Biblical Milk Taboos and Scientific Methodology with Ancient Nomenclature

doi:10.4236/nr.2011.24030

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Natural Resources, 2011, 2, 240-243

doi:10.4236/nr.2011.24030 Published Online December 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/nr)

Biblical Milk Taboos and Scientific Methodology

with Ancient Nomenclature

David Iluz1,2,3, Zohar Amar4, Michael Goldberg5,6, Uzi Merin7, Yitzhak Katz5,6

1The Mina & Everard Goodman Faculty of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel; 2Talpiot College, Holon, Israel;

3Beit Berl College, Kfar Saba, Israel; 4Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel;

5The Allergy and Immunology Institute, Assaf-Harofeh Medical Center, Zrifin, Israel; 6Department of Pediatrics, Sackler Faculty of

Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel; 7Department of Food Science, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan,

Israel.

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Received August 23rd, 2011; revised October 3rd, 2011; accepted October 10th, 2011.

ABSTRACT

Human society and its religions and cultures have laid out numerous guidelines, often involving dietary restrictions

(Deut. 14:4-5; Lev. 11:2-7). One such set of restrictions still observed by many Jews today relates to the distinction be-

tween pure and impure, edible and forbidden mammals (Talmud Bavli, Avoda Zara 35b). The ancient Jewish dietary

laws (kashrut) have often perplexed both gentiles and Jews, since they appear to be arbitrary. Here we demonstrate that

the separation of pure and impure animals coincides with taxonomic, biochemical, allergenic, and common nutritional

properties.

Keywords: Milk, Allergy, Mammals , Kosher

1. Introduction

The Biblical passages addressing mammalian kashrut

appear in the book of Deut.: “These are the beasts which

we may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the Ayyãl,

and the Zěbi and the Yahmữr, and the Aqqổ, and the

Dišổn, and the Těổ, and the zemer” (Deut 14:4 - 5). See

also (Lev. 11:2 - 7). There are disagreements on some

animal’s names (see Amar et al. [1]). As one notes from

reading the above, the passages listing the rules provide

examples of animals to illustrate their application, but

does not give any justification.

An additional characteristic distinction between kosher

and nonkosher animals was provided by the Talmud (T.

Bavli, Avoda Zara 35b), a collection of Rabbinic notes

about the Jewish oral tradition thought completed around

the 5th Century AD, as well as the treatise “The Medicine

Book of Asaph Harofe” (8th - 9th Century AD). Both cite

the ability to curdle milk as an additional sign distingui-

shing between these two groups [2]. According to this

criterion, it is only the milk of pure animals that curdles

while the milk of impure animals does not. The curdling

test was accepted by the medieval philosopher, physician,

and theologist, Moses Maimonides (referred to by others

as the Rambam) (1138-1204) in his treatise “Mishneh

Torah” (The Law in Review) (Maimonides Laws of For-

bidden Foods , 3, 12) and in subsequent religious texts.

2. Methods

To examine the validity and generality of this criterion,

the milk of various mammals was tested by two techni-

ques. The first test was carried out immediately after

milking using the enzyme rennin, which is the standard

method. The second technique utilized an Optigraph

(Ysebaert, Frepillon, France), which is an instrument that

measures the clotting time of milk and the degree of

firmness of the curd (Figure 1).

Speed tests were carried out on making the coagula-

tion using the Optigraph. 10 ml of sample of milk en-

tered to well on the device, temperature of 30 degree

determind. as soon as it reached a temperature set, have

been added 0.5 ml of coagulation enzyme solution—Fro-

mase 15 TL (Gist-Brocades nv, Delft, The Netherlands)

for coagulation speed of 600 seconds. the degree of firm-

ness of the curd is determined by the intensity of trans-

mission intensity light (in volts).

Description of the Optigraph Device Operations

The optigraph measures the intensity of the Near Infra

Red light beam in through one centimeter of the milk

sample, located in quartz glass. Reading in volts, treated

Biblical Milk Taboos and Scientific Methodology with Ancient Nomenclature241

6543210123456

Curd firmness (volt)

Time (min)

Figure 1. Example of results of curdling dairy cow (con-

tinuous line) as opposed to horse (dashed line ) as spee d tests,

coagulation and strength are obtained using the optigraph

device.

as mathematical power for drawing a shape like cham-

pagne glass. A straight line from the bottom of the curve

to the start of opening walls of the Cup is the time that

passes through the point of clotting (beginning of cheese

making) as soon as milk start making a cheese, the cur-

ves are opened due to strongest of cheese. The walls of

the Cup describes the strength of cheese and Creates a

drawing of a typical champagne Cup, with arbitrary

values of volts, called every few seconds and a continu-

ous curve.

Patients with a clinical history consistent with IgE-

mediated CMP allergy and a positive skin-prick test (SPT)

were evaluated for cross-sensitization to milk-derived

proteins from both kosher and non-kosher species. On

the other hand, in experimentation, milks were tested for

their ability to curdle after the addition of rennin, and

clotting time and degree of firmness were quantitated by

the Optigraph method.

3. Results

The results of the analyses showed the formation of cur-

dling in the milk of the cow (Bos taurus), sheep (Ovis

aries), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), buffalo (Bubalus

bubalis), fallow deer (Dama d. dama), red deer (Cervus

elaphus), ibex (Capra ibex), and the reticulated giraffe

(Giraffa camelopardalis reticulate)—all defined as rit-

ually pure animals. In contrast, no curdling was observed

in the milk of the mammals which the Torah defines as

ritually impure: the horse (Equus caballus), donkey (Eq-

uus asinus), camel (Camelus dromedaries), alpaca (La-

ma pacos), pig (Sus scrofa domestica), rabbit (Orycto-

lagus cuniculus), monkey (Macaca fascicularis), and

dog (Canis familiaris ). Human milk was also included in

this category (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Results of testing clotting of different dairy mammals as they are graphically; shows two arms that create a kind of

anti-shaped cup, those are pure animals while a straight line or narrow shows impure animals. The values on the vertical axis

shows the time in seconds until the beginning of clotting.

Biblical Milk Taboos and Scientific Methodology with Ancient Nomenclature

242

Another common denominator shared by the milks of

the various kosher-animal species is their allergenic

potential. The impetus to study the allergenic potential of

kosher-versus nonkosher-derived milk was based on an

intriguing article demonstrating that the evolutionary

relationships of kosher-animal milk casein genes were

more closely related to each other than to nonkosher

species (Figure 3) [3] (casein is one of the more highly

allergenic proteins in milk).

This was followed by a study aimed at determining

whether a patient allergic to the IgE in cow’s milk showed

differences in cross reactivity to kosher versus non-kosher

animals [4]. All the patients who were allergic to cow’s

milk protein (CMP) tested positive by the skin-prick test

(SPT) for cross-reactivity to goat, ibex, and giraffe (n =

27, p = 0). In contrast, reactivity to milk from the non-

kosher animal species was significantly lower: only one

out of 22 patients (4.5%) cross-reacted to milk of horse,

6/27 (20.83%) to pig, 7/27 (25.9%) to dog, 5/27 to alpaca

(18.5%), 5/27 to camel (18.5%), and 3/27 (11.1%) to

rabbit. Eight controls did not react to any of the milk

species tested (Figure 4). Indeed, camel milk has been

suggested as a protein source for nutrition for children

allergic to cow milk [5].

We, thus, began to try to find out whether there were

any unique sequences that would explain why milk-

protein allergy could be divided into responses to kosher

and nonkosher. We noted that a unique stretch of eight

amino acids is common to the κ-casein of the milk from

all kosher (pure) animals [6]. This sequence is not pre-

sent in the κ-casein of any of the non-pure animals. It is

noteworthy that while no detailed mechanism has been

published for the curdling of milk in general [7], it is ge-

nerally accepted that the firmness of the curd requires the

Figure 3. Taxonomic relationships of pure versus impure

mammals (after Gatesy et al. 1996 [3]). The pure mammals

are marked.

Figure 4. Allergenic responses of patients sensitized to cow’s

milk to milk of pure and impure mammals.

formation of casein multimers, which would be facili-

tated by the cysteine present in this eight-amino-acid

stretch.

One has to marvel at the fact that the Biblical dis-

tinction between kosher and nonkosher can be re-estab-

lished based on modern methods and parameters totally

unknown in antiquity.

4. Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. Zvy Dubinsky of Bar-Ilan Uni-

versity, Israel, for advice and comments. We thank

Sharon Victor for the English editing

REFERENCES

[1] Z. Amar, R. Bouchnick and G. Bar-Oz, “The Contribu-

tion of Archaeozoology to the Identification of the Ritu-

ally Clean Ungulates Mentioned in the Hebrew Bible,”

Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. 10, 2009, pp. 2-24.

[2] Z. Montener, “Introduction to Asaph Harofe Book,” Ko-

rot, Jerusalem, 1958.

[3] J. Gatesy, C. Hayashi, M. A. Cronin and P. Arctander,

“Evidence from Milk Casein Genes that Cetaceans are

Close Relatives of Hippopotamid Artiodactyls,” Mole-

cular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 13, No. 7, 1996, pp.

954-963.

[4] Y. Katz, M. R. Goldberg, G. Zadik-Mnuhin, M. Leshno

and E. Heyman, “Cross-Sensitization between Milk Pro-

teins: Reactivity to a “Kosher” Epitope?” Israel Medical

Association Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2008, pp. 85-88.

[5] E. I. El-Agamy, M. Nawar, S. M. Shamsi, S. Awad and F.

W. Haenlein, “Are Camel Milk Proteins Convenient to

the Nutrition of Cow Milk Allergic Children?” Small

Ruminant Research, Vol. 82, 2009, pp. 1-6.

doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.12.016

[6] M. Goldberg, R. Friedman and Y. Katz, “A Unique 8-

Amino Acid Stretch Defines the Kappa-casein Sequence

of Kosher Animal Species: Responsible for cross Sensi-

tization between Milk Proteins?,” Journal of Allergy and

Clinical Immunology, Vol. 123, No. 2, 2009, p. S183.

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.12.694

[7] T. Ikonen, S. Morri, A. M. Tyrisevä, O. Ruottinen and M.

Biblical Milk Taboos and Scientific Methodology with Ancient Nomenclature243

Ojala, “Genetic and Phenotypic Correlations between

Milk Coagulation Properties, Milk Production Traits, So-

matic Cell Count, Casein Content, and pH of Milk,”

Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 87, No. 2, 2004, pp. 458-

467. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73185-9