A basic laws of kashrut come in the Torah's Book of Leviticus, with their details placed down in the oral law (the Mishnah and the Talmud) and statute per Shulkhan Arukh and later rabbinical authorities.

A word kosher has been borrowed by many languages.

Types of foods

Nutrients come kosher while it meet completely criteria that Jewish law applies to food. Disconfirming characteristics will range from either either a presence of a mixture of meat & milk, to the apply of green goods from Israel that has non been tithed properly, or the apply of cooking utensils which got antecedently been utilized for non-terefah food.

Identification of kosher foods

Store-boughten nutrients may be identified when kosher per presence of the hechsher (plural hechsherim), the in writing symbol that indicates that the food hwhen been qualified as kosher by a rabbinic authority. (This will exist as an single rabbi, however is additional typically the rabbinical organization.) A usual symbol is the "OU", the U within the circle (â“Š), standing for the Union of Orthodox Congregations. Several rabbis & organizations, but, keep close at hand their have certification mark, and a more symbols come as well many to listings.

A hechsherim of certain authorities come every now and again considered shut-in by certain more authorities. The solitary K is another time utilized as a symbol for kashrut, however when this symbol just can not become trademarked (a method by which more symbols come protected from either abuse), it doesn't imply anything differently a fact that the company producing the food considers it to become kosher.

These are nin sufficient to understand the names of ingredients on the product label sequentially to determine a food's kosher status, when numerous items are non involved in that listing, like pan lubricator & release offices (which can be from either lard), flavouring (possibly "natural flavorings" may be derived from non-terefah substances) & others. It might, notwithstanding, identify apparently unkosher substances present around food.

Producers of food things & artificial additive could email Jewish authorities to stand their product deemed kosher. The committee may visit their facilities to inspect production methods & contents of the product & issue the certificate whenever all about is sequentially. Inside several product classes, constant oversight is needed.

For various reasons, like changes within manufacturing processes, products known to exist as kosher inside of these day may not become kosher tomorrow; the vary in lubricating oil to of these containing tallow, for example. Typically, these changes is coordinated by having a supervising rabbi or even even organization, to assure that newly packaging, which may non indicate any hechsher or kashrut, is utilized for the newly formulation. However within a few shells, a supply of preprinted labels using a hechsher could however locate its way onto a today non-terefah product; for such reasons, there exists an active "grapevine" among a Jewish community, besides when newspapers & periodicals, distinguishing which products come okay, confutable, too when products which develop get kosher however whose labels keep close at hand however to carry a hechsher.

Reasons for the Biblical dietary laws
There continues to exist as the debate on the purposes & meaning of the laws on Kashrut.

Inside Jewish philosophy it is recognized that many of the 613 mitzvot cannot be explained rationally. It is categorized when chukim, comprising such laws when a Red Heifer (Numbers 19). There are ternion basic points of review on these laws: One see holds that these laws wash have a cause, however these are non understood because a ultimate explanation for mitzvot is beyond the person intellect. A 2nd see holds that virtually all of a laws stand a bit of historical and/or even dietetic significance (like preventing the consumption of unhealthy food, or differentiating oneself from either non-Jews across dietetical restrictions; and A third look at holds that these laws use at times there are no meaning more than to instill obedience.

This learn from, but, has been rejected by virtually all definitive & modern Jewish authorities, & by modern biblical scholars. E.g., Maimonides holds that tons the laws given by God have a understanding, that i am permitted to search out what these reasons can be, & that i should sense comfortable around caring that rational reasons survive for all of God's laws in the Torah, possibly whenever i am non sure as shooting of what a select few one reasons come. For Maimonides, a idea that God gave laws forgoing any cause is anathema.

Ritual purity and holiness

Based on data from a Biblical book of Leviticus, the purpose of the laws is related to ritual purity & sanctitude. Indeed, a Hebrew word for "holiness" is etymologically related 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: "A laws reminded Israel what kinda behaviour was required of her, that she got been chosen to exist as sanctum within an unclean globe."

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 anyone, even oneself.

Symbolic purpose

During the first few centuries of the common era some philosophers held that the laws of kashrut were symbolic in character. In this view, kosher animals represent virtues, while non-kosher animals represent vices. The first indication of this view can be found in the 1st century BCE Letter of Aristeas (par. 145-148, 153). It later reappears in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, and in the writings of some of the early Church fathers.

This hypothesis has long since been rejected by most Jewish and Christian scholars. Modern biblical criticism also has found nothing to support this hypothesis, although the concept of the pig as a particularly 'unclean' animal persists among Jews.

