>"the word ohf does not mean "flying creature." The Torah's classification is a "folk taxonomy" (this is not an insulting or heretical term; it is an academic term with a specific meaning described in The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom). There aren't specific criteria to be an "ohf." Rather, it means something "birdish." Things can be birdish in different ways"
As Alexander convincingly argues there, in the case of categorization, a folk taxonomy isn't inherently wrong. But of course, as has been argued on this blog and in books many times over the years (by R' Slifkin), many of Chazal's scientific beliefs are indeed incorrect. For some examples, see my posts:
To be fair, the "kefira cops" would likely get upset at the claim that the list is limited to a specific geographical location, because the Torah is divine, universal, timeless etc.......
The claim that the list is not comprehensive [but a way to identify all the birds on earth] wouldn't bother them at all.
No-he doesn't discuss if the listed birds are specifically local.
In fact he writes "דעל ידי כ"ד אלו וסימניהון נוכל להכיר כל הטמא שבעולם"
[Meaning, if we take those words literally, the Torah made sure to list birds that we can extrapolate from them signs to identify all non-kosher birds around the world] -
Zohar Amar wrote a whole book the eight sheratzim a few years ago, but I haven't read it. If only I had the time and funds I would read every one of his books. I'm especially interested in his volume on the five species of grain. He apparently says that they *could* include oats and rye, even though both are problems historically (as, for that matter, are spelt and bread wheat) as well as botanically- oats much more so than rye.
Yes, I heard that some people make the berachah of shehakol on oatmeal, even though it should be מזונות, if oats are one of the 5 grains!
I once heard a fascinating lecture by Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin o.b.m. of the Institute for Science and Halachah, who went through different grains and their gluten content. Chazal say that only the 5 grains undergo חימוץ, while other grains only undergo סרחון. It seems that the five grains are higher in gluten and starch content than corn or rice, which causes them to ferment more rapidly (gluten and starch being the contributors to something becoming chametz).
R' Herschel Schachter sprinkles wheat germ on his Cheerios (which are made of oats) so he can make a מזונות on them with no safek. (Of course, we do say mezonot on rice, just not al hamichya.)
R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also felt they were not one of the five species, but R' Elyashiv reacted very strongly and so he didn't push the matter.
The problem is that oats, rye, and spelt did not grow in Israel in the times of Tanach, and barely grew there, if that, in the times of Chazal. What we call "wheat"- which is bread wheat- did not even exist back then. The five species are probably durum wheat (what we make pasta out of), two older species of wheat, and two species of barley. Of course, other varieties of wheat and barley would also be included, so bread wheat and spelt (which is a type of wheat) would also be included. Rye is very closely related as well.
Oats, on the other hand...are not related at all. I still remember R' Seth Mandel zt"l waving around stalks of wheat and oats to show how different they are. (And oats look nothing like a fox's tail, which is what שיבולת שועל means.) Oats weren't even generally (outside of Scotland) considered food for human beings until the 1800's, when the health nuts began pushing it. And of course they don't have gluten.
One problem this creates is that people who can't have gluten have oat matza. Except gluten is what *defines* the five species- they need it to become chametz, and only things that can become chametz can be made into matza. You see the problem- matza *needs* to have gluten. Spelt has low gluten, so if they can handle that (and eat a Slifkin-size k'zayit), that's preferable.
Well, spelt *is* a type of wheat. Rye is not barley; it's somewhat between wheat and barley.
But שיבולת שועל is identified as two-row barley, a wild form of barley, while שעורה is six-row, domesticated, barley. (Back then barley's main use was making beer.)
חיטה would be durum wheat, and כוסמין and שיפון are identified with emmer wheat (the wild ancestor of modern wheat) and einkorn wheat- I forget which is which.
As to how it happened, I guess in much the same way שפן (hyrax) became a hare and צבי (gazelle) became a deer and נשר (vulture) became an eagle and many, many others: They didn't have those animals in Europe. They also didn't have emmer and einkorn and wild barley, but *did* have spelt and rye and oats. So the names changed.
Fun fact: The modern Hebrew word for "oats" is קוואקר. Guess where *that* one comes from.
He says למיניהם is there many types of birds under one classification and if we look at wikipedia it places the Secretary Bird in the same order as many many other predatory birds and those similarities might have been obvious to anyone who took one apart so al pi Rabbi Wikipedia:
A member of the order Accipitriformes, which also includes many other diurnal birds of prey such as eagles, hawks, kites, vultures, and harriers, it is placed in its own family, Sagittariidae.
It seems that the hosting is no longer working. I know other ways of accessing it, and used that for my coming article, but you might want to update your download link.
"But Tosafos (Chullin 61a) says that this does not have to be what the Gemara is saying. Rather, the Gemara could mean that listing the two dozen non-kosher birds gives us a way to identify which types of birds in general are not kosher, i.e. those which are similar in some critical way to the birds listed!"
This approach also has bearing on whether metals not listed in the Torah are mekabel tumah or not.; according to Tosafos, all metals would be mekabel tumah, even if they're not listed.
