Subject: Jews dont eat pork?

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 15:14:10 CDT

Does anybody know why Jewish People dont eat pork? I mean the real
reason..not the the religous reason.

                                    thanks
                                          allen sears
                                          [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Bill Stuart)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 04:02:07 GMT

>reason..not the the religous reason.

	First of all, the religious reason is a real reason. 

	The prohibition dates back to egyptian time, pork was associated
with Set and was forbidden to the priests.

	One possible reason is that a Shepard, such as Abel, herded "evil"
creatures such as pigs and goats. When Cain slew him, possibly because the
animals had eaten some of his crops, the animals became associated with
death. Sheep and cattle are "good" creatures in the bible. 

--
50's : Run! Run! Before it eats you alive!
70's : Andromeda is a tiny nuclear reactor...
90's : Hi folks, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh show

---

From: [email-masked] (Nick Maclaren)
Date: 26 Sep 1994 19:01:09 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>	First of all, the religious reason is a real reason. 

This is true.

>death. Sheep and cattle are "good" creatures in the bible. 

Fascinating.  I have never heard these variants before, but they
make a good tale!  They are not, of course, true.

Look up any good encyclopaedia about the origins of the Jewish faith,
the Books of Moses and so on.  You won't find any clear answers, but
you will find enough to see what I mean.

Pigs have more parasites than most other meat animals, of the type
that can be transferred to humans by the latter eating the former's
flesh.  This is believed to be the rational basis for the religious
injunction - much of Leviticus is sanitary regulations.

Up until recently (say 1950), it was unsafe to eat undercooked pork
even in the UK.  This is why you will not find any recipes for
'rare' pork, whereas they abound for beef, lamb and game.

Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  [email-masked]
Tel.:  +44 223 334761    Fax:  +44 223 334679

---

From: [email-masked] (Pete Vincent)
Date: 26 Sep 1994 19:42:03 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

` Does anybody know why Jewish People dont eat pork? I mean the real
` reason..not the the religous reason.

A likely candidate involves the fact that Egyptian mummies have been
found with evidence of trichinosis. It wouldn't have taken too much
insight to make the connection, and encode it for the benefit of
your offspring. 

==========================================================================
    [email-masked]   <== faster       %    Pete Vincent
    [email-masked]      % Disclaimer: all I know I
                                         % learned from reading Usenet.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 26 Sep 1994 18:16:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Bill Stuart) writes:
>>reason..not the the religous reason.>

I believe you are thinking of a sociological/anthropological
reason for the religious reason. (Religion does not exist
independently of the surrounding culture.)

The explanation you are looking for is found in Cows, Pigs,
Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture by Marvin Harris.
Random House, 1974.  I will summarize a portion of Harris'
explanation here, but it is worth your while to secure a
copy of his book.

The Hebrews were mostly pastoral nomads; in some ares they 
had contact with farmers and became semisedentary, but their 
herds were always most important.

The domestic animals that are adapted to the desert are
cattle, sheep and goats. Ruminents digest cellulose more 
efficiently than other mammals. Pigs are omnivorous, but 
they do better on foods low in cellulose, and they cannot 
live on grass alone. In fact, they compete directly with
humans for food. Pigs also do not sweat, and will die in
temperatures over 98 degrees if they do not have shade.
The Jordan Valley regularly reaches temps in excess of 110
degrees. 

Preindustrial pastoralists use their animals for milk,
hides, fiber, dung, and draft work, and only occasional
meat. They cannot afford the luxury of raising an animal
for meat alone. When the population of the Middle East
increased drastically, deforestation made it even harder
to raise pork--and yet, the fatty, tender meat was very
tempting. Hence the need for a religious taboo to prevent
people from wasting their limited resources on a luxury
animal that could lead to ecological and economic disaster.

If you are at all interested in how culture works to help
human beings adapt to a wide variety of environments, you 
should seek out this book.

