Mesorah of Turkey

In this week's Parsha, Parshas Shemini, we read about the different kosher species of animals. The Torah tells us that any animal that has split hooves and chews its cud is kosher. Fish are kosher if they have fins and scales. However, when it comes to birds there are no signs of Kashrus. Rather the Torah lists 24 species of bird that are not kosher, thus allowing us to eat every other type of bird. The problem though, is that thousands of years ago there was no Artscoll, and the definition of the 24 species is unknown. So the modern Rabbis ruled that one can only eat species of bird for which there is a Mesorah- an oral tradition of being Kosher. If, however, a species did not have such an oral tradition one must err on the side of caution and avoiding eating that species out of fear that that species of bird is one of the 24 forbidden species. Warning: If you love Thanksgiving stop reading now. The question becomes how can a Jew eat turkey? Any biologist knows turkey is indigenous to North America, and the Jewish people were indigenous to the Eastern Hemisphere until the early 20th century. So clearly there is no Mesorah for turkey? No Mesorah = No Turkey???? I was privileged to read this week an in-depth comprehensive 15 page essay written by WEST HEMPSTEAD's own Rav Ari Zivotofsky, in which he deals with this issue. Due to the my confined space, and more importantly, my lack of understanding of big words (especially science words) I will provide a brief answer. If you would like further information on this fascinating topic, please go to : http://www.kashrut.com/articles/turk_intro/ (it's in English, although if your like me, it looks more like Latin) or you can enroll me in the Harvard Grad School for Big Fancy Words and when I graduate I will gladly explain this issue in greater detail. Rav Zivotofsky writes that prior to this idea of Mesorah there was a Mishnah which lists 4 characteristics of kosher birds. The bird must 1. not be a predator, 2. have an extra toe, 3. have a crop, 4. and have a gizzard that can be peeled. The idea of Mesorah only resulted because characteristic #1, the bird can't be a predator, was vague and undefined. Since the Torah didn't give us any guidelines and the Mishna's guidelines were unclear the Rabbis had no choice but to rely on Mesorah. To clarify for those of you who never took Turkey 101: Turkeys for sure have the latter three characteristics, but we can not tell if it has number one because that characteristic is unclear. The Rambi (Rav Moshe ben Yosef) ruled that any bird that possesses all the later three signs, for sure does not have sign one and thus turkey is kosher. However, the Rema (Rav Moshe Isserles born in 1540 and posek of Ashkenazic Jewry) ruled that any bird requires all four signs and one is not allowed to rely on the latter three. Further, since the 4 guidelines are vague one can not eat a bird unless there is a Mesorah. Based on this, Rav Zivotofsky posits that America was found in 1492, and immediately there-after the export of turkey began. The Europeans enjoyed turkey so much that by 1540 ( a mere 48 years after Columbus) the majority of Jews held like the Rambi (the Rema was not born yet) and said turkey was kosher based on the three latter characteristics it had. This ruling became so popular that 48 years later turkey had already developed a Mesorah. Thus, when the Rema came to write his ruling turkey was already viewed as a bird with a Mesorah, to the point that the Rema allowed it. The irony of it all: had the Rema been born 50 years earlier, or Columbus got stuck in traffic for 50 years, turkey would be assur. Again, this is only to whet your appetite, for a more comprehensive understanding see the article. Of course, there are those Rabbis who forbid turkey but all major kashrus organizations treat the loveable bird as kosher.

Women's Requirement in Megillah

As this week is a hectic week I have made sure that whenever you get around to reading this. It will be appropriate. Whether you read this on Purim, or don't get a chance to read it till Pesach, Sukkos or even next Chanukah - read on because there is something appropriate for you. The following question was posed to me this week: Why are women required to hear the Megillah? Isn't it a Mitzvas Asey Sh'hazman Grama? As we have discussed multiple times all positive commandments that are time bound, women are exempt from performing. So, as the requirement to read the Megillah is only on the 14th of Adar, unless you live in Yerushalyim where it is the 15th, women should be exempt. However, we know they aren't. So what gives? The Gemara Megillah actually asks this question and answers with a very interesting rule: Af Hen Hayo B'oso Ha'Nais- Since women were an integral part of the miracle, they too are required to perform the mitzvos of the day. This concept comes up three times throughout the Gemara- in regards to Megillah on Purim, drinking four cups of wine on Pesach, and lighting the Menorah on Chanukah. While this rule might seem nice and promote equality in the genders, we are faced with a daunting question. If the guiding principal in this rule is that any mitzva that is based off a miracle in which women played a role trumps the time bound exemption, why don't women have to put on tefillin? One of the sources for the requirement for tefillin is based off of the pasuk "Ki B'yad chazakah hotzeiacha Hashem M'Mitzraim" for with a strong hang Hashem took you out of Eygpt. If women have to drink four cups of wine on Pesach because they partook in the exodus shouldn't they also have to wear Teffilin to commerate the event? Rav Soloveitchik answered there with classic Brisk Lomdus. He says there is a fundamental difference between the two commandments of 4 cups and Teffilin. The concept of "Af Hain" is only said when the fulfillment of the mitzva is a means to Persumei Nisa - publicizing the miracle, like by the 4 cups. However, if the mitzva is only a recolocation of a miracle, without the specific obligation of Persumei Nisa, like Tefillin, women remain exempt. This thesis answers up a question I always had. How can we say by Pesach women need to drink four cups of wine , yet by Sukkos we say women are exempt from sitting in the Sukkah? However, upon learning this Rav the question really isn't one at all. By Megillah, 4 Cups, and Menorah there is a specific commandment and focus to publicize the miracle, however by Sukkos even though we sit in the Sukkah to commemorate either the tents Hashem provided for us or the Clouds Hashem protected us with in the desert- this commemoration and remembrance is lacking the crucial element of Persumei Nisa.

