"For I am the Lord, Who brought you up from the land of Egypt …" Had I brought Israel up from Egypt only for this, that they do not defile themselves with swarming creatures it would have been sufficient for Me.
BABA MEẒI'A 61b
The Sages of the Talmud were forthright in their classification of the dietary laws among the ḥukkim, the divinely ordained statutes whose rationale cannot full be fathomed by the human mind but which the Jew nevertheless observes by reason of divine fiat. The seemingly arbitrary nature of this class of divine commandments is noted by the Midrash precisely in connection with the dietary laws. "What difference does it make to God whether a beast is killed by cutting the neck in the front or in the back? Mizvot were given solely that people might be purified by means of them." (Bereshit Rabbah XLIV, 1).
Despite the great reluctance of the talmudic Sages to offer a rationale for the fundamentals of kashrut, others were not similarly reticent. The interpretations which have been advanced over the course of centuries are varied and sundry. The explanation which has probably enjoyed the widest circulation is the one which sees a connection between these laws and physical health and well-being. This concept gained currency in the days of antiquity: it is expressed in the Pseudepigrapha1IV Macc. 5:25–27. and alluded to in the works of Philo.2De Specialibus Legibus, IV, 119. Translated by F. H. Colson (Cambridge, 1939), VIII, 81. Although these writings are not necessarily indicative of rabbinic thought, similar concepts are expressed by Maimonides,3Guide of the Perplexed, III, chap. 48. Nachmanides,4Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:43. Gersonides,5Commentary on the Bible, Parshat Ekev, To‘elet 26. and others.6Abraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Bible, Exod. 22:30; Rashbam, Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:3; Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, nos. 72 and 147. However, other rabbinic scholars were most emphatic in their denial of a hygienic interpretation of the laws of forbidden foods. Thus, R. Isaac Abarbanel writes, "Heaven forfend that I should believe so. For if that were to be so, the Book of God's Law would be in the same category as any of the brief medical books…. This is not the way of God's law or the depth of its intentions." 7Commentary on the Bible, Lev. 11:13. In almost identical language, R. Isaac Arama disparages this explanation, commenting that such an interpretation would "lower the status of divine Law to the status of any brief medical composition." 8Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. See also Kli Yakar, Lev. 11:1 and Menachem ha-Bavli, Ta‘amei ha-Miẓvot, negative commandments, no. 84.
Of the various other approaches to an understanding of the dietary laws, the one which perhaps strikes a particularly responsive chord, and which has reference to empirically verifiable social phenomena, is the explanation which sees in kashrut a vehicle designed to preserve the distinctive identity of Israel as a nation. According to this explanation, dietary regulations are seen as having been designed to restrain untrammeled social intercourse and to serve as a rein against assimilation. Reference to this concept is found in the Letter of Aristeas which states: "God has hedged us about on all sides by rules of purity affecting alike what we eat or drink or touch or see…. the laws must teach discrimination because we have been distinctly separated from the rest of mankind" (142 and 151). In a similar but somewhat different vein, R. Isaac Arama comments that these regulations were designed to restrict contact between Jews and non-Jews. Dietary restraints serve to create a barrier between them similar to that which exists "between the peasant or provincial and the prince who feasts upon the bread and wine of the king." 9Akedat Yiẓḥak, Sha‘ar 60. Just as they are separate in their foods, so must they be different in their thoughts and deeds.
Regardless of which explanation, if any, is accepted, it is clear that the Sages viewed the dietary code as particularly indicative of the unique status of the Jewish people. Jews were singled out from among the nations of the world and charged with maintaining an enhanced standard of holiness. The Midrash portrays the laws of kashrut as the special privilege of the Jewish people and as a mark of the distinction between Israel and other nations. Israel alone among the nations was given the dietary laws, the Midrash observes, for the people of Israel are unique in that as a nation they alone are destined for eternal life.10Va-Yikra Rabbah XIII, 2. The laws of kashrut are designed to enable the Jewish people to achieve the sanctity which is a guarantee of eternity.
Dietary proscriptions include categories of food which are forbidden by their nature and others which are forbidden because of their mode of preparation. Various species of animals, fowl, fish, and creeping things are described in the Torah and declared "unclean" (Lev. 11:1–23 and 41–47, Deut. 14:3–19).
