Prof. Levine
2012-12-16 15:19:34 UTC
The latest issue of Hakirah
(http://www.hakirah.org/) contains an article
with the above title by ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY and ARI
GREENSPAN which is most interesting. Part of the
article is at http://www.hakirah.org/Vol14Zivotofsky.pdf
Introduction
A kashrut question that had engaged the halakhik community from
time to time through the twentieth century has once again arisen
during the last decade. A species of fish known in various places as
kingklip has recently appeared in Israel and generated a turbulent
controversy regarding its permissibility. This article will present the
history of its status and examine the issues and the arguments involved
in the debate. We will not arrive at a ruling; that has been
done by many competent poskim. We will discuss the halakhik
questions, the rationales, and the different analyses that have been
employed during the brief 100-year history and thereby illustrate
the halakhik process in an area of Jewish law.
What is a kingklip?
Kingklip (Genypterus capensis, Genypterus blacodes, Genypterus
chilensis and others) is a fish that lives near the ocean floor in the
southern hemisphere at depths of 50?500 meters. It can grow to between
80 and 200 centimeters, weigh 15?25 kg, and live for up to 30
years. It is a nocturnal, carnivorous feeder that is found in the
waters of the southern hemisphere and considered a seafood delicacy.
Because no Jewish community of any magnitude existed in the
Southern hemisphere prior to the previous 100 years, the fish was
unknown to Jews.
This article then discusses in detail the various
halachic opinions regarding the Kashrus of this
fish and how they were arrived at. (One needs to
purchase the journal to read the rest of the article.)
The article concludes with
Lessons to be learned
The controversy over kingklip kashrut has reached the point that a
South African fish expert, Dr. P.C. Heemstra,
emailed me (AZZ [Ari Z. Zivotofsky]:
October 2005) that he was so dismayed with the rabbinic approach
towards examining kingklip kashrut that, he cynically wrote, "I
find the arguments about kosher/unkosher kingklip exceedingly
tiresome .... I hope kingklip is declared unkosher as it is getting rare
now, and the fewer people that are eating it the better."
The earliest claim that it is permitted is traced back to the universally
accepted gaon Rav Yitzchak Kossowsky and his son R.
Michel. Since that time no South African kashrut agency or reputable
rav has ever prohibited it, and until today both the Johannesburg
and Cape Town Batei Din treat it as kosher. Kingklip has
macroscopic scales that are not shed upon landing. They are there
for anyone who looks for them to see. While they are thinner and
less rigid than most scales, in structure they are similar to other cycloid
scales. All major kashrut organizations in their native lands
(South Africa and Australia) have accepted it as kosher. It was stated
very clearly in an email from Rabbi Yossi Salzer to the OU on Feb
12, 2004, where he wrote: "Cuskeels or not-the Torah says: with
fins and scales it's Kosher. Kingklip has fins & scales. It's Kosher!"
Despite the above, some of the most prominent poskim of our
time have questioned its kosher status or have advised against eating
it. The reasons for not declaring it kosher have been varied and creative:
thin scales; covered scales; it is eel-like; its scales are eel-like;
the scales do not catch the finger; the scales are not protective; the
fish is a bottom dweller.
Refusing to be intimidated, Rav Moshe Kurtstag, an internationally
recognized talmid hakham, issued a responsum on kingklip
and responded to every point raised. He determined that there is no
question that it is a kosher fish. In addition, following the bulk of
the controversy and fully aware of the supposed position of the Israeli
rabbinic heavy weights, all of the major figures in South Africa
reiterated that they had previously personally examined the fish and
declared it to be kosher and mehadrin.
The standard operating procedure for all of Jewish history has
always been to first go to a local posek. Only in cases of doubt or
conflict did the local rabbinic authorities, not the questioner, turn
elsewhere. And the recognized world experts would usually support
the authority of local rabbis. In the case of kingklip the local poskim
were fully competent and confident in their decision. It is unclear
why there was a need to turn to Israel or the US with this question.
An email from one of the South African rabbis (not to me)
sums up the feeling of the South African rabbis:
I'm sorry to say, but the Rabbis were given TOTALLY INCORRECT
information about the fish by some "frum" trouble-
maker in Johannesburg who wants to discredit the local
Beth Din ... Why these Gedolim didn't first check with us who
know the fish, before giving a p'sak, I don't know ...
Is kingklip kosher? All of the local rabbis in South Africa and
Australia said an unequivocal "yes." Should the question have remained
a Southern hemisphere question? Most definitely. It is difficult
to know why the question was brought to Israel. The Beit Din
itself said it was someone looking to discredit them. An individual
South African rabbi said it was a "trouble maker." We have no way
of knowing or judging, and it is irrelevant - it should have remained
a local question.
----------
In my mind this article raises many fundamental
questions about how a halachic psak is arrived at
and reliability of piskei halacha that emerge from such a procedure.
