actually there is two... Duck-billed Platypus and the Achidna(sp?)
Breed of Geese that tastes like pork?
- Thread starter TrystInn
- Start date
I still thinking that it has to be the technique of raising the geese. Although muscovy ducks are kosher in Israel, they aren't here in North America. Neither muscovies nor moulards are, because a 19th Century rabbi from Germany or Eastern Europe didn't recognize or like them. Don't ask the halakhah of kashrut varies from region to region.
m.kitchengirl :
Hallal is not Kosher.... its Muslim butchered meat
Chief Rabbi of Israel wouldn't have any way to know whether it tastes like pork, or not.
I am intrigued to hear if anyone else knows what this may be. I have had Muscovy MANY times & have never thought it tastes like pork. The Spanish are doing some crazy things with food, and have wonderful traditions around food that are very rich but not widely discussed outside of Spain. It could very well be a particular breed of goose, fed a specialized diet.
You could try calling a Hallal Market & asking them if they carry Kosher Proscuitto, and if so, what it is made of.
I am intrigued to hear if anyone else knows what this may be. I have had Muscovy MANY times & have never thought it tastes like pork. The Spanish are doing some crazy things with food, and have wonderful traditions around food that are very rich but not widely discussed outside of Spain. It could very well be a particular breed of goose, fed a specialized diet.
You could try calling a Hallal Market & asking them if they carry Kosher Proscuitto, and if so, what it is made of.
Hallal is not Kosher.... its Muslim butchered meat
I'm not well versed on the Leviticus laws, are animals with a solid hoof (like horse) permitted? I've wondered if the mule foot hog would technically be kosher pork if so.
- Thread starter
- #25
Quote:
Nope, they aren't. The laws of kashrut (aka kosher laws) have multiple requirements, if the animal doesn't meet all standards, its not acceptable to eat. In the case of the pig, its because its not a ruminant.
From Wikipedia:
Mammals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven hooves can be kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically excluded (Leviticus 11:38).[6][7]
Fwiw, my family is Jewish and we haven't kept kosher since my great-grandfather's time. When he left Germany, he refused to keep kosher because it was one of the ways the Nazis were able to track down Jews.
Nope, they aren't. The laws of kashrut (aka kosher laws) have multiple requirements, if the animal doesn't meet all standards, its not acceptable to eat. In the case of the pig, its because its not a ruminant.
From Wikipedia:
Mammals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven hooves can be kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically excluded (Leviticus 11:38).[6][7]
Fwiw, my family is Jewish and we haven't kept kosher since my great-grandfather's time. When he left Germany, he refused to keep kosher because it was one of the ways the Nazis were able to track down Jews.
I can really appreciate the wisdom of the old testament, it must have been pretty difficult to process pork cleanly and safely when Leviticus was written and downright dangerous to eat.
- Oct 24, 2009
- 181
- 4
- 111
I can really appreciate the wisdom of the old testament, it must have been pretty difficult to process pork cleanly and safely when Leviticus was written and downright dangerous to eat.
Actually, it may have been more of a "this is what we eat, to make sure we are different from those other people". The Hebrews were a wandering people, and sheep & goats were a good fit. Less so pigs, which are more a homestead sort of animal. And while the Hebrews were wanderers, they were not deep desert people who had camels, which are not kosher because the camel doesn't have a split hoof. When the Muslim traditions were established, they were less restrictive, in part because they were recruiting people from the deep desert.
Any way one splits it, if one decides to adhere to a religious path, with associated restrictions, rather than just doing what one wants, I think that's greatness. If more of us had the self-discipline to hold to dietary restriction, well, I for one could still fit into my favorite jeans. I'm just as happy to be Catholic, which means a whole month and a half of catfish every year. yum!
Actually, it may have been more of a "this is what we eat, to make sure we are different from those other people". The Hebrews were a wandering people, and sheep & goats were a good fit. Less so pigs, which are more a homestead sort of animal. And while the Hebrews were wanderers, they were not deep desert people who had camels, which are not kosher because the camel doesn't have a split hoof. When the Muslim traditions were established, they were less restrictive, in part because they were recruiting people from the deep desert.
Any way one splits it, if one decides to adhere to a religious path, with associated restrictions, rather than just doing what one wants, I think that's greatness. If more of us had the self-discipline to hold to dietary restriction, well, I for one could still fit into my favorite jeans. I'm just as happy to be Catholic, which means a whole month and a half of catfish every year. yum!
Quote:
There are actually five extant species of mammal that lay eggs.
Ornithorhynchus anatinus
Tachyglossus aculeatus
Zaglossus bruijni
Zaglossus attenboroughi
Zaglossus bartoni
There are actually five extant species of mammal that lay eggs.
Ornithorhynchus anatinus
Tachyglossus aculeatus
Zaglossus bruijni
Zaglossus attenboroughi
Zaglossus bartoni
Last edited:
Quote:
Nope, they aren't. The laws of kashrut (aka kosher laws) have multiple requirements, if the animal doesn't meet all standards, its not acceptable to eat. In the case of the pig, its because its not a ruminant.
From Wikipedia:
Mammals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven hooves can be kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically excluded (Leviticus 11:38).[6][7]
Fwiw, my family is Jewish and we haven't kept kosher since my great-grandfather's time. When he left Germany, he refused to keep kosher because it was one of the ways the Nazis were able to track down Jews.
"The hare" is erroneously listed in Leviticus as being non-kosher because it lacks one characteristic, when in fact, it lacks two. Lagamorphs (rabbits, hares, pikas) do not chew their cud, despite what the bible says.
Nope, they aren't. The laws of kashrut (aka kosher laws) have multiple requirements, if the animal doesn't meet all standards, its not acceptable to eat. In the case of the pig, its because its not a ruminant.
From Wikipedia:
Mammals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and have cloven hooves can be kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically excluded (Leviticus 11:38).[6][7]
Fwiw, my family is Jewish and we haven't kept kosher since my great-grandfather's time. When he left Germany, he refused to keep kosher because it was one of the ways the Nazis were able to track down Jews.
"The hare" is erroneously listed in Leviticus as being non-kosher because it lacks one characteristic, when in fact, it lacks two. Lagamorphs (rabbits, hares, pikas) do not chew their cud, despite what the bible says.
I know this is an old post, but I don't believe it's reasonable to accuse the bible of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.
Consider what rabbits do. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.
Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”
Just figured I'd throw that out there.
Consider what rabbits do. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.
Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.
But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”
Just figured I'd throw that out there.
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
-
-
Open Contest Official BYC Poultry Caption Contest 05-23-25 Pic by AidKD- Started by TwoCrows
- Replies: 67
-
