Dark Light Steals and Frummifies Column From Unmentionable Modern Orthodox Periodical
We do not eat giraffes. But could we if they were plentiful and cheap?
Let us compare the Orthodox Union article on giraffes to the Dark Light take. Note that Dark Light ripped off the topic from (the Orthodox Union’s organ) Jewish Action’s “What’s The Truth About…â€? column, a surprisingly and consistently decent column of Jewish Action magazine, and while they credited the author, Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky Ph.D, and the title of the article in Jewish Action, they did not credit the publication itself, nor did they provide a link. That would give credence to the Orthodox Union, and that simply will not do. The Modern Orthodox must not be legitimized.
Anyway, before you look, guess which organization came up with the following reason to not eat a giraffe:
The halachic basis for not eating giraffe is because, in addition to needing the physical criteria for kosher animals to be met, the Torah may also require a continuous tradition of actually eating the specific animal in question.
Commenting on the verse “These are the creatures that you may eat� (Lev. 11:2), our Sages noted: We learn from this that the Holy One, blessed be He, grabbed hold of each and every variety and showed Moses, saying, ‘This you may eat, and this you may not eat.’ (Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 42a). Moses then passed the tradition on to the Israelites by taking hold of each creature, saying to them, “This you may eat, and this you may not eat. The following you shall abominate among the birds [he then showed them]: These you shall abominate, and these you shall not abominate. The following shall make you unclean [not kosher, and he then showed them]: These are unclean, and these are clean� (Sifra, Shemini 2).
According to most halachic authorities, the need for such a tradition is essential only in the case of birds; as Rabbi Isaac said, “Birds are eaten by tradition� (Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 63b). As for beasts and animals, it appears from Maimonides that merely recognizing them as being kosher is enough (Ma’achalot Asurot 1.8). However, some Ashkenazi halachic authorities have ruled that these animals also require a tradition. Therefore, the giraffe, despite its signs of being a kosher animal and its long, shecht-able neck, would still not be permitted to eat without an uninterrupted tradition of its being eaten.
In fact, the Orthodox Union disputes this, noting,
There is also an historical record of the giraffe being accepted as kosher. The zemer, listed among the ten types of kosher animals in Deuteronomy (14:5), is identified as the giraffe by Rav Saadia Gaon, Rabbenu Yona, Radak, the Septuagint, and many others.
Even in the near impossible, the Dark Light must find ways to be machmir.
Editor’s note: No giraffes were ritually slaughtered in this swipe at Dark Light.
6 comments
RE; requiring mesorah for chaya: It’s really only Chazon Ish’s interpetation of a Chayei Odom, and not the simplest interpetation either.
Requiring mesorah for ‘chaya’ is Chazon Ish’s interpretation of a Chayei Odom, which can easiily be also understood differently. I am pretty sure that most poskim would agree with the OU and, of course, its own poskim, R. Belsky and R. Shechter must ahve reviewed that psak.
the OU? I’m confused do u like them or not? because it seems like u like it, but isn’t ncsy part of the OU?
danny,
NCSY is part of the OU, but perhaps because it is focused on kiruv, is more consistently haredi leaning. Kiruv often attracts a bad element.
DK, you’re assuming OS did not credit the magazine. What if Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky told numerous people this information at a conference on the subject? The OU and OS often have people/activities in common. Whay if the OU told OS they did not need to be credited? You should find out first if they in fact stole it from the publication before making a very serious accusation. There could be multiple scenarios you are not considering.
“What if Rabbi Ari Z. Zivotofsky told numerous people this information at a conference on the subject?”
Go to the link — it was JUST reprinted in Jewish Action.
“What if the OU told OS they did not need to be credited?”
For what reason? That they respect that it hurts OS’s reputation to link to a “not really frum” MO magazine?
Please. They didn’t source the magazine because unlike the OU’s kashrut services (which they eat from), or NCSY (which recruits for them) the magazine has unacceptably Modern Orthodox Hashkafas.
Leave a Comment