Although the symbolic explanation for kashrut has been largely rejected, a number of authorities maintain that the laws are intended to promote ethical and moral behaviour. A recent authority who has reexamined the symbolic/ethical meaning of kashrut is Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Germany, 19th century).

To some degree, the prohibition on combining milk with meat represents a symbolic separation between death, represented by the flesh of a dead animal, and life, represented by the milk required to sustain a newborn creature. The often-quoted humane component to this law is also of symbolic value; the Torah prohibits us from 'seething the kid in its mother's milk', a practice cruel only in concept, which would not be understood as cruelty by either the kid or its mother and would not cause them additional suffering; but which could still potentially inflame a human's taste for ultimate power over those creatures who are weaker. Thus, Kashrut prohibits the practice itself, even if the resulting mixture is to be discarded.

Similarly, the prohibition against consuming carnivorous mammals and birds, 'loathsome crawling creatures', and scavengers, as well as the prohibition against consuming sick or diseased animals, would seem to rely, at least in part, on their perceived symbolic character.

Maintenance of a separate culture
Related to the concept of kashrut being one aspect of Judaism as a separate people is the practical outcome of maintaining a specific national diet, similar to the concept of reproductive isolation in speciation. Just as two species who can interbreed will merge into one, the theory of cultural evolution requires a degree of social separation for two cultures to remain distinct entities. The laws of Kashrut had the effect of preventing socialization and intermarriage with non-Jews, helping the Jewish community maintain its identity. Wenham writes that Hygiene
The laws of kashrut were once thought by some to have been based on hygiene. It was believed by some that kosher animals were healthier to eat than non-kosher animals. It was also noted that the laws of purity (Leviticus 11–15) not only describe the difference between clean and unclean animals, but also describe other phenomena that appear to be related to health. For instance, glatt, the requirement that lungs be checked to be free of adhesions, would prevent consumption of animals who had been infected with tuberculosis; similarly, the ban on slaughtering of an unconscious animal would eliminate many sick and possibly infectious animals from being consumed. Such a rationale seems reasonable when considering the laws prohibiting the consumption of carrion birds or birds of prey (which are advantageous scavengers), as they may carry disease from the carrion they consume; shellfish, which as filter feeders can accumulate harmful parasites or toxins; or pork, which can harbor trichinosis if not properly cooked. Thus, it was natural for many to assume that all the laws of kashrut were merely hygienic in intent and origin. One of the rabbinical authorities that mention the hygiene hypothesis is Maimonides (in his Guide for the Perplexed).

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%. [http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/Macht1953.pdf] 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 harmful physiological effects of meat and milk combinations and Dr. Macht also compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat [http://ohr.edu/ask/ask199.htm].

Macht's conclusions were challenged by some scientist in a Seventh Day Adventist publication although one partially affirmed his study [http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/web/ministry-1954-March-p37.htm] 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). Perhaps some of the criticism of Macht's study by the scientists was invalid due to a misunderstanding of kosher classification and Scriptural translation issues.[http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/] [http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fishfaq/][http://ohr.edu/ask/ask210.htm] Also, Macht states in the peer reviewed journal Science that his technique is particularly good for detecting zoological based toxins (as opposed to plant based toxins), and therefore perhaps one could conclude it was was suitable for testing fish, meat, and poultry. (The toxicological method that Dr. Macht used was also cited in the Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. See references). Lastly, the long term effects of eating kosher/non-kosher is not yet determined by science if non-kosher food is more toxic.

A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant relationship between cirrhosis and pork consumption (Dr. Macht found that swine meat was more toxic than food the Torah declared clean). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2858627&dopt=Abstract] However, in relationship to the Torah it must be admitted that modern day pork raising is different than ancient methods. Perhaps, modern swine ingest or are exposed to toxins in the modern commercial swine raising industry. Of course, as noted earlier even unclean foods have their benefits and what is nutritionally sound in the long term from a empirical science standpoint in relation to clean and unclean food in general appears to be an unanswered question.

Cahill and Warnock reported in Biblical Archaeological Review that the toilets of a Jewish household in Jerusalem were examined and no parasites or infectious agents were found. A similar study done regarding Egyptians revealed eggs from Schistosoma, Trichinella, wire worm and tapeworms, all found in pork. These organisms can cause significant chronic diseases. Of course, this is only one finding but perhaps noteworthy.

For a number of reasons, however, this idea has fallen out of favor among biblical scholars. Fruits and vegetables may be eaten without prohibition even though there are many poisonous herbs, seeds, berries and fruits. Additionally, this hypothesis does not explain other parts of the Jewish dietary laws; for instance forbidding the consumption of fish without true scales, such as sharks, fruit from trees which are less than four years old, or residual blood in meat.

