The Kashrut of Turkey – Top 11 Explanations

by R. Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky

The acceptability of turkey as a kosher bird is on the one hand “simple” and on the other hand a mystery. It is “simple” because Jews have been eating turkey for hundreds of years, all major kashrut organizations certify turkey,^[1]There are individuals who do not consume turkey, but it does not (yet) appear to be a growing phenomenon. and for many years Israel has been the number 1 consumer of turkey per capita.^[2]https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/which-country-consumes-the-most-turkeys-each-year-per-capita But it is a mystery because turkey is a New World bird, which is very significant when it comes to the kashrut of birds. As will be explained, birds require a mesorah, a living, unbroken, oral and visual tradition,^[3]This was reiterated in a letter written in Rav Moshe Feinstein’s name by his secretary to the author and to Dr. Ari Greenspan in 1984 regarding a different bird, in which he wrote: “The halacha … Continue reading in order to be considered kosher, something theoretically not possible for a New World bird. How are these two facts to be reconciled? Detailed history and analysis with sources can be found elsewhere^[4]See Darkei Tshuva YD 82:34 (https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14568&st=&pgnum=187 ); Zivotofsky, Ari Z. “Is Turkey Kosher?.” The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary … Continue reading; here I present common proposed solutions and comment on them. But first the background.

Unlike fish and quadrupeds, for which the Torah provides anatomical/physiological indicators of kashrut, for birds the Torah lists 24 (see Hullin 63a) categories (not “species” in the modern taxonomic sense) of non-kosher birds (Lev. 11:13-19; Deut. 14:11-18). By a process of elimination, whatever is not in the list is kosher. Because of the obvious significant halachic ramifications of the list, neither Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (d. 1888) nor the late 20th century Artscroll-Stone attempted to translate/identify the listed birds, but rather transliterated the names in the list. In order to make use of the list to deem a bird kosher, one must be able to recognize all 24 categories of birds listed in order to be certain that the bird in question is not on the list.

Owing to the difficulty in perpetuating accurate identification of all 24 categories (a prerequisite for using the list to identify kosher species), a problem exacerbated by the global dispersion of the Jews, the rabbis provided physical signs in addition to the list. The Mishna (Hullin 3:6 [59a]) gives three signs of a kosher bird and one of a non-kosher bird. A huge debate developed amongst the rishonim exactly what the signs are and how to utilize them, topics upon which much ink has been spilled. The Meiri, in introducing his explanation, stated that the explanation of this Mishna is all confused by the commentators. As a leniency, if one does not know the list and does not know the signs, the Gemara offers that a tradition that a bird is kosher is sufficient and may be relied upon.

With time, a new difficulty was noticed. The mishna’s “negative sign” is that a bird that is a dores, a “predator”, is not kosher. The problems are that the definition of dores is hotly debated by the commentators and that it is non-trivial to accurately characterize a bird’s habits. In the Talmudic period an error occurred and a type of bird, the “tarnegplta d’agma”, was thought to not be a predator and was thus treated as kosher was later found to be a predator and declared to be non-kosher. This led Rashi (Hullin 62b) to opine that we must always be concerned that any unfamiliar bird is a dores and therefore birds may only be treated as kosher if there is a mesorah to that effect. He says that any bird that our forefathers told us is kosher may be eaten and If not, it may not be eaten.

The Shulchan Aruch and the Rema (YD 82) both rule like Rashi and require a mesorah. There is no distinction between the Sephardic Shulchan Aruch and the Ashkenazik Rema; both say that for a bird to be kosher, signs are not sufficient and a mesorah is required. The Shulchan Aruch makes one exception and is willing to be lenient and accept the “goose-comparison” as evidence that the bird is not a dores. That is, a bird with a wide beak and webbed feet like a goose physically cannot be a dores, hence Rashi’s concern does not exist, and that together with the mishna’s three physical signs, is sufficient to permit the bird as kosher. The Rema rejects that leniency. Other than that, the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema agree that there is no way to accept a bird as kosher except for a mesorah. And note that the turkey does not meet the requirements of the goose comparison.

The Beit Yosef (=Shulchan Aruch author) quotes and agrees with Rabbenu Yerucham that for mesorah, names of birds may not be relied upon. Thus, someone testifying, orally or in writing, that a bird with a particular name is kosher is insufficient evidence by which to permit it; one must actually see the bird. So too the Beit Yosef quoting the Rosh was concerned about relying on mesorahs from locales without a history of strong rabbinic authorities because perhaps some random person relied on his own intellect todecid that a bird was kosher.

