>"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.
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
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.
"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?
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.
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.
What a lovely post!