This is not to say that there could be no connection between the priestly laws of kashrut and hygiene. As in the dietary codes of many societies, it only makes sense that, over time, hygiene would likely play some role in the development of the dietary laws of Leviticus. The process of cultural evolution would eventually favor such a society over one that persisted in consumption of unhealthy foods.

Other reasons
There is also the suggestion of a practical aspect to some of the laws of Kashrut; for instance, the pig would not be a wise choice of domestic animal for a nation which was, at the time, a nomadic desert tribe.

The laws of Kashrut also conform to a general rule that human societies tend to separate food animals from companion animals, whether pets or working animals. For instance, where dogs are kept as pets, they are not eaten; in most countries, where horses are used as draft animals they are not eaten; and in a few countries where oxen and cows are used as draft animals, such as India, they are not eaten.

Like the laws for the slaughter of animals, laws against shellfish could actually be for the good of the creature. There is no painless method for the preparation of "bottom feeding" lobster and crab.

It is also possible that there are multiple reasons for the laws of Kashrut, with each law serving one or more than one purpose.

U.S. Laws regarding use of word Kosher

In some states in the U.S. (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Virginia), as well as local ordinances in two counties in Florida and the Independent City of Baltimore, statutes defined "kosher" and made it a crime to sell a product which was called "kosher" if, in general, it was not processed in accordance with the Jewish religion. Earlier court decisions upheld some of these laws. The courts have since determined that because this represents a state establishment of a religious practice, when such laws have been challenged, they have been struck down. Baltimore's City ordinance creating a kosher law was found to be unconstitutional: [http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/oct95/941918.p.html Barghout v. Bureau of Kosher Meat & Food Control], 66 F. 3d 1337 (4th Cir. 1995). New Jersey's Kosher laws were found to violate the Establishment clauses of both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment: ''Perretti v. Ran-Dav's County Kosher Inc.'', 289 N.J. Super 618, 674 A. 2d 647 (Superior Ct. Appellate Div 1996). The opinion was affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in which it found that the State's use of "Orthodox Jewish law" as a basis for the definition of kosher was an adoption of substantive religious standards which violated the State and Federal constitutions. 129 N.J. 155. The State's response was to create a new law which avoids any definition of a standard for what is or is not considered kosher. Instead, establishments which claim to be kosher must publicize what they mean by that, and the State will check to insure that this standard is adhered to. For example, kosher restaurants must display a poster (provided by the Kosher Food Enforcement Bureau) on which they display the name of their rabbinic certifier, how often he inspects the place, whether or not he requires all ingredients to be kosher-supervised, and so on. In this manner, government enforcement becomes a consumer-protection issue, and avoids the problems of advancing any particular religious view. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the challenged provisions of New York's Kosher Fraud law "in their face violate a Establishment Clause because it too entangle a State of Future York by owning religion & impermissibly advance Orthodox Judaism." [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=case&no=009116&exact=1 Commack Self-Serv. Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss], 294 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2002), 45 ATLA L. Rep. 282 (Oct. 2002). The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, and denied certiorari (123 S. Ct. 1250 (mem.) (2003)).

How kashrut is viewed by Judaism today

Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism hold that Jews should follow the laws of kashrut. Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism hold that these laws are no longer binding. Most Jews in Reform Judaism have considered these laws a hindrance, rather than a facilitator, of piety; this is still the mainstream Reform position. Some parts of the Reform community have begun to move towards a more traditional position. This tradition-leaning faction agrees with mainstream Reform that the rules concerning kashrut are no longer binding, but holds that keeping kosher is an important way for people to bring holiness into their lives. Thus Jews are encouraged to consider adopting some or all of the rules of kashrut on a voluntary basis. The Reconstructionist movement advocates that its members accept some of the rules of kashrut, but does so in a non-binding fashion; their stance on kashrut is the same as the tradition-leaning wing of Reform. The different movements' positions on kashrut are reflective of their broader perspectives on Jewish law as a whole.

Many Jews who do not meet the complete requirements of Kashrut nevertheless maintain some subset of the laws; for instance, abstaining from pork or shellfish. Many Jews will likewise avoid drinking milk with a meat dish, without knowing why doing so seems alien. Similarly, many keep a degree of Kashrut at home while having no problems eating in a non-kosher restaurant.

In English, the term kosher is frequently used in a metaphorical sense to mean "acceptable" or "sanctioned", which is its conventional meaning in Hebrew. It is also part of some common product names. For example, "kosher salt" (technically "kashering salt") is a form of salt which has irregularly-shaped crystals, making it particularly suitable for preparing meat in accordance with Kashrut law because the increased surface area of the crystals absorbs blood more effectively. Likewise, a "kosher pickle" is a particular style of pickle that originated in Eastern European kosher delis with a distinctive flavor.

Consumer-protection laws in many jurisdictions prohibit use of the term "kosher" unless it is shown to conform to Jewish dietary laws, however this will be defined differently for different jurisdictions and situations. For example, in some places the law may require that a rabbi certify the kashrut, and in others it is sufficient that the manufacturer believes the product to be kosher. Most packaged food products that are labelled "kosher" will therefore have some level of certification of compliance with the laws of kashrut, though individuals must determine if that level is adequate for themselves.

A new movement in Israel (reported in the Chicago Jewish Star, September 30, 2005, front page) demands that an establishment - a grocery store or restaurant - will only be considered fully kosher if its employees are paid a decent wage and treated fairly, and there is access for the handicapped. This will require a second certificate of kashrut in addition to the standard one.

Vegetarianism
Since there are few laws of Kashrut restricting the consumption of plant products it follows that a truly vegetarian meal would usually be inherently Kosher (as long as the milk and wine and bread are supervised and the utensils are never used for meat or unsupervised milk). In practice, however, those who rigorously follow the laws of Kashrut do not automatically regard all restaurants or prepared or canned food which claim to be vegetarian as Kosher, due to some doubt as to whether the degree of supervision maintained is in all cases sufficiently stringent. Many vegetarian restaurants and producers of vegetarian foods do acquire a hechsher, certifying that a Rabbinical organization has approved of them as Kosher, since this requires far less additional care on their part if they are truly vegetarian. Certain vegetables would still need to be checked for insect infestation and a Jew would still need to turn on the pilot light on the oven to ensure the food was bishul Yisrael.

The situation is not always reversible, however; although parve food can contain neither meat nor dairy, that label on a product cannot be always used by vegetarians as a reliable indication, since Kashrut considers fish to be parve. However, in practice it is rare to find fish products in parve foods; moreover, because of potential issues of mixing meat and fish (see Fish and seafood) many Kashrut supervising authorities specifically indicate the presence of fish products when they are found in parve foods.

People who have specific dietary needs should be aware that their standards for certain concepts may differ from the halachic standards for similar concepts. Many coffee creamers currently sold in the United States are labeled as "non-dairy", yet also have a "D" alongside their hechsher, which indicates a dairy status. This is because of an ingredient (usually sodium caseinate) which is derived from milk. The rabbis consider it to be close enough to milk that it cannot be mixed with meat, but the US government considers it to lack the nutritional value of milk. Such products are also unsuitable for vegans and other strict dairy abstainers. On the other hand, kashrut does recognize some processes as capable of converting a meat or dairy product into a parve one. For example, rennet is made from stomach linings, yet is acceptable for making kosher cheese, but such cheeses might not be acceptable to some vegetarians, who would eat only cheese made from a vegetarian rennin. The same applies to kosher gelatin which in some cases is an animal product, despite its parve status. Kashrut has procedures by which equipment can be cleaned of its previous non-kosher use, but that might be inadequate for vegetarians, or other religions, or others. For example, dairy manufacturing equipment can be cleaned well enough that the rabbis will grant parve status to products manufactured afterward. Nevertheless, someone with a strong allergic sensitivity to dairy products might still react to the dairy residue, and that is why some products will have a "milk" warning on a product which is legitimately parve.

Genesis 1:29 states "And God said: Behold, I have given busy people each herb giving seed which is upon a face of all the gloexist as, & each tree that has seed-giving fruit - to we it shall be for food." According to many classical Jewish Bible commentators, this means that God's original plan was for mankind to be vegetarian, and that God later gave permission for man to eat meat because of man's weak nature. However, others argue that people may eat animals because God gave Eve and Adam dominion over them. Some prominent rabbis have been vegetarian, among them the first Chief Rabbi of pre-state Israel, Abraham Isaac Kook, former Chief Rabbi of Israel Shlomo Goren and former Cheif Rabbi of Haifa She'ar-Yashuv Cohen.

Some Orthodox authorities have ruled that it is forbidden for an individual to become a vegetarian if they do so because they believe in animal rights; however, they have also ruled that vegetarianism is allowed for pragmatic reasons (if kosher meat is expensive or hard to come by in their area), health concerns, or for reasons of personal taste (if someone finds meat unpalatable). Some believe that Halakha encourages the eating of meat at the Sabbath and Festival meals, and some Orthodox Jews who are otherwise vegetarian will nevertheless consume meat at these meals.

Other important Rabbis have argued otherwise: former Chief Rabbi of Ireland David Rosen considered "the consumption of meat when halachically unacceptable", and made a strong case for [http://www.jewishveg.com/ Jewish Vegetarianism]

Kashrut and animal welfare

The practice of kosher slaughter emphasizes the sharpness of the knife and the accuracy and precision of the skill of the shochet, in order to slit the jugular of the animal with an absolute minimum of pain and suffering. In general, over the years authorities have ruled that any unnecessary suffering by the animal can render otherwise kosher meat traife. Nevertheless, the method of slaughter used in strict adherence to Jewish law has been criticized as being inhumane by a number of animal rights organizations, in particular because animals are killed without the use of anesthesia, often administered to cows by firing a bolt into the brain or by electric shock to the head. (Traditional kashrut would often not allow for anesthesia, as it may severely injure the animal before it is slaughtered, rendering it Treifa, and because Kashrut prohibits slaughter of an unconscious animal, which might be diseased.) This has resulted in several restrictions or even an outright ban on kosher meat in a number of countries, sometimes encompassing related practices such as Muslim halal slaughter, though other countries grant ritualistic slaughter such as kashrut special exemption from the relevant regulations. However, some bans were in place before animal rights had become a general public concern.

Some animal rights groups object to some forms of kosher slaughter, claiming it can take several minutes for the animal to die and can often cause immense suffering. Jewish groups point to studies showing that the technique is no more painful than conventional techniques, and in most cases quicker and less painful; the emphasis on flawless procedure and tools contrasts with the often sloppy production line methodology of the slaughterhouse resulting in failure to stun the animal, as often described by animal rights advocates in other contexts. However, the conclusions of these studies are sometimes rejected by animal rights advocates. In addition, there are campaigns to have the practice of ritualistic slaughter globally banned, similar to such campaigns which have taken historically place throughout the ages, usually motivated by subtle anti-Semitism.

In some ways, modern slaughtering practices and kashrut practices clash, although both may have good intentions with respect to hygiene and animal welfare; for instance, kashrut prohibits slaughter of an unconscious animal, for reasons of avoiding consumption of a diseased animal as well as the possibility of inhumane means of anesthesia, and relies on the skill of the shochet and the sharpness of the knife to slit the jugular as painlessly as possible. On the other hand, for reasons of hygiene, modern slaughterhouse regulations prohibit the carcass of an animal from falling into the blood of another, so that animals are often suspended by a leg before being slaughtered; they would normally be stunned by a blow to the head to prevent suffering in this process, but the prohibition of slaughter of an unconscious animal prevents this for kosher slaughter. Of course, other, more humane, methods of supporting the carcass of the animal after it is slaughtered are available, but since they are more expensive and not routinely used for nonkosher slaughter, slaughterhouses are reluctant to adopt them, and when they do often greatly raise the price of the meat to compensate for the nonstandard technique.

Kashrut and Islam
Islam has its own rules for food, called halal. Some foods - for example, the flesh of camels - can be prepared in a halal manner, but is never kosher. On the other hand, other foods - for example, wine - can be prepared in a kosher manner, but is never acceptable in Islam. For more information, see Halaal#Comparison with Kashrut.

Notes
Jane Cahill and Peter Warnock, "It experienced to happen, Scientist Examines Ancient Bathrooms of Romans 586B.C." Biblical Archeological Review, May/June 1991 The rennet must be Kosher, either microbial or from special productions of animal rennet using Kosher calf stomachs.[http://oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single/2828/] Retrieved August 10, 2005.

[http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fishfaq/ Consumers’ FAQ’s on Kosher fish- Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America by rabbinical scholar Chaim Goldberg] [http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/ KASHRUT.COM - Kosher and Non-kosher fish] [http://www.pacifichealthcenter.com/updates/29.asp Kline, Monte Ph.D., The Dietary Law] [http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/Macht1953.pdf Macht, D. M.D., (1953). “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,�] Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 27. 444-450 Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. : Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1941, 26: 597 Macht, D. I. Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184 Macht, D.I. , Science 1930, 71 :302 [http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/web/ministry-1954-March-p37.htm Ministry Magazine, March 1953, p37-38 "This Question of Unclean Meats"] Responses to Macht's study from heads of biology depts. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2858627&dopt=Abstract Nanji AA, French SW. Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis. Lancet. 1985 Mar 23;1(8430):681-3.] [http://ohr.edu/ask/ask210.htm Ohr Somayach Website – Ohr.edu - Ask the Rabbi - Are swans kosher?]