[Avodah] Is Turkey Kosher?

[Zev Sero]

On 22/11/2010 12:57 AM, Harry Weiss wrote:
> I remember a shiur of Kosher tidbits on OU Radio  a while back that
> addressed the Turkey issue (among others) and mentioned that besides the
> simanim and the fact that it has been eaten for hundreds of years there is
> one other factor.  There  was an Amora brought that claimed to be familiar
> with all of the prohibited species of fowl.  Since he obviously could not
> have been familiar with Turkey, that would indicate that it was not a
> prohibited species.

But that proves too much -- it would apply equally to all New World
species (as well as those of Australia, the Pacific, etc.)

On 22/11/2010 4:25 AM, david guttmann wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> Back to Moshe Rabbeinu.  That is the premise of the whole business of
>> requiring a mesorah for birds.

> See Rambam Ma'achalot Assurot 1:15 that a Baki Baminin Ubeshmotehen - an
> ornithological expert who can identify the birds as to their names-   does
> not require bedika and therefore Simanim and he establishes the Mesora as
> per the end of the Halacha - vene'eman Hatzayad ...

Baki bishmotehen must by definition go back to Moshe.  The only way
one could possibly know what a bird was called in Moshe's time is by
that knowledge being passed down a chain of "rabbi tzayad".  There's
no physical evidence that can show what a bird's name was in a dialect
spoken thousands of years ago.

> Next Halacha continues that one who is not an ornithological expert checks
> the simanim the Chachamim (not Moshe) established.

Yes.  The Rambam holds that mesorah is *not* necessary.  Today we
pasken otherwise.

On 22/11/2010 9:12 AM, Harry Weiss wrote:
>>> There was an Amora brought that claimed to be familiar
>>> with all of the prohibited species of fowl. Since he obviously could not
>>> have been familiar with Turkey, that would indicate that it was not a
>>> prohibited species.

>> But that proves too much -- it would apply equally to all New World
>> species (as well as those of Australia, the Pacific, etc.)

> You are right it would prove too much. That is why simanim are also needed.

How so?  If we know for a fact that all the treife species were known
in Bavel, then any species unknown in Bavel must by definition be
kosher, even if it has simanei tum'ah.   And yet this can't be so.

> There are probably a number of fowl that are included in each one of the
> prohibited species.

Exactly.  And once we've established there is a single tamei species
in the New World, how can we point to any species and say with certainty
that it isn't also tamei?  And yet it's inconceivable to say that
turkey is tamei.  This is the conundrum.  Any solution *must* account
for both of these considerations, which means any solution is not going
to be neat and simple.

>  Between the two, there may be sufficient data, especially if there
>  is suffcient similarity to another kosher species.

This is essentially a relaxation of the strict mesorah position.
Which is a perfectly valid thing to do; don't forget that the strict
requirement for a mesorah is not the only position among the rishonim;
the ultimate answer has to be that despite our claiming to pasken
strictly for mesorah, we don't really.  And yet once we say that
openly, it seems to become necessary that we pin down exactly what
we do pasken, and once we do that we will inevitably find other
exceptions that will demand dealing with.

For instance, we *know* beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that
peacocks are kosher.  All the traditional concerns about using names
don't apply.  We know there is no other species anywhere in the world
that could be the bird we know was eaten, not only by Chazal, but by
Italian Jews as late as the 19th century.  The Zivchei Tzedek even
drew us a picture and coloured it in with his own hand, and there is
no other bird he could have meant.  And yet I don't think there's a
rov anywhere in the world today who will permit it.  Why?  Once we
acknowledge that we don't really hold of a strict requirement for
mesorah, the ban on peacock becomes insupportable.

And what about birds with conflicting mesoros, such as storks?  Just
because a consensus developed in the middle ages not to eat them,
why should that preclude the matter from being reopened, once we know
exactly what it is that we hold about the kashrus of birds?  Perhaps,
after all, those rishonim with the mesorah of eating them were right?
The major reason not to reopen the question is precisely that we
don't know, or at least don't articulate, what it is that we hold.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher