When we wrote about it, we discussed three kashrus issues:
whether it is treif as a ge'luda because it is missing the natural protection provided by feathers,
whether its just too ugly to be kosher (not a joke),
and Eli raised the Mesorah issue, that it might be viewed as a different species lacking mesorah.
I scoffed. I said "Ha, Eli, nobody would ever say that!" This is how the conversation went-
Despite the author's certainty that nobody could possibly think this is a new species, Eli believes that it remains possible that someone will claim that these birds are so different from standard breeds that they no longer fall under the definition of "Chicken" as far as satisfying the requirement of having a mesora that a particular species of bird is kosher. The definition of species is unclear, as we know from the Muscovy duck and the turkey controversies. From listening to the Professor, it appears that they don't have scales on their legs either, and that, too, might lend itself to a "too different to be called a chicken" argument. I certainly hope not. What it looks like is irrelevant, because a יוצא מן הטהור is טהור, period.
We felt quite comfortable in our opinion, especially since the Get Mekushar was mattir, more or less.
עוף שניטלה נוצתו כשר מרן * ויש אוסרים וטוב להחמיר אם נפלו כולם מיהו אם נפלו נוצותיה מרוב שומן אעפ"י שנשאר ערום כשר כיון דנפלו מרוב שמנו * מור"ם * וכמה פעמים באה לידינו מין תרנגולת ערום ושאלתי ואמרו לי שזה המין כך הוא לעולם אעפ"י שאותה שעה שבא לידינו לא היתה שמנה כ"כ התרנו אותה עפ"י מנהג העולם שאמרו לי ששורש וגזע המין הזה הוא מאמו שהיתה שמנה ונפלו נוצותיה וע"כ בניה גדלים כמוה מתחלתם ולבסוף נעשו שמנים וזה מצוי הוא
The Lamarckian assumption of this psak notwithstanding, the fact is that he's talking about a breed that does not have feathers. Also, I had the יוצא מן הטהור argument, at least if you had a ספר היוחסין and could prove that the mutated breed stemmed from a normally feathered chicken.
Well, guess what. As reported in the JDN, אידישע טעגליכע נייעס , and forwarded to me by Harav Doctor Eli, someone brought just such a chicken to Hagaon Rav Chaim Kanievsky. Victory to Eli, albeit Pyrrhic.
סערת העוף הקֵרֵחַ: הגר”ח קנייבסקי מתנגד לשינוי ב מסורת העופות
אב”ד ‘יורה דעה’ הגאון הגדול הרב שלמה מחפוד שליט”א הציג בפני מרן שר התורה הגר”ח קנייבסקי שליט”א ‘עוף קֵרֵחַ’ תוצאה של מחקר ופיתוח ישראלי שנמשך כ-35 שנה ודן עמו בנושא ההלכתי שבדבר
אלחנן לוריא | 16:02 | כ״ד באלול תשע״ה
כמידי שנה, עלה גאב”ד ‘יורה דעה’ הגאון הגדול הרב שלמה מחפוד שליט”א למעונו של מרן שר התורה הגר”ח קנייבסקי שליט”א להתברך בברכת השנים, ולהעלות בפניו את שאלותיו אודות מערכת הכשרות אותה הוא מנהל. תחילה הציג את בנו הג”ר בניהו שליט”א דיין מומחה בב”ד חשובים בארה”ק וסיפר למרן שליט”א כי הוא יד ימינו ועוזר לו בפיקוח הדוק על השחיטה המהודרת שתחת השגחתו.
בפני מרן שר התורה הונחה שאלה עקרונית הקשורה למסורת העופות הנהוגה בידינו דור אחר דור, ולדין “גלודה”. על שולחנו של מרן שר התורה הונח תרנגול ייחודי. חי, ונקי מכל פלומת נוצות. הגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א סיפר למרן שליט”א ש”עוף קֵרֵחַ זה”, הוא תוצאה של מחקר ופיתוח ישראלי שנמשך כ-35 שנה על ידי פרופסור אביגדור כהנר מהפקולטה לחקלאות ברחובות.
