From the Disproofs of the Oral Law series.
6. Also, when the Torah forbids certain birds [Lev. 11:13-19], does that mean that all other birds are permitted? Or are there sign for birds like there are for animals [Lev. 11:2-8]? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.] How can anyone know whether biblical law permits or forbids eating ducks, geese, and turkeys [Kuzari, ibid]?
The law regarding which animals are allowed for consumption and which are forbidden is given in Leviticus 11. For birds*, there is a list of birds that are forbidden. All those birds that are not explicitly forbidden are, therefore, allowed. No signs for permitted birds are ever mentioned.
* Or rather, flying animals. Understandably, the ancients did not classify animals using our modern methods.
It's hard to tell how this point is supposed to prove the Oral Law. Yes, the list means that all other birds are permitted. There is no mention whatsoever of any signs for permitted birds, only a list of forbidden ones.
The only possible problem is that we do not know what some of the birds on the list of forbidden birds are. That is, we aren't sure of the meanings of some of the words. But this is a language problem, and does not point to the existence of an Oral Law. We have to make the best choice that we can, based on the information that we have, even if that information is imperfect. Based on what we know, here is the list of forbidden birds, from Leviticus 11 (JPS translation):
The following you shall abominate among the birds -- they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, and the black vulture; the kite, falcons of every variety; all varieties of raven; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull; hawks of every variety; the little owl, the cormorant, and the great owl; the white owl, the pelican, and the bustard; the stork; herons of every variety; the hoopoe, and the bat.
Thus, to answer Student's questions, ducks, geese, and turkeys are allowed, since, to the best of our knowledge, they are not forbidden.
Posted by Ami at January 3, 2004 12:11 AM | TrackBack*Explanation:* Which part did I leave out? For birds, there is only a list of ones that are forbidden. All others are permitted. We don't know with certaintly which birds are on the list, however, experts in Biblical Hebrew can make a best guess. Based on all the information available to us, our best guess for birds on the list are the ones listed.
*Chicken:* Chicken is kosher as well. Gil Student asks a question about three specific birds, and I answer that question. But I also say that any bird that is not on the list is kosher. As far as I know, chicken is not on the list, and so, it is kosher.
*Known kosher birds:* As you say, the Torah mentions some birds as specifically being kosher. Thus, if one wants to be "stringent", he can abstain from eating any bird except those specifically mentioned as being kosher.
Whether you do this, IMO, is up to you: it's a judgement call. There are some issues on which people have to use their best judgement. Once the Sanhedrin is re-established, all will be required to follow the Sanhedrin's best judgement. But until that time, I don't see anything wrong with following your own best judgement on issues that require it.
Here is the reason that I don't think one should be stringent. The Torah permits almost all birds (by forbidding only some). With the stringency, you are forbidding yourself almost all birds. I would stay close to the intent of the Torah, and permit yourself most birds.
You *could* expand the prohibition somewhat. For example, if you were not sure exactly what an "eagle" is, you could say that several birds can be classified as an "eagle" and forbid them. In that case, you are still permitting yourself most birds, as intended.
*Someone's opinion:* In this case, we don't simply take someone's arbitrary opinion on faith. Many scholars of the Biblical Hebrew language have studied this passage, and this is the best translation they can make. It's not an arbitrary opinion, but the most informed available opinion. This is similar to relying on the consensus "opinion" of astronomers who make the prediction that a certain comet will pass near Earth. They use the best knowledge available to date to make their prediction. This is *different* from relying on the opinion of a religious leader who simply says "I think so and so" without providing substantial proof. In this case, it is really what is commonly called an opinion, and we should not rely on it.
*After their kind:* On the list of forbidden birds, after some birds, it says "after their kind" or, in the translation I give, "of every variety". This is another place for a judgement call, since we are not completely certain how the ancients classified birds. We *do* know something about it. For example, we know that they classified birds by apparent similarity, not by evolutionary relationships.
Suppose you are wondering whether chicken is kosher. Is it plausible that chicken is classified as a kind of falcon? Or a kind of hawk? I don't think so. Therefore, in my best judgement, chicken is not forbidden by the list.
Thanks for pointing these things out. :-)
Posted by: AH at January 5, 2004 03:21 AMAmi...
You don't explain how you came to the conclusion that you did. There are also some blanks that need to be filled in. For example, are you saying turkey is kosher but chicken is not? As a proof against the oral tradition, it is interesting that you come to almost the same conclusion (except chicken, which you did not mention). Traditional Karaites have abstained from all of these birds, considering dove, pigeon and quail the only 3 known kosher birds. I agree with the latter and do not eat any of the birds you've mentioned. Remember, the interpretation of names is certainly not clear and we have to take someone's opinion regarding the interpretation. Then there's the "after their kind" problem as well. Shalom!