Talk:Unclean animals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Unclean animals is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:
Peer review Unclean animals has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Moved per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (singular vs plural). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

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%. [1] 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 [2] 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)

I've had a run at cleaning up the article (with a lot of waffle deleted) but I am by no means a subject matter expert on this topic. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've put back in the important content of this gibberish.  ALKIVAR™ 09:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
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)

The article doesn't quote (or even mention) the "fins and scales" law (that allows salmon but not lobster), except by example (and in the crab caption). Unfortunately, I don't have an English-language bible, so I can't fix it. Also, I've never seen these boxes around quotes before. Do they have a purpose? --Taejo | Talk 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Christianity

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/tɔk tə mi 12:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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 christ" in 95% of the materials i've read so far. Thanks for a pointer in a different direction.  ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
You are landing yourself in deep theological waters here. In short, Jesus advocated to ignore all rules (see Matthew 15) and was frequently accused by the Pharisees of scoring points. Mark 3:1-6 is a typical 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)

[edit] Gelatine

According to gelatin, gelatine can be made from cows, which are kosher. I think there must be some other reason gelatine is non-kosher, but I'm having a hard time finding out what it is. Some relevant web pages I've found are: [3], [4] (which says gelatine isn't kosher because of how it's produced), and [5] (which seems to say gelatine could be kosher but it's avoided anyway). All very confusing. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Its derived from hoof and ground bone ... both of which are considered non kosher even on a cow. Or at least thats what i've found/read....  ALKIVAR™ 06:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Still, the point is, it isn't necesarily derived from an unclean animal (the topic of this article). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No no, hoof and bone can certainly be kosher. The problem is not that it's from some part of a cow, but that it's from a cow that was not slaughtered in accordance with halacha. A related issue is that the kosher gelatin would be considered meat (and could not be eaten with dairy). Ariel. 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kashrut and the pig

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)

[edit] Topicality

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)

[edit] It is ambiguous

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Mohammed's superstitious beliefs

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)

I agree, and I've removed the claim that Mohammed had superstitious beliefs, since Mohammed's "superstitious beliefs" are the center of Islam. I would agree he did have superstituous beliefs, but I also think most religious figures meet that qualification. Since Mohammed is the foundation of the religion, Wikipedia can't make the outright claim that his beliefs were superstition any more than it can make the same claim about Jesus or Moses. --Mr. Billion 06:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia wasn't making any outright claim. The article clearly set it out as the opinion of a certain group. I furthermore disagree with the idea that we should protect the image of religious leaders simply because they're well-respected. I think it makes sense to say that Mohammed as a man might have had some superstitions which stood in his way as being a prophet of God, for instance. This is frequently said of Christian figures, such as Paul of Tarsus, whose teachings form the basis of many Christian opinions on gender and sex roles. Rereverting is in poor taste, I think. NickelShoe 07:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

It wasn't clearly the opinion of any certain group. It was attributed in the sentence to "many modern scholars of the Quran," and it was misleading not to mention that this group of "scholars" is a website devoted to arguing that the Bible is better than the Quran. The group Answering Islam is a plainly biased organization, and the article should not repeat their opinions without clearly labeling exactly whose opinions they are. I also don't see how this one-sided group qualifies as "many modern scholars."

The passage included a tacit acceptance of their opinion by assuming that the central part of their explanation was reality. The passage:

This view is contested by many modern scholars of the Qu'ran, many of whom conclude that this is nothing more than Mohammed's superstitious beliefs

tacitly assumes that Mohammed actually did have superstitious beliefs, along with all the negative connotations of superstition. "Joe's opinion is contested by many modern experts, many of whom conclude that his opinion is nothing more than a result of his insanity" assumes that Joe is insane. "Fred said that Alice was very good-looking, but Stan thinks it was just the beer talking" implies that Fred was actually drinking beer.

