[Avodah] Swordfish

[Micha Berger]

>From The Jewish Press
<www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/is-swordfish-kosher/2018/04/19>,
by RHSchachter, "Is Swordfish Kosher?", posted Apr 19th (5 Iyyar):

   The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch say dag ha'cherev [literally,
   "the fish of the sword"] is kasher.

   Why is it widely considered to be not kosher, then?

   Because around 60-70 years ago, they asked Rabbi [Moshe] Tendler if
   he could make a list of which fish are kosher and which aren't. Rabbi
   Tender decided to list swordfish as a treife fish because he called
   up an expert who told him scales on a swordfish are a different
   consistency - or something like that - from those of other fish. So
   he decided it was a treife fish.

   But that's absolutely not correct. The commentaries on the Shulchan
   Aruch say dag hacherev is kasher. Professor [Shlomo] Sternberg, a big
   genius in learning and math, published an essay maybe 20 years ago in
   which he writes that Rabbi Soloveitchik asked him to conduct research
   on the status of swordfish. He did. He showed Rabbi Soloveitchik the
   scales of a swordfish and Rav Soloveitchik said, "It's a kashere fish!"

   Professsor Sternberg writes that he still has the envelope with the
   scales he showed Rav Soloveitchik in his Gemara Chullin.

   If the commentaries on the Shuchan Aruch say dag ha'cherev is kosher,
   how can Rabbi Tendler claim it isn't?

   Rabbi Tendler claims "dag hacherev" is a different fish. It's not true.

   But Rabbi Tendler did a service to the Orthodox Jewish community
   because at the time there were Conservative rabbis who were giving
   hashgachas, so he laughed them out of existence and said they don't
   know what they're talking because [they were giving swordfish a
   hechsher when] swordfish is really treif. So the Orthodox realized
   you can't rely on the Conservatives.

   L'maaseh, the Conservatives were right on this issue, but Rabbi
   Tendler accomplished his goal.

Well, that's a lot of egg (roe?) on my face after what I said repeatedly
in the 1990s in soc.culture.jewish[.moderated] O/C/R Wars...

But I don't understand the basic content. The CLJS permitted swordfish
because while the adult does not have scales, it starts out with
scaled. No one is questioning the quality of the scales when the fish is
young (AFAIK), or the lack of scales on adult fish. (Wiki: Swordfish are
elongated, round-bodied, and lose all teeth and scales by adulthood.)
So how this sample of swordfish scales prove kashrus? The question
seems to be whether a fish needs to keep its scales for it to qualify
as qashqeshes, not what kind of scales swordfish has.


"L'maaseh, the Conservatives were right on this issue..." Wow!

There is a tie in here to what R JFSchachter posted here yesterday (?
no time zone) at 12:30:39 +0000 (WET DST) under the subject line
"Judging The Credibility Of The Sages":
> It is always dangerous to believe things that are not true.

> Not knowing something is an intellectual failing.  Not knowing what
> you are talking about is a moral failing.  Making up an answer when
> you do not know the answer is a moral failing.  Knowing when our sages
> have displayed this moral failing makes you more able to see the same
> moral failing in yourself.  It leads to self-awareness, and self-
> correction.

I was okay attributing ignorance to Chazal, but not violating epstemic
virtue like "making up an answer". I would think that by the end of the
period, subconsious biases wouldn't have made it into the final result.

> At the same time, and this is not a contradiction, knowing both the
> moral and the intellectual failings of our sages protects you from the
> dangerous and deadly doctrine of das Torah...

Except that daas Torah only requires belief that one is obligated to
listen to halachic leadership on social and personal issues where the
unknowns are not halachic (or even aggadic). Not that they are necessarily
right, nor even that they are more likely to be right.

(Infallibility was never Agudah doctrine; but you do find it among
the population.)


And I am not sure that when it comes to halakhah Chazal *can* be wrong.
It's like saying that the house john built is inconsistent with the house
John built. Pesaq is constitutive, not truth finding; expecially when
you are the nation's authoritative halachic source (eg the Sanhedrin or
shas as keSanhedrin, depending on when you think the Sanhedrin actually
closed its doors).

A pesaq made by CHazal based on incorrect science may still be correct
halakhah because they define correctness. We would need to revisit
our recurring tereifos discussion.

But in any case:

1- I refuse to believe Chazal "made up answers" of had other epistemic
   moral failings (as a group, including peer review, what made it into
   shas, etc...)
   And I wonder how emunas chakhamim would work without that kind of
   assertion.

2- And yet, that may have happened here, among our contemporary posqim.
   No one is interested in fixing the science error (among those who
   believe it is in error) because C loses this way.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 25th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          taking control too extreme?