 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next Last |
Store-bought foods can be identified as kosher by the presence of a hechsher, a graphical symbol that indicates that the food has been certified as kosher by a rabbinic authority. The most common symbol is the "OU": a U inside a circle, standing for the Union of Orthodox Congregations. Each organization, however, has its own certification mark, and the other symbols are too numerous to list.
The hechsherim of certain authorities are sometimes considered invalid by certain other authorities. A solitary K is sometimes used as a symbol for kashrut, but as this symbol cannot be trademarked (the method by which other symbols are protected from misuse), it does not indicate anything other than the fact that the company producing the food considers it to be kosher.
Another way to check the kashrut of an item is to read the list of ingredients; however, many observers of kashrut do not consider this to be sufficient. It can, however, identify obviously unkosher substances present in food.
Producers of food items and food additives can contact Jewish authorities to have their product deemed kosher. A committee will visit their facilities to inspect production methods and contents of the product and issue a certificate if everything is in order.
For various reasons, such as changes in manufacturing processes, previously kosher products can 'lose their hechsher'; a change in lubricating oil to one containing tallow, for instance. In such cases, the supply of preprinted labels with the hechsher may still find its way onto the now nonkosher product; for such reasons, there is an active 'grapevine' among the Jewish community identifying with very little time lag 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 on the purposes and meaning of the laws regarding Kashrut.
In Jewish philosophy it is recognised that of the 613 mitzvot, a large number cannot be explained rationally. They are categorised as "chukim", comprising such laws as the Red Heifer ( Numeri 19). There two points of view regarding these laws; one believes that these laws do have a reason but that the ultimate explanation for mitzvot is beyond the human intellect, while the other believes that these laws have no meaning other than to instill obedience.
This view, however, has been rejected by most classical and modern Jewish authorities, and by modern biblical scholars. For example, Maimonides holds that all the laws given by God have a reason, that we are permitted to seek out what these reasons may be, and that we should feel comfortable in knowing that rational reasons exist for all of God's laws in the Torah, even if we are not sure of what some of these reasons are. For Maimonides, the idea that God gave laws without any reason is anathema.
According to the Biblical book of Leviticus, the purpose of the laws is related to ritual purity and holiness. Indeed, the Hebrew word for "holiness" is etymologically related to the Hebrew word for "distinction" or "separation." This idea is generally accepted by most Jews today, and by many modern biblical scholars. Cultural anthropologist Mary Douglas has written an important work on just how the Israelites may have used the idea of distinction as a way to create holiness. Her seminal work, Purity and Danger (1966), is still studied today. One theory widely accepted today is that the laws serve as a distinction between the Israelites and the non-Israelite nations of the world. Gordon Wenham writes:
Similarly, 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, the aspects of Kosher slaughter which emphasize and incorporate the need to avoid unnecessary suffering of the animal remind 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. Modern psychology confirms that those who have no empathy for the suffering or death of animals are greatly at risk for also having no regard for suffering and death of their fellow humans.
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 oneself.
| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|