I never said we should protect the images of religious leaders. Image doesn't matter. As I understand it, Mohammed's teachings and rules of conduct were supposed to be divinely inspired, so to say that they were nothing more than Mohammed's superstitions is to undercut the basis for the religion. --Mr. Billion 00:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'm sorry if I've bothered you. I don't want you to get frustrated and walk away from an article you've worked hard to improve; I just saw something that looked very non-neutral and think the article would be better without it. This is one alternative source I've found, but it's a personal page and doesn't cover dogs beyond just a few sentences. It's not a great cite, but the author doesn't have any apparent agenda. He or she also makes an interesting point: Dogs carry rabies, and "In a region where rabies was, and still is, endemic, the Islamic responsibility to undergo a cleansing after being 'contaminated' by dog saliva has obvious public health merit." I'll see if I can find any other cites. --Mr. Billion 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)



Written by Bookwench, Wednesday 3 May:

Hey all, seems that some of this is a little off topic. I just think that the terms "unclean" and "taboo" are very different. Unclean implies religious attitudes, taboo implies superstition and culture. There may be some overlap but to merge the two entries would be a disservice to both. The concept of something not being clean; being somehow dirty, contaminated, and foul; is not the same as Taboo, forbidden, frightening, unspeakable. The idea of unclean foods involves spiritual purity, the way some ethical vegitarians believe that to eat any meat also ingests the pain and death of the animal and burdens your soul with a portion of the taking of the life. The idea of taboo foods involves the American aversion to eating things that disgust society's ideas of proprietary. It's a socially obnoxious thing to do but won't get you in trouble spiritually. So, the basic difference seems to be between a social stigma and an actual spiritual belief - very different things to the believer, frequently observed with contempt by the outsider.

I would agree that linking them is a good idea though.

Cheers all... just remember, it's all the same in the end.

[edit] Article Structure

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)

[edit] article is a huge mess

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)

[edit] Not Kosher

Animals that are not kosher may be kept and used (like horses and dogs) and have no negative conotation in judaism. They just can not be eaten, and are called unclean (only) in that context.

[edit] The 8 Shartzim

There are the animals that (when dead) can make a person Tameh. From (Vayikra 11:29-38).

Like many animals mentioned in the torah the exact animals are unclear, but are generally written as:

There is great controversy over exactly which animals are described, maybe I should have listed the Hebrew names, anyway see: [6] for more discussion of various possibilities.

[edit] Pig

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)

[edit] Penguins

I don't know if halachically penguins are birds or not. If they are birds the the current caption is incorrect. In any event, regardless of the halacha for penguins it might be best to use a simpler example. JoshuaZ 07:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right about them being a complex example, if you want to get rid of them go ahead. Halachically I think they would be calssified as land animals, not birds or fish. They are not birds because they do not fly (a bat halachically is a bird, because it flies), and they are not fish because they do not live 100% in the water (or probably more accurately, they do not die when removed from water). So that leaves them as generic land animals.
The torah does not actually say 'Birds' or 'Fish', it says animals that fly, and animals that live in the water, so it doesn't matter what they are scientifically, it matters how they act and live. Ariel. 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The reasons given in the penguins caption for being unclean is annulled by the fact that chickens are clean. Chickens don't chew cud either and their hooves(?) are as cloven as penguins.Talltim 13:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, the caption under bat is incorrect as well. 'Flying creeping things' refers to flying insects, not bats which are considered 'birds' in the Torah's terminology. In fact, bats are specifically forbidden as the last item on a list of forbidden birds at Lev. 11:19. Orthoprax 08:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the penguin picture and caption. They're obviously not kosher, but the reasons are hard to explain without devoting an awful lot of text to this one species that nobody ever eats anyway. --Steven J. Anderson 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Where would the Jews and the Muslims of the ancient world have seen penguins, exactly?


[edit] Need a new tag

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:

 This article or section describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style.
Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.

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 {{context}} 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)

[edit] "Unclean"

I can't speak for Christianity or Islam, but for Judaism the term "unclean" is a misnomer and a gross misunderstanding of the principles of Kashrut and other laws of animal consumption. "Impure" or even "spiritually impure" (bit clunkier, but more precise) would be much more accurate. This point is already made in the article itself under the header "Clean animals in Judaism" which was copy-pasted from when it was its own article. The confusion of cleanliness and spiritual purity is a longstanding one, and one that Wikipedia should ideally be immune to. I haven't decided whether or not this necessitates a page move, but it is certainly necessary to change the problematic terminology accordingly. Please comment.--DLandTALK 21:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)