“Anomalies
of Simanei Kashrus” – A Response
Rabbi Nosson Slifkin
Following is a correspondence between myself and Rav Zushe Blech shlita.
It was in response to a presentation by Rav Blech at the OU conference on the
mesorah of kosher animals. Rav Blech’s presentation, entitled “Anomalies of
Simani Kashrus,” can be heard online at http://www.ou.org/audio/5764/mesorah64.htm.
The correspondence has been very slightly edited for clarity.
If the Hebrew text does not display correctly, right-click your mouse (in Internet Explorer) and set the Encoding to Hebrew.
The correspondence is posted here with the permission of Rav Blech.
Dear Rav Blech, shlita,
It was a great privilege to meet you
at the OU conference. Thank you for your kind words regarding my book. I
certainly found your presentation intriguing. However, as I mentioned to you at
the time, I had fundamental objections to your line of reasoning. There wasn't
time then to formulate them properly, but I would like to do so now.
If I understood correctly, your point
was that for an animal to be rated as a true maaleh gerah, it must not
only ruminate, but also possess four stomachs. The basis for saying this was
the Gemara's rule that any animal possessing upper teeth is treif. Since
the chevrotain possesses upper teeth, it must be treif. Yet the
chevrotain has split hooves and ruminates. Hence, it must be that since the
chevrotain only has three sections to the stomach, this does not count as maaleh
gerah.
Now, this conclusion is spectacularly
far-reaching in its implications. For one, it means, as you noted, that the
camel is not maaleh gerah either, since it too only possesses three stomachs.
Which means that when the Torah describes the camel as maaleh gerah, it
actually means that the camel is *not* maaleh gerah! One could try to
argue that the Torah is being megaleh that the camel's maaleh gerah
is not an adequate maaleh gerah, but this is certainly not at all
straightforward and is not hinted at anywhere in the Torah. But there is no
source whatsoever to support the idea that the camel does not possess either of
the simanei kashrus. Nor is there any source to indicate that the requirement
of maaleh gerah also includes four stomachs.
In support of your thesis, you cited
Rav Hirsch's statement, that maaleh gerah refer to the animal sawing
food with its lower incisors against the upper pad (and therefore since the
chevrotain possesses upper teeth, it is not maaleh gerah). However Rav
Hirsch's explanation of the etymology of maaleh gerah goes against all
other explanations, both those of Rishonim and those of etymologists.
Furthermore, Rav Hirsch's explanation is based on a misunderstanding of how
ruminants eat. He explains that they saw up the food by means of their lower
incisors. Actually, most ruminants grasp the vegetation between their lower
incisors and upper pad and then move their heads sideways to pull the
vegetation out of the ground. So there is no sawing.
You further state, in support of the
idea that the Torah is being megaleh that the camel's maaleh gerah
is not a true maaleh gerah, that the same must be said with the shafan
and arneves since there are other animals that share their type of
unconventional maaleh gerah. But how would that account for why these
other animals are not in the Torah's list? If these features are adequately
rated as maaleh gerah with the hare and hyrax to necessitate the Torah
mentioning them, why wouldn't the Torah also mention them with the other
animals in which they occur? (Assuming that this is the goal - as I argued in
my book I don't think it is necessary anyway since they only live in remote
countries).
Furthermore, as you yourself noted, even
this novel theory would not help solve the problem of other animals that also
contravene the Gemara's upper teeth rule. Aside from the elk, which you
mentioned, there is also the muntjac and musk deer. All these animals possess
upper teeth, and yet they also ruminate and possess split hooves. And they all
have four stomachs, so this novel definition of maaleh gerah doesn't
even resolve the problem with the Gemara's rule.
Yet there is a simple solution to
these problems - Chazal didn't know about these animals! When the Gemara gives
the upper teeth rule, there is no reason to believe that this is halachah
le'Moshe mi'Sinai. As the Acharonim note, it was simply a sevara,
which was empirically supported by every animal known to Chazal. But Chazal did
not know of elk, muntjac, musk deer or chevrotain, which lived in regions far
distant from them. (Furthermore, these animals are very much in the minority,
and would not affect the klal even with our current knowledge of their
existence.) There are different approaches amongst the Rishonim regarding
Chazal's knowledge of science. But I doubt that anyone would seriously claim
that Chazal knew about cellphones or digital cameras. By the same token, I
doubt that anyone would seriously argue that Chazal were familiar with every
animal in the entire world.
In the presence of this very
reasonable and straightforward solution, how can it be justified to posit a
radical approach that, without any other support, totally overturns all prior
understandings of maaleh gerah and the Torah's disqualification of the
camel, and still does not solve the basic problem of the existence of
exceptions to the upper teeth rule, for which it is being suggested in the
first place?
I am sure that you are a very busy
person, but if you could find the time to respond, I would greatly appreciate
it.
Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin
éåí çîéùé áùáú ô' áäòìåúê é"ã ñéååï úùñ"ã
Dear Reb Nosson shlita
I apologize for the delay in
responding your notes. As I had told you
at the conference, I thoroughly enjoyed your book, and I find your explanations
and theories beautifully explained and cogent.
The purpose of my comments at the
conference were not intended to create new Halacha, nor to form a
definitive thesis to tie up all of the loose ends regarding the issues that you
raised in your book and upon which I only touched. I think you would agree, however, that no “unified
theory” has been proposed that answers all of the questions that have been
raised. It is in this light that I had
made my proposal.
Essentially, I noted several
anomalies:
- Chazal, at least according to
some girsaos, seem to make the presence of upper incisors a sine qua
non for establishing the non-Kosher status of an animal. [I know that you are going to argue that
Chazal dealt only with “known” animals, but that is, in and of itself, only a
theory.]
- The Meforshim seem to ascribe a link between the existence of upper
teeth and a deficiency in maaleh gerah.
Had no such link been made, the siman of upper teeth may well have been considered merely an
empirical quirk – that it just so happens that all animals with upper
teeth are not Kosher species (by some other deficiency in maaleh gerah or mafris parsah). However, once the link between upper
teeth and maaleh gerah has been made, it is logical to assume that one defines
the other.
- Although not directly related to the existence of upper teeth, camels
have only three stomachs. This
characteristic seems to carry over to the various species of llama, as
well as the several species of chevrotain – both in the fact that they all
have upper teeth as well as possessing only three stomachs.
- Most everyone seems to accept the fact that llama, et al, are
not Kosher. Clearly, they do not
seem to exhibit a true mafris parsah.
The problem, however, is that Chazal seem to assume that a camel is the only
animal that is maaleh gerah and not <mafris parsah.
The simplest rationale given is that they are merely different
species of camel. The problem with
this approach is, of course, by what Halachic standard can such an
assumption be made? You dealt with
this matter in your book, but came to no conclusion, other than to suggest
that the Torah only dealt with animals common to Eretz Yisrael.
Based on the above, I noted that Rav
Shamshon Raphael Hirsch seems to explain the relationship between the upper
teeth and maaleh gerah somewhat differently than other Meforshim.
Specifically, he defines maaleh gerah in terms of having only lower teeth – like
a megerah. This approach goes much farther than other
explanations, for it would seem to argue that upper teeth are a deficiency in maaleh gerah
itself. To use Rav Hirsch’s language,
they are part of a group of “false ruminants”, just as he describes shafan and arneves as "false ruminants”. Clearly, Rav Hirsch seems to be argue that
the “maaleh gerah”
actions of shafan and arneves – whatever they are – are not true
ruminations – not just that they “ruminate” but do not have split hooves. I know that this flies in the face of
conventional wisdom, but it seems to be that this is what he says. As such, it would be consistent to say that
the maaleh gerah
actions of a camel are similarly not true “rumination” – and that is precisely
what the Torah is telling us! In other
words, once the Torah tells us that a camel> is not a Kosher animal – even though it appears
to be a maaleh gerah – the Torah is in essence further describing maaleh gerah in a way that
excludes the type of action of a camel.
It would therefore follow that upper teeth are part of this
exclusion. Similarly, the Torah would
also be telling us that the apparent rumination of the shafan and arneves – perhaps based
upon the theories you raised – are ultimately not to be considered true maaleh gerah – in
other words, the Giluy Kra of shafan and arneves is precisely that their actions are not
maaleh gerah.
It would seem that the concept of a camel being a “false ruminant” – not merely
being a ruminant but lacking split hooves – would seem implicit from the Gemara and Mefarshim who
make upper incisors a deficiency in maaleh gerah.
If we follow this approach, the
chevrotain would seem to be prohibited, since the Giluy Kra is that the existence of
upper canines (and perhaps three stomachs) removes such apparent “rumination”
from the Halachic definition of maaleh gerah. It
would also resolve the issue of the llama et al, without positing that
they are types of camels.
As to the issue of other seemingly
Kosher ruminants that possess upper teeth – such as the elk – I admit that they
pose a problem. However, it is quite
possible that we are not truly expert in what constitutes a maaleh gerah – a point
that should readily be conceded in our difficulties with defining the maaleh gerah
aspect of shafan and arneves! As such – as incongruous as it might seem –
perhaps are assumption that an elk’s eating habits are exactly the same as
those of, say, a cow, may not be accurate.
[The fact that they have four stomachs – and not three – would not be a
significant problem. It is the not the
number of stomachs that counts – it is some undefined deficiency in what
constitutes maaleh gerah.]
As to your technical question about Rav Hirsch’s
understanding of the exact action of the lower teeth – tearing but not slicing
– I will defer to Rav Hirsch own words.
Essentially, however, he just argues that it more similar to a megerah than
chewing.
As to your question as to why other
animals are not in the Torah’s list, perhaps it is precisely because the Torah
uses the three that are listed to establish paradigms for deficiencies in maaleh gerah. In
other words, it is not because a shafan and arneves exhibit an action of maaleh gerah that would otherwise qualify as a siman kashrus –
but precisely the opposite – the Torah is teaching us that these (and all
animals with similar patterns of eating) should not be considered maaleh gerah.
Again, please forgive this explanation
as a bit rambling, and I am sure if I would have had more time to think about
it, I would have written it differently.
I certainly do not take issue with your thesis – other than to point out
that it does not exactly resolve all of the questions you yourself
raised in your book.
I guess the bottom line is – I would
find it very difficult to permit the chevrotain – even without the Chazon Ish!
Wishing you all the best, and have a
Good Shabbos!
áéãéãåú,
Dear Rav Zushe, shlita,
Thank you for
taking the time to respond at length, I appreciate it. I would like to respond
to some of the points you mention. It was a great pleasure and privilege to
meet you and it is a great pleasure and privilege to correspond with you -
I apologize for having to disagree, and I intend no disrespect!
1. Do
you actually believe that Chazal were familiar with the physiology of
chevrotain, Chinese water deer, and American elk? If so, on what basis?
2. You
state that your proposal is being made in light of the fact that no unified
theory exists that answers all the questions. But I think that my book does
indeed solve all the questions satisfactorily, with the exception of the
difficulty of the Torah describing the hare and hyrax as chewing the cud. Since
your proposal does not deal with that issue, but instead raises lots of other
difficulties, I don't see how it can be put forward at all.
3. Some
of the Acharonim do indeed attempt to explain the connection between upper
teeth and maale gerah, such as Toras Chaim. But they do so by trying to
explain a physiological connection between upper teeth and regurgitation (as
opposed to a connection between upper teeth and the abstract term maaleh
gerah). Toras Chaim explicitly says that this is because Rav Chisda himself
must have made his ruling based on such a rationale. But we clearly see that
this is not always true - there are animal that possess upper teeth and yet do
indeed regurgitate their food. I therefore don't see at all how this can be
advanced as evidence that there is some innate connection between upper teeth
and the status of maaleh gerah. It is not at all logical to assume that
one defines the other, when we see that the rationale given is flawed!
4. I did
not write that the simplest solution to the problem of llama is that they are
subspecies of camel. On the contrary, the simplest solution is that Chazal did
not know about llamas.
5. The
jaws of kosher animals are actually less similar to a megerah than those
of treif animals. Kosher animals grip the food between the lower teeth and
upper plate and then pull. Treif animals, such as horses, cut it with their
teeth. Rav Hirsch was obviously not an expert in physiology (I'm not saying
this as a criticism, it's just that he had better things to study!), and he
would doubtless not have posited his far-fetched explanation if he knew the
true facts.
6. Although
Rav Hirsch does indeed describe the hare and hyrax as "fasle
ruminants," the fact remains that the Torah does indeed use the
terminology of maaleh gerah. To take Rav Hirsch's explanation, which is
both unreasonable and flawed to begin with, and then take it further to mean
that these animals are not halachically maaleh gerah, is going way too
far - as you note, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and should
therefore be rejected!
7. This giluy
kra that you are proposing is extraordinary and goes against the
understanding of every Rishon and Acharon until now. I don't see how it is
justifiable to do this on the basis of a debatable interpretation of a flawed
explanation of Rav Hirsch.
8. You
attempt to explain the omission of other animals with one siman from the
Torah's list by saying that the three in the list are paradigms for
deficiencies in maaleh gerah. But this does not fit with the Gemara in
Chullin 59a, which states that the point of the list is that one can eat a
single-siman animal as long as it is not recognized as one of those listed. To
claim that the Gemara really means "as long as its maaleh gerah is
not similar to one of the paradigmatic flaws listed" is highly
unreasonable. So how have you solved the llama problem?
9. The
physiology of elk and water deer is well understood. To claim that there is
some unknown flaw that disqualifies them from maaleh gerah is
far-fetched beyond belief. They have four stomachs. They regurgitate their
food, chew it, and swallow it again. (The problem with the shafan and arneves
is not support for a flaw in the elk. That's a difficulty in how *broad* to
make the definition. But elk and water deer fit the narrowest of definitions.)
According to your arguments, how could anyone ever eat an animal without a
mesorah? Maybe it has some unknown flaw in the maaleh gerah process!
Unless you are claiming that you can't eat an animal without checking its
teeth?!
10. The Cape
Warthog, although it does not ruminate, lacks upper teeth. It also
possesses split hooves. Would you claim that it is kosher?
In
conclusion, I feel that your thesis is overly far-fetched, lacking any
substantial support from meforshim, and does not have any benefits at all,
other than to supposedly make the upper teeth rule work even for animals in
America and Eastern Asia. Except that we can't even see how it does that, as it
renders the elk and water deer as severe problems. Isn't it so much simpler
to say that Chazal didn't know about them (and the halachah can still hold
true because they are not found in the yishuv)?
Kol tuv,
Nosson
Slifkin
Dear Reb Nosson shlita
Thank you for
your comments. I respect your arguments, but I still think that the issues
I raised have merit. We can agree to disagree.
Hatzlacha.
Zushe Blech