Another article by R. Zivotofsky that also
highlights some of the same issues regarding
piskei halacha is Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck
is Kosher: A Factually Accurate Response which
may be read in its entirety at http://tinyurl.com/cc8478g
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/fc57e981/attachment-0001.htm>
(http://www.hakirah.org/) contains an article
with the above title by ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY and ARI
GREENSPAN which is most interesting. Part of the
article is at http://www.hakirah.org/Vol14Zivotofsky.pdf
Introduction
A kashrut question that had engaged the halakhik community from
time to time through the twentieth century has once again arisen
during the last decade. A species of fish known in various places as
kingklip has recently appeared in Israel and generated a turbulent
controversy regarding its permissibility. This article will present the
history of its status and examine the issues and the arguments involved
in the debate. We will not arrive at a ruling; that has been
done by many competent poskim. We will discuss the halakhik
questions, the rationales, and the different analyses that have been
employed during the brief 100-year history and thereby illustrate
the halakhik process in an area of Jewish law.
What is a kingklip?
Kingklip (Genypterus capensis, Genypterus blacodes, Genypterus
chilensis and others) is a fish that lives near the ocean floor in the
southern hemisphere at depths of 50?500 meters. It can grow to between
80 and 200 centimeters, weigh 15?25 kg, and live for up to 30
years. It is a nocturnal, carnivorous feeder that is found in the
waters of the southern hemisphere and considered a seafood delicacy.
Because no Jewish community of any magnitude existed in the
Southern hemisphere prior to the previous 100 years, the fish was
unknown to Jews.
This article then discusses in detail the various
halachic opinions regarding the Kashrus of this
fish and how they were arrived at. (One needs to
purchase the journal to read the rest of the article.)
The article concludes with
Lessons to be learned
The controversy over kingklip kashrut has reached the point that a
South African fish expert, Dr. P.C. Heemstra,
emailed me (AZZ [Ari Z. Zivotofsky]:
October 2005) that he was so dismayed with the rabbinic approach
towards examining kingklip kashrut that, he cynically wrote, "I
find the arguments about kosher/unkosher kingklip exceedingly
tiresome .... I hope kingklip is declared unkosher as it is getting rare
now, and the fewer people that are eating it the better."
The earliest claim that it is permitted is traced back to the universally
accepted gaon Rav Yitzchak Kossowsky and his son R.
Michel. Since that time no South African kashrut agency or reputable
rav has ever prohibited it, and until today both the Johannesburg
and Cape Town Batei Din treat it as kosher. Kingklip has
macroscopic scales that are not shed upon landing. They are there
for anyone who looks for them to see. While they are thinner and
less rigid than most scales, in structure they are similar to other cycloid
scales. All major kashrut organizations in their native lands
(South Africa and Australia) have accepted it as kosher. It was stated
very clearly in an email from Rabbi Yossi Salzer to the OU on Feb
12, 2004, where he wrote: "Cuskeels or not-the Torah says: with
fins and scales it's Kosher. Kingklip has fins & scales. It's Kosher!"
Despite the above, some of the most prominent poskim of our
time have questioned its kosher status or have advised against eating
it. The reasons for not declaring it kosher have been varied and creative:
thin scales; covered scales; it is eel-like; its scales are eel-like;
the scales do not catch the finger; the scales are not protective; the
fish is a bottom dweller.
Refusing to be intimidated, Rav Moshe Kurtstag, an internationally
recognized talmid hakham, issued a responsum on kingklip
and responded to every point raised. He determined that there is no
question that it is a kosher fish. In addition, following the bulk of
the controversy and fully aware of the supposed position of the Israeli
rabbinic heavy weights, all of the major figures in South Africa
reiterated that they had previously personally examined the fish and
declared it to be kosher and mehadrin.
The standard operating procedure for all of Jewish history has
always been to first go to a local posek. Only in cases of doubt or
conflict did the local rabbinic authorities, not the questioner, turn
elsewhere. And the recognized world experts would usually support
the authority of local rabbis. In the case of kingklip the local poskim
were fully competent and confident in their decision. It is unclear
why there was a need to turn to Israel or the US with this question.
An email from one of the South African rabbis (not to me)
sums up the feeling of the South African rabbis:
I'm sorry to say, but the Rabbis were given TOTALLY INCORRECT
information about the fish by some "frum" trouble-
maker in Johannesburg who wants to discredit the local
Beth Din ... Why these Gedolim didn't first check with us who
know the fish, before giving a p'sak, I don't know ...
Is kingklip kosher? All of the local rabbis in South Africa and
Australia said an unequivocal "yes." Should the question have remained
a Southern hemisphere question? Most definitely. It is difficult
to know why the question was brought to Israel. The Beit Din
itself said it was someone looking to discredit them. An individual
South African rabbi said it was a "trouble maker." We have no way
of knowing or judging, and it is irrelevant - it should have remained
a local question.
----------
In my mind this article raises many fundamental
questions about how a halachic psak is arrived at
and reliability of piskei halacha that emerge from such a procedure.
Another article by R. Zivotofsky that also
highlights some of the same issues regarding
piskei halacha is Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck
is Kosher: A Factually Accurate Response which
may be read in its entirety at http://tinyurl.com/cc8478g
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121216/fc57e981/attachment-0001.htm>