                          Terri Jones

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 27 Sep 1994 03:03:26 GMT

>insight to make the connection, and encode it for the benefit of
 Again, according to Harris, this arguement doesn't really make
sense since cows, sheep and goats carry parasites and diseases
much more troublesome than trichinosis. Brucellosis is transmitted
by sheep and goats. This is a real problem in underdeveloped
nations. There is also anthrax, a disease transmitted by sheep and 
goats, but not pigs. Trichinosis is seldom fatal, and often is
completely asymptomatic. Anthrax, however, was known in biblical
times as a horrible way to die, and the relationship to animals
was known.  

The dangers of pork are greatly exaggerated. Our modern pork
is well nigh parasite free. Pork is safe at 150 degrees, or medium,
but most people cook pork to 180 degrees or more because, being
so fatty, it is one of the few meats that tastes better well done.

                                  Terri Jones
                                  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Charlie Sorsby)
Date: 27 Sep 1994 19:11:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Nick Maclaren) writes:
= In article <[email-masked]>,
= Bill Stuart <[email-masked]> wrote:
= >In a previous article, [email-masked] () says:
= >
= >>Does anybody know why Jewish People dont eat pork? I mean the real
= >>reason..not the the religous reason.
[...]
= >	The prohibition dates back to egyptian time, pork was associated
= >with Set and was forbidden to the priests.
[...]
= Fascinating.  I have never heard these variants before, but they
= make a good tale!  They are not, of course, true.
[...]
= Pigs have more parasites than most other meat animals, of the type
= that can be transferred to humans by the latter eating the former's
= flesh.  This is believed to be the rational basis for the religious
= injunction - much of Leviticus is sanitary regulations.
= 
= Up until recently (say 1950), it was unsafe to eat undercooked pork
= even in the UK.  This is why you will not find any recipes for
= 'rare' pork, whereas they abound for beef, lamb and game.

I have often heard this parasitism reason given (let's call it the
trychinosis theory).  Indeed, I almost posted it myself.  But, upon
reflection, I find it less than satisfactory.

Let's think about that a bit.  We're speaking, here, of biblical
times.  No modern medical (or any other) science of any kind.  What
I find hard to believe is that a correlation would be made between
illness caused by parasites in pork and the eating of that pork.
Certainly such illness doesn't appear forthwith.  It takes time to
manifest itself.  By the time, for example, trychinosis would
become apparent, a person would have consumed any number of things.
Which of them caused the illness?  The pork?  The beef?  The mutton?
The vegetables?  The wine?  Or was it not something consumed at all
but, rather, the weather, a curse, ...?

Frankly, as I've followed this thread, the religious/superstitious
reasons suggested (or others of that type) begin to seem more
plausible to me than the "scientific" reasons (e.g. parasitism)
that I've so often heard.

Of course it is quite possible that *some* people did not eat pork
for religious/superstitious reasons and others observed that those
populations had a lower incidence of certain illnesses/diseases
than those who did eat pork.  I can well see how that could cause
the antipork views to *spread*--I just find it hard to imagine them
originating as a way of avoiding disease.

This is all opinion on my part, of course.  Just my current
thinking and I've no idea why I should have suddenly even thought
of this.  Perhaps the people of biblical times were more
sophisticated than I give them credit for and I'm dead wrong.

-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Jane Beckman)
Date: 28 Sep 94 00:11:53 GMT

>reason..not the the religous reason.

Is this a test question?

BTW, for the celebrity anecdote, Mervyn and Kitty Leroy (he
produced Wizard of Oz, among other things) were having
breakfast with my folks, back in the '50's, in an airport
restaurant.  They were Jewish.  Mervyn ordered ham and eggs. 
Kitty choked on her coffee.  "You're having what?" she asked.
"Ham and eggs," he replied, dawning realization in his eyes.  
Seems he'd been having ham with his breakfasts "on the road" on 
location for years, and never saw fit to inform his kosher-keeping
wife.  He forgot she was along, and ordered his usual breakfast.  ;-)

--
  Jilara   [[email-masked]]
That's how freedom will end: not with a bang, but with a rustle of file
folders.  If you love any of your rights, defend all of them!
-Joe Chew, on the net

---

From: [email-masked] (Todd D. Ellner)
Date: 27 Sep 1994 19:36:00 -0700

>reason..not the the religous reason.