"the Gemara could mean that listing the two dozen non-kosher birds gives us a way to identify which types of birds in general are not kosher"
I suppose if one *really* wanted to get the trolls rolling, one could suggest that the Torah (defined as you wish- take *that*, trolls!) never even thought about other parts of the world, let alone (or, perhaps, "and/or") never envisioned that anyone living in those parts would have a need to know halakhah.
Incidentally, there's a landmark US Supreme Court case, Nix v. Hedden, 1893: The government imposed tariffs on imported vegetables but not imported fruit. (I imagine this was based on a recognition that not all fruit can be grown in the US, or maybe it was just a bureaucratic decision.) Nix, who imported tomatoes, sued Hedden, the tax collector, saying that tomatoes are, by definition, fruit, and thus should be exempted. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court was that botanical and dictionary definitions don't matter as much as common usage- people call tomatoes "vegetables"- and practice- you put tomatoes in a salad with cucumbers (which are also fruit, but you get the point), not peaches.
Nix v. Hedden has been cited in court cases over and over again in the century-plus since as establishing a principle that the law works on common usage. There was even a case in the US deciding that action figures are toys and not dolls. In Europe things have gone a bit differently, with the EU deciding that carrots are fruit and the UK deciding that Jaffa Cakes are cake.
But I have to admit, the whale case works better here.
I should point out that halakha is not consistent here: One says "ha'adama" on tomatoes (common usage) but the same bracha on bananas (botany), although in both cases the reasoning is the same (the plant does not outlive the picking of the fruit). My wife's minhag is to have a banana for karpas for exactly this reason. A friend also has strawberries, although I say "ha-etz" on those.
>"the word ohf does not mean "flying creature." The Torah's classification is a "folk taxonomy" (this is not an insulting or heretical term; it is an academic term with a specific meaning described in The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom). There aren't specific criteria to be an "ohf." Rather, it means something "birdish." Things can be birdish in different ways"
See this point in regards to Jonah's "whale", Scott Alexander, https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/
As Alexander convincingly argues there, in the case of categorization, a folk taxonomy isn't inherently wrong. But of course, as has been argued on this blog and in books many times over the years (by R' Slifkin), many of Chazal's scientific beliefs are indeed incorrect. For some examples, see my posts:
Re Zoological Questions and Etymologies: https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/asking-anything-in-the-entire-world
Re Etymologies: https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/a-sequence-of-eleven-stories-of-talmudic
I did not expect to see a SSC link in this comments section. I love it.
Thank you for a great article.
To be fair, the "kefira cops" would likely get upset at the claim that the list is limited to a specific geographical location, because the Torah is divine, universal, timeless etc.......
The claim that the list is not comprehensive [but a way to identify all the birds on earth] wouldn't bother them at all.
All you see from Tosfos is point 2 not point 1.
But doesn't Tosfos agree that, as a matter of fact, the list only contains local animals?
No-he doesn't discuss if the listed birds are specifically local.
In fact he writes "דעל ידי כ"ד אלו וסימניהון נוכל להכיר כל הטמא שבעולם"
[Meaning, if we take those words literally, the Torah made sure to list birds that we can extrapolate from them signs to identify all non-kosher birds around the world] -
"the list of eight reptiles that transmit impurity when dead"
Aren't the חולד and עכבר mammals? Are there alternative views on what they are?
Yes, I was using the word "reptiles" loosely - rather like "birds"!
…And don’t forget the direct descendency of birds from reptiles!!!
Zohar Amar wrote a whole book the eight sheratzim a few years ago, but I haven't read it. If only I had the time and funds I would read every one of his books. I'm especially interested in his volume on the five species of grain. He apparently says that they *could* include oats and rye, even though both are problems historically (as, for that matter, are spelt and bread wheat) as well as botanically- oats much more so than rye.
Yes, I heard that some people make the berachah of shehakol on oatmeal, even though it should be מזונות, if oats are one of the 5 grains!
I once heard a fascinating lecture by Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Halperin o.b.m. of the Institute for Science and Halachah, who went through different grains and their gluten content. Chazal say that only the 5 grains undergo חימוץ, while other grains only undergo סרחון. It seems that the five grains are higher in gluten and starch content than corn or rice, which causes them to ferment more rapidly (gluten and starch being the contributors to something becoming chametz).
R' Herschel Schachter sprinkles wheat germ on his Cheerios (which are made of oats) so he can make a מזונות on them with no safek. (Of course, we do say mezonot on rice, just not al hamichya.)
R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also felt they were not one of the five species, but R' Elyashiv reacted very strongly and so he didn't push the matter.
The problem is that oats, rye, and spelt did not grow in Israel in the times of Tanach, and barely grew there, if that, in the times of Chazal. What we call "wheat"- which is bread wheat- did not even exist back then. The five species are probably durum wheat (what we make pasta out of), two older species of wheat, and two species of barley. Of course, other varieties of wheat and barley would also be included, so bread wheat and spelt (which is a type of wheat) would also be included. Rye is very closely related as well.
