Turkey, Tradition, and Peacock

Surprising revelations about an old topic

Bull the turkey at the Biblical Museum of Natural History

With Thanksgiving on the horizon, there’s a perennial discussion about how we can eat turkey, given the widely accepted view that birds may only be eaten with a tradition, and there is no tradition for turkey. Various answers have been suggested, but it’s important to clarify that there are actually three different questions here:

• How did turkey start to be eaten?

• How did turkey continue to be eaten, once people realized that there was no tradition?

• Is there anything today that affects our understanding of the situation?

Let’s examine these three questions in turn. But first, some background.

The Laws of Kosher Birds

Unlike the case with mammals and fish, where the Torah gives identifying characteristics by which kosher and non-kosher types can be discerned, the Torah gives no such signs for birds. Instead, the Torah lists various types of non-kosher birds. Since these are the ones specified as being non-kosher, all the ones not listed are ipso facto kosher. That sounds straightforward enough, but there are two complications.

First is that these listed types are not species in the scientific zoological sense of the term, but rather general types that include many species—yet the precise definition of “type,” and the number of species that it can include, is unclear.

The second complication is that we cannot be sure as to the identities of all the birds in this list. With some of them, we can be pretty much certain—there is overwhelming evidence and/or powerful traditions that the nesher is the griffin vulture, the orev is the crow, the chasidah is the stork and the atalef is the bat. With some of them, we can offer a likely candidate—such as that the bat ha-yaanah is the ostrich, and the duchifat is the hoopoe. But many others are nothing more than an educated guess, based on factors such as the etymology of the word or cognate languages.

Exhibit of kosher and non-kosher birds in the Hall of Kosher Classification at the Biblical Museum of Natural History

The difficulty of identifying the non-kosher birds in the Torah’s list (and the resultant difficulty of knowing which birds may be eaten) led the Sages of the Mishnah to give signs by which kosher and non-kosher birds can be distinguished:

“The signs of domestic and wild animals were stated in the Torah, and the signs for birds were not stated. However, the Sages stated: Every predatory (literally, “clawing”) bird is non-kosher; every bird that has an extra toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard is kosher.” (Mishnah, Chullin 59a)

There are two different explanations of what the Mishnah is saying. According to Rashi, in order for a bird to be kosher, it must possess all three positive signs (an extra toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard), and it must also be known to be non-predatory. That is because, in Rashi’s understanding of the Talmud, most of the non-kosher birds in the Torah’s list possess the three positive signs; the reason why they are nevertheless not kosher is that they are predatory. Since it is difficult to ever be absolutely certain that a bird is non-predatory, Rashi says, there must be a tradition that the bird is kosher (and the three signs are essentially useless). Rashi’s view is adopted by Rosh.

But according to Rav Moshe bar Yosef, on the other hand, none of the non-kosher birds in the Torah’s list possess all three signs. The Mishnah is telling us that if a bird possesses all three positive signs, then this ipso facto means that the bird is non-predatory and may be eaten.

Rav Moshe bar Yosef’s view is the most widely supported amongst the Rishonim, including by Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Rabbeinu Tam, and Maggid Mishneh, as well as later by Maharshal. This is based not just on their particular interpretation of the Talmud, but also on empirical disproof of Rashi’s approach. Ramban points out that he physically examined a large number of the known non-kosher birds and found that, contrary to Rashi’s claim, they do not possess the three positive signs. Ramban issues a powerful statement: “Since it is impossible to deny that which we can see with our own eyes, we are forced to adopt the approach of Rav Moshe ben R. Yosef.”

However, the stringent view of Rashi, that the presence of the three signs does not prove anything and a tradition is always required that the bird is non-predatory and kosher, is cited by Shulchan Aruch and Rema and was widely accepted. Yet this was not the majority view among the Rishonim and was only accepted as a stringency.

Now let us return to the three questions about the turkey.

How Did Turkey Start To Be Eaten?

In the early 16th century, a mysterious new bird reached Europe. It had been brought by merchants of the Turkish Empire based in the eastern Mediterranean, and thus received the name “Turkey bird.” Meanwhile, many people thought that the bird came from India, due to the default assumption that new and strange things came from the East. In fact; there was even a common misconception that India and the New World were one and the same. Thus, in many languages the bird received the name “India bird” - in Hebrew, it is accordingly known as tarnegol Hodu.

It seems that the initial acceptance of the turkey occurred before the Rema’s view was promulgated and accepted. The scenario could well have unfolded as follows: First, turkey was eaten by Jews in eastern lands, who were the first to receive it from the Turkish merchants. They may have eaten it because they followed the majority view of the Rishonim that as long as it displays the kosher signs and is not predatory, it may be eaten. Subsequently, Jews in western Europe became aware that eastern Jews were eating it. They may have assumed that this meant that there was an ancient tradition of eating it, or they may too have still have been relying upon the majority view of the Rishonim.

How Did Turkey Continue To Be Eaten?

Fascinatingly, concerns about the kosher status of the turkey were only first raised in the 19th century. This was long after the turkey had already gained universal acceptance as a kosher bird.

There were those halachic authorities, such as R. Yitzchak Isaac Schorr (Responsa Mei Be’er 19) and Kaf HaChaim (Yoreh De’ah 82:21), who justified eating turkey on the grounds that there must be an ancient tradition from India. However, for those who realized that the turkey was an American bird and could not possibly have a tradition, matters were more complicated.

R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (Responsa Sho’el u’Meshiv 5:1:69) argued that the acceptance of turkey itself proves that the Rema’s requirement of a mesorah is not to be followed. Rather, we follow the majority view of the Rishonim. As long as a bird possesses the signs of a kosher bird, it may be eaten. While this view is halachically sound, it is clearly not the approach of most poskim.

It must be appreciated that when the turkey question was raised in the 19th century, declaring the turkey to be non-kosher would have denigrated pious Jews around the world who had eaten it for generations as being sinners. There is very strong rabbinic opposition to such a thing; first, due to the Talmud’s statement that God does not allow the righteous to unwittingly sin, and second, due to the principled position of not casting aspersions on earlier generations. Thus, there was strong motivation to find a justification for the common practice.

R. Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin explicitly uses such a meta-halachic justification (Meshiv Davar, Yoreh De’ah 22). He states that since turkey has gained widespread acceptance, no objections should be raised to its consumption, in the absence of overwhelming evidence that it is actually a non-kosher bird. Otherwise, one would be incriminating earlier generations who have eaten turkey.

Others presented internal halachic arguments as to why eating turkey could be justified. R. Aryeh Lebush Bolchiver, in Arugot HaBosem, argues that the Rema’s requirement of a tradition is only for birds about which there is doubt if they are predatory. But if a bird has been observed over a long period of time and has never shown signs of being predatory, then as long as it also possesses the three characteristics of kosher bids (i.e. an extra toe, a crop, and a peelable gizzard) then it may be eaten even without a mesorah.

Is There Anything Today That Should Affect Our View?

You might think (as I did for years) that all the research on this topic has been already done. But two years ago I discovered something remarkable that is profoundly significant for our understanding of this topic.

Rashi’s non-acceptance of the three signs went against the majority view of the Rishonim and had been empirically disproved by Ramban. So why did the Shulchan Aruch and Rema decide to adopt it and require a mesorah? This seems all the more puzzling in light of how R. Yosef Karo explicitly says that his methodology in general is to follow the majority view.

The answer, which (astonishingly) nobody writing on this topic ever appears to have investigated, is explained by both R. Yosef Karo and R. Moshe Isserles in their earlier works, Beit Yosef and Darkei Moshe. The reason is that the Rosh and Rabbeinu Yerucham had raised the concern that the stork seemingly proves Rashi’s concern to be correct.

The Rosh had noted that some people in Spain were eating storks. He speculated that perhaps they did this because someone had examined storks and found them to possess the three kosher signs. Yet there was a firm tradition in Germany and France that the stork was the chasidah listed explicitly in the Torah as non-kosher (which indeed appears to be the case). Rosh concluded that it must be that Rashi’s view is correct - that the presence of the three positive signs does not rule out the bird being predatory and does not mean that the bird is kosher. Shulchan Aruch and Rema accordingly ruled stringently in accordance with this view.

But in fact, the Rosh’s speculation could not possibly be the real explanation of how the mistaken practice of eating storks began. Because contemporary examinations of storks (such as one that I personally attended) demonstrate that although storks have a peelable gizzard and a hind toe, they do not possess a crop!

We don’t know why some people were eating storks—perhaps they were confused with swans, which are also large white birds with long necks, and had somewhat similar names (the swan was cygne and the stork was cigogne). And perhaps because the stork’s foot is very slightly webbed, people thought that it qualifies for the halachic principle that birds with webbed feet are all kosher. But it was certainly not due to storks actually having the requisite three kosher signs – they don’t.

Thus, the Rema thus only decided to adopt a stringency and follow a ruling that was categorically rejected by the majority of Rishonim (in part due to it being empirically disproved) because of a misunderstanding of a situation described by Rosh. It was a stringency adopted in error.

Does this mean that it need not be followed? That would depend on one’s general worldview of halacha, for which there is no single approach. A similar situation exists with Rabbeinu Tam’s view of halachic times, which, as Vilna Gaon pointed out, were based on a mistaken view of astronomy. Some contemporary rabbinic authorities therefore dismiss Rabbeinu Tam’s view; some regard the Vilna Gaon’s empirical rebuttal of it as irrelevant; and others take some sort of intermediate approach.

The same exists here. Some would take the approach that regardless of the validity of the basis for Rema’s stringency, it has become accepted practice in the Ashkenaz community. But for others, such as R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson for whom the empirical disproof of Rashi’s approach is reason to discount it, the same would doubtless be true for the empirical disproof of Rema’s concern about storks. Accordingly, we follow the majority view of the Rishonim without concern, and any bird that has the three signs (such as turkey) can be eaten even without a mesorah.

And still others would take an intermediate approach. They would usually take Rema’s stringency into account, but if there are additional significant arguments to permit the bird, they would allow the mistaken basis for this stringency to combine with them to result in the bird being permitted. In the case of turkey, the fact that it has been eaten for generations would contribute to this.

(In case you’re wondering - personally, I believe in taking the intermediate approach in such Torah/science matters in general and in this matter in particular, but I also think that there are legitimate reasons to take either of the other two approaches.)

The Ramifications

As you might guess, there are significant ramifications from all the above discussion for the kashrut of other birds. A notable example is peacock, but while the above discussion certainly provides reason in favor of it being acceptable, there are actually far more powerful reasons for permitting peacock than there are for permitting turkey! (I am not the only one to realize this; a number of rabbinic authorities in the 20th century also stated it.)

I published a brief article on this in Hebrew in the latest volume of Techumin. A greatly expanded and illustrated English version, “The Kashrut Of Peacocks,” is available as a free download from the Biblical Museum of Natural History website. And the Biblical Museum of Natural History will be serving peacock at the forthcoming Feast of Exotic Kosher Curiosities next month! It will be accompanied by other unusual birds and mammals, including some being served for the very first time. Book your seats before it sells out at www.BiblicalFeast.org!