period of appreciation for the bounty of God, prior to losing oneself in its enjoyment. Similarly, the requirement to tithe one\'s harvest, aside from the social justice aspect, serves as a reminder that this material wealth is not purely the result of one\'s own efforts, but represents a gift from God; and as such, to share the gift with one\'s fellows does not represent a real loss to anyone, even oneself.[citation needed]
During the first few centuries of the Common Era some philosophers held that the laws of kashrut were symbolic in character. In this view, kosher animals represent virtues, while non-kosher animals represent vices. The first indication of this view can be found in the 2nd century BCE Letter of Aristeas (par. 145-148, 153). It later reappears in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, and in the writings of some of the early Church Fathers.
This hypothesis has long since been rejected by most Jewish and Christian scholars. Modern Biblical criticism also has found nothing to support this hypothesis, although the concept of the pig as a particularly \'unclean\' animal persists among Jews.
Although the symbolic explanation for kashrut has been largely rejected, a number of authorities maintain that the laws are intended to promote ethical and moral behaviour. A recent authority who has reexamined the symbolic/ethical meaning of kashrut is Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Germany, 19th century).
To some degree, the prohibition on combining milk with meat represents a symbolic separation between death, represented by the flesh of a dead animal, and life, represented by the milk required to sustain a newborn creature. The often-quoted humane component to this law is also of symbolic value; the Torah prohibits \'seething the kid (goat, sheep, calf) in its mother\'s milk\', a practice cruel only in concept, which would not be understood as cruelty by either the kid or its mother and would not cause them additional suffering; but which could still potentially inflame a human\'s taste for ultimate power over those creatures who are weaker. Thus, kashrut prohibits the practice itself, even if the resulting mixture is to be discarded.
Similarly, the prohibition against consuming carnivorous mammals and birds, \'loathsome crawling creatures\', and scavengers, as well as the prohibition against consuming sick or diseased animals, would seem to rely, at least in part, on their perceived symbolic character.
According to Christian theologian Gordon J. Wenham the purpose of kashrut is to help maintain Jews as a separate people. The laws of kashrut had the effect of preventing socialization and intermarriage with non-Jews, helping the Jewish community maintain its identity. Wenham writes that "circumcision was a private matter, but the food laws made one\'s Jewish faith a public affair. Observance of the food laws was one of the outward marks of a practising Jew, and this in turn enhanced Jewish attachment to them as a reminder of their special status."Gordon J. Wenham, "The Theology of Unclean Food," The Evangelical Quarterly 53, January March 1981, p.6-15
There have been attempts to provide empirical support for the view that kashrut laws have hygienic benefits.
It was believed by some people[specify] that kosher animals were healthier to eat than non-kosher animals. It was also noted that the laws of purity (Leviticus 11–15) not only describe the difference between clean and unclean animals, but also describe other phenomena that appear to be related to health. For instance, glatt, the requirement that lungs be checked to be free of adhesions, would prevent consumption of animals who had been infected with tuberculosis; similarly, the ban on slaughtering of an unconscious animal would eliminate many sick and possibly infectious animals from being consumed. Such a rationale seems reasonable when considering the laws prohibiting the consumption of carrion birds or birds of prey (which are advantageous scavengers), as they may carry disease from the carrion they consume; shellfish, which as filter feeders can accumulate harmful parasites or toxins; or pork, which can harbor trichinosis if not properly cooked. Thus, it was natural for many to assume that all the laws of kashrut were merely hygienic in intent and origin. One of the rabbinical authorities that mention the hygiene hypothesis is Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed.
For a number of reasons, however, this idea has fallen out of favor among Biblical scholars. Fruits and vegetables may be eaten without prohibition even though there are many poisonous herbs, seeds, berries, and fruits. Additionally, this hypothesis does not explain other parts of the Jewish dietary laws; for instance forbidding the consumption of fish without true scales, such as sharks and swordfish (though see kosher foods for discussion on kashrut of swordfish), fruit from trees which are less than four years old, or residual blood in meat.
In 1953, Dr. David I. Macht, a Johns Hopkins University researcher, performed experiments on many different kinds of animals and fish, and concluded that the concentration of zoological toxins of the "unclean" animals was higher than that of the "clean" animals, and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%.Macht, Dr. David I.. "An Experimental Pharmalogical Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV" (pdf). Bulletin of the History of Medicine 27:444-450. His criterion for toxicity was the effect on germination of lupin seedlings. In addition, Dr. Macht\'s research indicated harmful physiological effects of mixtures of meat and milk, and ritually slaughtered meat appeared to be lower in toxins than meat from other sourcesDavid I. Macht, Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184 The conclusions of the paper published in Johns Hopkins Bulletin of the History of Medicine were challenged in a paper by biologists written at the request of a Seventh-day Adventist Church publication.Ministry Magazine, March 1953, p37-38 "This Question of Unclean Meats" Responses to Macht\'s study from heads of biology depts.
