9

To find the kashrus status of an organism, we first need to correctly classify it as plant, animal, of, or fish, as each group has its own distinct requirements. E.g., animals need to chew cud and have cloven hooves, while fish need (fins and) scales.

What is the halachic definition of a of (עוֹף)?

Adám
  • 6,801
  • 21
  • 54

1 Answers1

1

Note that many translations have both a bat and an ostrich listed as "birds". As an example, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in Living Torah and the English translator in Rav Hirsch (his grandson Isaac Levy) use Bas Haya'ana as ostrich and ataleif as bat. These translations state that both an ostrich and a bat are halachically considered "of". Thus it appears that a bird is a "winged animal" whether or not it flies. A penguin would seem to be similar to an Ostrich in that it is a flightless winged animal.

Actually, if one wants to analyze a flipper and a wing, one could say that a fish "flies" through the water or a bird "swims" through the air. In both cases, they are propelled through the external medium by something very similar.

wfb
  • 14,504
  • 43
  • 76
sabbahillel
  • 43,108
  • 7
  • 47
  • 88
  • Why did you delete? Seems reasonable. – msh210 Dec 12 '14 at 19:23
  • @msh210 Because I had two downvotes and did not want to spend more time on it. I will leave it undeleted until Sunday and see what happens. – sabbahillel Dec 12 '14 at 20:49
  • Do penguins have wings or flippers? Are whales birds too? – Double AA Dec 14 '14 at 00:10
  • @DoubleAA Penguins have the equivalent of wings and are not restricted to the water. Whales would have flippers but are completely restricted to the water so they are dagim. – sabbahillel Dec 14 '14 at 00:46
  • @sabbahillel (...based on the rule you just made up out of thin air.) What is the difference between a wing and a flipper that you know which a penguin has? – Double AA Dec 14 '14 at 00:47
  • @DoubleAA because the penguin is not completely water bound an appear (on the land) to be a flightless bird. It is thus not a dag – sabbahillel Dec 14 '14 at 00:49
  • (1) Where are these translations coming from? (2) Why would those translations have bearing on the halachic definition of the "עוף"? – MTL Dec 14 '14 at 05:20
  • So, having no wings at all, a Moa is not a bird? What about flying fish's fins? – Adám Dec 21 '14 at 16:08
  • @NBZ Since a flying fish is still a water animal, it would be a dag just as a "flying squirrel" (unlike a bat) is a land animal The fins of a "Flying" fish are still fins and not wings. A Moa had vestigial wings as shon in the wikipedia article that it is related to flying species. – sabbahillel Dec 21 '14 at 19:23
  • "still a water animal" – Because you say so? "A Moa had vestigial wings" – Try re-reading Wikipedia: "The nine species of moa were the only wingless birds, lacking even the vestigial wings which all other ratites have." – Adám Dec 21 '14 at 19:38
  • I assume you would classify flying dragons as a land animal, since it is still a lizard? (sarcasm) Why wouldn't you classify a bat as a land animal, since it is still a mammal? – Adám Dec 21 '14 at 20:00
  • @NBZ because the torah does not classify in the same way as Linnaeous (spelling?) – sabbahillel Dec 22 '14 at 04:23
  • 1
    I agree that the Torah doesn't (necessarily) classify like Linnaeus, but how DOES the Torah classify? You can't just make assumptions without a source, or a at least a hint. Yes, the Torah calls both bats and ostriches of, but since their "wings" are already anatomically radically different, that is not enough to rule fish fins and lizard ribs as not wings. despite their – Adám Dec 22 '14 at 14:52