Permitted animals must be slaughtered in accordance with prescribed ritual requirements. Animals which die of themselves, which are improperly slaughtered or which have suffered from certain physiological defects are forbidden. Parts of otherwise kosher animals, such as the blood, certain types of fat (ḥelev), located primarily but not exclusively in the hindquarters, and the sciatic sinew, located in the hollow of the thigh, may also not be eaten. Kosher meat must be prepared by a process of soaking and salting in order to drain the blood.
A strict separation must be maintained between meat and dairy products. They may be neither cooked nor eaten together. The stringencies pertaining to this separation necessitate different sets of dishes and utensils for meat and dairy foods.
Single Sterilizer for Both Meat and Dairy Utensils
In an article appearing in the 5728 edition of Shanah be-Shanah, Rabbi S. Efratti reports that the following query had been addressed to him: A hospital found it necessary to utilize a sterilizer for all eating utensils used in its pediatric and isolation wings. Since the purchase of two such machines would involve a great expense, could the same sterilizer be used for both meat and dairy utensils, albeit not at the same time? It was to be understood that both dishes and silverware were to be washed properly before being placed in the sterilizer. The apparatus, the interlocutor averred, used cold water and was equipped with its own heating elements, which were utilized to raise the temperature of the water to the proper degree of heat for purposes of sterilization.
Rabbi Efratti compares this case to that mentioned in Yoreh De'ah 94:5 concerning a new pot containing boiling water in which a dairy spoon had been placed. The pot was subsequently emptied and refilled with boiling water, and this time a meat spoon was inserted. The ruling in this situation is that the pot has been rendered unfit for either meat or dairy products and can be used only for neutral foods. If the instance of the sterilizer is analogous to the case cited, use of the machine would be objectionable for either meat or dairy utensils. There is, however, one significant difference. The utensils in question are used by patients in eating meals, but never in the kitchen for the preparation of foods. Thus these dishes never come into contact with hot food while such food is yet in the utensils in which it was originally cooked. The utensils to be sterilized accordingly have the status of a keli sheni, a vessel into which cooked food is transferred. Since such vessels possess only the heat transmitted to them by the food they contain, their power of absorption is considerably lessened. Rabbi Efratti points out that in the case under consideration, the "taste" of food goes through three distinct processes of assimilation: from the edibles into the eating utensil, from the eating utensil into the water and from the water into the sterilizing apparatus. Accordingly, he argues, if this analysis does, in fact, take account of all relevant factors, there would be no reason for a stringent ruling so long as the absorption of dairy or meat foods in the eating utensils takes place in the form of a keli sheni.
This line of reasoning does not, however, apply to instances where particles of food are permitted to enter the machine. In such an event absorption is directly from the food itself. The situation is then tantamount to actual cooking, and the sterilizer acquires the status of either a dairy or meat utensil depending upon the category of vessels which were sterilized first. Rabbi Efratti states that in the case of the sterilizer it may be anticipated that a fatty residue will remain on at least some eating implements and, accordingly, we must deem the vessel to be one in which food has been cooked.
In cognizance of this additional factor, Rabbi Efratti asserts that it is necessary to kasher the sterilizer between meat and dairy and vice versa. This can be done quite easily by simply running the sterilizer for a short period of time while it is empty of dishes and silverware. The machine, heating its own water, will thereby kasher itself.
There would still appear to be an impediment to the use of a single sterilizer for both meat and dairy foods even if the machine be kashered after each use. Magen Avraham, in his commentary on Oraḥ Hayyim 509:5, states that it is our practice not to kasher meat utensils for dairy use or vice versa. Kashering procedures are employed only in order to render usable non-kosher utensils which would otherwise not be used for any purpose or in order to prepare utensils for Passover use. The reason for this restriction is apparently the fear that if kashering of the utensils be permitted between meat and dairy use there would then be no need for maintaining separate sets of utensils. As a result there might be inadvertent use of such eating implements for both meat and dairy foods without prior kashering. Underscoring the fact that the reason for disallowing the kashering of a single utensil for meat and dairy use is the danger of forgetfulness, Rabbi Efratti suggests that this fear can be obviated in the case of a sterilizer by requiring separate racks for meat and dairy utensils. The racks would have to be changed constantly and their substitution would serve as a reminder that kashering is required as well.