מדובר בעוף מזן “ניו המפשייר”, והמיוחד בזן זה, שצוואר שלו נקי מנוצות, וצבעו אדמוני. אותו פרופסור הצליח בסופו של תהליך להעלים את נוצותיו לא רק בצווארו, אלא גם משאר גופו. בתהליך המחקר, עלה בידו לסלק את קשקשי הרגליים שהם בתי הנוצה, ולאחר מכן הוא נחל הצלחה גם בהבלעת נקודות השומן המסמנות את מיקום הנוצות.
למעשה: בזן העופות בעלי הצוואר האדמוני, דנו הפוסקים בליטא לפני כמאה שנים והתירוהו מדין “מסורת”, וכפי עדותו של הגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א שהוא היה מצוי במשחטות. העוף בנידון דידן הוא תולדה ישירה מאותו עוף שהתירוהו, אך ללא מעורבות יד אדם שמנטרלת את הנוצות. אלא, שלאחרונה ישנה דרישה מצד בעלי הלולים להכניס את פרי פיתוחו של פרופסור אביגדור כהנר לתהליך של גידול ושחיטה. עיקר טענתם הייתה, שעוף זה הינו חסין למחלות הגורמות לטרפות בריאות ובגידים, לבד מעמידותו בחום הקיץ הלוהט.
ואכן: כשהגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א, שחט וניתח עוף זה על חלקיו וגידיו וערך בו בדיקות מקיפות, התברר כי איכותו גבוהה מאד ויש סיכוי רב שחוסנו יתגבר על מחלות הריאות והגידים, דבר שנותן לו הידורים הלכתיים מסויימים ביחס לעופות המצויים כיום.
אולם התלבטותו של הגר”ש מחפוד שליט”א הייתה בשתי שאלות מרכזיות:
א. האם אין איסור “גלודה” חל על עוף זה, או שמא דווקא בנקלף עורו אמרינן “גלודה”.
ב. האם ניתן לסמוך על מסורת אבותיו הקיימת, וגם אם נאמר שכן, האם רשאים אנו לשנות את צורת העוף המסורתי בדמות “עוף שגדל ללא נוצות”,
לאחר שהתפלפלו בסוגיא זו, כשהג”ר בניהו שליט”א מציע ראיות לכאן ולכאן, מרן שליט”א פסק: שאין לנו לשנות ממסורת העופות הרגילים בידינו ואין לקבלו עתה, גם אם הוא נראה כעוף רגיל בכל שאר תכונותיו.
צילומים: עוזי ברק
UPDATE:
I regret writing as if Reb Chaim's psak was a mysterious chumra. I am beginning to understand why he paskened as he did.
First of all, it's important to see the Rogotchover's psak about a type of chicken that had no feathers on its neck:
The Teshuva can be seen at Hebrewbooks.
יום ד' עשי"ת תרס"ג.
[להרב ר' יהודה ליב גרוברט]
קיבלתי מכ' היום, ע"ד התרנגולים [שצווארם אדום וחלק בלי נוצות] אי זה הוי שינוי לומר שהוא מין אחר.
הנה עי' רש"י בכורות ג' ד"ה לא מוכח דשינוי צמר הוי שינוי גבי נדמה ותוס' שם ז' ד"ה זה משמע ג"כ, ועיין חולין קל"ו אם מה שיש שינוי בצמר לא מקרי שינוי שיהיה ב' מינים, וב"ק נ"ה דזוטר קועי' וכו' ל"ה ב' מינים. ובירושלמי פסחים פ"ט דמבואר שם דשה חלק בלי גיזה לא אכפת לן לפסול לקרבן,
אך העיקר כך דהיכי דעי"ז הוא דומה למין אחר הוי נדמה,
ולעניין טמאים אם הוי עופות טמאים בדומה לזה בנוצות שפיר יש חשש, אבל שזה יהיה שינוי לא. עיי' בכורות ו' , גבי חמור שילד מין סוס אימא חמור אדום ע"ש בזה ושם י"ז צמרו קשה, ע"כ דזה ל"ה שינוי, דלימא שהוא מין אחר.
