OK, not trying to be confrontational, and I hope you view this as a genuine question (which it is), and not a challenge. If you readily admit that there is some genuine doubt/disagreement as to the kashrut of the peacock, isn't that reason enought to keep it off your menu? It may make for some very stimulating academic discussion, but even if there is a 99% chance that it is kosher, why risk that other 1%? You encouraged everyone to do their own research and arrive at their own conclusions--do you consider that to be a proper approach towards kashrut issues (again, maybe you do, and I'm interested in your thoughts). I understood that the purpose of your feasts was to serve food that is 100% kosher, but generally unavailable due to logistics, not food which is questionable? And did you prepare the peacock in a different kitchen than the rest of the food? If not, what good does it do that some people had the option to obstain from eating it? I'm a big fan of this blog and I find your posts to be thought-provoking (even if I ultimately disagree with some of them), so I am curious about reply. PS: I visited your museum when I was in Israel last November with my kids, and we all had a great time. The guides were great!
I do. But that, as I understand, is different because, correctly or not, many poskim accept the turkey on the basis it being a very close relative of a chicken. Isn’t peacock a different situation? And more importantly, I don’t think that the kashrut of turkey is really challenged by any kashrut expert or agency (not to imply that any such agency would accept a turkey if first discovered today.
I will, but haven't yet. But the point here is not about me. Even if you fully convince me that peacock is kosher, and you probably will, I am still a little surprised that the event included a food which many competent agencies and authorities would not certify as being kosher (if they also don't claim it to be traif). I would imagine that many of these agencies are aware of the points in your monograph, and still maintain their position. Just seems like a dangerous position and precedent. But if you feel comfortable serving it, and the participants feel comfortable eating it, then obviously that's what matters.
Thanks for the paper on the kashrut of peacocks, I had not been so captured by an essay in a while. Fascinating topic and delightful reading.
About messorah my grandfather z"l would say, that if you see a guy in the synagogue every morning with tefillin, you could assume it was safe to sit at his table and eat, regardless of his nussach.
To be fair, your grandfather was just saying עד אחד נאמן באיסורים, but a sefardi can't just eat meat from an Ashkenazi if it is not up to his standard of בית יוסף שחיטה and בישול ישראל.
Well, there were not many Ashkenazim where I grew up and there was one single place where you could get meat. But I like approaches that bring us Jews together.
I’m not sure what Ezra was (specifically) referring to either, but my understanding of Glatt/Beit Yosef, etc. is that at least in the US there is all kosher chicken/poultry/fowl is on the same level of “glattness” so it would be very simple to enjoy a meal of such in a other’s house. Additionally, it is my understanding that R.Ovadya Yosef was of the opinion that a Sefardi eating in an Ashkenazi’s house is not a concern unless it is certain that the food served is actually not glatt/Beit Yosef (not merely not certified as such). Which in most cases this will be difficult to establish based on a roast purchased in a store.
Accordingly, in most cases while all Jews should be proud to stay true to their own minhagim, they should also feel comfortable to enjoy each other’s hospitality.
You make sense, I honestly never gave it much attention since I am Ashkenazi and the only thing I have to worry about is Locusts, and according to our host, even that isn't a problem.
In your article about the kashrus of the peacock, you mention a responsa of the Rosh.
Can you explain to me what he means when he writes that there are 19 types of birds that have three kosher signs of birds, yet they are predatory, and therefore not kosher?
Not holding in the sugya but your teshuva (monograph) on peacocks (er, peafowls) was excellent! The trivia in the beginning was fun as well;) Can't wait to hear the responses...
Oct 3, 2023·edited Oct 3, 2023Liked by Natan Slifkin
Btw a word about bias, I (like anyone I guess) always like to think that I can read something and not be biased. In my life, I have went through many different stages of thought which leads me to believe that I am truly opened to the truth, wherever it may be. Both in religious and political beliefs and ideas I've strongly been entrenched in both sides up to the point that I consciously enter discussions trying first to remove my biases.
All that being said, I was yet again surprised at myself when reading through the monograph that I had to mentally tell myself not to question the conclusion since "this guy" (slifkin - but how it was worded in my biased head) always thinks he knows better than the system. I found myself questioning the authority of the article based on my opinion of slifkin, not what he wrote. Pretty lousy human nature. And the crazy thing is that I don't even think so poorly of slifkin, but the fact that people think that way and say it, and that I here and there begin to think that way also so clearly can affect a bias.
