Squirrels in Kashrus
Rabbi Kaganoff
The conquests of the Benei Yisrael were the origins of the laws of kashrus and of nosein ta’am lifgam.
Squirrels in Kashrus
By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff
Foreword
Most of us are very surprised to discover that a passage of Gemara (Avodah Zarah 68b-69a) discusses the taste of squirrels (see Rashi ad loc.). The quality of their taste is relevant to halacha notwithstanding that squirrels are non-kosher rodents, a category that includes mice, beavers and rats. In the Aramaic dialect of the Gemara, squirrels are called achbara dedabra, literally, achbarim of the field, as opposed to achbara demasa, achbarim of the city, which refers to mice, which are also usually called just achbar (singular; the additional aleph at the end of the word achbara is simply the Aramaic version of the Hebrew word). As the Gemara notes, whereas mice are not favored as cuisine, non-Jewish royal families considered squirrels a delicacy. Even in the United States, two presidents, William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, are known to have favored squirrel stew as White House fare. (Don’t blame this commonality for their short times as president; Harrison died of pneumonia and Garfield was assassinated. Neither died of stomach poisoning!)
When the Torah lists the eight creeping creatures (sheratzim) whose remains generate tumah that contaminates food, people and vessels, one of the eight listed is the achbar (Vayikra 11:29). This factor will actually become significant to our discussion, since the eight sheratzim generate tumah when a very small piece, the size of an adasha, a lentil, is extant.
Rodents are mammals, and the Torah’s definition of kosher animals includes only those that chew their cud and have split hooves, both features that evade all rodents. Thus, all rodents are non-kosher. So, our reader will ask: What halachic difference does it make whether squirrels, mice or beavers are delicacies for the non-Jewish palate or not? Whether they are cooked by Jews or non-Jews they are prohibited min haTorah, so the concept that they might be oleh al shulchan melachim (could be served at a king’s table), and may therefore be included in the prohibition of bishul akum, should be irrelevant; they are very non-kosher!
Understanding properly the passage of Gemara discussing squirrel meat requires a lengthy introduction. When a non-kosher substance mixes into kosher food, and the non-kosher food is removed or can no longer be identified, the food is usually permitted when the kosher food is sixty times the quantity of the non-kosher. Although it is forbidden to eat non-kosher, when the ratio of the non-kosher is so small that it cannot be tasted, the offending substance is nullified, bateil. Chazal arrived at the figure of sixty to one by noting that most prohibited foods will not be tasted when their percentage is this small. However, if the non-kosher food can still be tasted, such as, it possesses a strong flavor, the mixture will still be prohibited, notwithstanding that there is sixty times more kosher than non-kosher.
The same is true when the non-kosher substance is still identifiable in a different way, such as by its consistency. In this instance, the finished product is permitted only if the identifiable non-kosher substance is removed, such as by filtering it out. Similarly, some authorities prohibit consuming a substance that contains a tiny component of non-kosher food coloring. Although it cannot be tasted, it is still noticeable by the color of the product (Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav 100:1; Minchas Kohen, Sefer Hata’aroves 3:3, quoted by Darkei Teshuvah 102:30; cf. Pri Chadash, Yoreh Deah 102:5; Minchas Yaakov, 74:5; Gra Yoreh Deah 102:6 and Chasam Sofer, quoted by Darkei Teshuvah, who disagree).
Nosein ta’am lifgam
At times, the residual flavor that a food provides is nosein ta’am lifgam, which means that the taste is unappetizing. The tanna’im dispute whether the unappetizing flavor of a non-kosher item into a kosher food renders the food non-kosher. Rabbi Meir contends that nosein ta’am lifgam is prohibited -- all residual flavor is prohibited, whether or not it is tasty. Rabbi Shimon disagrees, contending that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted -- the Torah prohibited the appetizing flavor of non-kosher substances, but not an unappetizing non-kosher flavor (Avodah Zarah 67b).
There are many reasons why a food might be nosein ta’am lifgam. One is because the non-kosher food or its residue is mildly spoiled. Another possibility is that people do not enjoy the flavor of that component in this particular food.
We should note that something is considered nosein ta’am lifgam even if it is only mildly distasteful. If most people prefer to eat this mixture without the taste added by the minor ingredient, that flavor qualifies as nosein ta’am lifgam.
The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 65b) rules that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted. This is also the conclusion of the Gemara in numerous places (Avodah Zarah 36a, 38b, 39b, 65b, 67b) and that of the halachic authorities (Rambam, Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros 17:2; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 103:5; 122:6). Therefore, although eating a food that includes a pleasant taste or residue of non-kosher is prohibited, when the non-kosher is not identifiable in the finished product and does not provide an appetizing flavor, the food is permitted.
