A rebbe of mine who was a very big talmid chochom used to say, "The only reason why we don't eat giraffe is the same reason why the goyim don't eat giraffe. Because giraffe meat is tough and gross!"
Many Arabs eat camels. I've seen the sh'chita done. They only shecht young camels - up to about a year or so, when they're only about 2m tall. Why? Because beyond that, they're just too tough to eat.
“We’ve had about a hundred thousand visitors tell us that it’s because we don’t know where on the neck to shecht it. This is a myth.”
I remember mentioning to my parents when I was a child that the reason we don’t eat giraffe is because we don’t know where to shecht it. If I recall correctly, they seemed to accept what I said as an interesting fact.
I don’t recall if I was taught it in class by a teacher (maybe in 2nd grade or so); or if one of my know-it-all schoolmates (you know who I mean, they’re probably in every school, and some people never grow out of that mind set - they know everything better than anyone else) told it to me in the schoolyard.
Regardless, this is a great example of how in modern society, we still rely on myths -similar to how Tosafot and Aristotle might have done so thousands of years ago.
Of course. Global warming, transgender genes, racial equality - what are these, if not examples of modern day mythology? Reading the Torah reading this past week, and the warnings of false prophets that will arise preaching the worship of false gods, and the Torah's admonition not to add or detract from the real Torah - it's almost impossible NOT to think of the contemporary mythology all arounds us.
You raise an excellent point, though -- the scientist is concerned with the health of the overall population; the armchair activist frets about the one particular animal they see on the news.
A slightly strained analogy, moving over to humans -- R' Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l pointed out that there are *oskim b'tzorchei tzibur*, people who care about the community, and then there are *oskim b'tzorchei rabbim* -- those who care about Individual A, Individual B, ... but not the bigger picture. Rare individuals can see both ... but there can be conflicts between the two goals.
"Nor is it because one needs a mesorah. Aside from the unusual view of the Chazon Ish, normative halachic opinion is that no mesorah is needed for mammals which possess the kosher signs. That’s why you can buy bison with OU kosher certification."
The Shach in Yoreh Deah 80:1 says the following:
אם הם מפוצלות כרוכות והדורות וחרוקות – עיין פי׳ של דברים אלו בב״י ולפי שאין לנו עתה אלא מה שקבלנו במסורת וכדלקמן ספ״ב גבי סימני העוף קצרתי.
The implication is that the Shach thinks that just like a mesorah is needed for birds, following the psak of the Rama in YD 82:3, a mesorah is required for חיות. The Darkei Teshuva 80:2 questions this, being that the implication in the Tur and BY in both YD 80 and 82 is that a) you can rely on סימנים for animals and b) only birds need a mesorah. The Darkei Teshuva concludes that the Shach means that chelev can only be eaten with a mesorah.
Be that as it may, I have heard the Shach quoted as proof that a mesorah is needed for all animals. It could be that that is the way the חזון איש understood the Shach.
Rav Belsky wrote a Teshuva on this an raised your points, and said rgards to חלב and כיסוי דם one should be stringent, otherwise he held bison is fine. In addition, he maintained that there was a mesorah on it in south America for a few hundred years, even though it is a younger mesorah than even turkey. As far as the Shach, see pri megadim there, not like the חזון איש. Rav Belsky says this as well.
How can it be that all you good God-fearing Yidden who never miss Dad Yomi can support viciously torturing hundreds of billions of innocent animals, while a wicked apikoiress like me who’s totally controlled by his taivos and who lacks The Torah’s Objective Morality has the compassion and self-control to forswear all animal products? What’s going on?
I'm impressed that you are following your moral code; that is a hard thing to do. Meat is really good and it's hard to give that up. Respect. 🙌
Personally, from an atheist standpoint I would go with the social contract morality which animals are not part of and would eat meat - nothing is actually immoral when nothing means anything.
When I first went atheist I was vegan for two years and it was hard. I listened to Matt Dillahunty and he introduced me to this social contract idea and I really looked into it and thought about it and I fully support that position. I wonder if my 'taiva' for meat affecting my thinking; I don't think so.
Now, about four years later I am frum again, and my main argument to the atheist like you is that the second the wave goes the other way, you'll be the first to follow.
“Meat is really good and it's hard to give that up.”
Yeah, no doubt about that. The thing that did it for me was the realization that the pleasure one receives from eating meat is not remotely commensurate to the suffering required to produce it. Not even close. Eating meat is the ultimate act of pure selfishness and nihilism.
"The thing that did it for me was the realization that the pleasure one receives from eating meat is not remotely commensurate to the suffering required to produce it. Not even close."
God also allows chattel slavery. And killing witches. And exterminating all the Israelites’ rivals to the Holy Land in jingoistic fervor. Does not reflect well on God!
Just regarding the toughness aspect that some have raised, arabs eat YOUNG camels before they get old and their meat toughens, and that would be possible also for giraffes.
It's prudent for me to spell out that I'm not addressing other aspects that would make this story unbelievable.
Did the rabbi explain the circumstances in which he found someone who was slaughtering and preparing the meat according to halacha? Did he give ANY details that made the story plausible?
I will reach out to my friend to get more details (He's on Vacation now and hard to reach) but this could've been 40 years ago and in an under-the-radar circumstance, and therefore most of the hurdles Rabbi Slifkin mentioned would not stand in the way.
As far as how he found someone who knew what he was doing, get to know him but I don't think there is someone alive today who is a bigger expert in Chulin than him, and he doesn't need to find someone else to do the Shchita and nikkur. He's a Rav in Baltimore and heads Star-K kashrus.
I understand the Rabbi can do shchita and all other necessary rituals, but could he find a kosher slaughter house in the US equipped and willing to transport, handle, and position a 1000 lb. (min.) beast? I guess such facilities r available in Africa in places where exotic food r prized.
In any case, eating kosher giraffe is infrequent enough, that I think a super-gadol in Chulin would write up the entire experience in detail, and not leave it as a throw-away line in a shmooz. (Oh ya, I ate giraffe once.)
You are raising good points, I'll have to get back to you when I get in touch with my source. But I'll say in the meantime that knowing this Rav, it does not surprise me that he would just throw out a one-liner and then move on.
I think I will do that, but I am afraid I will not be able to get thru his people to get him on the phone. I cannot think of a good reason to tell them for my call. Where is he located?
Anyone can get through to him. Gist Avenue in Bawl'imore. But come to think of it, maybe he'll be afraid of the political ramifications & he'll dodge the question.
We keep chickens. Some of the practices you described aren't compatible with kosher shchita, which to my understanding requires healthy chickens.
It's actually surprisingly easy for a chicken to break a leg. In the case of if a chicken that broke its leg and then healed, we've been wondering about whether its eggs would be kosher.
Excellent. Is it true the giraffe can make a very loud sound and sees everything though keeps quiet? I learned that's its segula from not speaking lashon hara.
Why not? We find a talking cow in a halachic (non-aggadic) gemara in Nazir 10a, 'אמרה פרה זו הריני נזירה אם עומדת אני, וכו and, also in the halachic context, the tongue of an animal is called a מדבר in Kiddushin 25a. Besides, a famous bon mot was said in connection with what Shimshon did with the Lechi that it was not the only time people were harmed through the jawbone of an ass. So a cow speaking loshon hora, why not?
I have searched and could not find one more than a children's book called Erev Shabbos Lost in the Zoo by Devorah-Leah with illustration by Siegmund Forst where it hints to this idea. Could be a Torah of mine from another life. It's a segula, so it has protection -- doesn't mean it's assur or that it can't ever be eaten -- just that it's extremely difficult.
However, I don’t think that article implies the Talmud refers to snakes, dogs, and flies as SPEAKING lashon hara.
Rather lashon hara, and it’s human speakers are compared to characteristics
each of those animals; to quote from that article:
“Lashon ha’ra lulls you and you don’t realize how terrible it is. The snake bite doesn’t look so bad. It’s just two tiny holes, but the venom from the snake, like venom from lashon ha’ra, is insidious and deadly. ” lashon hara doesn’t seem so bad (just some words - sticks and stones …) just like two tiny holes from a snake bite. But in reality it is just as insidious as the venom.
“The Gemara compares an habitual speaker of lashon ha’ra to a mad dog. A mad dog’s mouth is always open, ready to bark at any moment. The speaker of lashon ha’ra is always looking for an opportunity to speak lashon ha’ra. The mad dog is always drooling and leaves a disgusting trail of saliva in the same way a speaker of lashon ha’ra leaves a disgusting trail of impurity.” Characteristics related to dogs are comparable to lashon hara- dogs are always ready to bark, and lashon hara speakers are always ready with something to say; the disgusting trail of a dog’s drool is compared to the lashon hara.
“Habitual speakers of lashon ha’ra are compared to flies. Flies land on open sores and wounds. In the same way, speakers of lashon ha’ra focus on people’s flaws or blemishes.” Flies land on sores which is similar to lashon hara speakers focusing on flaws.
A rebbe of mine who was a very big talmid chochom used to say, "The only reason why we don't eat giraffe is the same reason why the goyim don't eat giraffe. Because giraffe meat is tough and gross!"
So did this rebbe eat giraffe and knew it was tough and gross? Or did he know goyim who ate it and told him it was tough and gross?
Many Arabs eat camels. I've seen the sh'chita done. They only shecht young camels - up to about a year or so, when they're only about 2m tall. Why? Because beyond that, they're just too tough to eat.
I assume that giraffes would be the same.
“We’ve had about a hundred thousand visitors tell us that it’s because we don’t know where on the neck to shecht it. This is a myth.”
I remember mentioning to my parents when I was a child that the reason we don’t eat giraffe is because we don’t know where to shecht it. If I recall correctly, they seemed to accept what I said as an interesting fact.
I don’t recall if I was taught it in class by a teacher (maybe in 2nd grade or so); or if one of my know-it-all schoolmates (you know who I mean, they’re probably in every school, and some people never grow out of that mind set - they know everything better than anyone else) told it to me in the schoolyard.
Regardless, this is a great example of how in modern society, we still rely on myths -similar to how Tosafot and Aristotle might have done so thousands of years ago.
Of course. Global warming, transgender genes, racial equality - what are these, if not examples of modern day mythology? Reading the Torah reading this past week, and the warnings of false prophets that will arise preaching the worship of false gods, and the Torah's admonition not to add or detract from the real Torah - it's almost impossible NOT to think of the contemporary mythology all arounds us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bambi_effect
"In general, though, cuteness is an excellent survival strategy in the Anthropocene." https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/06/15/attack-of-the-feral-parakeets
You raise an excellent point, though -- the scientist is concerned with the health of the overall population; the armchair activist frets about the one particular animal they see on the news.
A slightly strained analogy, moving over to humans -- R' Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l pointed out that there are *oskim b'tzorchei tzibur*, people who care about the community, and then there are *oskim b'tzorchei rabbim* -- those who care about Individual A, Individual B, ... but not the bigger picture. Rare individuals can see both ... but there can be conflicts between the two goals.
See here for a thorough analysis of whether or not a mesora is required for mammals:
https://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5133
So how many giraffes were on the Tevah?
You don't bring a Korban from a חיה so the reason Rashi gives wouldn't apply, but that is a good point.
"Nor is it because one needs a mesorah. Aside from the unusual view of the Chazon Ish, normative halachic opinion is that no mesorah is needed for mammals which possess the kosher signs. That’s why you can buy bison with OU kosher certification."
The Shach in Yoreh Deah 80:1 says the following:
אם הם מפוצלות כרוכות והדורות וחרוקות – עיין פי׳ של דברים אלו בב״י ולפי שאין לנו עתה אלא מה שקבלנו במסורת וכדלקמן ספ״ב גבי סימני העוף קצרתי.
The implication is that the Shach thinks that just like a mesorah is needed for birds, following the psak of the Rama in YD 82:3, a mesorah is required for חיות. The Darkei Teshuva 80:2 questions this, being that the implication in the Tur and BY in both YD 80 and 82 is that a) you can rely on סימנים for animals and b) only birds need a mesorah. The Darkei Teshuva concludes that the Shach means that chelev can only be eaten with a mesorah.
Be that as it may, I have heard the Shach quoted as proof that a mesorah is needed for all animals. It could be that that is the way the חזון איש understood the Shach.
As for bison - this is a bit of a debate. The SA in YD 28:4 says that buffalo needs כיסוי הדם without a bracha. Is the bison the same as the buffalo? No. But somehow they've been subsumed into the same name. See this paragraph from a larger Kashrus article by Rabbi Bleich (I know, RDNS's boogeyman. Sorry.) https://www.sefaria.org/Contemporary_Halakhic_Problems%2C_Vol_V%2C_Chapter_IX_Kashrut.39?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
Rav Belsky wrote a Teshuva on this an raised your points, and said rgards to חלב and כיסוי דם one should be stringent, otherwise he held bison is fine. In addition, he maintained that there was a mesorah on it in south America for a few hundred years, even though it is a younger mesorah than even turkey. As far as the Shach, see pri megadim there, not like the חזון איש. Rav Belsky says this as well.
"... the horrific lives of the chickens that WE eat."
Speak for yourself.
yoursel-VES.
How can it be that all you good God-fearing Yidden who never miss Dad Yomi can support viciously torturing hundreds of billions of innocent animals, while a wicked apikoiress like me who’s totally controlled by his taivos and who lacks The Torah’s Objective Morality has the compassion and self-control to forswear all animal products? What’s going on?
Old question. Old answer.
Religion abhors a vacuum.
I suspect that aren't ready to hear that, but it might be of benefit to others.
I'm impressed that you are following your moral code; that is a hard thing to do. Meat is really good and it's hard to give that up. Respect. 🙌
Personally, from an atheist standpoint I would go with the social contract morality which animals are not part of and would eat meat - nothing is actually immoral when nothing means anything.
When I first went atheist I was vegan for two years and it was hard. I listened to Matt Dillahunty and he introduced me to this social contract idea and I really looked into it and thought about it and I fully support that position. I wonder if my 'taiva' for meat affecting my thinking; I don't think so.
Now, about four years later I am frum again, and my main argument to the atheist like you is that the second the wave goes the other way, you'll be the first to follow.
“Meat is really good and it's hard to give that up.”
Yeah, no doubt about that. The thing that did it for me was the realization that the pleasure one receives from eating meat is not remotely commensurate to the suffering required to produce it. Not even close. Eating meat is the ultimate act of pure selfishness and nihilism.
"The thing that did it for me was the realization that the pleasure one receives from eating meat is not remotely commensurate to the suffering required to produce it. Not even close."
Same.
"Why God fearing yidden" do anything is because God allows it. What does he not understand.
God also allows chattel slavery. And killing witches. And exterminating all the Israelites’ rivals to the Holy Land in jingoistic fervor. Does not reflect well on God!
Mr., I usually enjoy going at length to explain these things but it is a waste of time with you when you are not looking for an answer.
I understand you lack a father figure and did not enjoy a good relationship in this area but please deal with that first, not all at once.
These moral issues used to bother a lot also. Like a LOT. But things are so much more complex.
He thinks he is morally superior to a made up moral code from thousands of years ago
I see that, but like he doesn't understand it at all when the answer is in his question. So in this case even שאילת טיפש חצי תשובה.
A friend of mine told me he spoke to Rav Moshe Heineman about this and said he actually ate Giraffe once.
Sorry, this is not a believable story!
He officially said it while addressing the Star K training program in July of 2022, but I wasn't there, my friend was. I don't have anymore details.
But I still don't know why a Giraffe should be considered not to have a Mesorah if Rav Saadia Gaon already identified a zemer as a giraffe.
Just regarding the toughness aspect that some have raised, arabs eat YOUNG camels before they get old and their meat toughens, and that would be possible also for giraffes.
It's prudent for me to spell out that I'm not addressing other aspects that would make this story unbelievable.
At least he thinks he did.
Yea, maybe he confused it with a leopard.
Did the rabbi explain the circumstances in which he found someone who was slaughtering and preparing the meat according to halacha? Did he give ANY details that made the story plausible?
I will reach out to my friend to get more details (He's on Vacation now and hard to reach) but this could've been 40 years ago and in an under-the-radar circumstance, and therefore most of the hurdles Rabbi Slifkin mentioned would not stand in the way.
As far as how he found someone who knew what he was doing, get to know him but I don't think there is someone alive today who is a bigger expert in Chulin than him, and he doesn't need to find someone else to do the Shchita and nikkur. He's a Rav in Baltimore and heads Star-K kashrus.
I understand the Rabbi can do shchita and all other necessary rituals, but could he find a kosher slaughter house in the US equipped and willing to transport, handle, and position a 1000 lb. (min.) beast? I guess such facilities r available in Africa in places where exotic food r prized.
