fried bacon troubles.

[Joel M. Eichen]

He does that too .......

[Joel M. Eichen]

Yup, he probably knows ........ let's hope he tells you.

[Binyamin Dissen]

:>> Okay not you got me thinking ...... what exactly is the definition of :>> a hoof? Not a scientific definition, a religious definition.

:>I don't know. I never took much interest in religious details. I'll ask :>my brother-in-law. He's a rabbi.

Because the Bible says so. Leviticus 11:4.

[Joel M. Eichen]

That's what I think too. Besides, I heard of pastrami sandwich, lean corned beef, Reuben, but I never heard of pickled camel sandwich.

Joel

[Joel M. Eichen]

It says camels are not Kosher?

[Binyamin Dissen]

:>>:>I don't know. I never took much interest in religious details. I'll ask :>>:>my brother-in-law. He's a rabbi.

:>>Because the Bible says so. Leviticus 11:4.

:>It says camels are not Kosher?

Yes. Take a look.

[Joel M. Eichen]

Will do!

[Joel M. Eichen]

WoW!

It says, "Don't be eatin' no camel, Dude!"

***

Leviticus 11:4

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

[max]

well duh.

if G*d had let the Israelites eat camels, they'd have been stuck in Sinai forever. He always has a reason.

.max sheesh.

[Joel M. Eichen]

Divideth not the hoof is a little hazy. Does the camel divideth not the hoof because the hoof is undivided or does he divideth not the hoof because he ain't got one! This means he's got paws.

Either way, I know ..... It won't be appearing on the Glatt Kosher list any time soon.

Joel

[Joel M. Eichen]

I love it! THANKS!

[Joel M. Eichen]

R E P L Y

And there is no point in looking at the other menu at Ratner's either ... it ain't on the menu!

Joel

[PaPaPeng]

Now you know why dogs chase cars.

[Amber Gibson]

well it can't get any clearer than that, can it. Don't eat the camels guys LOL!

[aem]

I know most of this sub-thread is just for fun, but it still begs the question, why does anyone care about the dietary restrictions of superstitious desert nomads 4000 years ago? -aem

[Bob Ward]

Not even camel toes?

[Rod Speed]

They're fools. It really is that basic.

Most of them still consider that its fine to stone people to death for adultery, and crap on about the standard of proof required.

[Jerry Avins]

OK: "There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof." Now I have to take a look at a camel. :-) Thanks.

Jerry

[aem]

Well, that's nonsense. It's true that Leviticus, in addition to the dietary restrictions, prescribes death by stoning for a variety of offenses. But it's obviously untrue that most contemporary observers of kosher laws advocate stoning. As far as I know, the only nations that still prescribe death by stoning are those under the control of fundamental Muslims. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all share the same roots, it's which parts of the old writings they choose to retain that differentiates them.

And that's my last post on this way OT matter. Sorry I intruded. -aem

[Tony P.]

For the reading challenged:

And for those who enjoy picking apart the Bible: