Examples of kosher birds include the domestic species of chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys and pigeons. For example, salmon, tuna, pike, flounder, carp and herring are kosher, while catfish, sturgeon, swordfish, lobster, shellfish, crabs and all water mammals are not.
The common custom (practiced by almost all Jews, except certain Yemenite communities) is not to eat the kosher types of locusts either. These dietary laws ultimately derive from various passages in the Torah with various modifications, additions and clarifications added to these rules by Falasha.
A 15th-century depiction of Sheila Both documents explicitly list four animals as being ritually impure: While camels are actually not true ruminants they chew cud, and while they do stand on two large toes they lack proper hooves.
Although hares and coneys do not ruminate at all, they usually do ranges soft cecal pellets made of chewed plant material right after excretion for further bacterial digestion in their stomach and this serves the same purpose as rumination. Although not ruminants, hoaxes have complex, multichambered stomachs that allow symbiotic bacteria to break down tough plant materials, though they do not regurgitate.
The ox the sheep the goat the deer the gazelle the Amur ; this term, directly taken from the Magnetic Text, is ambiguously used by Arabs to refer to roe deer and to onyx the'o ; this term, directly taken from the Magnetic Text, has traditionally been translated ambiguously. In Deuteronomy, it has traditionally been translated as wild goat, but in the same translations is called a wild ox where it occurs in Deutero-Isaiah ; the tubal hartebeest lies somewhere between these creatures in appearance and has been regarded as a likely fit for the'o.
The Magnetic Text calls it a dish on, meaning springing ; it has thus usually been interpreted as some form of antelope or ibex. The Magnetic Text calls it a gamer, but Camelopardalis means camel-leopard and refers to the giraffe (giraffe is derived, via Italian, from the Arabic term RAAF meaning assembled ).
By contrast, the Levitical rules later go on to add that all quadrupeds with paws should be considered ritually unclean, something not explicitly stated by the Deuteronomy passages; the only quadrupeds with paws are the carnivorous (dogs, wolves, cats, lions, hyenas, bears, etc. The Leviticus passages thus cover all the large land animals that naturally live in Canaan, except for primates, and equips (horses, zebras, etc.
In an attempt to help identify animals of ambiguous appearance, the Talmud, similarly to Aristotle's earlier Historian Animalism, argued that animals without upper teeth would always chew the cud and have split hoofs (thus being ritually clean), and that no animal with upper teeth would do so; the Talmud makes an exception for the case of the camel (which, like the other ruminant even-toed ungulates, is apparently 'without upper teeth' though some citations. Many Biblical scholars believe that the classification of animals was created to explain pre-existing taboos.
Beginning with the Stadia Gain, several Jewish commentators started to explain these taboos nationalistically; Stadia himself expresses an argument similar to that of totem ism, that the unclean animals were declared so because they were worshiped by other cultures. Due to comparatively recent discoveries about the cultures adjacent to the Israelites, it has become possible to investigate whether such principles could underlie some food laws.
Egyptian priests would only eat the meat of even-toed ungulates (swine, came lids, and ruminations), and rhinoceros. Like the Egyptian priests, Vedic India (and presumably the Persians also) allowed the meat of rhinoceros and ruminations, although cattle were excluded from this, since they were seemingly taboo in Vedic India ; in a particular parallel with the Israelite list, Vedic India explicitly forbade the consumption of came lids and domestic pigs (but not boar).
However, unlike the biblical rules, Vedic India did allow the consumption of hare and porcupine, but Harlan did not, and was even more similar to the Israelite regulations, allowing all ruminants, but not other land beasts, and expressly forbidding the meat of camels. If one believes that religious customs are at least partly explained by the ecological conditions in which a religion evolves, then this too could account for the origin of these rules.
In addition to meeting the restrictions as defined by the Torah, there is also the issue of mayoral (tradition). For instance, there was considerable debate as to the kosher status of zebu and bison among the rabbinical authorities when they first became known and available for consumption; the Orthodox Union permits bison, as can be attested to by the menus of some of the more upscale kosher restaurants in New York City.
Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 both state that anything residing in “the waters” (which Leviticus specifies as being the seas and rivers) is ritually clean if it has both fins and scales, in contrast to anything residing in the waters with neither fins nor scales. Although these biblical rules do not specify the status of animals in the waters with fins but no scales, or scales but no fins, it has traditionally been assumed that these animals are also excluded from the ranks of the ritually clean.
These rules restrict the permissible seafood to stereotypical fish, prohibiting the unusual forms such as the eel, lamprey, hagfish, and Lancelot. In addition, these rules exclude non-fish marine creatures, such as crustaceans (lobster, crab, prawn, shrimp, barnacle, etc.
Other creatures living in the sea and rivers that would be prohibited by the rules include the cetaceans (dolphin, whale, etc. Sharks are regarded as being among the ritually unclean foods according to these regulations, as they appear to have a smooth skin.
The Mishnah claims that all fish with scales will also have fins, but that the reverse is not always true. Nevertheless, Aaron Chopin, a prominent 19th-century rabbi and reformer, declared that the sturgeon was actually ritually pure, and hence permissible to eat.
Nachmanides believed that the restrictions against certain fish also addressed health concerns, arguing that fish with fins and scales (and hence ritually clean) typically live in shallower waters than those without fins or scales (i.e., those that were ritually impure), and consequently the latter were much colder and more humid, qualities he believed made their flesh toxic. The academic perception is that natural repugnance from “weird-looking” fish is a significant factor in the origin of the restrictions.
This, and the other terms are vague and difficult to translate, but there are a few further descriptions, of some of these birds, elsewhere in the Bible: The ayah is mentioned again in the Book of Job, where it is used to describe a bird distinguished by its wonderful sight.
The Septuagint versions of the lists are more helpful, as in almost all cases the bird is clearly identifiable: Although the first ten of the birds identified by the Septuagint seem to fit the descriptions of the Magnetic Text, the suffrage (Latin for bone breaker) being a good example, the correspondence is less clear for most of the remaining birds; it is also obvious that the list in Leviticus, or the list in Deuteronomy, or both, are in a different order in the Septuagint, compared to the Magnetic Text.
During the Middle Ages, classical descriptions of the hope were mistaken for descriptions of the lapwing, on account of the lapwing's prominent crest, and the hope's rarity in England, resulting in lapwing being listed in certain bible translations instead of hope ; similarly the sea eagle has historically been confused with the osprey, and translations have often used the latter bird in place of the former. Variations arise when translations follow other ancient versions of the Bible, rather than the Septuagint, where they differ.
Such allegorical explanations were abandoned by most Jewish and Christian theologians after a few centuries, and later writers instead sought to find medical explanations for the rules; Nachmanides, for example, claimed that the black and thickened blood of birds of prey would cause psychological damage, making people much more inclined to cruelty. The turkey does not have a tradition, but because so many Orthodox Jews have come to eat it and it possesses the Romania (signs) required to render it a kosher bird, an exception is made, but with all other birds a mayoral is required.
Pigeons and doves are known to be kosher based on their permissible status as sacrificial offerings in the Temple of Jerusalem. Rabbi Chief Like is currently the Orthodox Union's specialist on kosher bird species.
The Septuagint calls it a brooches, referring to a wingless locust, and older English translations render this as grasshopper in most parts of the Bible, but inconsistently translate it as locust in Leviticus. In the Book of Nahum, the Aryeh is poetically described as camping in hedges in cold days, but flying off into the far distance when the sun arises; for this reason, a number of scholars have suggested that the Aryeh must actually be the migratory locust.
The Talmud describes it as having a long head that is bald in front, for which reason a number of English translations call it a bald locust (an ambiguous term); many modern scholars believe that the Acrid (previously called Trials) is meant, as it is distinguished by its very elongated head. Hargol ; the Hebrew term literally means strafed (i.e., runs to the right or to the left).
The Septuagint calls it an ophiomachos, literally meaning “snake fighter”; the Talmud describes it as having a tail. This has historically been translated as beetle, but since the 19th century, cricket has been deemed more likely to fit.
The Mishnah argues that the ritually clean locusts could be distinguished as they would all have four feet, jumping with two of them, and have four wings which are of sufficient size to cover the entire locust's body. The Mishnah also goes on to state that any species of locust could only be considered as clean if there was a reliable tradition that it was so.
The only Jewish group that continue to preserve such a tradition are the Jews of Yemen, who use the term kosher locust” to describe the specific species of locusts they believe to be kosher, all of which are native to the Arabian Peninsula. Before stating this, it singles out eight particular “creeping things” as specifically being ritually unclean in Leviticus 11:29-30.
Like many of the other biblical lists of animals, the exact identity of the creatures in the list is uncertain; medieval philosopher and Rabbi, Stadia Gain, for example, gives a somewhat different explanation for each of the eight “creeping things.” Holed ; the Talmud describes it as a predatory animal that bores underground.
Galei ; a general term including the weasel, ferret, and the stoat, all of which are predatory animals noticeably attracted to holes in the ground. Chamaileon ; the chameleon, which puffs itself up and opens its mouth wide when threatened calaboose ; a term derived from chalk meaning rock / claw, and therefore probably the wall lizard Laura ; the lizard in general, possibly here intended to be the skin, since it is the remaining other major group of lizards asphalt ; the mole-rat, although some older English translations, not being aware of the mole-rat's existence, have instead translated this as mole The earthworm, the snake, the scorpion, the beetle, the centipede, and all the creatures that crawl on the ground are not kosher.
If purchased, it (or the bakery) should have kosher -certification. Thus cow milk and goat cheese is Kosher, pig milk and camel cheese is not Kosher.
If the gravy in question is made from kosher ingredients in a kosher kitchen and is served following the laws of washout, it is kosher. When food has been prepared in accordance with Jewish law, it is considered to be pure or Kosher.
The Washout, or dietary rules for keeping kosher, are described in the Torah, which is an excellent source of detailed information. The only animals which may be eaten are cattle and others that have cloven (split) hooves and chew a cud.
Common examples include: Sharks Swordfish Shrimp Snails Crab Lobsters Mussels Octopus Calamari (Squid) Clams Oysters Lump suckers Sturgeons European turbot Marine mammals including whales, dolphins, and porpoises Grape products including wine must be sourced from kosher wineries, which are operated under rabbinical supervision.
Cheeses are a good example, as many hard varieties are made with rennet, which is an animal derivative. The inclusion of rennet automatically breaks the kosher dietary rule stating that meat and milk may not be combined.
Mammals that walk on four legs, chew a cud, and have split (cloven) hooves: Antelope Big horn sheep Black buck Black tail deer Buffalo Caribou Cow, all varieties Elk Goat, all varieties Impala Moose Mountain goat Mule deer Musk ox Sheep, all varieties Venison White Tail Deer Wildebeest Yak Fish with fins and scales are considered to be kosher, either from fresh or saltwater sources.
Note that vegetables which have been cut up and sold fresh at supermarkets are probably not kosher, since knives and other equipment used in this type of processing may have been exposed to meat and dairy products. Be particularly vigilant with items like lettuce and celery, which have tiny nooks where insects hide.
Watchwords include “sherry, port, Madeira, colors, Sauternes, Shiraz” as well as “double matured” and “dual cask finished.” There are a number of kosher food producers offering their wares online, and with basic ingredients, it is possible to make your own versions of common packaged foods such as veggie pizza in the comfort of your own kosher kitchen.
Washout of Exotic Animals: The Buffalo By: Rabbi ARI Z. Zivotofsky, ** Ph.D. reprinted with permission from The Journal of Malacca and Contemporary Society, Fall 1999/Sukkot 5760, Number XXXVIII, published by The Rabbi Jacob Joseph (RJ) School of Staten Island. ** Rabbi Zivotofsky, a certified shocked u'bode, is a researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD.
A special debt of gratitude is owed to Stanley Sapeles, Curator of Birds at the Cleveland Metro parks Zoo, and Dr. Rob Lofted, Professor of Theriogenology at the Atlantic Veterinary College, Prince Edward Island, Canada for help with the scientific information in this article.
The modern affluent kosher consumer is forever looking for new and varied cuisine to tantalize his palate, making it not only intellectually stimulating but financially significant to investigate the washout of uncommon animals and the criteria for such a determination. In recent years goose, deer, and buffalo have been added to the menus of several kosher N.Y. restaurants and/or butcher shops 2.
The kosher animals within the mammalian quadruped category would seem to include not only the animals commonly thought of as kosher such as cows (BOS Taurus), sheep (Ovis Aries), goats (Capra circus), and deer, but such exotic animals as the pronghorn (Antilocapra Americana), moose (Alces), the 6-foot, 1500 pound Giant Eland (Taurotragus Serbians), giraffe (giraffe Camelopardalis), and the Bongo (Boomers eurycerus). The African buffalo (Synchros coffer) has three subspecies and, as its name applies, is native to Africa, in general sub-Saharan.
According to Professor Neruda Felix 12 the water buffalo, at one time found in large numbers in the Hula Valley in Israel and raised by the bedouin there until the 1940s, was known as the mere, an animal that was sacrificed and eaten in biblical times (see II Samuel 6:13; I Kings 1:9,19). Other authorities identify t'oh, found in the list of kosher animals in Deuteronomy 14:5, with the water buffalo.
Again, the problem is that the water buffalo is highly domesticated and the re'em seems to have been a quintessentially undomesticatable animal (see Job 39:9-12). The European bison is also sometimes identified with the t'oh, although the Talmud (Chaplin 80a), Tar gum Yonatan, and Rash all imply that t'oh is a wild ox.
The PRI Maggie (Sighted The'at, YD 80:1), Key Achim (80:5), and Pitched T'Shiva (YD:80:1) all state explicitly that the physical India are sufficient to establish a species as kosher. The PRI Maggie writes that he is baffled by the suggestion that this Shack should be relevant to the question of the kosher status of an animal, and that a tradition should be needed to establish its admissibility.
Nonetheless, and despite the cogency of the PRI Maggadim's argument, the Coachman Adam (36:1) and Bat Markov (41; cited by Pitched T'Shiva) add a puzzling twist to this Shack, and assume he was addressing the kosher status of an animal. To further complicate matters, the Charon Is (Hitches BA'Ham v'Chaney ta hora :11:letters 4 & 5) writes that the Coachman Adam is correct in his analysis.
There is an additional factor that in my opinion renders the debate between those who require a tradition and those who don't of little relevance to either the zebu or bison (American “buffalo”) questions. With regard to quadrupeds, the Talmud offers an irrefutable, undisputed test of the washout of an animal that cannot be the challenged on subjective grounds.
They breed with relative ease and both direct and reciprocal crosses produce fertile females, although the male offspring are usually infertile or sterile. There is not yet a stampede for kosher buffalo, but based on my informal survey of several cities it certainly appears that there is some desire for it.
I do not know how the major washout organizations would rule in a case where there was truly a need for a menorah according to the Charon Is and none existed. To my knowledge there are no other recent response that address this PRI Maggie vs. Charon Is dispute.