Love these kind of posts, please post more of these 🙏 and please let us know when volume 2 of the Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom will be released.
Serious question: Do you need a mesorah to identify a bird as definitely *not* kosher?
If somebody ate secretary bird meat while touching terumah, would we burn it or leave it as safek?
Or let's say you were starving and had nothing but cassowary and ostrich. Should you eat the cassowary first, or does it not matter? (You could argue that regardless eating something that's explicitly forbidden by the pasuk is worse, but the kal vachomer from camel-hare-hyrax-pig to animals that don't have either kosher sign would seem to contradict that idea.)
This is fascinating. One point, however, is not entirely clear. In a previous post you explained why a peelable gizzard is inherently related to a bird not being a predator. But how do a crop and a hind toe contribute to demonstrating that the bird is ipso facto non-predatory? In fact, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_(anatomy) notes that most raptors, including hawks, eagles and vultures, have a crop, but owls do not. So it would seem that this characteristic is unrelated to the predatory or non-predatory nature of a bird. What is the significance of this characteristic (and maybe also the hind toe) in the view of the majority of the Rishonim, and why did Chazal include it? Interestingly, Rambam in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 1:16 & 1:19 states for a non-predatory bird, any one of these 3 characteristics is sufficient to know that it is permitted, but in practice we rely on this only if the one characteristic is the peelable gizzard.
Note that ostriches are definitely non-kosher and also non-predatory. So apparently, being predatory is not the only concern of the verse. They only have two toes, and several other birds have three, so it's possible the sign was formulated with regard to them.
Turkeys are kosher because they are native to North America and did not exist in the Eastern Hemisphere until they were imported there after 1500. So none of the bird names in the Torah could mean "turkey".
There is no reason to think turkeys did not exist at any point in the Middle East. This is a question for archaeology. As the camels in Genesis example shows, the answers are not perfect yet
In any case, the speculation that turkey fossil may yet be found in the Old World would not solve the problem (which I don't believe exists) of "secretary birds and cassowaries".
Why would the fact that Turkeys “are native to North America and did not exist in the Eastern Hemisphere until they were imported there after 1500” ipso facto make them kosher?
Because there wouldn't have been a Hebrew name for them at the time of Matan Torah. The Torah lists, by name, all the birds that are not kosher. Everything that came later is based on not being sure what species those names refer to. So a species that could not have been named is ipso facto kosher.
The way I understand the definitions in the Torah, penguins are fish because they don't fly but swim, and I wouldn't eat them because they lack fins and scales.
There is however the view of Chizkuni that aquatic birds birds were created from the waters (Gen. 1:20) while land birds were created from the soil (Gen. 2:19). Penguins would be grouped with the former.
Penguins spend extensive periods of time on land. To be fair, all shorebirds do, and no bird can breed in the water. But I don't think a penguin would likely be called a fish.
Interesting, but even if true - I have not checked your citations or the sources you didn't cite - it would be just one of countless cases in which the law is based on a mistaken premise. This works both in the direction of kula and chumrah, and applies not only to halacha based on mistakes, but also to halacha based on then available evidence that shouls theoretically change due to new evidence, manuscripts, etc. It's a very old issue, already recognized in the Gemara itself, and true of other legal systems too, not just halacha. How law is made or followed is rarely black and white.
Trying to continue an earlier thread. I said absence of evidence doesn't imply absence, Natan Slifkin said it does, this is my response.
And expectations are also subject to what one wishes to believe about a topic. See all the discoveries that "upend everything science knows about a topic!"
Odd. I replied to Leib Shachar below, who claimed that this would be subject to the principle of אין בית דין יכול לבטל ב"ד אחר אלא אם כן גדולה מהם בחכמה ובמנין, but it came up as an independent comment.
This article is deeply flawed, it assumes that the Rishonim were referring to the same bird that you identify as stork. This is despite the fact that they surely knew it didn't have webbed feet.
I'm not "assuming" anything. They describe the stork with its name and its prominent behavior. There is no bird with webbed feet that nests on tall buildings.
Yes, it does. There is no other candidate. They describe the stork with its name and its prominent behavior. There is no bird with webbed feet that nests on tall buildings.
Well they called it "cigonia" and that name was used from antiquity through nowadays in all latin languages to mean a stork. There are not so many species of storks, and they mostly look the same. I do not know about possessing a crop, but their feet are not webbed, although it could vaguely seem so from afar.
If actual behavior were the standard you would be hard pressed to find ANY kosher birds outside of the hummingbird which would qualify. That includes all the phasianids, pretty much every waterfowl (yes, even ducks, geese, and swans) all the diving birds, thrushes, etc cetera.
Fortunately for us actual phenomenological reality does not get a seat at the table.
All birds pretty much are by that standard. Hummingbirds don't exhibit predatory behavior to insects. They just slurp them up inadvertently. I had to work hard to find even one species of bird that isn't a predator
Strange. I had beard much different in the ornithology of NA birds class I took. But that waa a while ago. Perhaps research has yielded new results.
In any case that reinforces my original point. It's darned hard to find non-predatory birds in the real world. The standard set by faith and clever arguments runs aground and sinks when it encounters reality.
This is the content I come here for and bought your books for. Keep it up.
Thank you for a great post.
Love these kind of posts, please post more of these 🙏 and please let us know when volume 2 of the Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom will be released.
Run it by R Herschel Schachter
Serious question: Do you need a mesorah to identify a bird as definitely *not* kosher?
If somebody ate secretary bird meat while touching terumah, would we burn it or leave it as safek?
Or let's say you were starving and had nothing but cassowary and ostrich. Should you eat the cassowary first, or does it not matter? (You could argue that regardless eating something that's explicitly forbidden by the pasuk is worse, but the kal vachomer from camel-hare-hyrax-pig to animals that don't have either kosher sign would seem to contradict that idea.)
A very interesting and, as advertised, highly technical post.
This is fascinating. One point, however, is not entirely clear. In a previous post you explained why a peelable gizzard is inherently related to a bird not being a predator. But how do a crop and a hind toe contribute to demonstrating that the bird is ipso facto non-predatory? In fact, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_(anatomy) notes that most raptors, including hawks, eagles and vultures, have a crop, but owls do not. So it would seem that this characteristic is unrelated to the predatory or non-predatory nature of a bird. What is the significance of this characteristic (and maybe also the hind toe) in the view of the majority of the Rishonim, and why did Chazal include it? Interestingly, Rambam in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 1:16 & 1:19 states for a non-predatory bird, any one of these 3 characteristics is sufficient to know that it is permitted, but in practice we rely on this only if the one characteristic is the peelable gizzard.
I have not been able to find any inherent significance to the other signs. I also haven't been able to correlate them with non-predatory behavior.
Note that ostriches are definitely non-kosher and also non-predatory. So apparently, being predatory is not the only concern of the verse. They only have two toes, and several other birds have three, so it's possible the sign was formulated with regard to them.
Turkeys are kosher because they are native to North America and did not exist in the Eastern Hemisphere until they were imported there after 1500. So none of the bird names in the Torah could mean "turkey".
By that argument, secretary birds and cassowaries would be kosher. Which they certainly are not.
It is theoretically possible to find fossils of turkey- like birds in the middle east. Is that really the reason?
What!?
For a long time, camels in Genesis were considered anachronistic by archaeological experts.
Then they found fossils of camels.
I'm just noting that we don't know what we don't know. In archaeology, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
This is zoology. Turkeys are native to the Americas. They never existed in other parts of the world.
There is no reason to think turkeys did not exist at any point in the Middle East. This is a question for archaeology. As the camels in Genesis example shows, the answers are not perfect yet
You're conflating existence with domestication.
In any case, the speculation that turkey fossil may yet be found in the Old World would not solve the problem (which I don't believe exists) of "secretary birds and cassowaries".
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
Why would the fact that Turkeys “are native to North America and did not exist in the Eastern Hemisphere until they were imported there after 1500” ipso facto make them kosher?
Because there wouldn't have been a Hebrew name for them at the time of Matan Torah. The Torah lists, by name, all the birds that are not kosher. Everything that came later is based on not being sure what species those names refer to. So a species that could not have been named is ipso facto kosher.
I have to disagree. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/are-penguins-kosher
I don’t think that is the way it works…
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/why-do-we-need-a-mesorah-for-birds/comment/39247195
Would you eat penguins?
The way I understand the definitions in the Torah, penguins are fish because they don't fly but swim, and I wouldn't eat them because they lack fins and scales.
1.
Would flightless land birds be behemahs & Chayahs because of they way they move, and not kosher out of a lack of split hooves and rumination?
No, as the ostrich is listed in the Torah among the birds (as in the photo of this post).
What is coral? Vegetable and therefor kosher, or animal and therefore not kosher?
Chickens don't fly either - do they need cloven hooves to be kosher?
Chickens do fly. Just not well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idDtTGEbyGA
2.
There is however the view of Chizkuni that aquatic birds birds were created from the waters (Gen. 1:20) while land birds were created from the soil (Gen. 2:19). Penguins would be grouped with the former.
Penguins spend extensive periods of time on land. To be fair, all shorebirds do, and no bird can breed in the water. But I don't think a penguin would likely be called a fish.
A Dodo is considered a bird of the pigeon family, hence could be kosher
Interesting, but even if true - I have not checked your citations or the sources you didn't cite - it would be just one of countless cases in which the law is based on a mistaken premise. This works both in the direction of kula and chumrah, and applies not only to halacha based on mistakes, but also to halacha based on then available evidence that shouls theoretically change due to new evidence, manuscripts, etc. It's a very old issue, already recognized in the Gemara itself, and true of other legal systems too, not just halacha. How law is made or followed is rarely black and white.
In any event, good luck with the dinner.
Trying to continue an earlier thread. I said absence of evidence doesn't imply absence, Natan Slifkin said it does, this is my response.
And expectations are also subject to what one wishes to believe about a topic. See all the discoveries that "upend everything science knows about a topic!"
That is specfically about takanos and gezeiros, not interpretation of halachah.
Who were you replying to? About what?
Odd. I replied to Leib Shachar below, who claimed that this would be subject to the principle of אין בית דין יכול לבטל ב"ד אחר אלא אם כן גדולה מהם בחכמה ובמנין, but it came up as an independent comment.
This article is deeply flawed, it assumes that the Rishonim were referring to the same bird that you identify as stork. This is despite the fact that they surely knew it didn't have webbed feet.
I'm not "assuming" anything. They describe the stork with its name and its prominent behavior. There is no bird with webbed feet that nests on tall buildings.
Don't storks have partially webbed feet? Does that count?
חסידה and cigonia are definitely names for the stork, no doubt about that.
Granted that is the case, it still doesn't mean that the bird they identified as such is the same as the one we identify as such.
Yes, it does. There is no other candidate. They describe the stork with its name and its prominent behavior. There is no bird with webbed feet that nests on tall buildings.
Well they called it "cigonia" and that name was used from antiquity through nowadays in all latin languages to mean a stork. There are not so many species of storks, and they mostly look the same. I do not know about possessing a crop, but their feet are not webbed, although it could vaguely seem so from afar.
Nice post!
"unless it has a [broad?] bill and webbed feet"
"and even with a [broad?] bill and webbed feet"
"Furthermore, they clearly do not possess either a [broad?] bill or webbed feet"
Unless there are birds without any bill.
Can you list which birds would be permitted if one does not accept the Rema, but are prohibited according to the Rema?
Turkey, which calls into question whether it is actually true that established halacha follows the Rema.
If actual behavior were the standard you would be hard pressed to find ANY kosher birds outside of the hummingbird which would qualify. That includes all the phasianids, pretty much every waterfowl (yes, even ducks, geese, and swans) all the diving birds, thrushes, etc cetera.
Fortunately for us actual phenomenological reality does not get a seat at the table.
Hummingbirds could be considered predatory against insects as are chickens
All birds pretty much are by that standard. Hummingbirds don't exhibit predatory behavior to insects. They just slurp them up inadvertently. I had to work hard to find even one species of bird that isn't a predator
Incorrect…prior to migration they enter a state of hyperphagia eating many insects to literally
Double their weight prior to flying across the Gulf of Mexico overnight
Strange. I had beard much different in the ornithology of NA birds class I took. But that waa a while ago. Perhaps research has yielded new results.
In any case that reinforces my original point. It's darned hard to find non-predatory birds in the real world. The standard set by faith and clever arguments runs aground and sinks when it encounters reality.
I can see why somebody would say that a stork has כף רגלה רחב even though they aren't exactly webbed https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/painted-stork-close-up-of-feet-gm1152335707-312591704 compared to eagle https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/eagle-claws-gm1419545982-465859093
Thanks. Most interesting and clear halachic article.
Rationally, the Rema's opinion should be null and void, due to this factual error.
And now, it's time to go shopping and buy some turkey!