Purim Torah

As this week is a hectic week I have made sure that whenever you get around to reading this. it will be approriate. Whether you read this on Purim, or don't get a chance to read it till Pesach, Sukkos or even next Chanukah - read on because there is something approriate for you. The following question was posed to me this week: Why are women required to hear the Megillah? Isn't it a Mitzvas Asey Sh'hazman Grama? As we have discussed multiple times all positive commandments that are time bound, women are exempt from performing. So, as the requirement to read the Megillah is only on the 14th of Adar, unless you live in Yerushalyim where it is the 15th, women should be exempt. However, we know they aren't. So what gives? The Gemara Megillah actually asks this question and answers with a very interesting rule: Af Hen Hayo B'oso Ha'Nais- Since women were an integral part of the miracle, they too are required to perform the mitzvos of the day. This concept comes up three times throughout the Gemara- in regards to Megillah on Purim, drinking four cups of wine on Pesach, and lighting the Menorah on Chanukah. While this rule might seem nice and promote equality in the genders, we are faced with a daunting question. If the guiding principal in this rule is that any mitzva that is based off a miracle in which women played a role trumps the time bound exemption, why don't women have to put on tefillin? One of the sources for the requirement for tefillin is based off of the pasuk "Ki B'yad chazakah hotzeiacha Hashem M'Mitzraim" for with a strong hang Hashem took you out of Eygpt. If women have to drink four cups of wine on Pesach because they partook in the exodus shouldn't they also have to wear Teffilin to commerate the event? Rav Soloveitchik answered there with classic Brisk Lomdus. He says there is a fundamental difference between the two commandments of 4 cups and Teffilin. The concept of "Af Hain" is only said when the fulfillment of the mitzva is a means to Persumei Nisa - publicizing the miracle, like by the 4 cups. However, if the mitzva is only a recolocation of a miracle, without the specific obligation of Persumei Nisa, like Tefillin, women remain exempt. This thesis answers up a question I always had. How can we say by Pesach women need to drink four cups of wine , yet by Sukkos we say women are exempt from sitting in the Sukkah? However, upon learning this Rav the question really isn't one at all. By Megillah, 4 Cups, and Menorah there is a specific commandement and focus to publicize the miracle, however by Sukkos even though we sit in the Sukkah to commerate either the tents Hashem provided for us or the Clouds Hashem protected us with in the desert- this commeration and rememberence is lacking the crucial element of Persumei Nisa. So this Purim remember:While yes to this: View full sizeAnd Yes to this: View full sizeAnd 4 Yes's to these: View full size View full size View full size View full size A DEFFINITE NO TO THIS:

Destroying Amalek

A few weeks back we discussed the question of can women carry guns. Some of you apparently thought that was random, but HalachaBoy in his infinite wisdom had the following up his sleeve, so sit back, relax and prepare for battle: As this week is the Shabbas before Purim we read Parshas Zachor. The Sefer HaChinuch (which lists all 613 mitzvos) writes that there is a positive commandment at all times and at all places to kill Amalek. The Sefer Hachinuch, however, does not mention that woman are commanded in this mitzva. [Editor's Note: We assume that woman ARE commanded in this mitzva and thus they should go to shul on Shabbas to hear the laining and have in mind to fulfill there mitzva through the reading of the torah]. Why would woman not be obligated in such a mitzva? The Avnei Nezer in trying to understand the the Sefer HaChinuch's exemption for woman opines that killing Amalek is a Mitzvas Esey Sh'Hazman Grama, a positive commandment that is time bound. Since we know killing is forbidden on shabbas (it's in the category of Shecita, slaughtering), and killing Amalek is a positve mitzva- perhaps we can say woman are exempt from this mitzva because since it can't be done on Shabbas, woman don't even have to do during the week (think tefillin, ladies) However, there is one rather large problem. In dealing with the obligation to kill and destroy the Seven Nations that occupied Israel when the Jews entered with Yehoshua, the Sefer HaChinuch explicitly says that woman are required to fight in such battles- even a Kallah from her Chuppah is required to fight. But if woman are required to fight the Seven Nations, and we don't say Mitzvas Esey Sh'Hazman Grama, how could we say it by Amalek?? This is a blatant contradiction in the Sefer HaChinuch! In the spirit of Purim, perhaps, the Avnei Nezer replies that it is not a contradiction the reason Hashem commanded us to kill the seven nations was for if we didn't and we lived with them as neighbors we would eventually start worshipping their idols, intermarrying and doing all the good stuff they did. So Hashem required us to kill them, but killing them was not a requirement in and of it self, it was a means to end, to achieve a society free of distractions and idolatry. So, in a sense the killing of the seven nations is actually a Melacha She'ano Tzricha L'Gufo, which is allowed on Shabbas. (the classic example of this digging a hole because I want dirt, the melacha is plowing- but here I don't care to plow, the plowing is just a means to an end of getting me dirt). Since this type of Melacha is not assur on Shabbas, woman are required to partake in the battle against the Seven Nations because it is not a time bound commandment. However, by Amalek, the commandment to kill and destroy them is the whole point. As destroying them is the whole goal it is bonafide Melacha and is assur on Shabbas- thus woman are exempt because Mitzvas Esey Sh'Hazman Grama.

Shaloch Manos

Ladies and Gentlemen--- Why are men labeled gentle? and if men are so gentle, does that imply that ladies are not???? ADAR IS HERE-- HalachaBoy and TorahTown (which was walled from the times of Joshua) are excited to present to you a special Purim Edition of HalachaBoy- For the next three weeks, iy'h, we will provide the best, most exciting halachos and stories to fulfill your Purim crave for Torah, Halacha and of course, Hamintashin. This week we start off with the most famous discussion in all of Purim Torah- Why do we give Shaloch Manos? We all know there is a requirement to give to at least two people two readily edible food items which have different brachos- (and the Shulchan Aruch adds if you come up with a theme, and add bows, ribbons and crunchy paper then that's even better [Editors' Note- the Shulchan Aruch never said it, but more on that later]). But why do we do it? The Terumos Hadashan, said the reason is so everyone has food at his Seuda (the festive meal that is required later on purim day). Since, we don't want to label people as poor we give to everyone, but the essence is to provide for another Purim Seuda. While the Menos Halevi, Rav Shlomo Alkabetz (from such fame as author of the Lecha Dodi) says the reason is to increase friendship and comradery in klal yisroel. We all know Haman wanted to destroy the Jews because they were an Am Mefuzar (spread out nation), thus to rectify this flaw we must unite and increase our brotherhood. Hundreds of seforim have been written about this argument with hundreds of practical differences in which these two Torah Giants would argue. I would like to quickly discuss three, and open the floor for anyone to email me (TheHalachaBoy@gmail.com) if you think of any else. 1. Can you give non-food items? According to Terumos Hadeshen, no-- the whole reason is for food for the seuda--- no food, no mitzvah. According to Rav Alkabetz, yes--- in fact, giving anything that someone would appreciate and thus enhance his relationship with you is good. The rumor has it that Rav Alkabetz actually named the book Menos Halevi because of this response and he would give it to all those on purim day to fulfill his mitzvah of Shaloch Manos. 2. What if the receiver (presumably an over concerned mother whose children already have giant bowls of candy) turns down the Shaloch Manos?- Once again according to the Teromos Hadeshen, no-- because the bottom line is you didn't provide food for that families Seuda, while Rav Alkabetz would say (as any lame gift giver would ) its the thought that counts--- so even if you turn it down, still think highly and love that that Jew a little more. 3. Can one give anonymously- To this the sides flip- The Terumos Hadeshen would say - it is ok for one to give anonymously- as stated earlier as long as the receipt has food for his meal- the giver's requirement is fulfilled. However, according to Menos HaLevi's reasoning, one can only increase comradery if the recipient knows who the giver is, and thus since it is anonymous the requirement is not met. I would like to pose one more Purim nafka mina (practical difference)- Can one give a beautiful wrapped themed basket with no food inside for Shaloch Manos- (why would this happen? Perhaps, the theme is so ornate that adding the food would ruin it, or the giver was too busy with the theme they forgot to put in the goodies)- Would the Menos Halevi paskin that the giver has fulfilled his requirement because people like receiving pretty things (He allowed giving book's didn't he) and thus your mitzvah would be fulfilled- or perhaps even the Menos Halevi would say that this gift is no good because if there's no food the recipient would probably feel jipped and therefore would more likely decrease his love then increase it (I doubt he'd allow a book with the pages ripped out). Maybe it depends if the receiver is a girl or boy? But what if the boy is a Gentle man???? Bottom Line-- Theme's are cute and nice but packing those baskets with yummy, delicious, scrumptious foods makes everyone a winner --