Others have hypothesized that there are multiple reasons for the laws of kashrut, with each law serving one or more than one purpose.
Anthropologist Marvin Harris has proposed that the Jewish prohibition of pork results from the fact that in arid countries such as Israel it is possible to raise pork only by feeding it grains that are also eaten by people, since the pigs cannot forage in nonexistent forests. In bad harvest years there would be a social conflict between those who could afford to raise and eat pork and those who would be at risk of starvation due to the scarcity of edible grains. Thus, in the interest of social survival, the prohibition entered the Jewish religion. Harris in Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches cites worldwide examples of similar ecologically determined religious practices, including other prohibitions of pork for similar reasons.
According to Harris preserving pork requires too much salt to guarantee the elimination of the carcass liquids, due to high fat content. The reverse process of washing out the preserving salt when it came to eating the meat also made it difficult to justify. This same reason would apply to many other forbidden foods, either because preservation by salting was impossible or because the salting process was not reversible.
|
|
It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article. (Discuss) |
In some states in the U.S. (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Virginia, as well as local ordinances in two counties in Florida and the independent city of Baltimore), statutes defined "kosher" and made it a crime to sell a product which was called "kosher" if, in general, it was not processed in accordance with the Jewish religion. Earlier court decisions upheld some of these laws. Courts have since determined that because this represents a state establishment of a religious practice, when such laws have been challenged, they have been struck down. Those who oppose the above rulings argue that kashrut is simply a set of standards for food preparation, nothing more; there is no difference between labelling something "low sodium", "high-fiber", "pasteurized", "kosher", "calcium-enriched", or "contains no cholesterol".
Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism hold that Jews should follow the laws of kashrut as a matter of religious obligation. Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these laws are no longer binding. Historically, Reform Judaism actively opposed kashrut as an archaism inhibiting the integration of Jews in the general society. More recently, some parts of the Reform community have begun to explore the option of a more traditional approach.[citation needed] This tradition-leaning faction agrees with mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are not obligatory, but believe that Jews should consider keeping kosher because it is a valuable way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut, but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform.
Many Jews who do not meet the complete requirements of kashrut nevertheless maintain some subset of the laws; for instance, abstaining from pork or shellfish. Many Jews will likewise avoid drinking milk with a meat dish. Similarly, many keep a degree of kashrut at home while having no problems eating in a non-kosher restaurant, or will follow leniencies when eating out that they would not follow at home.
In English and Hebrew, the term kosher is frequently used in a metaphorical sense to mean "fitting" or "correct". This is also its conventional meaning in Hebrew. For example, a mezuzah, a pair of tefillin, a Torah scroll or even an etrog can be kosher (if it is fit for ritual use) or non-kosher (if it is unfit for ritual use), but their "kashrut" has nothing to do with food.
It is also part of some common product names. For example, "kosher salt" (technically "koshering salt") is a form of salt which has irregularly-shaped crystals, making it particularly suitable for preparing meat in accordance with kashrut law because the increased surface area of the crystals absorbs blood more effectively. Likewise, a "kosher" dill pickle is usually not kosher in the sense that it was prepared under rabbinical supervision, which would ensure that no utensil in contact with the pickles had been in contact with food that was not kosher. Rather, it is a pickle made in the traditional manner of Jewish New York City pickle makers with generous addition of garlic to the brine.Brief note on kosher pickles in "The Pickle Wing" of nyfoodmuseum.orgKashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws "Judaism 101" This is the same reason why the usage of the term "kosher-style" became frequently used in the food industry, from delis to restaurants, and even street vendors.
Consumer-protection laws in many jurisdictions prohibit use of the term "kosher" unless it is shown to conform to Jewish dietary laws, however this will be defined differently for different jurisdictions and situations. For example, in some places the law may require that a rabbi certify the kashrut, and in others it is sufficient that the manufacturer believes the product to be kosher. Most packaged food products that are labelled "kosher" will therefore have some level of certification of compliance with the laws of kashrut, though individuals must determine if that level is adequate for themselves. More detail on the "legal" usage of the term "kosher" can be found in the section above entiled "U.S. Laws regarding use of the word Kosher"
A new movement in Israel Chicago Jewish Star, September 30, 2005, front page. demands that an establishment — a grocery store or restaurant — will only be considered fully kosher if its employees are paid a decent wage and treated fairly, and there is access for the handicapped. This will require a second certificate of kashrut in addition to the standard one.