This just passed through s.c.jewish, and it got a universal reply from the
Orthodox to the most assimilated. We don't eat pork because it is forbidden.
G-d said not to. There may or may not be anthropological and medical reasons
why the prohibition makes sense, but the fundamental reason _is_ the real one.
It's the same reason we do not embalm our dead or wear wool and linen mixed
together.

Todd
-- 
Todd Ellner 
[email-masked]
(503)557-1572

---

From: [email-masked] (John E. Taylor III)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 12:13:35 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Nick

> injunction - much of Leviticus is sanitary regulations.

I've long suspected that this reasoning is a hindsight attempt to "explain"
the existence of a religious rule by applying today's logic to something
that had an origin outside logic, i.e., a decree from God or a cultural
practice that became codified.  If you pursue the concept I think you'll
find several prohibitions in Leviticus that aren't particularly consistent
with the sanitary regulation theme, and are rather arbitrary.

(Are we in the wrong newsgroup with this?)

--
John Taylor    (W3ZID)     |  "The opinions expressed are those of the
[email-masked] |   writer and not of Rohm and Haas Company."

---

From: [email-masked] (Lederman)
Date: 30 Sep 94 12:56:33 EST

We will probably never know the "real" reason why the
 prohibition on pork first came about, but there is one
 explanation that I think makes more sense than the others like
 spoilage and parasites, and that is competition for resources.

    Mammals are relatively inefficient at turning food into meat. 
 I don't remember the exact figures, but it can run 10 pounds or
 more of grain to one pound of flesh.  In the Middle East, where
 western civilization developed, there are large areas which are
 suitable for grazing, but not for other kinds of agriculture. 
 Grazing animals (which are kosher, because they chew a cud) can
 eat grass, which people can't eat, and turn it into food (milk
 and meat) which people can eat.  So sheep and cows are kosher.
 They form an additional source of food without competing directly
 for resources.  (You may notice that nomadic people all over
 Europe and Asia raise sheep, cows, goats, or camels, which are
 grazers, but not pigs.)

    But pigs (in this part of the world) would be eating grain and
 other food that people can also eat.  So food which could feed
 several people would go into raising a pig, which only the rich
 could afford to eat, and which would feed perhaps only a tenth as
 many people as if the grain was consumed directly.  So pigs
 aren't kosher.

    In other parts of the world (like China) pigs were fed on
 scraps and other foods that people didn't eat directly, and form
 an extra source of food (though again, traditionally the poorest
 segments of society ate meat vary rarely, if at all.  Fish, which
 cost less and consume less food to produce a given amount of
 meat, were the big source of protein.)  Yes, spoilage and
 parasites are a problem in the hot climate of Southern China and
 Asia, but they seem to have developed ways to live with them.

    As I said: nobody can prove this.  But it makes more sense
 than any other explanation I've heard so far.

-- 
B. Z. Lederman.   My personal opinions.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bill Stuart)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 06:34:55 GMT

>make a good tale!  They are not, of course, true.

	They are true enough that a debate has erupted on alt.satanism
about the reasons why goats and pigs are "evil" and why cattle are not.

>you will find enough to see what I mean.

	No clear answers, by clear enough to condemn me as wrong..
>'rare' pork, whereas they abound for beef, lamb and game.

	Up untill today, it's not safe to eat raw beef either. Cattle
carries trinchinosis as well.
	I don't know who advised you to eat undercooked wild animals, but
that is the silliest thing i have ever heard in my life. 
	Eating undercooked pork is pushing it. The pork industry has
hygenic standards. Wild animals don't have walk-in clinics, and much of
the avaliable game comes from the wild.