ללא מחבר No Author

Supplemental Swordfish Science

Chullin 66a ~ Do Swordfish have Scales (and are they Kosher)?

, 
Image of Swordfish.jpeg

A fish is only kosher if it possesses both fins and scales. What happens if the fish only grows scales when it matures, or if the scales fall off as it is being netted? This question is discussed in today’s page of Talmud.

חולין סו, א

תנו רבנן אין לו עכשיו ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן כגון הסולתנית והעפיץ הרי זה מותר יש לו עכשיו ועתיד להשיר בשעה שעולה מן הים כגון אקונס ואפונס כספתיאס ואכספטיאס ואטונס ה”ז מותר

The Sages taught: If a fish does not currently possess scales but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afiyatz fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the sea, such as akunas and afuna, ketasfatiyas and akhsaftiyas and otanas fish, it is permitted.

The identity if these species is not certain. The Schottenstein Talmud, for example, leaves these names untranslated. But according to some, the אכספטיאס, the akhsaftiyas, is the swordfish. This is the translation found in the Soncino Talmud, and here is the helpful note from the Koren Talmud:

Chulliin 66b swordfish from Koren.png

IS IT TRUE?

Let’s assume that the identification of the אכספטיאס, the akhsaftiyas as the swordfish is correct. All fish will shed some scales when they are thrashing about in a net or fighting at the end of a line. In this regard the swordfish is no different from any other fish. But at first blush, the suggestion that it would loose all its scales when pulled from the water seems rather unlikely. Thanks to modern science, we can better understand the Beraita’s claim. It’s not that the swordfish looses its scales when removed from the water; rather, the scales of the adult fish are buried deep in the skin, giving it the appearance of having lost its scales.

“There is some confusion about whether [swordfish] scales become smaller or are replaced by a single scale type in adults and much confusion about the disappearance of scales altogether
— Govoni, JJ. West, MA. Zivotofsky, D. Zivotofsky AZ. Bowser PR. Collette BB. Ontogeny of Squamation in Swordfish, Xiphias gladius. Copeia, 2004(2), pp. 391–396.

THE SWORDFISH AND ITS “DISAPPEARING” SCALES

Dr. Ari Zivotofsky is a Senior Lecturer in Bar-Ilan’s Interdisciplinary Science Program. Aside from arguing cases about the status of Jerusalem in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, he has spent considerable time and energy pondering both the kashrut of the swordfish, and the anatomy of swordfish scales. He was one of several authors who published a study in 2004 with the playful title Ontogeny of Squamation in Swordfish, Xiphias gladius. Their study noted that “scales first appear on the abdomen of larval Xiphias at 6 mm standard length. Thereafter, large scales with a single spine increase in number anteriorly and posteriorly in a row along the abdomen and ventral margin.”

An earlier paper from 1982 noted that swordfish develop two types of scales as larvae and juveniles: large, multi-spined row and rostral scales; and small single-spined scales. As the fish matures from larva to juvenile to adult, its scales persist but become more buried in the dermis, the skin of the fish. It is not that these scales are receding. Rather, the thickness of the dermis increases. You can see this in the photomicrograph below:

Photomicrographs of the integument and scales of Xiphias gladius. (A) The integument with scale (S), epidermis (Ed), and dermis with stratum spongiosum (SSp), stratum compactum (SCm) of a 22.2 mm larvae (scale bar 63 m). (B) The integument of a 330 cm adult (scale bar 45 m). From Govoni, JJ. et al. Ontogeny of Squamation in Swordfish, Xiphias gladius. Copeia , 2004(2), pp. 391–396.

Photomicrographs of the integument and scales of Xiphias gladius. (A) The integument with scale (S), epidermis (Ed), and dermis with stratum spongiosum (SSp), stratum compactum (SCm) of a 22.2 mm larvae (scale bar 63 m). (B) The integument of a 330 cm adult (scale bar 45 m). From Govoni, JJ. et al. Ontogeny of Squamation in Swordfish, Xiphias gladius. Copeia, 2004(2), pp. 391–396.

  Zivotofsky notes that swordfish scales continue to grow and are most certainly not resorbed:

The confusion in the literature about the presence or absence of scales on adult Xiphias owes to the thickening of the dermis above the scale as larval and juvenile Xiphias grow. The result is that only the tips of the scale spines protrude in adults. Scales are often fractured and abraded when fish are caught and processed by the fishery. The cuticular layer of the integument is also covered with a thick layer of mucus, secreted by a network of mucous canals within the epidermis. This mucus lubricates the integument and renders scale spines less conspicuous.

And so modern biology supports the claim, found in today’s daf, that when adult swordfish are caught they appear to be without scales.

SO IS THE SWORDFISH KOSHER?