Also note that it is never permitted to create a situation of bitul. Bitul is always a concept that exists after the fact – after the prohibited item became mixed in. It is forbidden to intentionally add a non-kosher ingredient to a food, even when it will be bateil in the final product. This rule is called ein mevatlin issur lechatchilah, literally, one cannot create, up front, a situation of bitul.
Rav’s achbar
This lengthy introduction has provided sufficient background to discuss the topic that I promised we would in my opening sentences to this article. The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 68b) tells us the following story: The students of Rav Sheishes’ yeshiva had heard of an incident in which an achbar had fallen into a vat of beer and that the great amora, Rav, had prohibited consumption of the entire vat, even after the achbar was removed. Although absorption of taste usually requires that the two products be heated together, which presumably did not happen to this vat of beer, there are other ways that taste can be transferred from one food to another. One example of this is kavush ki’mevushal, which literally translates as “marinating is like cooking.” A food item that sits in a liquid for 24 consecutive hours causes the flavor of the food and liquid to blend together; if one of them is non-kosher its flavor will prohibit the rest. Unless we are dealing with a salty or pungent food, the rule of kavush ki’mevushal applies only when the two sit together for at least 24 hours. If an ambient non-kosher ingredient lands in a kosher liquid and is removed before 24 hours have passed, the liquid remains kosher after the identifiable parts of the non-kosher matter are removed (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 104:1).
Let us return to our passage of Gemara: An achbar fell into a vat of beer; Rav prohibited the consumption of the entire vat. Why did Rav prohibit the beer? If the taste of marinated mice does not improve beer, this is nosein ta’am lifgam and the beer is permitted!
The students of Rav Sheishes, who had heard about Rav’s ruling, could think of only one option – that Rav accepts the opinion of Rabbi Meir prohibiting nosein ta’am lifgam. This would render the beer forbidden if the achbar was large enough to provide taste into the beer – in other words, there was less than sixty times beer in the vat, relative to the achbar.
The Gemara is not satisfied that Rav followed the stringent ruling of Rabbi Meir, presumably because of the multiplicity of places in which the Mishnah and the Gemara rule that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted. To resolve Rav’s ruling, the Gemara presents three other approaches to explain why Rav prohibited the beer.
Repulsive foods
Rav Sheishes, the rosh yeshiva to whom the question was referred, contended that there is an exception to the general rule that nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted. In his opinion, a prohibited item that initially has a good taste and now renders a bad taste into another food is permitted because of nosein ta’am lifgam. But this applies only to a prohibited item that originally had a good taste. However, when the Torah forbids something that people find repulsive, the prohibition remains, even if it is nosein ta’am lifgam in a mixture. The logic for this position is that, in these instances, the Torah prohibited an item even though people loathe eating it. Therefore, the Torah was prohibiting even the ill taste of these items.
According to this approach, nosein ta’am lifgam is limited to foods that taste good but do not add benefit to the food in which they are mixed; nosein ta’am lifgam never applies to items that people do not usually consume as food. Since most people do not appreciate the fine taste of mice meat, this is always nosein ta’am lifgam, yet the Torah forbade it notwithstanding. Therefore, in Rav Sheishes’ opinion, a nosein ta’am lifgam of mice remains prohibited, and beer, or any other food or beverage, is forbidden when it contains a flavor from a repulsive, prohibited substance.
Squirrel
A second approach to explain Rav’s ruling is presented by Rav Shimi of Nahardea, who explains that the achbar that fell into the vat of beer was not an achbara demasa, a city achbar, also known as a mouse. It was an achbara dedabra, a squirrel, which non-Jewish royalty considered to be a delicacy. Squirrels are never considered nosein ta’am lifgam. The beer for which this squirrel gave its last moments of total devotion acquired a fine taste because of the squirrel meat. This is a case in which the non-kosher provides a positive flavor to the mixture, and the beer is prohibited for consumption min haTorah. If these are the facts with which Rav was dealing, it is obvious why he forbade the beer.
Beer is different
The final approach the Gemara provides is that of Rava, who is uncertain what Rav held, but suggests that although nosein ta’am lifgam is permitted, marinated mouse improves beer. Tosafos suggests that the mouse improves the fermentation of the beer – but not because of any “mousy” taste profile. The improved fermentation is a positive taste provided by a non-kosher substance, thereby explaining why Rav forbade the beer.
Note that although these are four very different approaches to explaining why Rav ruled stringently, the reasons provided are not mutually exclusive. The halachic authorities conclude that we accept the reason of Rav Shimi of Nahardea that squirrel meat is considered tasty and provides a good flavor into other food (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:1). They also consider it a possibility that Rava’s approach is correct -- mice might enhance the fermentation of beer.
The halachic authorities infer that the conclusion of the Gemara rejects Rav Sheishes’ approach and, therefore, the principle of nosein ta’am lifgam applies even to something that people find repulsive (Toras Habayis, Bayis 4, end of Sha’ar 1, page 20a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:3; Gra, Yoreh Deah 104:2).
To review: the halachic conclusion drawn from this passage of Gemara is that there are two ways that we can explain Rav’s ruling:
(1) The achbar that fell into the beer vat was a squirrel, which provides a good taste into the beer (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:1). This vat could be marketed as a specialty beer product, but only to a non-Jewish market since it is non-kosher.
(2) Rav’s case was indeed a mouse, not a squirrel, but marinated mouse provides a special positive quality to the fermentation of beer that is not nosein ta’am lifgam.
Both approaches accept that a mouse that fell into oil or wine would not prohibit the product, even if it was more than one part per sixty. This is because it is nosein ta’am lifgam (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:2).
Mice in vinegar
Having provided four possible solutions for Rav’s ruling, the Gemara then inquires as to whether an achbar that falls into vinegar provides a good taste or not. According to Tosafos (Avodah Zarah 69a s. v. Eibaya), the Gemara was asking the following: We are aware that pungent foods have the ability to improve tastes that are otherwise nosein ta’am lifgam. (See Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 35b, that chiltis, an exceedingly pungent food, that is sliced with a non-kosher knife becomes prohibited, notwithstanding that we usually assume that residual flavors in equipment is already spoiled and nosein ta’am lifgam; see Tosafos, Avodah Zarah 67b; 69a.) This author notes that when examining the formulae used for natural or artificial flavoring, it is common to find components that are inherently very distasteful but, as an ingredient, contribute to a delicious flavor.
The Gemara questions whether vinegar, a very pungent substance, has the ability to turn the nosein ta’am lifgam of mouse meat into a positive flavor.
Shredded mice
The Gemara proceeds to discuss another shaylah. What is the halacha if a mouse was shredded and the shredded pieces fell into a liquid. As we will see, although the Gemara mentions the case when mice shreds fell into vinegar, the halacha will be the same whether they fell into vinegar or any other liquid; it also make no difference whether they were submerged in the liquid for 24 hours or not.
Understanding this discussion also requires an introduction: The Beis Hamikdash contained chambers wherein met the Sanhedrin, the halachic supreme court that was composed of the 71 greatest Torah scholars of the generation. When the Sanhedrin existed, there was a high level of enforcement of the mitzvos of the Torah. In this era, someone eating a Torah-prohibited substance was punishable by malkus. This would happen only when the sinner received a warning that the local beis din might discipline him for his iniquity. At least two eyewitnesses needed to testify that the perpetrator received the warning, acknowledged that he understood it and nevertheless immediately consumed the forbidden food. Only under these circumstances would the beis din punish him. Moreover, the sinner was guilty only if he ate a minimum size of the prohibited food, usually a kezayis, an olive-sized piece.
The rishonim (to Me’ilah 16b) dispute whether the minimum size to receive malkus for violating the prohibition of eating prohibited sheratzim is a kezayis or a smaller size, referred to as a ka’adasha, the size of a lentil bean. Rashi and the Rashba understand that one is chayov malkus for consuming even the smaller size, whereas Tosafos explains that the punishment is meted out only for someone consuming the size equivalent to a kezayis.
In today’s world, we unfortunately do not have the Sanhedrin meeting in the Beis Hamikdash and, consequently, these sins are not prosecuted. Nevertheless, there are halachos that result because the chiyuv malkus for eating a sheretz is even when consuming only a ka’adasha.
The passage of Gemara (Avodah Zarah 69a) prohibits consuming vinegar that contains shredded mouse meat. There are two different reasons why this mixture is prohibited.
1. The shredded pieces of mouse are discernible in the liquid. The only way to permit this liquid is by first filtering out all pieces. This is true regardless of what type of liquid it is, regardless as to whether the non-kosher food tastes good or not, and regardless as to how long the non-kosher food remained in the liquid. The prohibition here is because the non-kosher is discernible in the mixture and therefore not bateil.
2. There is another concern here. Since pieces as small as a ka’adasha of a non-kosher sheretz, of which mice are one of the eight types, can make one culpable for malkus, there is no bitul when pieces this small may still be in the mixture. This would be true even when the kosher food in which it became mixed has its own lumpy parts, such as a stew, cholent or porridge. Chazal prohibited consuming this food because of the possible presence of a piece large enough to be a punishable offense (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 104:1). This contrasts with the earlier case of the passage of Gemara in which an achbar fell into beer, but was removed, and therefore the question was only about the taste left in the beer by the achbar.
We should always hope and pray that the food we eat fulfills all the halachos that the Torah commands us.