With both the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema ruling that a mesorah is needed to consider a bird kosher, it seems that it would be futile to try to introduce a mesorah-less bird into the Jewish menu; so how did the New World turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), sneak in and get accepted as kosher? Turkey was introduced to Europe in about 1519, was clearly well-known by late 16th century as Shakespeare mentioned it at least twice (Henry IV, Part I, Act II, Scene I and Twelfth Night, Act II, Scene V) and it seems to have been mentioned in the halachik literature for the first time in 1646.

There are thus really two questions: How was turkey initially accepted and why do we continue to eat it today. The two questions may have the same answer or different explanations. Interestingly, although some European Jews seem to have been eating turkey already in the 17th century, I am not aware of any responsa from that time asking “is turkey kosher”. Only in the 18th and more so in the 19th century do there appear many responsa addressing “why is the turkey kosher”, and some questioned whether, as in the Talmudic story about the error, the ruling should be reversed.

Now to the explanations. Some of these were offered in legitimate responsa; some are popular notions. It is very important to keep in mind that many of those given by poskim were given in response to “why is turkey kosher” (as opposed to “Is turkey kosher”) and are thus post-facto justifications that those poskim would in all likelihood not rely on to ab initio permit a new, unknown species.

I will not provide references for who made these suggestions, but simply present them with comments. The order will be more or less from weaker to stronger in terms of acceptability of the arguments (in my opinion).

1. Claim: Turkey is a New World bird and because Moshe Rabbenu was familiar with all the birds in the Torah’s list of forbidden birds, turkey could not have been on that biblical list and ergo must be permitted.
   Analysis: This claim is fallacious as the list is not a list of species in the modern taxonomical sense, but rather 24 broad categories of birds. Thus, it is likely that the New World birds the American bald eagle, the California condor, and the crested caracara are all non-kosher and had Moshe been presented with them he would have subsumed them under one of the 24 listed names. So too, it is theoretically possible regarding the turkey, and its being New World does not prove it is kosher.

 

2. Claim: We rely on a mesorah of the South American Indians because they are the Ten Lost Tribes.
   Analysis: Unfortunately, there are serious people who actually make this strange claim. In reality there is very little evidence that any of the ten tribes are in the New World. And the South American Indians were certainly not keeping kashrut to the extent that any of the people who make this claim would actually rely on them.

 

3. Claim: We rely on the mesorah of the Jews from where the turkey came – India.
   Analysis: In the first centuries that the turkey was consumed in Europe, many people indeed believed it originated in India. Hence the Hebrew and Yiddish names – “tarnegol hodu” and “indike hen” (“Indian chicken”). And there are various ancient communities of Indian Jews (Cochini, Bene Israel, Benei Menashe). But the turkey did not come from India so even if the European rabbis were willing to rely on the Jews of India, they had no such mesorah.

 

4. Claim: Ashkenazi Jews do not rule like the Rema in this halacha.
   Analysis: As noted abive, it is not only the Rema who rules that a mesorah is required; the Shulchan Aruch rules that way as well. To claim that Ashkenazim do not require a mesorah is to say that they reject(ed) the halachah as decided by both of the major codifiers. In light of this, most of the later authorities reject this idea and rule like the Rema that a mesorah is required.

 

5. Claim: Ashkenazim accepted the turkey as kosher prior to the time of the Rema, who required a mesorah.
   Analysis: The Rema, Rabbi Moses Isserles, lived 1530-1572 and the turkey was likely introduced to Europe in the early 16th century. It is difficult to know if Jews started to eat the turkey before the Rema published his work, but even if they did, it is hard to imagine that such a recent practice would have gained traction once the Shulchan Aruch and Rema issued their rulings. Furthermore, the Rema did not initiate this requirement. His main stringency was rejecting the “goose comparison”. Most previous authorities had already accepted what Rashi (d. 1105) had stated many centuries earlier, that a bird can only be accepted with a mesorah. Thus, there is no reason to think Ashkenazim would have accepted a mesorah-less bird even before the Rema.