In all truthfulness, the monograph was wonderful and I'm looking forward to hearing the other side
Why would the Rosh say that 19 types of birds have all 3 kosher signs and yet are non kosher?
שו"ת הרא"ש כלל כ סימן כ
ועוד כי יש תשע עשרה מיני עופות טמאים שיש לכל אחד ג' סימני טהרה ושני מיני עופות טמאים שיש לכל אחד ב' סימני טהרה, הילכך אין לסמוך על עופות על בדיקת סימני טהרה.
1) You cite Ra'ah but don't say where he makes his comment. You write "Ra'ah and Sefer HaChinuch", implying they're the same author, but it's well proven that they're not the same author.
2) Fn. 23 you cite Mosaica Press 2002 but the book came out in 2022.
3) You cite Yechezkel Landau as "Chullin 63". What does this mean? Tzelach?
Of course it has. Several examples are given of explicit contradictions between the Sefer HaChinuch and Ra'ah. See the Machon Yerushalayim edition. One could either be left with numerous questions, or the reasonable explanation that they're not the same author, especially when there's no positive proof they're the same author. Perhaps you don't call this a "proof", but to me it is beyond doubt.
I don't think they are one person, but it's worth noting that except for Ramban, you will often find a few contradictions between books we know to be by the same author.
If it's a Shaala it's one thing, but what if it's clear and just no-one knows? I don't know if that's the case here, but I am looking to hearing the other side. You sound like you know something, can you share?
It's a middus chasidus not to eat something like that, not glutinous if you do. There are 100 pshatim why one should avoid such a thing but almost every Kashrus organization is certifying basar shehoru bo chacham to some extant on basic chicken and beef.
Also, I don't know why it would be basar shehoru bo chacham unless it's a shaala, but if there's just a lack of information needed to be known that is not basar shehoru bo chacham.
I do agree that there's nothing to gain at this point, but that doesn't mean that someone down the line may benefit from this. Maybe some chabad in Africa might have an easier time now:)
You mean like a metal framed Sukkah? Or teaching women Torah? Or Sheitels? Or Chadash? Or Pas Palter? The point of the Shaylah is to then answer (and not everyone will give the same answer) and act on it, not sit paralyzed unable to move.
It's all about finding a balance, isn't it? It's not just not every posek will give the same answer (as you write) the same good posek will give a different answer to different people (this point is often missed).
The things you mentioned are far more essential than eating peacock, no?
Preserving whatever we can know about what the Halacha is, and not just say on almost everything that "you have to know" or "its not clear" or "its a machlokes". If the above are the fact, fine, but we should have clarity whenever possible.
I would sign up immediately if there would be a dinner in Florida. Please keep up updated! Thank you!
How exactly are we supposed to keep you updated? There's more than one Joey in the world!
It's the Joey in Florida
😂
😂
Is the peacock the mystery animal from your posts a little while back?
Yep!
OK, not trying to be confrontational, and I hope you view this as a genuine question (which it is), and not a challenge. If you readily admit that there is some genuine doubt/disagreement as to the kashrut of the peacock, isn't that reason enought to keep it off your menu? It may make for some very stimulating academic discussion, but even if there is a 99% chance that it is kosher, why risk that other 1%? You encouraged everyone to do their own research and arrive at their own conclusions--do you consider that to be a proper approach towards kashrut issues (again, maybe you do, and I'm interested in your thoughts). I understood that the purpose of your feasts was to serve food that is 100% kosher, but generally unavailable due to logistics, not food which is questionable? And did you prepare the peacock in a different kitchen than the rest of the food? If not, what good does it do that some people had the option to obstain from eating it? I'm a big fan of this blog and I find your posts to be thought-provoking (even if I ultimately disagree with some of them), so I am curious about reply. PS: I visited your museum when I was in Israel last November with my kids, and we all had a great time. The guides were great!
Tell me, do you eat turkey?