ועיין חולין ס"ב גבי תסיל דכיוון שהוא ג"כ מוצץ אף דאח"כ מקיאה ויונה אינה מקיאה, ל"ה שינוי ורק גבי מדברי וישובי דאם אין בהם שינוי הוי חד מינא ואם יש בהם שינוי הוי תרי מיני, וכמו הך ד ב"ק נ"ה.
ועי' ברמב"ם פ"ט מהל' כלאיים ה אבל לעשות עיי"ז שיהי' ב' מינים לא, עי' בירושלמי מגילה פ"א דממעט מן ציפור כל כנף פרט למרוט אבל בלי קרא הוי בכלל ציפור ודוחק דמייר שנמרט אח"כ.
לכן כיוון שהוא ג"כ מין ישובי ק משום שינוי הנוצות אין שום חשש בזה, ומחמת הטרדה אקצר.
ועי' ירושלמי נדה פ"ג דהוי מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן אם צפורניו דומים לאמו הוי מין אדם ע"כ כיוון דינו בגופו עי' נדה נ"ה.
(The breed the Rogotchover was talking about is what's called the Naked Neck, or New Hampshire. They are available for purchase here in the US. I found a great article titled "Why Transylvanian Chickens Have Naked Necks" in The National Geographic. They are called "Vampire friendly.")
1. It is possible, even according to the Rogotchover, that the total absence of feathers means it is a different species, even if it is a genetically trivial mutation. In any case, Reb Chaim Kanievsky is not meshubad to any achron, even the Rogotchover.
2. But, you say, even if it is a different species, it is obviously kosher, because it comes from chickens and has all the simanim of kashrus of chickens. Just because it lost its feathers does not mean that its kurkevan is not niklaf or that it became a doreis. BUT a bird without feathers might be different enough to require its own mesora (despite its obvious status as an of tahor) because of the requirement of mesora even when we know it's not a doreis. The point it that we require a mesora not because we're not sure of how to understand the simanim. We require a mesora just because over time we were makabel to not eat any birds that do not have a mesora. Why we made that kabala does not matter, it was not a conditional kabala.
Additionally, some rishonim hold that within a breed, the male might be tamei and the female tahor, i.e., Rashi's pshat in Tarnegolta de'Agma, in Niddah 50b. So proving that it's of the same breed does not necessarily prove kashrus if there is some clear difference in behavior- or in appearance.
Additionally, some rishonim hold that within a breed, the male might be tamei and the female tahor, i.e., Rashi's pshat in Tarnegolta de'Agma, in Niddah 50b. So proving that it's of the same breed does not necessarily prove kashrus if there is some clear difference in behavior- or in appearance.
3. Although in Yoreh Deah 79:2 we pasken that טהורה שילדה כמין טמאה מותרת שהיוצא מן הטמא טמא ומן הטהור טהור, so a camel born from a cow is kosher, it is very possible that Reb Chaim is machmir like Tosfos in Niddah 50b that this rule does not apply to oviparous animals. Therefore, although a camel born to a cow would be kosher, an an ostrich born from a chicken would NOT be kosher. So the rule of היוצא מן הטהור טהור will NOT serve in place of a mesora. It will NOT mean that a mesora on the hen counts as a mesora on the chick.
To sum it up:
No feathers gives it the status of a different breed.
This breed, like all breeds of birds, requires a mesorah.
We have no mesora on this breed.
The fact that it's born from a chicken doesn't help, because of Rashi and Tosfos in Niddah.
Therefore, it is assur to eat this kind of bird.
HOWEVER:
Having said all this, it is still, for me, a surprising psak. I would never have thought it is kedai to be machmir to this extent on the issue of mesorah on birds. The whole idea of mesora is a minhag, not a chashash of issur temei'ah, and since there is enough of a smach to say that losing its feathers does not make it a new "kind" that requires a separate mesorah, why be machmir? What would Reb Chaim say about the five-toed Silkie, which has black bones and dark gray meat, or the Sultan or the Polish Crested?
I could understand if a chicken laid an egg and something whose feathers made it look like a vulture came out of it, there would be a problem. But simply losing all its feathers seems relatively minor.