Oats, on the other hand...are not related at all. I still remember R' Seth Mandel zt"l waving around stalks of wheat and oats to show how different they are. (And oats look nothing like a fox's tail, which is what שיבולת שועל means.) Oats weren't even generally (outside of Scotland) considered food for human beings until the 1800's, when the health nuts began pushing it. And of course they don't have gluten.
One problem this creates is that people who can't have gluten have oat matza. Except gluten is what *defines* the five species- they need it to become chametz, and only things that can become chametz can be made into matza. You see the problem- matza *needs* to have gluten. Spelt has low gluten, so if they can handle that (and eat a Slifkin-size k'zayit), that's preferable.
Pupa Matzah bakery in Williamsburg uses durum wheat for their Matzos for that reason.
Nice! We used to have Pupa growing up.
It would probably be a fascinating study to see how שיפון, כוסמין, ושיבולת שועל became identified with rye, spelt, and oats in modern Hebrew.
Chazal classified כוסמין as a type of wheat, and שיפון ושיבולת שועל as types of barley, if that helps.
Well, spelt *is* a type of wheat. Rye is not barley; it's somewhat between wheat and barley.
But שיבולת שועל is identified as two-row barley, a wild form of barley, while שעורה is six-row, domesticated, barley. (Back then barley's main use was making beer.)
חיטה would be durum wheat, and כוסמין and שיפון are identified with emmer wheat (the wild ancestor of modern wheat) and einkorn wheat- I forget which is which.
As to how it happened, I guess in much the same way שפן (hyrax) became a hare and צבי (gazelle) became a deer and נשר (vulture) became an eagle and many, many others: They didn't have those animals in Europe. They also didn't have emmer and einkorn and wild barley, but *did* have spelt and rye and oats. So the names changed.
Fun fact: The modern Hebrew word for "oats" is קוואקר. Guess where *that* one comes from.
In Israel? Yes, but only in a limited way in some areas in the time of Chazal, and not at the time of Tanach.
Emmer was the most used grain in Egypt.
So good to see Natan at his game (for a change).
To support Rashi
He says למיניהם is there many types of birds under one classification and if we look at wikipedia it places the Secretary Bird in the same order as many many other predatory birds and those similarities might have been obvious to anyone who took one apart so al pi Rabbi Wikipedia:
A member of the order Accipitriformes, which also includes many other diurnal birds of prey such as eagles, hawks, kites, vultures, and harriers, it is placed in its own family, Sagittariidae.
Is coral kosher? Scientists classify it as an animal. I suspect the torah classifies it as a rock.
The Gemoro considers it a type of tree.
Where does the gemoro discuss coral?
Rosh Hashanah 23a
Is your Evolution of the Olive still available online / supposed to be online to download from this blog / substack?
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/kezayis-season
It seems that the hosting is no longer working. I know other ways of accessing it, and used that for my coming article, but you might want to update your download link.
"But Tosafos (Chullin 61a) says that this does not have to be what the Gemara is saying. Rather, the Gemara could mean that listing the two dozen non-kosher birds gives us a way to identify which types of birds in general are not kosher, i.e. those which are similar in some critical way to the birds listed!"
This approach also has bearing on whether metals not listed in the Torah are mekabel tumah or not.; according to Tosafos, all metals would be mekabel tumah, even if they're not listed.
"the Gemara could mean that listing the two dozen non-kosher birds gives us a way to identify which types of birds in general are not kosher"
I suppose if one *really* wanted to get the trolls rolling, one could suggest that the Torah (defined as you wish- take *that*, trolls!) never even thought about other parts of the world, let alone (or, perhaps, "and/or") never envisioned that anyone living in those parts would have a need to know halakhah.
Incidentally, there's a landmark US Supreme Court case, Nix v. Hedden, 1893: The government imposed tariffs on imported vegetables but not imported fruit. (I imagine this was based on a recognition that not all fruit can be grown in the US, or maybe it was just a bureaucratic decision.) Nix, who imported tomatoes, sued Hedden, the tax collector, saying that tomatoes are, by definition, fruit, and thus should be exempted. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court was that botanical and dictionary definitions don't matter as much as common usage- people call tomatoes "vegetables"- and practice- you put tomatoes in a salad with cucumbers (which are also fruit, but you get the point), not peaches.
Nix v. Hedden has been cited in court cases over and over again in the century-plus since as establishing a principle that the law works on common usage. There was even a case in the US deciding that action figures are toys and not dolls. In Europe things have gone a bit differently, with the EU deciding that carrots are fruit and the UK deciding that Jaffa Cakes are cake.
But I have to admit, the whale case works better here.
I should point out that halakha is not consistent here: One says "ha'adama" on tomatoes (common usage) but the same bracha on bananas (botany), although in both cases the reasoning is the same (the plant does not outlive the picking of the fruit). My wife's minhag is to have a banana for karpas for exactly this reason. A friend also has strawberries, although I say "ha-etz" on those.
Ha ha! She went to school there, exactly.
What a lovely post!