Comments on: The rational kosher laws http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:09:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Alex http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-116610 Alex Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:39:48 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-116610 "This implication is derived from the kosher mode of slaughter, which is only applicable to domestic animals; it is practically impossible to catch gazelle with a trap and cut its throat in a precisely kosher manner." Obadiah, while I agree with the rest of the article, I find a mistake: the "Kosher" mode of slauther is not mentioned in the Torah. Rabbis apply the following verse as proof for the Oral Law: "It might happen that the designated place of worship--the place the LORD your God chooses for his name to be honored--is a long way from your home. If so, you may butcher any of the cattle, sheep, or goats the LORD has given you, and you may freely eat the meat in your hometown, as I have commanded you." - Deuteronomy 12, 21. They reason that "as I have commanded you" refers to Kosher mode of slauther - which the Torah doesn't describe (except the prohibition of blood consumption). So, they claim, the commandment refers to the Oral Law. As a Jew who wishes to follow the Torah as it is, without adhering to the Oral Law, I cannot accept that the commanded, which I've quoted, refers to a "Kosher" mode of slauther which is extra-Biblical - so what basis is there, in the Torah, for what you claim is a valid way of slauther; that animals must be killed painlessly [sic]? “This implication is derived from the kosher mode of slaughter, which is only applicable to domestic animals; it is practically impossible to catch gazelle with a trap and cut its throat in a precisely kosher manner.”

Obadiah, while I agree with the rest of the article, I find a mistake: the “Kosher” mode of slauther is not mentioned in the Torah. Rabbis apply the following verse as proof for the Oral Law:

“It might happen that the designated place of worship–the place the LORD your God chooses for his name to be honored–is a long way from your home. If so, you may butcher any of the cattle, sheep, or goats the LORD has given you, and you may freely eat the meat in your hometown, as I have commanded you.” – Deuteronomy 12, 21.

They reason that “as I have commanded you” refers to Kosher mode of slauther – which the Torah doesn’t describe (except the prohibition of blood consumption). So, they claim, the commandment refers to the Oral Law. As a Jew who wishes to follow the Torah as it is, without adhering to the Oral Law, I cannot accept that the commanded, which I’ve quoted, refers to a “Kosher” mode of slauther which is extra-Biblical – so what basis is there, in the Torah, for what you claim is a valid way of slauther; that animals must be killed painlessly [sic]?

]]> By: Frustrated http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-114141 Frustrated Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:34:30 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-114141 "The rational kosher laws Jews are not prohibited from eating pork specifically." 1) Traditional Jewish thought maintains that kosher laws are the perfect example for non-rational laws. 2) The prohibition for eating pork is Biblically explicated. "The prohibition is a trivial consequence of the commandment, You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals." Traditional Jewish thought maintains that animals may be harmed or killed for human use and that "You shall not murder" refers exclusively to humans. "Practical Judaism, however, recognizes that some killing is unavoidable. Sometimes, it is “kill or be killed,” and Judaism allows killing to save other lives. Jews can kill enemies and heinous criminals legally. People have to eat meat." You're confusing the rationale to kill humans in self-defense with the rationale to kill animals for their physical use. You also manage to mix in the civil laws of capital punishment--which have completely different rationales. "It is not that some animals are prohibited for food. All animals are prohibited, but out of necessity an exception is made for three or four of them." Traditional Jewish thought maintains that all species of bird--except for those prohibited Biblically--are kosher to eat. "the kosher mode of slaughter... is only applicable to domestic animals;" Traditional Jewish thought maintains that domestication is not the defining characteristic for making an animal kosher. There are domesticated animals which are not kosher and undomesticated animals which are kosher. "Judaism stipulates that animals must be killed painlessly." Untrue. Traditional Jewish thought maintains that the kosher manner to kill animals has nothing to do with being painless. It is not painless. "Judaism opposes recreational hunting. The choice of permitted animals is not accidental." Here the article has the first fully true sentences in the name of Judaism. “The rational kosher laws Jews are not prohibited from eating pork specifically.”
1) Traditional Jewish thought maintains that kosher laws are the perfect example for non-rational laws.
2) The prohibition for eating pork is Biblically explicated.

“The prohibition is a trivial consequence of the commandment, You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals.”
Traditional Jewish thought maintains that animals may be harmed or killed for human use and that “You shall not murder” refers exclusively to humans.

“Practical Judaism, however, recognizes that some killing is unavoidable. Sometimes, it is “kill or be killed,” and Judaism allows killing to save other lives. Jews can kill enemies and heinous criminals legally. People have to eat meat.”
You’re confusing the rationale to kill humans in self-defense with the rationale to kill animals for their physical use. You also manage to mix in the civil laws of capital punishment–which have completely different rationales.