    

6. Claim: Turkey was first accepted by Sephardim (it was Ottoman explorers who introduced it to Europe, hence the name Turkey) and Ashkenazim aaccepted it via the Sephardim.
   Analysis: It is highly unlikely that anyone, Sephardim included, would have accepted a mesorah-less bird. After all, the Shulchan Aruch rules (as do earlier Sephardim) that a mesorah is required.

 

7. Claim: Turkey is essentially a “big chicken” and is thus subsumed under the mesorah for chicken.
   Analysis: Chickens and turkeys are related, but not very closely and don’t much resemble each other. Using modern taxonomy as an indication of the distance of their relationship, they are not even in the same genus, although they are usually considered to be in the same family – Phasianidae. To permit turkey as a “type” of chicken would open a huge pandora’s box as there are many species of birds more closely related to the chicken.

 

8. Claim: According to some authorities, the ability of a bird to hybridize with a known kosher species demonstrates that that bird is also kosher. And since turkey hybridizes with chicken it must be kosher.
   Analysis: Turkeys and chickens do not naturally hybridize. With difficulty, such hybrids have been produced in the lab but they are not fertile. This is likely not what was meant by hybridization proving a close enough relation for the mesorah of one species to suffice for another species.

 

9. Claim: Since we know that previous generations ate turkey, to stop treating it as kosher would be impugning the earlier generations.
   Analysis: There is indeed an halachik concept of “motzi la’az al harishonim” – slandering the earlier generations, explained in detail in Encyclopedia Talmudit (ET) 37:258-269. Regarding birds, this concept might be invoked in two scenarios.

   It might be invoked regarding a bird that was known to have been eaten in prior generations but is no longer treated as kosher because of lack of a living mesorah, and now there are those who want to permit it again based on this principle, arguing that to continue forbidding it is motzi la’az al harishonim. This principle is not relevant in such a case, as the current prohibition in no way casts aspersions on the behavior of the earlier generations. It would be like asserting that because rice was eaten on Pesach in Talmudic times, for Ashkenazim to refrain today is wrong because of this principle. This is a mistaken application of the principle because when it is known that a gezeirah was accepted, the current prohibition does not malign the earlier generations. Anytime the contemporary prohibition has a reason that was not applicable in the earlier generations, there is no concern of “motzi la’az al harishonim”.

   The second scenario in which it might be invoked would relate to a bird that is treated as kosher when logic would dictate the initial permissibility was erroneous, such as turkey. One might then argue that stopping its consumption would violate motzi la’az al harishonim. It is known that turkey consumption by Jews was commenced subsequent to the mesorah requirement and thus seems to have been “erroneous”. However, ET quotes sources that if it is clear that the earlier generations actually erred in halacha then one may (or must) actually change the practice and doing so would not violate “motzi la’az al harishonim”. The need to change the practice is only when it can be proven that the initial decision was wrong such as if turkey were indeed determined to be a dores. Thus, this principle certainly does not explain why Jews started eating turkey and would also not justify its continued consumption.

 

10. Claim: In general, a mesorah is required in order to permit a bird because of the concern that even with positive kosher signs, the bird may be a dores but the predatory behavior has not been observed. Turkeys have been raised and observed for centuries, their behavior is very well known, they are known to not be dores and therefore they can be permitted based on the other physical indicators.
    Analysis: That is indeed the reason a mesorah was initially required. And that is why some authorities permitted the “goose comparison”. But the Rema rejected the “goose comparison”, or any other means of circumventing a mesorah, and required a mesorah for all birds. Furthermore, even for the mechaber, the “goose comparison” was the only accepted alternative to a mesorah. This suggestion is a valiant post-facto justification offered by some serious poskim but would never fly ab-initio, and thus may explain why we continue to treat turkey as kosher but would not explain its initial acceptance.

 

11. Claim: There is a mesorah on turkey. Ask almost anyone from the older generation and they will confirm that they and their family and their community ate turkey without hesitation.
    Analysis: I think this is the most persuasive argument for the continued treatment of turkey as kosher. There is indeed a mesorah and no one questions its existence. It is not our job to ask our grandparents from whence the mesorah. We in general rely on the previous generations for all Jewish traditions, and this one should be no exception. The burden of proof is on those who want to prohibit turkey rather than on those who want to maintain its status quo as kosher. Thus, the existence of a mesorah explains the continued treating of turkey as kosher; it does not explain the big questions of how and when that mesorah originated. Those are indeed fascinating questions in the realm of “history of halacha”, questions for which I have no satisfactory answer.