I do. But that, as I understand, is different because, correctly or not, many poskim accept the turkey on the basis it being a very close relative of a chicken. Isn’t peacock a different situation? And more importantly, I don’t think that the kashrut of turkey is really challenged by any kashrut expert or agency (not to imply that any such agency would accept a turkey if first discovered today.
Have you read my monograph?
I will, but haven't yet. But the point here is not about me. Even if you fully convince me that peacock is kosher, and you probably will, I am still a little surprised that the event included a food which many competent agencies and authorities would not certify as being kosher (if they also don't claim it to be traif). I would imagine that many of these agencies are aware of the points in your monograph, and still maintain their position. Just seems like a dangerous position and precedent. But if you feel comfortable serving it, and the participants feel comfortable eating it, then obviously that's what matters.
And if a peacock is as kosher as the turkey or buffalo, why send out an advance warning?
It's actually much better than turkey. But it is widely perceived not to be. Hence the warning.
I would love to attend one. How do you manage the kashrut? Do you have an independent certified?
It's always good to have a third party involved to eliminate biases.
Thanks for the paper on the kashrut of peacocks, I had not been so captured by an essay in a while. Fascinating topic and delightful reading.
About messorah my grandfather z"l would say, that if you see a guy in the synagogue every morning with tefillin, you could assume it was safe to sit at his table and eat, regardless of his nussach.
That's YOUR mesorah, not mine. LOL.
To be fair, your grandfather was just saying עד אחד נאמן באיסורים, but a sefardi can't just eat meat from an Ashkenazi if it is not up to his standard of בית יוסף שחיטה and בישול ישראל.
Well, there were not many Ashkenazim where I grew up and there was one single place where you could get meat. But I like approaches that bring us Jews together.
I am not sure what you mean by that last comment, sefardim should start eating non-glatt or Ashkenazim eat only glatt.
I did hear from a Rav עד אחד נאמן would help to the point that in such a case you don't need to ask , maybe thats an approach you may be referring to.
I’m not sure what Ezra was (specifically) referring to either, but my understanding of Glatt/Beit Yosef, etc. is that at least in the US there is all kosher chicken/poultry/fowl is on the same level of “glattness” so it would be very simple to enjoy a meal of such in a other’s house. Additionally, it is my understanding that R.Ovadya Yosef was of the opinion that a Sefardi eating in an Ashkenazi’s house is not a concern unless it is certain that the food served is actually not glatt/Beit Yosef (not merely not certified as such). Which in most cases this will be difficult to establish based on a roast purchased in a store.
Accordingly, in most cases while all Jews should be proud to stay true to their own minhagim, they should also feel comfortable to enjoy each other’s hospitality.
You make sense, I honestly never gave it much attention since I am Ashkenazi and the only thing I have to worry about is Locusts, and according to our host, even that isn't a problem.
In your article about the kashrus of the peacock, you mention a responsa of the Rosh.
Can you explain to me what he means when he writes that there are 19 types of birds that have three kosher signs of birds, yet they are predatory, and therefore not kosher?
He's talking about the birds in the Torah's list. You have to learn the Gemara in Chullin to understand.
One peacock for so many people? No fair!
Not holding in the sugya but your teshuva (monograph) on peacocks (er, peafowls) was excellent! The trivia in the beginning was fun as well;) Can't wait to hear the responses...
Curious, did it taste good?
Btw a word about bias, I (like anyone I guess) always like to think that I can read something and not be biased. In my life, I have went through many different stages of thought which leads me to believe that I am truly opened to the truth, wherever it may be. Both in religious and political beliefs and ideas I've strongly been entrenched in both sides up to the point that I consciously enter discussions trying first to remove my biases.
All that being said, I was yet again surprised at myself when reading through the monograph that I had to mentally tell myself not to question the conclusion since "this guy" (slifkin - but how it was worded in my biased head) always thinks he knows better than the system. I found myself questioning the authority of the article based on my opinion of slifkin, not what he wrote. Pretty lousy human nature. And the crazy thing is that I don't even think so poorly of slifkin, but the fact that people think that way and say it, and that I here and there begin to think that way also so clearly can affect a bias.
In all truthfulness, the monograph was wonderful and I'm looking forward to hearing the other side
Thought I'd share
It's amazing how you are keeping the mesorah alive by doing these events!
That is a really cool cake.