Additionally, Eli pointed out that the Rambam Maachalos Asuros 1:14 and as quoted in YD 82 says that if you can identify all the 24 non-kosher species, you can eat whatever is not one of them. It seems that "knowing what it is not" renders a mesorah unnecessary. If so, then our naked friends should not require a mesorah, because we know for an absolute fact that whatever they may be, they are not one of the 24 minim temei'im.
In the comments, Tal Benschar pointed out that the Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De`ah 1:75:19-21) uses the Gemara in Bechoros to establish a rule, that any two animals that can mate and produce live offspring are proven to be either both Tamei species or Tahor species. Although, as pointed out in the notes, many have said that this is only true for animals and not for birds, the Avnei Nezer says it applies to birds as well. I believe that in my conversations with Professor Cahaner he said that the featherless chickens are fully capable of breeding with common feathered chickens. According to the Avnei Nezer, then, they are 100% kosher and need no special mesora. In other words, for the Gerer Chasidim, these chickens are kosher, period. For Moroccans, who would follow the Get Mekushar, they are kosher. Of course, Rav Chaim Kanievsky is more than competent to pasken differently than the Avnei Nezer and Rav Avraham Ankawa and the Rogotchover, too. Besides that, the Chasam Sofer (Yoreh De`ah 74) says that it is arguable whether the hybridization proof applies to birds.
Regarding, generally, the Hybridization Principle: see
http://www.kashrut.com/articles/ThreeBirds/, especially notes 36 through 43.
which also has application to the Muscovy duck issue, which we discussed here.
In short: Reasons to be mattir:
1. The Rogotchover
2. Tal's Avnei Nezer
3. The Get Mekushar
4. Eli's Rambam in Maachalos Asuros 1:14.
Here's hoping that Rabbi Belsky and American hechsheirim will pasken that it is kosher. As surprising as Rav Kanievsky's psak may be, I wouldn't eat it without a posek of stature being mattir.
Inasmuch as I am an adult, I declined the temptation to title this post Tennessee Birdwalk. Nonetheless, here is a link to that fine old song, including lyrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zSU1ia467Q
HOWEVER:
Having said all this, it is still, for me, a surprising psak. I would never have thought it is kedai to be machmir to this extent on the issue of mesorah on birds. The whole idea of mesora is a minhag, not a chashash of issur temei'ah, and since there is enough of a smach to say that losing its feathers does not make it a new "kind" that requires a separate mesorah, why be machmir? What would Reb Chaim say about the five-toed Silkie, which has black bones and dark gray meat, or the Sultan or the Polish Crested?
I could understand if a chicken laid an egg and something whose feathers made it look like a vulture came out of it, there would be a problem. But simply losing all its feathers seems relatively minor.
Additionally, Eli pointed out that the Rambam Maachalos Asuros 1:14 and as quoted in YD 82 says that if you can identify all the 24 non-kosher species, you can eat whatever is not one of them. It seems that "knowing what it is not" renders a mesorah unnecessary. If so, then our naked friends should not require a mesorah, because we know for an absolute fact that whatever they may be, they are not one of the 24 minim temei'im.
In the comments, Tal Benschar pointed out that the Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De`ah 1:75:19-21) uses the Gemara in Bechoros to establish a rule, that any two animals that can mate and produce live offspring are proven to be either both Tamei species or Tahor species. Although, as pointed out in the notes, many have said that this is only true for animals and not for birds, the Avnei Nezer says it applies to birds as well. I believe that in my conversations with Professor Cahaner he said that the featherless chickens are fully capable of breeding with common feathered chickens. According to the Avnei Nezer, then, they are 100% kosher and need no special mesora. In other words, for the Gerer Chasidim, these chickens are kosher, period. For Moroccans, who would follow the Get Mekushar, they are kosher. Of course, Rav Chaim Kanievsky is more than competent to pasken differently than the Avnei Nezer and Rav Avraham Ankawa and the Rogotchover, too. Besides that, the Chasam Sofer (Yoreh De`ah 74) says that it is arguable whether the hybridization proof applies to birds.
Regarding, generally, the Hybridization Principle: see
http://www.kashrut.com/articles/ThreeBirds/, especially notes 36 through 43.
which also has application to the Muscovy duck issue, which we discussed here.
