In a similar manner, the tapuach that is used
in charoset on Passover and is dipped in honey on Rosh Hashana and is assumed
to be apple may actual be a citrus fruit. See "Mixing Apples and Oranges:
The Elusive Pesach and Rosh haShana Ingredient" by Ari Zivotofsky and Naomi
Zivotofsky, Young Israel of Cleveland Torah Journal III, 1996.
29. Guide
to Masechet Chulin (2 vol), I.M. Levinger, Maskil L'David, Jerusalem, 1995
30. Leghorn
was one of the most important Italian-Jewish communities and was graced
with many illustrious rabbis. Its mesorah is often cited.
31. I
am not sure under which category to put the third test.
After assembling this list, I discovered that the
Arugot Habosem, in permitting the kibbitzer hen, systematically goes through
these methods of permitting a new species. He applied them to the kibbitzer
hen and often to the turkey as well. Baruch shekivanti.
32. See
also Meshiv Davar YD:22.
33. He
further analyzes this in subsequent subsections.
34. Some
sources (Meiri, Maharsham in Da'at Torah, Sefer Haeshkol, Maggid Mishna
(ma'achalot asurot 1:20), Ran (page 21b in the Rif), Rosh) have "or" instead
of "and." The "or" option seems to be problematic because that would make
it possible to include the white stork (Ciconia ciconia), a bird that is
almost universally accepted as non-kosher and is identified as the chassida
listed in the Torah. See also Prisha YD 82:1.
35. Tzemech
Tzedek YD:60 notes that although the Rosh cites it in Chullin, he
rejects it in his responsa (20:20).
36. Some
Sephardi poskim have also accepted this position and rejected the use of
all signs. See for example Birchat Moshe #23, second section about Tunisians
on Djerba, and Zivchei Zedek 82:23-24 about Iraqis.
37. Fertile
offspring do not seem to be required. The expression in the Talmud is that
a pregnancy has to result. It could be that even a live birth is not required.
38. Many
other sources simply assume that kosher and non-kosher birds can mate and
discuss the status of the offspring. These sources (such as Minchat Yitzchak
2:85; Chidushei Chaviva page 16) clearly reject the hybridization test.
I have no evidence one way or the other whether the Ramo would accept the
hybridization test.
39. Tanina
YD:23,24 - cited by Darkei T'shuva (82:32).
40. For
many of these sources see: Darkei Tshuva YD 82:26; Torah Lodaat XIV:29
(Shmini) 1990; Modern Kosher Food Production From Animal Sources by Rabbi
Dr. I.M. Levinger, 1985; and Sichat Chullin by Amiti Ben-David.
41. Knowing
that two birds are merely different breeds of the same species would seem
to be a strong indicator that if one is known to be kosher the other is
also kosher. However, Shut Chavatzelet Hasharon (mahadura tanina, #26)
suggests that being classified by scientists as being of the same species
as a known kosher bird is not sufficient from the halachic perspective
to permit an unknown breed.
42. See
Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World by Sibley and Monroe, 1990,
Yale University Press.
43. With
all due respect, I am not clear as to what question about Rock Cornish
Hens required six pages to answer. The white cornish is a breed of chicken
developed in Cornwell, England and the white plymouth rock is a breed of
chicken developed in the U.S. In the 1950's these two kosher breeds of
chicken were cross-bred to yield the rock cornish hen. Today it is a mainstay
of the U.S. poultry market and most broilers sold in this country are cornish/rock
crosses.
44. This
was not new. There are several places in the Talmud (e.g. Chullin
65a) where there are disagreements about the status of a bird and the one
who prohibits states about those who eat it that "They will in the future
have to pay the price."
45. It
was permitted by, among others, Shoel U'mashiv (3:YD:2:121; also in Yad
Shaul YD:82), Rav Nasson Adler, Yehuda Ya'aleh, Chesed L'Avraham, She'elot
Shalom (22 and 47), Uri v'Yishi (11 and 12), Dvar Moshe (4), Tslusa d'Avraham
(7), Arugot Habosem (Kuntras Hatshuvot 16), Divrei Chaim (2:YD:45-48),
and Divrei Moshe and forbidden by, among others, Rav Yitzchak Shmelkes
(Beit Yitzchak YD 1:106-107), Yad Levi (YD:35-39; Rav Yitzchak Dov haLevi
Bamberger of Wartzburg), Rav Yaakov Etlinger (Aruch le'ner), Rav Shlomo
Kluger, Hechal haBracha (Dvarim 12a), Maharam Shick, Shut Chavatzelet Hasharon
(mahadura tanina, #26), and Rav Yitzchak Aharon Lendsberger.
See Darkei T'shuva YD:82:34 and footnote 59 on
pages 48-50 of the 1979 edition of Binyan Tzion for short summaries and
Hagaon Shenishkach, by Rav David Tzvi Neiman, pages 19-37 for a thorough
synopsis of this very fascinating piece of halachic history.
46. Other
birds with the name turkey in them, such as turkey vulture (Cathartes aura),
are unrelated.
47. According
to some recent texts, it should be reclassified in genus Meleagris. See
Poultry Breeding and Genetics, edited by R.D. Crawford, 1990, P. 19.
48. Some
researchers have speculated that the turkey reached Europe pre-Columbian,
perhaps by being brought across the Pacific and entering via Asia. However,
thus far no compelling evidence has been advanced to support such a theory
(Crawford, p. 22).
49. The
development of the turkey industry in the USA, Robert E. Moreng, Colorado
State University; The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 16, page 8217.
50. Based
on their responses it may be possible to glean an understanding of how
a mesorah is transmitted, expanded, and created and to apply the
logic to other questionable species of birds. This will, please G-d, be
done in a future article.
51. This
is distinct from and not even in the same genus as the golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetus) which is assumed to be one of the 24 non-kosher birds in the
biblical list, either the a'yit or nesher.
52. see
for example Cyrus H. Gordon, Before Columbus: Links Between the Old World
and Ancient America who presents such evidence as Roman and Bar Kochba
coins unearthed in Tennessee and Kentucky. See also Sheerit Yisrael (Yosifon
2) chapter 35 regarding Jews from the 10 lost tribes who were in America
when the Spanish exiles arrived.
53. This
idea is in line with the statement (Halachot Ketanot (1:9) quoted by Tzitz
Eliezar 11:36) that G-d would not let all of the Jewish people err and
follow an isolated opinion. If a Jewish practice exists it must have a
strong basis. So too if the vast majority of Jews are eating a particular
bird, there must be a solid justification for it. This is similar to the
idea (Chullin 5b) that G-d does not allow even the animals of the
righteous to eat improper food by accident. Based on this principal the
Taz (YD 82:4) questions how a large number of people came to eat tarnugulsa
d'agma. Chidushei Chaviva (p.11-12) rejects the Taz's answer and offers
his own.
The idea of not reversing an accepted practice,
even if the practice has shaky roots, is found in the Ktav Sofer's response
to the kibbitzer hen controversy (Shut mi'Ktav Sofer YD 3-4).
54. Tzemech
Tzedek (YD:60) in permitting a species of goose adopted a similar attitude
that if a bird is widely eaten, that in and of itself is a form of a mesorah.
This is similar to the opinion of Shut Yachin u'Boaz 1:64 that if a particular
species of grasshopper is eaten, that is a sufficient mesorah even
if it is no longer called chagav.
55. He
rejects the argument that the turkey mesorah was established prior
to the Ramo's (d. 1572) codifying the need for a mesorah since the
Ramo was merely formalizing a rule that seems to have been prevalent in
Ashkenazic lands for many years and is already mentioned by Rashi (d. 1105).
56. He
might understand the Ramo like the Tzemach Tzedek (YD 1:60) as only arguing
on the goose comparison, but accepting that one can really ascertain all
four of the signs, including the dores status. I find this very
stretched.
57. The
Shoel u'Meshiv expressed similar sentiments in 3:YD:1:15. The Divrei Moshe
and Tslusa d'Avraham seem to concur with the reasoning of the Shoel u'Meshiv
in "rejecting" the Ramo. The Darkei Tshuva (YD 82:26) audaciously (mis)interprets
the Shoel u'Meshiv in light of how he thinks the halacha should be, and
claims that the Shoel u'Meshiv is prohibiting turkey. Dvar Halacha (1921;
siman 53, page 74) says explicitly that the Shoel u'Meshiv was saying that
his generation did not follow the Ramo in this regard.
58. The
Maharam Shick (YD 98-100), Binyan Tzion (#42), and Divrei Chaim agreed
with the Dvar Halacha. Divrei Yisrael (YD:10) writes strongly against anyone
who would deviate from the simple reading of the Ramo in this regard, and
all the logical arguments in the world won't make a difference. Similarly,
Minchat Yitzchak (2:85) writes that we cannot be lenient without a mesorah,
and there is no one in our generation who can argue against the Ramo. He
further establishes that the position of the Ramo is on solid halachic
ground.
59. This
is cited with approval in 1935 in Menachem Meshiv 2:30, page 168.
60. Although
as noted above in note 22 the mechaber also requires a mesorah,
he seems more "flexible."
61. Cited
by R. Liebes, Mesorah, 1990; 3, page 63. I have been unable to find
this in Otzer Yisrael.
62. See,
however note 55.
63. Ripley's
Believe It Or Not, 19th series, 1972, page 13 records a "turkhen" that
was exhibited at the 1944 NY Poultry Show in Madison Square Garden. It
was supposedly a 10 week old bird owned by Dan Cavanaugh of Winstead, Conn.
After much effort I have been unable to independently verify the existence
of this "turkhen."
64. See:
Turkey-Chicken hybrids, Journal of Heredity, 1960, 51:69-73 and Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology B: Comparative Biochemistry 1973, 46B(3)533-9.
65. A
topic to be IY"H discussed in a subsequent article.
66. An
e-mail rumor that Klausenberg-Sanz Chassidim do not eat turkey is false.
I have verified this in a conversation with the rebbe's secretary (November
25, 1997).
67. There
are, of course, individual exceptions, some notable. It is reported that
Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzky and his family did not eat turkey. However, he
attributed the non-eating to a lack of mesorah, but did not hold
that a mesorah was impossible. Thus, when his son's daughter got
married he told her that she would now be able to eat turkey. (Reported
by his granddaughter's husband, Rabbi Doniel Neustadt of Cleveland). His
son, Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky, has further explained that his father's family
did not have a tradition to avoid turkey. His father adopted the custom
out of respect for his wife, whose family did not eat turkey. Thus, although
Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky continues to refrain from turkey in deference to
the custom he was raised with, his wife and children all eat it. (Reported
by Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky's son-in-law, Rav Shalom Kelemer, and by Gilad
J. Gevaryahu in Mail-Jewish on Dec. 19, 1995).
It is reported that Rav Dovid Lifshitz did not
eat turkey. His son-in-law (personal conversation with Prof. Chaim Waxman,
June 19, 1997) strongly emphasized that this was a personal stringency
which he did not advocate for others, and indeed his children and their
families eat turkey. A former student who wishes to remain anonymous reports
that Rabbi Lifshitz commended him on refraining from turkey but seemed
to not want to publicize the issue.
The Horowitz family, descendants of the Shlah
haKadosh (Rabbi Isaiah ben Avraham haLevi Horowitz; 1565? - 1630), have
a tradition that the Shlah supposedly left instructions that they should
not eat turkey, and to this day there are members of that family who adhere
to this custom. This instruction is not found in the Shlah's writings.
There is also a similar custom among the Lapidus family and other descendants
of the Tosfot Yom Tov (Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman ben Nathan ha'Levi Heller;
1579-1654). These two traditions may share a common source.
There is also the "well-known" Russian family
(Frankel) who Arugot Habosem (Kuntras Ha'tshuvot, 16) writes did not eat
turkey.
Finally, there are several prominent contemporary
rabbis who do not eat turkey but who have requested not to be cited.
The idea of abstaining from eating a bird that
has been deemed kosher but has questionable roots is explained by the Divrei
Chaim 2:YD:45-48 who permitted the kibbitzer hen but personally refrained
from eating it. Similarly, in Kuntrus Mishpachas Ram there is a letter
to the Chazon Ish from his father, Rabbai Shmaryahu Yosef Karlitz, that
mentions that although the kibbitzer hen (NOT the turkey as indicated in
footnote 48 to the 1989 edition of Binyan Tzion edited by Yehuda Horovitz)
is kosher, in his father-in-law's house they refrained from eating it since
a careful person should avoid eating items that required a p'sak. [Presumably
this is based on the exegesis of a verse in Ezekiel 4 found on Chullin
36b.]
The question of how those who refrain from turkey
should deal with the utensils in every kosher butcher shop, catering hall,
and private home is an important one and in need of further study.
68. For
a full discussion of this and related laws, see Ari Zivotofsky, "Your Camp
Shall Be Holy: Halacha and Modern Plumbing", Journal of Halacha and Contemporary
Society, Number XXIX, Spring 1995, pages 89-128, especially page 95.
69. Arugot
Habosem raised this question.