Is swordfish kosher? Khullin 66

Anybody who observes laws of kashrut knows that fins and scales are the signs of a kosher fish. In today’s daf TB Khullin 66 we learn that scales don’t have to be a permanent feature of the fish to be kosher. “§ The mishna states: And with regard to fish, any fish that has a fin and a scale is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: If a fish does not have scales now but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afyan fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the water, such as the akunas, and the afunas, and the kesaftiyas, and the akhsaftiyas, and the atunas, it is permitted.”(Sefaria.org translation)

Is a swordfish kosher? Rabbi Isaac Klein writes: 

“In the Talmudic Encyclopedia, under the article ‘Daggim,’ this swordfish is identified as Xiphias gladius, a fish which, in its early stages, has scales that disappear when it matures. According to its Latin and Greek names it is suggested that it is the Akseptias of the Talmud: Hulin 66b (Talmudic Encyclopedia, vol V, pp. 207ff)

“Well there has been some question about this, one of the later authorities whose opinions have been widely accepted says unquestionably:

            It is the widespread custom in all Israel to eat this swordfish called “fish ispada”

even though it has no scales because it is said that when it comes out of the sea, because of his excitement it shakes and sheds its scales (Darkei Teshuva 83:16).

“Similarly, Rabbi H. P. Tchorch of the Israel Ministry of religion in a report about kashrut in Israel discusses the swordfish, and after quoting a number of authorities concludes:

            “From all the above it becomes clear that swordfish is permitted.”

“Then comes the following:

 

“However, a great scientist, and one the experts in identifying fish (ichthyologist), Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a professor at the Yeshiva University in New York, disagrees with the manner of classifying this fish. According to him, it becomes clear that there are two classes of fish called swordfish [sailfish and swordfish}. The first is the “clean” fish, but the second is an “unclean” fish. It is then possible to say that the author of Knesset

Hagadolah who permitted the fish ispada, meant the latter, which is called “sailfish” (Sinai, v. 32, issues 4-5, p. 209)

“Evidently this noted scientist and expert ichthyologist has so over awed all his colleagues in the Orthodox rabbinate, that even those who had permitted it, backtracked. In Israel they concluded that the matter needs further study.”

Rabbi Klein sought out experts in the field to ascertain whether the immature swordfish has scales are not. He turned to Dr. Carl Gans who holds a PhD in zoology to write a letter to Mr. Bruce B. Collette of the Bureau of Fisheries of the United States Department of the Interior. Mr. Colette is an expert one can rely upon. The following answer came:

            Dear Carl:

In reply to your letter of December 7 on the swordfish-scale problem, enclosed is a Fishery Leaflet by Isaac Ginsberg on the subject and also a xerox copy of the Nakamura

et al. paper of 1951. As you can see from these references, swordfish do have scales as juveniles. They retain the scales until they are approximately four feet long. This means

that most swordfish found in the markets no longer have scales although they once did. Whether this leaves it kosher or not is up to your rabbinical friend.

Sincerely,

Bruce B Colette

Assistant Laboratory Director

Rabbi Klein concludes: “… In the government List of Common Food Fishes that Have Both Fish and Scales, the swordfish is listed too. On the basis of this evidence, we have to reconfirm our original position that the swordfish is kosher. (My emphasis )”

For the entire teshuva see Responsa and Halakhic Studies by Isaac Klein, Ktav Publishing house: New York, 1975, pages 75-78.

Change now and avoid the holiday rush! #Pinkhas#devartorah#parashathashavua

Years ago a friend and colleague, Rabbi Arthur Lavinsky, introduced me to a wonderful book entitled #Parasha by Sivan Rahav-Mer, an Israeli journalist. I will like to share with you one of her insights in this week’s Parashah, Pinchas.

“Korach’s sons, however, did not die.” (Numbers 26:11) This short verse is one of the most optimistic ones in the Torah, surprising us with the news that’s sons are alive and well. Korach had led an aggressive uprising against Moses, attracting many followers, which was quashed when the earth opened up and swallowed them alive. Korach, his family, and followers all died in this tragic end to the rebellion. Or so we thought. Rashi tells us that at the last minute, as they were about to die, Korach’s sons had a change of heart and “during the dispute they contemplated repentance."  At the 11^th hour, they realize what a terrible mistake the father had made and decided to abandon the rebellion, saving their lives.

“What a message of hope for us! Even when all seems lost, we can still change course. Even if we have erred, it is never too late to rethink our path in life. It takes a lot of courage to announce our mistakes and our intention to mend our ways, but it can be done. We can go against our surroundings, and our family, we can stand up to a charismatic father, even when the battle has already begun. Just look at Korach’s sons. They did it and did not die.” (Page 246)

We read at the very conclusion of this Torah portion the holiday cycle including Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur as another reminder is not too early to think about the changes we want to make in our lives to become the people we truly want to be. To paraphrase a popular advertisement, “Change now and avoid the holiday rush!”

 

Khullin 62b and 63a Chesed must be done for everyone, not only for one’s friends

The Gamara has been identifying kosher and nonkosher birds. Most the time the identification doesn’t help us because the amoraim were identifying birds with their Aramaic name in ancient Babylonia. Daf TB Khullin 62b records another disagreement between Rashi and Tosafot.

The Gamara records the disagreement about the swamp rooster (תַרְנְגוֹלָא דְאַגְמָא) and the swamphen (תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא). “Abaye says: The swamp rooster is one of the eight uncertain cases, and this is the mardu, i.e., the marda mentioned earlier. Rav Pappa says: The swamp rooster is forbidden, but the swamphen is permitted. And your mnemonic to remember this is the statement of the Sages with regard to the verse: “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4), that an Ammonite man is unfit to enter the assembly, but not an Ammonite woman. Mareimar taught: The swamphen is forbidden, because the Sages saw that it claws its prey and eats it. And this is the giruta, a non-kosher bird (see 109b).” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rashi in massekhet Nedah maintains that the swamp rooster (תַרְנְגוֹלָא דְאַגְמָא) and the swamphen (תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּאַגְמָא) are indeed the male and female bird. Tosefot ד"ה תַרְנְגוֹלְתָא writes that one cannot explain that the swamphen is permitted and the swamp rooster is forbidden because of the halakhic principle “anything that comes out of a kosher animal is kosher anything comes out of a nonkosher animal is nonkosher.” For example, milk from a cow is kosher, but milk from a pig or a camel is treif. How could the swamphen be kosher whose chic swamp rooster the nonkosher?! Consequently, they explain that the swamphen and the swamp rooster are two different kinds of birds, one being kosher and one being nonkosher.

Daf TB 63a explains how the stork (ḥasidah -הַחֲסִידָה) got its name. “And why is it called ḥasida? Since it performs acts of lovingkindness [ḥasidut] for its fellows, giving them from its own food.” (Sefaria.org translation) If the stork performs acts of lovingkindness, ḥesed, why is it a nonkosher bird? Rabbi Zelig Pliskin his book Love Your Neighbor explains the reason why the stork is not a kosher bird. “Ramban writes that the birds enumerated in this portion (Shemini) are forbidden for consumption because of their cruelty. If so, the stork should be permissible since it does kindness.

“The Chidushai Ha-Rim answers thus: the stork favors only for those that are his friends. Since it does not do chesed for strangers it is considered unclean. Chesed must be done for everyone, not only for one’s friends.” (Page 229)

TB Khullin 61 The turkey wasn't always a kosher bird

The Torah never delineates the signs (simanim-סימנים) of a kosher bird. Nevertheless, the Sages taught that a kosher bird needs these four traits. 1, It can’t be a predatory bird; 2, It has to have an additional finger; 3, It has to have a crop; 4, One must be able to peel away the outer membrane of the stomach.

Two different parshiot in the Torah, Shemini and  Reah, the Torah collectively lists 24 nonkosher birds. The eagle has none of the four above traits of a kosher bird. The vulture and the kite each has one trait, but they don’t share the same trait. The Raven has two traits and the rest of the 20 birds have three traits. Because the Torah uses the eagle as the prototype nonkosher bird, “Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: A bird that comes before a person with one sign of a kosher bird, and which is not listed in the Torah as non-kosher, is kosher, since it is unlike a nesher.” (Sefaria.org translation) If this is the case, why does the Torah enumerate the 23 other birds? These birds are the exception to the rule.

Now let’s turn our attention to the turkey. Turkeys are species native to North America. Following the arrival of Europeans in the Americas, turkeys were imported to Europe and the Middle East. Because the Torah does not name the turkey, some early rabbis were hesitant to allow it, as Jewish law generally requires a historical tradition (a mesorah) that a bird has been eaten safely by Jews. Eventually rabbis declared that the turkey is a kosher bird because it has all four. Now almost everybody eats turkey and it’s the most consumed poultry Israel.

My very first JTS Hebrew teacher Dr. Anne Lerner once told us that she doesn’t eat turkey on halakhic grounds. She explained why in a devar Torah on parashat Shemini.

“ But a number of rabbis, particularly in the 17th century, did rule that turkey was not kosher because there was no tradition of it being that way.

“One rabbi who apparently so ruled was Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (1579–1654). Heller was a leading rabbinic figure of the period when turkey was rapidly advancing across Europe. He was, for example, the author of the Mishnah commentary Tosefot Yom Tov and is commonly referred to by its name. Although Joseph M. Davis states in his recent study of Heller, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller: Portrait of a Seventeenth-Century Rabbi, that he found no extant written evidence of Heller’s decision that turkey is not kosher, it is a well-known tradition attested—and even followed— by some of Heller’s many descendants.

“As a Heller descendant, I observe his legendary ruling that because turkey is not kosher his descendants may not eat it. Do I really think that turkey is kosher? By the book, probably not kosher; by the culture, I have to concede that it is widely accepted and has been for more than half a millennium. (Is that “a tradition?”).

“Thus, I will, for example, eat off plates that have had hot turkey on them. I don’t rail against the practice of considering turkey kosher, but I maintain the custom that it is not, as do my sister, my daughter, and my nephew. It’s a challenge in Israel, which has the highest per capita turkey consumption in the world, and annoying in November when people ask me about my menu.