In short: Reasons to be mattir:
1. The Rogotchover
2. Tal's Avnei Nezer
3. The Get Mekushar
4. Eli's Rambam in Maachalos Asuros 1:14.
Here's hoping that Rabbi Belsky and American hechsheirim will pasken that it is kosher. As surprising as Rav Kanievsky's psak may be, I wouldn't eat it without a posek of stature being mattir.
Inasmuch as I am an adult, I declined the temptation to title this post Tennessee Birdwalk. Nonetheless, here is a link to that fine old song, including lyrics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zSU1ia467Q
So should we think about whether people with autosomal recessive hypotrichosis are a different min and need a mesora? I mean this seriously. If not having feathers matters enough to make a sofek whether it's a chicken, the equivalent by people should make a sofek whether they have a din of Odom, so there might be a din of shocheiv im beheimo.
ReplyDeleteI suppose R' Chaim would say that people are people, even without a mesora.
DeleteNot so with birds.
I don't understand R' Chaim's p'sak. The featherless chicken was achieved through selective breeding from an ancestor that we already know is kosher. Why is it any worse than most commercial chicken that has been selectively bred to produce fatter chickens?
ReplyDeleteIt's a real mystery. The Rosh Yeshiva that brought the question told him clearly it comes from a normal chicken that often has fewer feathers on its neck, from a breed called the New Hampshire, that the accepted psak in Litteh was that it was included in the mesora of chickens, and it was just inbred. I'm sure the question was asked in the full expectation that RCK would be mattir. It is apparently a healthy breed not subject to common kashrus issues or illnesses, and would be a boon to the industry and the consumer. I just don't know what to say.
DeleteYou thought Rav Chaim would be mattir something, saying change was OK?
DeleteAny examples come to mind?
I hear. But I would say, yes. Here's an example. He was mattir to be shoeil tzrachim on Rosh HaShannah, not like the Zohar and the Gra that say we cannot ask for personal needs, only for Kvod Malchus Shamayim.
DeleteIn דרך אמונה הל' שביעית פרק ד הלכה א he is mattir vinegar that has bugs not visible to the eye, using the logic that the Torah doesn't forbid that which the eye can't see. He also throws in a line "תדע דהטבעיים אומרים שכל האויר מלא תולעים קטנים וא"כ אסור לשאוף אויר"! He is then מכשיר a ספר תורה that has a פסול in a letter that can only be seen with a magnifying glass. And he also says that the כשרות of an אתרוג is to be determined without a magnifying glass.
DeleteShavuah Tov.
DeleteMy question was not whether Rav Chaim has ever been mattir anything, but where he has conceded that change was OK and that we don;t have to assur something simply because it was done differently in the past or can potentially be mattir it because social realities have changed.
Example of the latter being men's wristwatches, despite the CI's supposedly having said 100 yers ago that (at that time) they were considered begged isha.
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2013/06/interesting-psak-men-shouldnt-wear.html
DeleteI knew nothing of the wrist watch issue. I just did a search and found that Reb Chaim, a couple years ago, was telling everyone that came for a bracha that they shouldn't wear them because they're beged isha. When showed pictures of gedolim like Rav Shach wearing them, he said that he too used to wear them until he heard reliable testimony that the Chazon Ish held they were assur and that his father also never wore one. Ok, I see what you're saying. I also found on Wikipedia that until the early twentieth century, wristwatches were indeed only worn by women, and that this changed when watches were used extensively by soldiers in WW I and the Boer war, and they continued wearing them when they came home, and that the British Horological Journal wrote in 1917 that "the wristlet watch was little used by the sterner sex before the war, but now is seen on the wrist of nearly every man in uniform and of many men in civilian attire." So you're saying that Reb Chaim's conservatism should be understood to be of an extremism that excludes it from the stream of halacha. I hear what you're saying. But it bothers me that people still go to him. Brachos, fine. But why do people go to him for psak halacha? Unless there was no hava amina in these people's minds that even Reb Chaim would asser, and he surprised them.
DeleteI was explaining why it was entirely predictable (to me) that Rav Chaim would have paskened as he did.
DeleteYour question as to why people don't recognize this (psychological?) factor and take it into consideration is a different matter.