In any case, eating kosher giraffe is infrequent enough, that I think a super-gadol in Chulin would write up the entire experience in detail, and not leave it as a throw-away line in a shmooz. (Oh ya, I ate giraffe once.)
"I think a super-gadol in Chulin would write up the entire experience in detail"
Of course not. It's very very non-PC.
And anyone who knows HGRMH knows of the various unconventional adventures he's had in his life.
You are raising good points, I'll have to get back to you when I get in touch with my source. But I'll say in the meantime that knowing this Rav, it does not surprise me that he would just throw out a one-liner and then move on.
You/RDS can call him up. He's listed.
I think I will do that, but I am afraid I will not be able to get thru his people to get him on the phone. I cannot think of a good reason to tell them for my call. Where is he located?
Anyone can get through to him. Gist Avenue in Bawl'imore. But come to think of it, maybe he'll be afraid of the political ramifications & he'll dodge the question.
Also at https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Star-K. But there, as you say, there might be people in the way.
We keep chickens. Some of the practices you described aren't compatible with kosher shchita, which to my understanding requires healthy chickens.
It's actually surprisingly easy for a chicken to break a leg. In the case of if a chicken that broke its leg and then healed, we've been wondering about whether its eggs would be kosher.
Excellent. Is it true the giraffe can make a very loud sound and sees everything though keeps quiet? I learned that's its segula from not speaking lashon hara.
Indeed, the Best segula to not speak Lashon Harah is to keep quiet.
It's segula protecting it from shechita is that it doesn't speak lashon hara, despite it being able to speak the loudest and see the most.
And cows speak lashon hara?
Why not? We find a talking cow in a halachic (non-aggadic) gemara in Nazir 10a, 'אמרה פרה זו הריני נזירה אם עומדת אני, וכו and, also in the halachic context, the tongue of an animal is called a מדבר in Kiddushin 25a. Besides, a famous bon mot was said in connection with what Shimshon did with the Lechi that it was not the only time people were harmed through the jawbone of an ass. So a cow speaking loshon hora, why not?
That sounds a bit odd when the Torah explicitly says one can eat a זמר. Do you have a source for that?
I have searched and could not find one more than a children's book called Erev Shabbos Lost in the Zoo by Devorah-Leah with illustration by Siegmund Forst where it hints to this idea. Could be a Torah of mine from another life. It's a segula, so it has protection -- doesn't mean it's assur or that it can't ever be eaten -- just that it's extremely difficult.
Which animals do speak lashon hara? Any besides humans?
You would have to ask King Solomon, who spoke to the animals; the Talmud seems to refer to snakes, dogs and flies as speaking lashon hara. https://www.queensjewishlink.com/index.php/local/21-community-corner/by-susie-garber/9070-the-purity-of-speech-don-t-be-an-animal
Good article! Thanks for the link.
However, I don’t think that article implies the Talmud refers to snakes, dogs, and flies as SPEAKING lashon hara.
Rather lashon hara, and it’s human speakers are compared to characteristics
each of those animals; to quote from that article:
“Lashon ha’ra lulls you and you don’t realize how terrible it is. The snake bite doesn’t look so bad. It’s just two tiny holes, but the venom from the snake, like venom from lashon ha’ra, is insidious and deadly. ” lashon hara doesn’t seem so bad (just some words - sticks and stones …) just like two tiny holes from a snake bite. But in reality it is just as insidious as the venom.
“The Gemara compares an habitual speaker of lashon ha’ra to a mad dog. A mad dog’s mouth is always open, ready to bark at any moment. The speaker of lashon ha’ra is always looking for an opportunity to speak lashon ha’ra. The mad dog is always drooling and leaves a disgusting trail of saliva in the same way a speaker of lashon ha’ra leaves a disgusting trail of impurity.” Characteristics related to dogs are comparable to lashon hara- dogs are always ready to bark, and lashon hara speakers are always ready with something to say; the disgusting trail of a dog’s drool is compared to the lashon hara.
“Habitual speakers of lashon ha’ra are compared to flies. Flies land on open sores and wounds. In the same way, speakers of lashon ha’ra focus on people’s flaws or blemishes.” Flies land on sores which is similar to lashon hara speakers focusing on flaws.