“But there are reasons to maintain it. First, it reminds me of a special heritage. Because unlike the special Heller Purim (for another time), it is a burden so it testifies to the authenticity of the lineage. Second, in my family it has come through a female line that goes back to my great-grandmother before she inherited it from her father. In talking to Zivotofsky a few years ago, I realized how unusual it is for a minhag (custom) to be passed down through women. Women, he maintained, take on their husband’s minhag. In addition, it reminds me that the greatest halakhic minds of any era may be wrong—I’m just not sure which ones. Besides, given the trend toward increasing prohibitions in a significant faction of contemporary Orthodoxy, turkey may yet become unkosher, liberating it from the threat of the shoḥet the ritual slaughterer. If that should happen, my family may find itself unexpectedly in the vanguard.” (https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/the-liberated-bird-lets-talk-turkey/)

I don’t think we have to worry about turkeys no longer being kosher. Rabbi Joel Roth once said to me in a conversation that once the rabbis permit something, it is nearly impossible to retract it.

Anyone’s life can be fashioned into a spiritual masterpiece #Hukkatbalak#devartorah#parashathahavua

The first half of this week’s Torah reading, Parashat Hukkat, makes us confront death. We shall read about Miriam’s and Aaron’s death and we know how much they meant to the Jewish people. Because of Miriam’s merit according to the Midrash, a well followed the Israelite camp providing them with water. When she died the well disappeared. Aaron was a pursuer of peace and was mourned by all of Israel. The Torah portion begins for the laws of the red heifer whose ashes can make somebody ritually ready after being contaminated by a corpse. It ends with the military victory over King Og of Bashan and Sichon, king of the Amorites. Although the Torah doesn’t tell us the human cost of that war, we know from our history that even in victory we mourn the death of our soldiers who never made it home again.

By reading about those deaths we are forced to confront our own mortality.  I like to share something that my friend and colleague Rabbi Steven Saltzman of blessed memory wrote:

“Judaism doesn’t teach how to avoid pain and sorrow; it teaches us how to stand up without being broken by it. How to live in a world where painful tragic things happen, and still affirm it to be God’s world….

“None of us wants to feel that, at the end of his days, he will have passed through the world and left no trace behind, that he has had no real impact on the world. We would like to justify our existence, to stake our claim to some sort of immortality, and some remarkable achievement that will leave the world different for having been part of it. And yet, what can we do? Very few, if any, of us will write a book that we reread 20 years from now. It is not likely that any of us in this room today will come up with a medical discovery that will save lives, or an invention that will enrich lives. Who of us will have a bridge, a street, a building named after him?

“But Judaism speaks to the secret yearning of ours, and says that it is possible. It is within the power of everyone of us to be a memorable person, to live a significant and impressive life. Judaism offers us not only the secrets of life, but the secret of immortality, a living beyond our appointed years-how to be the kind of parent who will be remembered with words of blessing, how to be a friend who won’t easily be forgotten, how to be the kind a neighbor whose impact on the community will remain even after he is gone from the scene.

“Anyone’s life can be fashioned into a spiritual masterpiece. The equivalent of sainthood is not reserved for a small group of unusual souls who were separate from the rest of society. Sainthood, that is, a life a spiritual excellence, is the prerogative of every normal husband or wife, parent, working person, anyone who takes life seriously. You don’t have to have a particular talent for religion to be a spiritual remarkable person.” (From Yom Kippur Readings edited by Rabbi Dov Peretz Elkins, page 199)

When we meet our Maker in 120 years God won’t ask us why we weren’t like Aaron or Miriam. God only asks of us that we fashion our lives so that we make our little corner of the world a little bit better, a little bit brighter, and a little bit cleaner. God only desires of us to become the person we already aspire to be.

 

Never underestimate the role of Jewish women #korakh#devarTorah#parashathashavua

In the first verse of this week’s Torah portion, Korakh's partners in rebellion are identified: Datan and Aviram sons of Eliav and On ben Pelet, from the tribe of Reuven. As the story unfolds, the name of On no longer appears. The Talmud and the Midrash tell us that On was dissuaded from rebelling against Moses by his wife, who is thus credited with saving his life. Apparently, On heeded his wife's advice and is considered to have done teshuva, repentance. The Gemara quotes the verse in Proverbs (14:1): "A wise woman builds her house; a foolish one destroys it with her own hands". The wise woman, says the Gemara, is On's wife, and the foolish is Korakh's.

This praiseworthiness of women has a long precedent. When Abraham hesitated to comply with Sara's demand to expel Hagar and Yishmael because she recognized his bad influence on Isaac, God told him to listen to all she says. Rebecca took a very practical position vis a vis the blessings of Isaac in directing Yaakov's actions. Rachel and Leah "deceived" Jacob when it was the future of the Jewish People that was at stake. Yocheved and Miriam acted courageously by disobeying Pharaoh and are highly praised for their role in preserving the future nation of Israel. Miriam's prophecy to her father Amram consisted of a logical argument which convinced him to take back his wife; Moses, the redeemer of Israel was the result. The Gemara says: "Because of righteous women our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt." Many other women in the Bible like Deborah, Yael, Esther Ruth, and Naomi were instrumental in saving the Jewish people.

In my Tuesday’s short story class we read “What To Do About The Women” by Talya Jankovits. Because the ultra-Orthodox rabbis in the story demanded the removal of all pictures and photographs of girls and women of all ages so that they would never unnecessarily see the face of a woman. Then women began losing their faces. Their faces had no eyes, noses, and mouths. Their faces became blank canvases. The Rabbis’ solution was to sequester all females in their homes until they figure out what caused this spiritual plague. Then all the women of their community disappeared. To bring them back, all the men purged every last trace of their women until there was nothing left. “Not even a fleeting image to remember them by.”

The moral of the Torah reading and of the story is to never underestimate the role of women in Judaism and Jewish history.

TB Khullin 43b-44a Choose your lane.

Dappim TB Khullin 43b-44a explains how one should find the answer to his/her halakhic question. As we shall see in the following story Rav Ukva thought he was being pious by accepting the contradictory stringencies of  Rav and  Shmuel. Ultimately he wasn’t being pious, but rather foolish.

 “The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.

“I impose the stringencies of Rav, as Rav said: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: But doesn’t Rav say that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says that it is not a location fit for slaughter. If one asks: If I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, doesn’t he say: It is a tereifa only if it was perforated in its majority? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: If any part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a tereifa.

“The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.

“Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava, a euphemism for Rava himself, from a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. But if one wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.

“And one who wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, one should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.” (TB Khullin 43b-44a, Sefaria.org translation)

Finding a rabbi to answer your halakhic questions is the complete opposite of what the musical group The Miracles advise when seeking a bride. They sang “My mama told me, you better shop around (shop, shop around, uh-huh-huh) Whoa yeah, you better shop around (shop, shop around). You shouldn’t shop around to find the Rabbi who will give you the most lenient answer (I never heard of a person who shopped around for stringent opinion although that type of person must exist). Once you ask a rabbi for a halakhic decision whether it is lenient or stringent, you should comply with that decision.

I recommend finding a rabbi whose overall theology and approach matches yours. This is the Rabbi you want to ask all your questions. Today’s daf teaches us to choose a lane and stick to it.

 

 

 

Be careful of a person’s reputation #shelakhlekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

In this week’s Torah portion Shelakh Lekha an anonymous man violated Shabbat by gathering wood.  (Numbers 15:32-35 ) In rabbinic literature he is known as the mekoshesh etzim, מקשש עצים. The Gemara in massekhet Shabbat presents three suggestions of the specific av melakhah, category of work, he violated. 1, He carried the wood four amot in the public domain; 2, He detached the tree from the ground; 3. He gathered the wood together. Rabbi Akiva’s identification of this anonymous person as Zelophehad  is troublesome (See how his famous daughters challenged the patriarchy and won in Numbers 27:1-11). Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira chastises him for this identification.

“Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him: Akiva, in either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If the truth is in accordance with your statement that the wood gatherer was Zelophehad, the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it. And if it the truth is not in accordance with your statement, you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.” (TB Shabbat 97, Sefaria.org translation) Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s chastisement teaches a very important and needed moral lesson for our time as well. One should never suspect the innocent person of indiscretion and falsely accuse him.

In Shakespeare's Othello, Iago famously declares, "He that filches from me my good name / Robs me of that which not enriches him / And makes me poor indeed." For centuries, this sentiment has resonated because a person's reputation—their good name—is the culmination of a lifetime of honesty, hard work, and moral choices. It is a currency built on trust. However, this priceless asset is terrifyingly fragile. When an innocent person is targeted by false allegations, the loss of their good name can be swift, devastating, and nearly impossible to fully repair

Why are we more willing to believe a person misbehaving than giving him the benefit of the doubt? Why do people accept as true undeniably false conspiracy theories? Rabbi Zelig Pliskin in his book Begin Again Now provides a method to “focus on the virtues of all the people you meet and honor them for those virtues. Master the habit of speaking well of everyone and everything you can. Train yourself to notice even the slightest good qualities and virtues. Keep asking yourself, ‘What positive qualities do I see in this person?’” (Page 279)

Don’t accept at face value all the rumors swirling around an innocent person. Until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, continue to look for the good in the person

Khullin 41 Does it pass the smell test?

Israel having a monotheistic faith was unique in the ancient world. Being a minority, Jews were susceptible to the influences of idolatry of the surrounding nations. The prophet Hosea criticizes the people for taking the very grain, wine, and oil that God provided them and dedicating those resources to false gods (Hosea 2). Jeremiah rebukes the people for chasing after foreign gods. (Jeremiah 2) Indeed the entire Bible can be looked upon as a war against idolatry. The rabbis faced the same problem and continued their war against idolatry.

The rabbis on today’s daf TB Khullin 41 worry about mar’it ’ayin (מרעית עין). Mar’it ’ayin is “appearance, a halakhic law that branches out from the rule "And you shall be clean from the Lord and from Israel ," which prohibits certain actions that in themselves are not sinful , but may appear to be sinful, or create the impression that other actions that are forbidden are permitted. This includes the obligation not to be suspected by people of doing inappropriate acts.” (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9F)

Although shekhita, slaughtering the animal, is the first of the four steps of animal sacrifice in the Temple, is a religious act, shekhita of khullin, non-sacrificial animals i.e. meat we can put on our table, isn’t a religious act. It is only a matir (מתיר) that allows us to eat it. Nevertheless, the rabbis forbid certain acts of shekhita because of mar’it ’ayin. Somebody watching you might think that you are sacrificing the animal to a foreign god.

“MISHNA: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, as in all those cases it appears that he is slaughtering the animal in the manner of idolaters. But one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. And on a ship, one may slaughter an animal onto vessels as it is clear that his objective is to avoid sullying the ship. One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not appear to emulate [yeḥakkeh] the heretics. 

“GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, but one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. The Gemara asks: What is different about slaughter into seas? Is it that one may not perform it, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to the angel of the sea? If so, slaughter into a round excavation containing water should also be prohibited, as onlookers will say: He is slaughtering to his reflection [bavua], which is also similar to idolatry. Rava said: The tanna’im taught that halakha in the case of murky water, in which no reflection can be seen.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The rabbis were worried when a person slaughter sent animal that he should not give the appearance of worshiping a foreign god even though that is the farthest thing from his mind. In other words, does his shekhita past the “smell test.”

Squawking or nonsquawking? #Beha’alotekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

Who hasn’t flown on a flight when young children or babies are crying! I read where a person was seated behind two small children who were not happy about being on a plane. Their cries of complaint filled the cabin. Just before takeoff, a flight attendant stopped next to them and said with a big smile, “What is all this squawking up here?” After charming the fussy 3-year-old and his younger sister for a few minutes, the flight attendant bent down and whispered very seriously, “I must remind you, this is a nonsquawking flight.”

The little ones became unbelievably quiet. That made everyone feel better. It’s a long journey when you have to sit in the squawking section.

Once I asked an assembly of day school students what we Jews are good at. They gave me a lot of good answers except the one I was looking for based on this week’s Torah portion of Beha’aotekha. We Jews are good at complaining. Despite the fact that God provided the miraculous manna for them, “The rift raft in their midst felt a gluttonous craving; and then the Israelites wept and said, ‘If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, onions, and the garlic. Now our gullets are shriveled. There is nothing at all! Nothing but this manna to look to. ’” (Numbers 11: 4-6) To say the least, Moses wasn’t pleased, and he complained to God “Where am I to get meat to give to all these people, when they whine before me and say, 'give us to meat to eat!'” (Numbers 11:13)

I’m sure God would like to remind all of us every morning that He wants this day to be a nonsquawking flight. We should try to do all things without complaining and disputing. If we went through each day without complaining, how would it affect our family and friends?

Squawking or nonsquawking? The choice is ours.

 

Khullin 7b The reason why there’s no requirement for ritual slaughter for fish

When I was in rabbinical school, I only studied the laws of milk and meat mixtures with Dr. José  Faur. Ritual slaughtering , shekhita, was not in the course syllabus. Although two of my fellow students and their own studied how to slaughter correctly chickens with Dr. Zucker. They passed the exams, but I never learned whether they continue along this side gig in the rabbinate.

For a kosher animal shekhita, the shoket, the ritual slaughterer, needs to slice through the majority of both the windpipe and esophagus. For a kosher bird shekhita, the shoket has to slice through the majority of either the windpipe or the esophagus. Although I knew that animals and birds needed to be richly slaughtered and fish were exempt, I never knew the reason why fish were exempt until I studied yesterday’s daf TB Khullin 27b.

“The Gemara proceeds to discuss the source for the slaughter of non-sacred birds. Bar Kappara teaches that the verse states: “This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:46). The verse situated the bird between the animal and the fish. To require the cutting of the two simanim that must be severed in ritual slaughter, i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, for the slaughter of a bird, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to fish, which do not require slaughter at all. To exempt it with nothing, i.e., to exempt the bird from slaughter altogether, is impossible, as it was already juxtaposed to the animal. How, then, is fitness of a bird for consumption accomplished? It is rendered fit with the cutting of one siman… (In other words based on this verse,when it comes to birds the Rabbi split the difference between the two simanim of the animals and fish which do not require slaughter at all.-gg)

“The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that fish are not subject to slaughter? If we say that it is because it is written: “If flocks and herds be slaughtered for them…or if all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, will they suffice them” (Numbers 11:22), which indicates that mere gathering suffices for them, that is not a proof…

“The Gemara relates that a passerby from the Galilee taught: Fitness for consumption of animals, which were created from the dry land, is accomplished through cutting two simanim, the gullet and the windpipe. Fitness for consumption of fish, which were created from the water, is accomplished with nothing, as no slaughter is required. Fitness for consumption of birds, which were created from mud [harekak], a combination of dry land and water, is accomplished through cutting one siman. Rav Shmuel of Cappadocia says: Know that birds were created from a combination of dry land and water, as they have scales on their feet like fish.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Smile#Naso#parashathashavua#devartorah

A study concluded that smiling can be good for your health. Research shows that smiling slows down the heart and reduces stress.

But smiling isn’t just good for you. A genuine smile blesses those on the receiving end as well. Without saying a word, it can tell others that you like them and that you are pleased with them. Smile can hug someone without giving them even the slightest touch.

Life does not always give us a reason to smile. But when we see a heartfelt smile through aged wrinkles, our hearts are encouraged

Smiles are also a hint of the image of God in us. This week’s Torah portion Naso contains the priestly benediction and we can get an indication that God “smiles” when He blesses us. “May YHVH bless you and watch over you. May YHVH shine His face toward you and favor you. May YHVH lift up His face toward you and grant you shalom.” (Numbers 6:25-26, Everett Fox translation) Those words are a Hebrew idiom for the favor of God in a person’s life, asking God to smile on His children.

Every day in the repetition of the morning and afternoon  Amidah, the leader recites out loud the priestly benediction to remind us that God smiles upon us. So today, remember that you are loved by God and that He is pleased to be gracious to you and to shine His face upon you.

 

TB Khullin 26 What is the correct concluding blessing of Havdalah when a Festival falls on erev Shabbat?

Today we finished the first chapter of our massekhet with daf TB Khullin 26. It concludes with a discussion concerning blowing the shofar on the onset of Shabbat and holidays and reciting Havdalah at the conclusion of Shabbat and holidays. The Rabbis describe a series of six blasts blown shortly before sunset, with each alert serving a specific, practical purpose for the community as they wrapped up their weekly tasks:

·        1st Blast: Signaled workers in the distant fields to cease their agricultural labor and begin making their way back to the city.

·        2nd Blast: Alerted shopkeepers and innkeepers in town to wrap up business, clear out, and close their stores.

·        3rd Blast: Instructed households to finish their food preparation and light the Shabbat candles.

·        The Final 3 Blasts: A sequence of Tekiah, Teruah, and Tekiah (one long blast, a series of staccato notes, and another long blast) signaled the exact, final instant before Shabbat began. At this point, the shofar blower would cease blowing and put the instrument down, as carrying or blowing a shofar is forbidden once Shabbat has started. (TB Shabbat 35a)

Even today the shofar is blown in Jerusalem erev Shabbat.

Our Mishna of teaches: “Any situation where there is a shofar blast sounded on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival to stop the people from performing labor and to demarcate between the sacred and the profane, there is no havdala recited at the conclusion of the Shabbat or Festival in prayer and over a cup of wine. And any situation where there is havdala recited, there is no shofar blast sounded.

“How so? On a Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve, one sounds the shofar to stop the people from performing labor that is permitted on the Festival and prohibited on Shabbat and to demarcate between one sacred day and another; and one does not recite havdala, as that is recited only when the transition is from a sacred day to a profane day or from a day of greater sanctity to a day of lesser sanctity. The sanctity of Shabbat is greater than the sanctity of the Festival, and therefore havdala is not recited in this case. On a Festival that occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat, one recites havdala, but one does not sound the shofar.

“How does one recite havdala in that case; i.e., what is the formula of the blessing? It concludes: Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred, as opposed to the standard blessing at the conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane….” (Sefaria.org translation)

A standard blessing has a beginning (in Hebrew a petikha-פְּתִיחָה) starting with “Barukh atah Hashem” and a conclusion (in Hebrew a khatima-חֲתִימָה) with “Barukh atah Hashem”. When reciting Havdalah going from a Yom Tov to Shabbat we recite “Who distinguishes between sacred and sacred” in the khatima. “The Gemara asks: Where does one recite the formula in question? Rav Yehuda said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing. But in the body of the blessing one recites the same formula as in every conclusion of Shabbat: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, between light and darkness, etc. And likewise, Rav Naḥman said: He recites the formula at the conclusion of the blessing.” Sefaria.org translation)

What is the conclusion of Havdalah when it falls in the middle of the week is the next question the Gemara answers. “Rabbi Zeira said: At the conclusion of a Festival that occurs in the middle of the week, one recites: Who distinguishes between sacred and profane, and between light and darkness, and between Israel and the nations, and between the seventh day and the six days of labor, even though it is not Shabbat. What is the reason for that practice? He is enumerating the series of distinctions that the Sages instituted and not specifically the distinction unique to that particular day.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Here is the final blessing of Havdalah at the conclusion of Shabbat. “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who distinguishes between the holy and the profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six working days. Blessed are You, O Lord, who distinguishes between the sacred and the profane.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Here is the final blessing of Havdalah when Yom Tov falls on erev Shabbat: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who distinguishes between the holy and the profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six working days. Blessed are You, O Lord, who distinguishes between the sacred and the sacred.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Is it a mitzvah? Rambam and Ramban disagree.

Everybody agrees that there are 613 commandments; however, different sages count certain verses in the Torah as mitzvot while others versus are not considered mitzvot. We shouldn’t be surprised that Rambam in his introduction to his Sefer HaMitzvot enumerates 14 principles (Shorashim)  which determine what counts as a mitzvah. The third shoresh is “You should know that that which they said (Makkot 23b), "613 commandments were stated to Moshe at Sinai," indicates that this is the number of the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. For commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations do not have a connection to Sinai - whether they were stated at Sinai or elsewhere. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

Daf TB Khullin 24 sets up a debate between Rambam and Ramban whether carrying the tabernacle and its vessels is a mitzvah are not. According to the Torah the Levites only serve between the ages of 30 and 50. The Gemara expands their opportunity to serve after a permanent home in Israel is built and the tabernacle no longer needs to be carried from place to place. “One might have thought that the Levites were disqualified with the passage of years even in Shiloh, the permanent place of the Tabernacle, and in the eternal Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “To perform the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens” (Numbers 4:47), juxtaposing the two forms of Levite service to teach: I stated the disqualification of the passage of years only at a time when there is Levite service involving carrying the Tabernacle on their shoulders.” (Sefaria.org translation) Since carrying the Tabernacle is not something that is practice for all generations, Rambam doesn’t count it as one of the 613 mitzvot.

Ramban agrees with the principal; however, he disagrees on its application. Carrying is counted as one of the 613 mitzvot. He explains his point of view in his commentary on Numbers 8:25.

“AND FROM THE AGE OF FIFTY YEARS HE SHALL RETURN FROM THE SERVICE OF THE WORK, AND HE SHALL SERVE NO MORE — “the service of carrying loads upon the shoulders, but he returns [i.e., he may still serve] to close the gates, or to sing, or to load the wagons.” This is Rashi’s language. But in the Sifre the Rabbis mentioned only that “he returns to close the gates or to the work of the sons of Gershon” [but they did not say that he may return to the service of singing]! And this indeed appears correct [that a Levite above the age of fifty was not allowed to take part in the singing] — for if it were as the Rabbi [Rashi] has written, why were the twenty-year old Levites not appointed to sing, to close the gates and to load the wagons until they reached the required age, and why were they counted from thirty to fifty years old and only for the work of bearing burdens [since both before and after these two age-limits they could still serve by singing etc., therefore they should have been counted from twenty years, with no upper limit]? Moreover, why were the sons of Gershon and Merari counted in this way [from thirty to fifty] since all their work [i.e., singing, closing the gates and loading the wagons] could be done when they were older?

"We must rather say that since they were appointed to carry the ark at the age from thirty to fifty, they [therefore] were not appointed to sing, which was the main function of the Levites, unless they were also qualified to carry the ark, for all those who were appointed to sing were qualified to perform all the services [including the carrying of the ark]. And since the Kohathites [who were the only ones permitted to carry the ark] were counted from thirty to fifty years old, even for singing, they were all counted in this manner, in order that the sons of Gershon and Merari should not be qualified to sing during these years [i.e., below the age of thirty and above the age of fifty] and the sons of Kohath be disqualified. [Hence the age limits of thirty and fifty applied to the Kohathites’ singing, which was their main function, as well as to their carrying of the parts of the Tabernacle, and therefore these age limits applied to the function of singing of the sons of Gershon and Merari as well, and they could not, as Rashi wrote, return to the singing.] But for closing the gates or loading the wagons all of them were qualified [even after the age of fifty, as quoted in the Sifre above]. Furthermore it is written, from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entered in to do the work of the service, and the work of bearing burdens in the Tent of Meeting, and the Rabbis interpreted in the Tractate of Shechitath Chullin: “I might think that in Shiloh and in the Eternal House [at Jerusalem, when the services of the Levites were limited to gatekeeping and singing] it was also so [that the Levites were disqualified after the age of fifty]; Scripture therefore says, to do the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens. I have only said so with respect to a time when there is bearing burdens upon the shoulders.” Now [the expression] ‘avodath avodah’ [the work of service, but literally “a service of a service”] is a reference to singing, as Rashi has written above in Seder Naso; if so [it is clear that] when there was [the duty of] bearing the burdens upon the shoulders, the Levites were disqualified from singing as well [after the age of fifty]. And so it is said in the words of David, And the Levites were numbered from thirty years old and upward, and it is further written there, Of these twenty and four thousand were to oversee the work of the House of the Eternal etc., and four thousand praised the Eternal with the instruments which I made to praise therewith. For until the House [of G-d in Jerusalem] was built, when they still had to carry [the ark and the Tabernacle] on their shoulders, they only appointed Levites to sing who were also fit to carry [i.e., from the age of thirty to fifty]; but David counted them again from twenty years old to meet the requirements of the House [of G-d] when it was built, as has been explained [above at the end of Verse 4].” (Sefaria.org translation)

TB Khullin 17 Rambam and Ramban disagree what soldiers may eat in a war.

The conquest of the Land of Israel by Joshua took seven years according to the rabbis’ calculation. The life and adventures of Calev ben Yefuneh is the key to this understanding. He was 85 years old when the Land of Israel was conquered. According to this he entered the land when he was 78 years old, 38 years after Moses sent the 12 spies to check out the land when he was a 40-year-old man.

The Gemara discusses the difference between how the animal was slaughtered during the 40 years of wandering and after they enter the land.

Ҥ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status?

“The Gemara asks: When? With regard to what period does Rabbi Yirmeya raise his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: “And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things…and you shall eat and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 6:10–11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei daḥazirei] that they found in the houses were permitted for them; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted?

“Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma is with regard to the period thereafter. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

No matter what, during the seven years a conquest the Israelites were allowed to eat trief food like bacon and shrimp!

Rambam and Ramban disagree whether a general principle can be gleaned from the Gemara. Rambam learns the general principle. In any war when the soldiers conquer an area and there’s no kosher supplies available, they may eat any forbidden food. Let me share Ramban’s commentary on Deuteronomy 6:10 where he cites Rambam and explains his disagreement.

“…And in the opinion of our Rabbis the verse further alludes [to the law] that anything found in the houses full of all ‘good’ things [that were occupied in the conquest of Canaan] may be used, even if they contained things forbidden by the Torah such as kadli of swine, or the produce of a vineyard sown with diverse seeds, or fruits of the first three years of a tree. Even regarding cisterns, it is possible that in their construction forbidden materials were used in their coat of pitch [such as forbidden wine; hence Scripture mentioned and cisterns hewn out, which thou didst not hew to indicate that they, too, were permitted to them]. Or it may be that the cisterns are mentioned figuratively, to denote the abundance of good things, thus giving them mastery over all that was found in the Land both permissible and impermissible. Thus all forbidden articles were permitted to them except [for those that were forbidden as a result of] the prohibition of idols, as he will yet clarify, thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee etc. Therefore, he mentions here in the next section, ye shall break down their altars, to destroy the idols and their appurtenances. But whatever else was found in the Land was permissible. This permission lasted until they consumed the spoil of their enemies. And some Rabbis say that this permission applied [only] to the seven years of [the] conquest [of the Land], and so it appears in the Gemara, in the first chapter of Tractate Chullin. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Laws of the Kings and their Wars: “Armed soldiers, when they enter the border of the nations and loot from them, are permitted to eat n’veiloth and treifoth the flesh of swine and the like if they are hungry and do not find anything to eat except for these forbidden foods [i.e., only in the case of emergency are they permitted to eat these foods]. Similarly they may drink yayin nesech (wine dedicated to an idol). From tradition the Rabbis have learned: ‘And houses full of all good things — the necks of swine and the like.’” But this is not correct. For it is not because of danger to life or of hunger alone in time of war that [forbidden foods] were made permissible; rather, after they captured the large and wealthy cities and settled in them, was the spoil of their enemies permitted to them. And not to all armed soldiers [in any war throughout does this law apply as the Rabbi seems to hold], but only to [those who conquered] the Land which He swore to [give to] our fathers, as is explained in the subject before us. [Rabbi Moshe’s ruling that the dispensation applies to] yayin nesech is also incorrect, for all forbidden articles pertaining to idolatry — the idols themselves, their appurtenances, and their offerings — are all forbidden as it is said, thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it, for it is a doomed thing. And if the Rabbi’s intent was to permit in wartime only wine which was merely under suspicion of having been dedicated to idolatrous worship [which is a Rabbinic prohibition] — why do we need a Scriptural interpretation for this? If Scriptural prohibitions were permitted [to them], could subjects of a Rabbinic decree be forbidden?!” (Sefaria.org translation)

According to Ramban eating forbidden foods during the seven years of conquest has nothing to do with pikuakh nefesh, saving a life of a hungry soldier in the midst of a battle. It was a special gift dispensation in order to enjoy the booty of that time and place. It has nothing to do with Army regulations whatsoever.

When I was living in Springfield, Massachusetts I had the good fortune to know Kalman Chaitovsky z”l. He was the cantor at Keser Israel. I co-officiated many funerals with him. Once he told me his life story. He grew up in Poland and left with his family to come to America. They had to take a train through Nazi Germany. It was the last train that the Nazis allowed Jews to travel through their country before the war broke out. Once America entered World War II he enlisted. Being a committed observant Jew, he refused to eat Army rations because they were trief. He only ate peanut butter sandwiches three times a day during the war. He told me once he returned stateside, he never ate peanut butter again.

 

How can the ritual slaughtering of an animal Shabbat be kosher? TB Khullin 14

Immediately the Mishnah on today’s daf TB Khullin 14 is problematic “In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty, his slaughter is valid.” (Sefaria.com translation) The very first Tosafot on the page ד"ה השוחט בשבת raises the following problem. Who else would purposely desecrate the Sabbath but a  Jewish heretic (מוּמָר). We have previously learned Tb Khullin 5a that we are forbidden to eat ritually slaughter animals by a Jewish heretic who desecrates the Shabbat.

There are different categories of Jewish heretics. The first category is a transgressor with regard to only one matter (מְשׁוּמָד לְדָבָר אֶחָד). This person accepts the Torah however, he doesn’t want to observe a commandment, for example he really loves his BLT sandwiches. The second category is a transgressor who rejects the entire Torah (מְשׁוּמָד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָהּ). The last category is a transgressor who becomes an idolater (מְשׁוּמָד לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה). One who desecrates the Sabbath is considered like a transgressor who rejects the entire Torah. Consequently, how can this Mishnah teach that his slaughter is valid?

The Tosafot provides two possible solutions. The Mishnah is dealing with the case of a person who slaughters the animal on Shabbat in private. One who privately desecrates the Sabbath isn’t considered a Jewish heretic (מוּמָר). If this person would slaughter the animal publicly, we would be forbidden to eat the meat. The second solution is this person’s first time offense. A first-time offender isn’t considered a Jewish heretic; consequently, even though he’s guilty of a death sentence his ritually slaughtering of animal is kosher. Once he becomes a habitual offender he is considered a Jewish heretic and his ritual slaughtering is no longer kosher.

Rambam solves the problem by interpreting the person slaughter the animal unintentionally transgressed (שׁוֹגֵג). Either he didn’t know that slaughtering an animal on Shabbat is forbidden or he didn’t realize that that day was Shabbat. If the person ritually slaughter the animal on Shabbat on purpose, he is considered a Jewish heretic and the slaughter becomes invalid.