The translation of the root כ ש ר (K-Sh-R, Kaf-Shin-Resh) when used in this context is generally accepted to be about the "fitness" or "kosherness" of the food for consumption. There are two major strains of thought on alternative ways that "kashrut" should be practiced in order to more broadly categorize food as fit for consumption. In addition to these two major strains of thought, some, especially in the United Kingdom, have taken the fitness of the food they eat as directly dependent on how ethically it was produced, specifically in relation to its impact on the world and its people. For instance, only Fairtrade teas and coffees are served in some synagogues and community centers and eggs used are organic or free range.
Since there are few laws of kashrut restricting the consumption of plant products, many people assume that a strictly vegetarian meal would usually be inherently kosher. In practice, however, those who follow the laws of kashrut do not automatically regard all restaurants or prepared or canned food which claim to be vegetarian as kosher, due to the likelihood that the utensils were used previously with non-kosher products, as well as the concern that there may be non-kosher ingredients mixed in, which, although they may still be considered vegetarian, would make the food not kosher. Additionally, kashrut does provide special requirements for some vegetarian products, such as wine and bread.
Many vegetarian restaurants and producers of vegetarian foods do in fact acquire a hechsher, certifying that a Rabbinical organization has approved their products as being kosher. In addition to the above concerns, the hechsher will usually certify that certain suspect vegetables have been checked for insect infestation, and that steps have been taken to ensure that any cooked food meets the requirements of bishul Yisrael.
Most vegetables, particularly leafy vegetables (lettuce, cabbage, parsley, dill, etc.), must be thoroughly checked for insect infestation (see link below for video instruction on proper checking procedure from the OU). The consumption of insects involves between three and six violations of Torah law;Rambam, Mishne Torah, Maacholoth Asuroth, 2:23-24 so, according to Jewish Law, it is a greater sin than the consumption of pork. The proper procedure for inspecting and cleaning will vary by species, growing conditions, and the views of any particular rabbi.
The situation is not always reversible, however; although pareve food can contain neither meat nor dairy, that label on a product cannot be always used by vegetarians as a reliable indication, since kashrut considers fish to be parev. Because of potential issues of mixing meat and fish (see Fish and seafood) some kashrut supervising authorities specifically indicate the presence of fish products when they are found in pareve foods.
People who have specific dietary needs should be aware that their standards for certain concepts may differ from the halachic standards for similar concepts.
Kashrut prohibits slaughter of an unconscious animal, and the slaughtering is done by cutting the front of the throat first. Some animal rights groups object to kosher slaughter, claiming that it can take several minutes for the animal to die and can often cause suffering. Since the spinal cord is not severed completely at the first cut, it is thought that the slaughtered animal\'s nervous system continues to function during the initial moments of the slaughter, causing the animal to undergo an agonisingly slow and painful death.
Jewish groups point to studies showing that the kosher slaughter technique is no more painful than conventional techniques, and in most cases much quicker and less painful; the idealized emphasis on flawless procedure and tools contrasts with the often real-life sloppy production line methodology of the non-kosher slaughterhouse resulting in failure to stun the animal, as often described by animal rights advocates in other contexts.[citation needed]
Specific kashrut laws counter some of the rituals of ancient times, such as eating only one leg of a live animal so that people would not have to deal with eating the entire animal at one time (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 56b); this law applies even to non-Jews and is part of the Noahide Laws. Some authorities have ruled that any unnecessary suffering by the animal can render otherwise kosher meat treife.
Heksher Tzedek, a proposed certification that food was produced under safe and just working conditions, has been endorsed by the Rabbinical Assembly, the national association of Conservative rabbis, but specific requirements for implementation of certification remain under development."Rabbis Move Ahead With New Certification Plan" article by Nathaniel Popper in The Forward May 18, 2007 It would be an additional certification, not a replacement for kosher certification.
One counterargument is that an entity certifying Kashrut should remain outside political issues of labor. In particular, the laws of labor, as dictated by Torah, are being addressed by the laws of the United States of America as noted by Rabbi A. Zeilingold in an interview. "Does Kosher Extend beyond the Treatment of Animals", by Pamela Miller in the New York Times, June 18 2007 The Government of the United States of America provides many means for individuals to report and prosecute employers that violate the law,"America\'s Workers: Paying For Protection", Counterbias, January 22 however this information is never made transparent to consumers through certification or product markings, such as Kosher labeling.
Some questions posed by critics remain open in the matter of the Tzedek Heksher:
Look up kosher in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Wikibooks Cookbook has an article on