Great post! Just wondering if there's a shaila about letting the live peacock see the cooked peacock.
The soundtrack is epic. Kudos to whoever thought of that.
Why would the Rosh say that 19 types of birds have all 3 kosher signs and yet are non kosher?
שו"ת הרא"ש כלל כ סימן כ
ועוד כי יש תשע עשרה מיני עופות טמאים שיש לכל אחד ג' סימני טהרה ושני מיני עופות טמאים שיש לכל אחד ב' סימני טהרה, הילכך אין לסמוך על עופות על בדיקת סימני טהרה.
How do you certify these dinners? Do you have a third party certifier? I would love to attend one, but would love an independent mashgiach involved.
Sounds like fun! Would love if you read https://ishayirashashem.substack.com/p/tv-commercials-produced-by-iyh
Three critiques:
1) You cite Ra'ah but don't say where he makes his comment. You write "Ra'ah and Sefer HaChinuch", implying they're the same author, but it's well proven that they're not the same author.
2) Fn. 23 you cite Mosaica Press 2002 but the book came out in 2022.
3) You cite Yechezkel Landau as "Chullin 63". What does this mean? Tzelach?
Re 1, it has not been well proven. Only strongly speculated
Of course it has. Several examples are given of explicit contradictions between the Sefer HaChinuch and Ra'ah. See the Machon Yerushalayim edition. One could either be left with numerous questions, or the reasonable explanation that they're not the same author, especially when there's no positive proof they're the same author. Perhaps you don't call this a "proof", but to me it is beyond doubt.
I don't think they are one person, but it's worth noting that except for Ramban, you will often find a few contradictions between books we know to be by the same author.
People aware of the many contradictions still assumed them to be one person...
You're assuming they were aware of the contradictions. Have any examples? I think it's more reasonable to say they didn't look into it.
The gr'a and shach assumed they were one person
Where's the Gra? The Shach assumed it but you don't have any evidence he examined the Ra'ah's rulings and compared the two.
Have you considered translating the monograph and publishing it in a journal such as תחומין?
Yes, I just need to find a suitable translator.
Chakira is in English isn't it? (No, I wasn't going to suggest Dialogue:) )
Exactly what Hashem wants from God fearing Jews.......to eat things in which there exists a shailah regarding its permeability.....
Never heard of any birds that let water go through...
If it's a Shaala it's one thing, but what if it's clear and just no-one knows? I don't know if that's the case here, but I am looking to hearing the other side. You sound like you know something, can you share?
There's a gemarah about eating something "shoru bo chacham". It's a glutinous attitude to try and eat something that many Rabbis consider problematic.
It's a middus chasidus not to eat something like that, not glutinous if you do. There are 100 pshatim why one should avoid such a thing but almost every Kashrus organization is certifying basar shehoru bo chacham to some extant on basic chicken and beef.
Also, I don't know why it would be basar shehoru bo chacham unless it's a shaala, but if there's just a lack of information needed to be known that is not basar shehoru bo chacham.
I do agree that there's nothing to gain at this point, but that doesn't mean that someone down the line may benefit from this. Maybe some chabad in Africa might have an easier time now:)
Wouldn't turkey be the same?
You mean like a metal framed Sukkah? Or teaching women Torah? Or Sheitels? Or Chadash? Or Pas Palter? The point of the Shaylah is to then answer (and not everyone will give the same answer) and act on it, not sit paralyzed unable to move.
It's all about finding a balance, isn't it? It's not just not every posek will give the same answer (as you write) the same good posek will give a different answer to different people (this point is often missed).
The things you mentioned are far more essential than eating peacock, no?
It is also essential to keep the Torah alive, and not just say "we don't know anything so chicken is fine."
I for myself have no interest in eating peacock. He looks nice and that's it for me.
What does 'keeping the torah alive' mean?
Preserving whatever we can know about what the Halacha is, and not just say on almost everything that "you have to know" or "its not clear" or "its a machlokes". If the above are the fact, fine, but we should have clarity whenever possible.
Indeed. But that has nothing to do with eating a peacock. You can do all that and not eat the peacock.
There's a saying from the Chasam Sofer; if we'd me machmir on every thing, we would not be able to eat bread or drink water.
It sounds much better in Yiddish.