Another reason adduced by Rabbi Efratti for permitting the use of a single sterilizer is based on Yoreh De'ah 95:4. According to this source, the addition of ashes to the water before the utensils are placed therein causes the emitted "taste" of milk or meat to become a "spoiled taste." Since the machine then absorbs a "spoiled taste," it does not acquire the status of either a meat or dairy vessel. Rabbi Efratti maintains that addition of chemical substances during the sterilizing process may be considered to have the same effect. However both Taz 95:15 and Shakh 95:21 express their disagreement with the basic premise concerning a "spoiled taste" arising out of the admixture of ashes and the matter is the subject of considerable discussion in subsequent halakhic literature.
It should be noted that in this article Rabbi Efratti's discussion is limited to the question of sterilizers and no mention is made of dish-washing machines in which different conditions may be operative. For example, the mode of kashering a dishwasher, if this process be necessary, requires further clarification since the latter machine does not heat its own water. Furthermore, Rabbi Efratti's permissive ruling is based entirely upon the fact that all utensils to be sterilized had the status of a keli sheni. Housewives commonly use cutlery in cooking foods on the stove and any such utensil is considered to be a keli rishon.
Garfish and Scad
Identification of the signs of kosher fish is not always a simple matter. The Sivan 5730 issue of Ha-Pardes contains an item clarifying some aspects of this problem. Rabbi S. Efratti, who at that time was head of the Kashrut Department of the Israeli Ministry of Religions, reports that of late a non-kosher species known as garfish has been imported from Portugal and marketed under the label "Anchovied Fillets of Garfish." The label on this product is misleading in that it may well cause the consumer to believe that he has purchased anchovies, which are known to be kosher, whereas the garfish is not.
Quite apart from misleading labeling, it is possible that erroneous categorization of the garfish as a species of kosher fish may result from either (1) acceptance of the microscopic scales borne by the garfish as a sign of its kashrut or (2) reliance upon the split tail of the garfish as conclusive evidence of its status as a kosher fish.
Rabbi Efratti cites the commentary of Tiferet Yisra'el on Avodah Zarah 2:6, which declares that for a fish to be deemed kosher its scales must be visible to the naked eye. This ruling is based upon two considerations. First, the Gemara, Niddah 57b, identifies the biblical term kaskeset as the "clothing" of the fish and, accordingly, defines kaskeset as "scales." Microscopic scales can hardly be deemed "clothing," and hence cannot satisfy this necessary condition of kashrut. Secondly, Tiferet Yisra'el establishes the general principle that in all matters contingent upon vision, Halakhah is concerned only with what is visible to the naked eye, not with what is visible under a magnifying glass or microscope. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein reiterates the same principle in his halakhic compendium, Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De'ah 83:15.10aCf. also, Arukh ha-Shulhan, Yoreh De‘ah 84:36. Arukh ha-Shulḥan adds that mere perception of the scales is in itself insufficient since it is necessary that scales not only be present but that they be removable as well. This qualification is indicated by Ramban (Commentary on the Bible, Lev., 11:10) in his definition of kaskeset as a structure "which can be peeled off as one peels a fruit or removes bark from a tree."
Rabbi Efratti points out that even though numerous authorities speak of the split tail as an indication of kashrut, it is rather the absence of a split tail which is a definitive indication that the fish is of a non-kosher variety; the presence of a split tail is in itself not a reliable indication of kashrut.
In an earlier article, published in the Nisan 5730 issue of the same publication, Rabbi Efratti discusses the kashrut of a species known as scad or horsemackerel. [Reference to the dictionary definition of "horse-mackerel" shows that the term may be applied to a number of species. Apparently, some of these are kosher, others not. Its principal usage is as a synonym for tuna, which is, of course, a kosher fish.] These fish have also been marketed in Israel under the label "Anchovied Fillets of Scad." Scads possess a body-covering in the form of bony tubercules: rough, spinous projections, which do not overlap one another. These tubercules do not meet the criteria of the biblical kaskeset because they are of a shape markedly different from the shape of scales and are not removable. An informative analysis of the halakhic definition of "scale" by Rabbi Moses Tendler appeared in Ha-Pardes, Tevet 5726, and in an article entitled "The Halakhic Status of the Swordfish," which appeared in the April 1968 issue of the Jewish Observer and was reprinted in an extended version in Gesher (1969), vol. 4, no. 1.
Cold-Water Plucking
The modern housewife has become accustomed to many labor-saving conveniences. In particular, the availability of dressed, eviscerated fowl, completely ready for the pot at the moment of purchase, has been taken for granted for some time.
The preparation of kosher fowl presents a singular problem. In preparing poultry for sale, processing plants commonly remove feathers by means of a machine designed for this purpose. Plants preparing non-kosher fowl routinely immerse the fowl in hot water so that the mechanical feather-plucking process may be performed thoroughly and expeditiously.
The provisions of Jewish law preclude the immersion of unplucked kosher fowl in hot water. Hot-water immersion is not a permissible procedure because in this process the skin and flesh of the fowl become heated. The fowl immersed in this manner is deemed to have been "cooked," albeit briefly. Since, at the time of immersion and plucking, the blood has not yet been removed by means of soaking and salting, the fowl prepared in this manner is deemed to have been cooked together with its blood. This procedure automatically renders the fowl non-kosher.
Accordingly, kosher processing plants have developed a process involving cold-water immersion. The results, however, have not always been optimal. In an item appearing in the Tevet 5734 issue of Ha-Ma'ayan and subsequently reprinted in the Nisan 5736 issue of Ha-Pardes,11A translation of this article appears in the August 1974 issue of Intercom, a publication of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists. Dr. Israel Meir Levinger of the Jerusalem-based Institute for Technology and Halakhah reports on experiments designed to perfect a cold-water feather-removal process. It is Dr. Levinger's hypothesis that it is not heat per se which facilitates the removal of feathers, but that any radical change in the body temperature of the fowl causes feathers to adhere less rigidly to the skin, thereby facilitating their removal by machine. His experiments indicate that immersion in very cold water, at temperatures between 32 degrees and 46 degrees, is as effective as immersion in hot water. Immersion in water ranging from 46 degrees to 59 degrees is moderately effective. At higher cold-water temperatures the results are unsatisfactory.
Dr. Levinger does, however, raise one possible halakhic question with regard to processes using water at extremely low temperatures. The process of soaking and salting is designed to assure that the blood will be drained from the fowl. Dr. Levinger raises the possibility that immersion in extremely cold water may constrict the blood vessels, thus interfering with the subsequent draining of blood. However, as Dr. Levinger indicates, this problem may readily be obviated. Poultry immersed in cold water may be restored to normal room temperature before salting. Even frozen meat may be salted after it has been defrosted and restored to normal temperature. With the restoration of normal temperature, the blood vessels again become dilated.
Dr. Levinger also reports that a chemical compound is now available which facilitates the removal of feathers by machine. The compound, produced by Oxford Chemicals of Atlanta, Georgia, is known by the trade name Oxford FSD. According to the producer, the preparation, a slightly viscous liquid, contains organic wetting, emulsifying and defoaming agents. When used in kosher processing the chemical is dissolved in tepid water at room temperature and the fowl immersed in the solution prior to plucking. Dr. Levinger conducted a series of experiments in order to determine whether or not the use of this chemical compound might lead to constriction of the blood vessels and thus interfere with the subsequent draining of blood by means of the salting process. He reports that these experiments demonstrate that Oxford FSD, even when injected intravenously, does not cause vascular constriction.
Dr. Levinger reports that Rabbi S. Efratti notes that there remains one possible complication resulting from the use of Oxford FSD. Use of this solution might conceivably soften tissues and lead to a breakdown of blood vessels. This may cause a subcutaneous collection of blood such as often results from a contusion. When a perceptible subcutaneous collection of blood is present the meat may not be salted unless the skin is first pierced and the blood allowed to drain. Accordingly, notes Dr. Levinger, should such a phenomenon indeed occur subsequent to use of this chemical, the blood should be drained prior to salting. Finding no impediment to its use, Dr. Levinger endorses the addition of Oxford FSD in cold-water processing of kosher fowl.