4

I have been reading a lot of questions concerning kosher foods, to get a better understanding of what it means for something to be kosher. To an atheist, this site is very helpful.

But as a chemistry student, I find some of the concepts related to kashrut quite surprising, particularly the ones relating to taste transferral.

This led me to wonder how - if - kashrut has been affected by Science?

CHM
  • 157
  • 3
  • 2
    By "science" do you mean the way the world around us works, or do you mean the opinions of scientists over the ages? – b a Aug 08 '12 at 04:20
  • 1
    @ba I refer to what is described in here. I am concerned about knowledge and scientific facts that have withstood falsification as of yet. There is no absolute, but there's such a thing as a rock solid pile of evidence/experimental data - that's what I'm talking about. – CHM Aug 08 '12 at 04:25
  • 2
    Still, can you give examples of the issues that you question? – YDK Aug 08 '12 at 05:05
  • I'm not questioning or wanting to deliberate on beliefs, I am simply asking if such belief has been affected by Science. My question mentions taste transferral, if that helps. While my question was at first too broad, I think it's now perfectly answerable, and probably is a simple yes/no question? – CHM Aug 08 '12 at 05:10
  • The simple answer to your question is yes, as many of the kosher laws we have are based on the scientific method. But there are many general rules which preclude using this method. – YDK Aug 08 '12 at 05:33
  • related? - http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11269/does-artificial-meat-grown-in-a-petri-dish-have-the-halachic-status-of-meat – Menachem Aug 08 '12 at 05:54
  • 1
    can you elaborate on "I find some of the concepts related to kashrut quite surprising, particularly the ones relating to taste transferral." -- some examples, perhaps. – Menachem Aug 08 '12 at 05:56
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/14297 – msh210 Aug 08 '12 at 06:20
  • 3
    Something to keep in mind: Judaism works at the level of the perception of a human. Not at the level of absolutes. If you keep this in mind some of the rules will make more sense. (For example taste: What matters is not what happened, but what a human can perceive i.e. taste.) – Ariel Aug 08 '12 at 11:03
  • @Menachem I don't know what the OP thought of, but it seems odd that a 2 degree difference in temperature between two liquids -- one which can scald a baby's belly and one that can't -- would affect their ability to impart flavor into stainless steel (whatever it means to have flavor in stainless steel). – Double AA Aug 13 '12 at 21:19
  • @DoubleAA: There has to be a point which separates it from not hot enough to hot enough. For example, how great is the distance between above boiling point and below boiling point? – Menachem Aug 14 '12 at 04:49
  • @Menachem Actually, that isn't true. You can have a range of temperatures with the rate at which they impart flavor. There is no need for a point to split when ALL the flavor is imparted instantly, to when NO flavor is imparted at all. Not only is there no need to define such a point, but the idea that such a point should exist at all is rather absurd in reality. – Double AA Jan 22 '14 at 23:22

1 Answers1

3

Kashrut has not been affected by science - that is, halakhic rulings issued by recognized kashrut organizations regarding the kashrut of any food have not changed due to scientific discoveries. (Kashrut has been affected in the sense that it needs to react to new ingredients and cooking methods created by science. Individual rabbis have ruled in accordance with science.)

For example, there were kashrut concerns about parasites in fish. Modern biology demonstrated that Chazal's understanding of parasites is incorrect. However, most rabbis ruled that the halachot regarding the kashrut of these fish remain unaffected, and in practice, the kashrut organizations ruled that they remain kosher. (R' Elyashiv is the main dissenter; see article for details.)

For more information, please see:

Shmuel
  • 10,533
  • 46
  • 98
  • I don't get it. Is it only "most rabbis" who support your opening sentence? – Double AA Apr 25 '14 at 04:31
  • Yes. Clarified. – Shmuel Apr 25 '14 at 04:52
  • I don't understand why certain major kashrut organizations define "kashrut". – Double AA Apr 25 '14 at 13:53
  • Do you eat food that isn't certified? De facto, these organizations define "kashrut" as is practiced by Jewry today. If someone isn't sure if a single particular item isn't kosher, they may ask their LOR, but for issues that affect everyone, such as scientific discoveries, these organizations are the only one with the knowledge and expertise to give a psak, and the LOR will recognize that. – Shmuel Apr 25 '14 at 19:41
  • 1
    Sometimes. Depends on the food. I see no reason why their decisions are binding. There are foods that are certified which I won't eat and foods which wouldn't be certified which I will eat. Just because there is a monopoly in the supply doesn't create a "minhag" which precludes other possibilities. – Double AA Apr 25 '14 at 21:53
  • @Double AA There are many foods today due to different farming methods which are highly suspect. My experience of rabbonim is that first of all they are not 'with' it and second of all since they already give a hechsher on it one has to prove its really traifo before they will remove it. Something that they would not have given a hechsher on in the first place. Many rabbonim in Israel dont know English, and those that do dont use the internet and have no idea of how farming is changing. – preferred May 25 '14 at 13:04
  • Actually as J. Dvid Bleich pointed out, the issue of parasites in fish is thoroughly independent of spontaneous generation. Accordingly, there is no evidence of a codified mistake carrying weight. – mevaqesh Dec 16 '15 at 06:39