The presence of tiny scales does not automatically give a fish a kosher status. Biological evidence of tiny or buried scales may, or may not be of consequence in Jewish law. Way back in 1968, Rabbi Moses Tendler of Yeshiva University wrote a polemic in The Jewish Observer, arguing that under no circumstances could the swordfish be considered kosher.  Among the “facts – halachic and scientific” on which he based his opinion was this: “With growth the scales disappear and the larger fish including those sold in the market have no scales.” We have seen that this is not the case.  Later, he wrote that “in no place in the Talmud or the responsa literature is there any reference to a deviant: a fish that has scales as a juvenile but not as an adult.” This may indeed be so. But as we have seen, the swordfish does not loose its scales. It buries them.

The kosher status of the swordfish is a complex question. It involves anatomy, biology, history, halakhic responsa, and local tradition.  If you want to learn more, you can read Rabbi Tendler’s 1968 article here. Avi Zivitofsky published a lengthy (53 pages!) and comprehensive history of the question in 2008. He focussed less on the scientific issues and more on the historical and halakhic ones, and you can read it here. Print them both up and enjoy reading them over Shabbat, together with a tasty fish dip. Like herring, or ketasfatiyas. 

Scales of Xiphias gladiu s . (A) Photograph of the ventral aspect of a pre-served larvae 114 mm long (scale bar 1.5 mm). (B) Photograph of a cleared and stained biopsy of the lateral flank of a 150 mm larvae (scale bar 0.3 mm). (C) Photograph of a cleared and stained biopsy of the lateral flank of a 102 cm juvenile (scale bar 0.6 mm). From Govoni, JJ. et al. Ontogeny of Squamation in Swordfish, Xiphias gladius. Copeia , 2004(2), pp. 391–396.

Scales of Xiphias gladius. (A) Photograph of the ventral aspect of a pre-served larvae 114 mm long (scale bar 1.5 mm). (B) Photograph of a cleared and stained biopsy of the lateral flank of a 150 mm larvae (scale bar 0.3 mm). (C) Photograph of a cleared and stained biopsy of the lateral flank of a 102 cm juvenile (scale bar 0.6 mm). From Govoni, JJ. et al. Ontogeny of Squamation in Swordfish, Xiphias gladius. Copeia, 2004(2), pp. 391–396.

[Encore post from Avodah Zarah 39a.]

Zera Shimshon Is NOT for Everyone!

How Is This Segulah Different Than Other Segulos? Thinking About Zera Shimshon

One of the ‘newer’ segulos in the segulah marketplace (there are various segulos – alleged and actual – competing for people’s attention and patronage) seeking the attention of the masses is connected with the sefer זרע שמשון.
People are being implored to learn the sefer, and told great stories about how it has helped people.

Even Artscroll was running an advertising campaign for it a while ago, connected with its publication of related works by a well known storyteller, R. Nachman Seltzer (volume one and volume two).

That surprised me, as I didn’t recall that publishing house hawking segulos in such a manner in the past. In my mind, Artscroll was run, generally, broadly speaking, in a Litvishe way, especially under its founder, R. Meir Zlotowitz z”l, in which tradition such things are not stressed.

Keep in mind as well that זרע שמשון is just one of a number of works that are considered segulos. There are other seforim of which it is reported that their authors promised benefits to those who learned and/or printed them too.

Now let’s be clear about something. Zera Shimshon is a precious sefer. That is not disputed.

However, there is a danger that people will concentrate on a segulah, as a type of magic, placing excessive faith in it. And that is religiously problematic.

And, perhaps more importantly, learning any type of Torah is a great thing and a segulah.

If people feel connected to a certain part of Torah, that is where they should learn, as discussed here in the past.

That Time When the British Chancellor Stole His Country’s Gold and Gave It to the Banksters

Gordon Brown Dumped Britain’s Gold to Save Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan

 11  7331

The Telegraph’s Thomas Pascoe has released a riveting account of why Gordon Brown dumped 400 tonnes of Britain’s gold (which has been dubbed Brown’s Bottom) intentionally at the lowest price possible.

Pascoe’s sources have informed him that one globally significant US bank was short 2 tonnes of gold at the time of the 400 tonne gold dump.

Goldman Sachs reportedly approached Treasury Head of Commodities Gavyn Davies to explain its dire predicament, and the immediate global financial consequences should The Vampire Squid default on its gold delivery obligations.

Pascoe alleges that Gordon Brown used various mechanisms (telegraphing the sale, using an auction rather than the London fix, etc) to intentionally sell Britain’s gold reserves at the lowest possible price to save the necks of Goldman Sachs’ massive gold shorts (which likely included JP Morgan which was even more massively short gold at the time).

When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things…

It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.

ABSOLUTE MUST READ!!!

From the Telegraph:

One decision stands out as downright bizarre, however: the sale of the majority of Britain’s gold reserves for prices between $256 and $296 an ounce, only to watch it soar so far as $1,615 per ounce today.

When Brown decided to dispose of almost 400 tonnes of gold between 1999 and 2002, he did two distinctly odd things.

First, he broke with convention and announced the sale well in advance, giving the market notice that it was shortly to be flooded and forcing down the spot price. This was apparently done in the interests of “open government”, but had the effect of sending the spot price of gold to a 20-year low, as implied by basic supply and demand theory.