“It is not that some animals are prohibited for food. All animals are prohibited, but out of necessity an exception is made for three or four of them.”
Traditional Jewish thought maintains that all species of bird–except for those prohibited Biblically–are kosher to eat.

“the kosher mode of slaughter… is only applicable to domestic animals;”
Traditional Jewish thought maintains that domestication is not the defining characteristic for making an animal kosher. There are domesticated animals which are not kosher and undomesticated animals which are kosher.

“Judaism stipulates that animals must be killed painlessly.”
Untrue. Traditional Jewish thought maintains that the kosher manner to kill animals has nothing to do with being painless. It is not painless.

“Judaism opposes recreational hunting. The choice of permitted animals is not accidental.”
Here the article has the first fully true sentences in the name of Judaism.

]]> By: Martyrs didn’t cease http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-112562 Martyrs didn’t cease Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:34:26 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-112562 [...] death at the hands of the Greco-Syrians rather than transgress the commandments. Stand-alone transgression of kosher laws is generally recognized as less important than life; narrowly speaking, Hannah should have [...] [...] death at the hands of the Greco-Syrians rather than transgress the commandments. Stand-alone transgression of kosher laws is generally recognized as less important than life; narrowly speaking, Hannah should have [...]

]]> By: daniel http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-74419 daniel Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:41:15 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-74419 Actually it's fascinating that mother milk is kosher, since humans do not have split hooves or chew the cud mother milk is just as kosher as ...dunno pig milk. Actually it’s fascinating that mother milk is kosher, since humans do not have split hooves or chew the cud mother milk is just as kosher as …dunno pig milk.

]]> By: Tobias http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-64680 Tobias Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:54:06 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-64680 Is the eating of humans really prohibited by kosher law? Does it even need to be? Is there a passage that mentions people as food? Besides, humans neither chew the cud nor have split hooves.... hence not clean... Where do you get the notion that prohibition imposes uncleanness? In Deut. 14-8 the guidelines for "uncleanness" are defined and animals are categorized as either clean or unclean based on these guidelines, not the other way around... Is the eating of humans really prohibited by kosher law? Does it even need to be? Is there a passage that mentions people as food? Besides, humans neither chew the cud nor have split hooves…. hence not clean…
Where do you get the notion that prohibition imposes uncleanness? In Deut. 14-8 the guidelines for “uncleanness” are defined and animals are categorized as either clean or unclean based on these guidelines, not the other way around…

]]> By: Danny the Admin http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-64540 Danny the Admin Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:04:18 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-64540 Humans are clean, yet prohibited under the kosher laws. Cleanness in the biblical context is ritual, whatever is prohibited is ritually unclean, not the other way around. Prohibition imposes uncleanness, rather than uncleanness makes for the prohibition. Humans are clean, yet prohibited under the kosher laws. Cleanness in the biblical context is ritual, whatever is prohibited is ritually unclean, not the other way around. Prohibition imposes uncleanness, rather than uncleanness makes for the prohibition.

]]> By: Tobias http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-64521 Tobias Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:59:26 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-64521 Where does it say that killing an animal is akin to murder? It does say specifically though in the afore mentioned passage that certain animals are unclean and may hence not be eaten. Also it is untrue to say that ants are intelligent. They may be industrious or methodical but intelligence implies that the subject have the ability to reason. Where does it say that killing an animal is akin to murder? It does say specifically though in the afore mentioned passage that certain animals are unclean and may hence not be eaten. Also it is untrue to say that ants are intelligent. They may be industrious or methodical but intelligence implies that the subject have the ability to reason.

]]> By: Danny the Admin http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-64506 Danny the Admin Sun, 07 Oct 2007 13:18:56 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-64506 That's a possibility That’s a possibility

]]> By: Tobias http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-64470 Tobias Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:04:48 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-64470 So are you saying that shrimp are kosher? So are you saying that shrimp are kosher?

]]> By: Danny the Admin http://samsonblinded.org/blog/105.htm/comment-page-1#comment-64467 Danny the Admin Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:47:32 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=105#comment-64467 "Scales" is an incorrect translation. The word actually means "a strong cover" like on a shield. Shrimp has chitin cover. "Fins" is a tentative translation. It's rather "something which allows the water to flow around," sort of. Shrimp has tentacles. “Scales” is an incorrect translation. The word actually means “a strong cover” like on a shield. Shrimp has chitin cover.
“Fins” is a tentative translation. It’s rather “something which allows the water to flow around,” sort of. Shrimp has tentacles.

]]>