Ok, I want to tell you what I'm thinking.
ReplyDelete1. The absence of feathers means it is a different species, even if it is a trivial mutation. As Shulem said, feathers on a bird mean more than hair in people. A bird without feathers is different enough to require its own mesora: not because it might be a doreis, but because of the requirement of mesora even when we know it's not a doreis.
2. Although in Yoreh Deah 79:2 we pasken that טהורה שילדה כמין טמאה מותרת שהיוצא מן הטמא טמא ומן הטהור טהור, so even if it were an ostrich born from a chicken it would be kosher, it must be that Reb Chaim is machmir like Tosfos in Niddah 50b that this rule does not apply to oviparous animals.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that according to halacha, a kosher bird (for instance) that mated with another kosher bird (of the same species) can give birth to something that's a different species?
DeleteYes, if the offspring has enough differences to qualify it as a different "species," and Reb Chaim defines it. It definitely does not go down well, but I can't see any other way of explaining his psak. If you've seen his seforim, you know that not only he knows everything, but it's not at all superficial, he has amkus and lomdus as well. I cannot believe he just assered on the principle of chodosh ossur min hatorah, especially when we're just talking about a chicken, not hashkofo.
DeleteI believe that the wrist watch psak, which I linked to above, should be illustrative. Chazon Ish said 100 years ago that men;s wristwatches were begged isha (which at that time they very well might have been) and that same status applies to day, even though fashions have changed since 100 yrs ago and lo silbash would seem to be tied to contemporary practice.
DeleteQuestion: can this featherless chicken breed with regular chickens and produce offspring?
ReplyDeleteIIRC, that is a test viewed by many poskim as to whether a bird is kosher.
Yes, I seem to remember that Professor Cahaner told me that they can breed and produce fertile offspring with normal feathered chickens. I don't remember hearing that this is a siman of being the same breed. If you have any mm for that, I would dearly appreciate it!
DeleteI saw it in an article about the kashrus of three birds here:
Deletehttp://www.kashrut.com/articles/ThreeBirds/#sdfootnote36sym
The relevant paragraph states:
The Talmud (Bechorot 7a) mentions a rule known as the "hybridization principle." This principle states that kosher species cannot mate with non-kosher species; hence, the fact that a suspect species can interbreed with a known kosher species confirms the kosher status of the unknown species. In the Talmud it is not explicitly stated if this principle applies only to animals or to birds as well. Many authorities have been willing to rely on the hybridization principle to rule that a bird species is kosher even in the absence of a mesorah. Among them are: Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De`ah 74 ); Avnei Nezer (Yoreh De`ah 1:75:19-21 ); Maharsham, (Da'at Torah , Yoreh De`ah 82:3 ); Rav Shmuel Schneerson and Chesed L'Avraham (Tinyana, YD:22-2440 ).
I checked.
DeleteThe Chasam Sofer http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1839&st=&pgnum=52 does not say that. He just says that where the suspected tamei impregnated another bird, we can rely on the Gemara in Bechoros as far as the offspring, but not to be mattir the parent. And in the next paragraph he says that it is possible that the gemara in Bechoros applies only to four legged animals, not to birds. So the Chasam Sofer is simply not a raya at all.
I agree that the Avnei Nezer http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1345&st=&pgnum=72 would be mattir on the basis of Bechoros.
The Maharsham http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9193&st=&pgnum=152 does not talk about the sugya at all.
The Chesed L'avraham (as brought here http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21379&st=&pgnum=54 wants to be mattir on the basis of Bechoros, However, the man who brings him http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=21379&st=&pgnum=62 disagrees and says that Bechoros only applies to animals, not birds.
Ok, I was just annoyed that the sefer you quoted asserted that the rule was generally accepted, when, as I said, the Chasam Sofer is not at all a proof, and the Maharsham, maybe he says it somewhere, but not there. BUT I agree that the Avnei Nezer would be mattir 100% on the basis of Bechoros. Like I said in the post, the Rogotchover is not a perfect raya,but also would lead one in that direction.
DeleteI just realized something. The Marsham there talks about among other things the evoz habar. Basically, the false reference was a wild goose chase.
Delete