Second, the Treasury elected to sell its gold via auction. Again, this broke with the standard model. The price of gold was usually determined at a morning and afternoon “fix” between representatives of big banks whose network of smaller bank clients and private orders allowed them to determine the exact price at which demand met with supply.

The auction system again frequently achieved a lower price than the equivalent fix price. The first auction saw an auction price of $10c less per ounce than was achieved at the morning fix. It also acted to depress the price of the afternoon fix which fell by nearly $4.

It seemed almost as if the Treasury was trying to achieve the lowest price possible for the public’s gold. It was.   …

This plan worked brilliantly when gold fell and the other asset – for the bank at the heart of this case, yen-backed securities – rose. When the prices moved the other way, the banks were in trouble.

This is what had happened on an enormous scale by early 1999. One globally significant US bank in particular is understood to have been heavily short on two tonnes of gold, enough to call into question its solvency if redemption occurred at the prevailing price.

Goldman Sachs, which is not understood to have been significantly short on gold itself, is rumoured to have approached the Treasury to explain the situation through its then head of commodities Gavyn Davies, later chairman of the BBC and married to Sue Nye who ran Brown’s private office.

Faced with the prospect of a global collapse in the banking system, the Chancellor took the decision to bail out the banks by dumping Britain’s gold, forcing the price down and allowing the banks to buy back gold at a profit, thus meeting their borrowing obligations.

Read more

From Silver Doctors, here.

(Note: The original Telegraph article has apparently been scrubbed.)

We Are Jews, NOT Hebrews!

“eved ivri” and not “eved yisrael”

This limud should be l’zecher nishmas my father whose yahrzeit is this Shabbos.
Meforshim are bothered by the term “eved ivri.”  Why not “eved yisrael?”  Putting aside the fact that the term “Ivri” is ambiguous (is an “Ivri” someone who comes from a place, “Eiver ha’Nahar,” or is it a people, or something else?  — see Ibn Ezra), the fact is throughout chumash we are referred to as Bnei Yisrael.  Therefore, if we are referring to a member of Klal Yisrael who became a slave, shouldn’t it be “eved yisrael?”

If you remember the parshiyos from earlier this year (or cheat and use a concordance) I think the answer will be clear.  The term “Ivri” comes up again and again in the beginning of Shmos.  A few examples: the “miyaldos ha’Ivriyos: (1:15) save Jewish babies, including Moshe, who bas Pharoah refers to as being “m’yaldei ha’Ivrim.” (2:6)  Later, Moshe goes out and sees an Egyptian hitting an “ish Ivri” as well as two “Ivrim” who are fighting.  Hashem tells Moshe to tell Pharaoh that the G-d of the “Ivrim” has appeared to him (3:18).  At this point in history there is no Jewish nation.  There is a large family, a tribe of related members.  It is only later, post-exodus, after kabbalas haTorah, that we become a nation.  Once that happens, the term “Ivri” vanishes.  The only occurrence of the term “Ivri” after the exodus is in reference to the Jewish slave.  We are now Bnei Yisrael, Am Yisrael, not Ivrim.

Perhaps the Torah deliberately uses the term “Ivri” with respect to the slave to indicate that the slave has forfeited his identity as a “citizen” in the nation of Am Yisrael.  He still retains his relationship to us as a people, he still retains his identity as a member of the family/tribe of bnei Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, the organizational unity of “Ivrim” that pre-dates our nationhood, but he has forfeited his rights and privileges beyond that.

In Parshas Shmos, when Moshe and Aharon first appear before Pharoah, they tell him (5:1) that “Hashem Elokei Yisrael” has demanded the release of his people to celebrate a “chag.”  Pharoah responds that he does not recognize the deity they are talking about and therefore won’t agree to terms.  Moshe and Aharon then repeat the same request (5:3) using slightly different language, telling Pharoah that “Elokei ha’Ivrim” demands the release of his people to offer sacrifices to him.  This time Pharoah throws them out.  Why did Moshe and Aharon think repeating the request a second time would make a difference?  And why was Pharoah’s response so much harsher this second time?

Netziv explains that when Pharoah heard the term “Elokei Yisrael” he assumed Moshe and Aharon were speaking about letting the spiritual elite of the people go out for a celebration, a chag.  Yisrael is the name Yaakov is given only after he manages to overcome Eisav’s angel — it is a mark of accomplishment.  Pharoah at least hears this request but is not willing to give in.  Moshe and Aharon realized the misunderstanding and immediately clarified.  It was “Elokei ha’Ivrim,” that spoke to them — G-d of the entire tribe/family, the G-d of the “Ivrim,” the downtrodden slaves, not just G-d of the elite.  Everyone needs to be let free to worship.  This Pharoah is not even willing to hear.

It’s not “eved yisrael” — the term “yisrael,” as Pharoah understood, is one of chashivus.  Rather, it’s “eved ivri” — a slave has no status.  A slave has forfeited his membership in society, in the nation.