i am TIRED of the cycle repeating. *repeats the cycle*

Why aren't ostriches kosher? A case-study for Kashrut laws

Unlike mammals and fish, the Torah does not provide a list of signs that identify a bird as kosher or non-kosher. Instead, it provides a list of non-kosher birds in Leviticus 11:13-19, and they are:

נֶּ֙שֶׁר֙- Eagle

פֶּ֔רֶס- Vulture (or Kite)

עׇזְנִיָּֽה- Black vulture (or Osprey)

דָּאָ֔ה- Kite (or Kestrel)

אַיָּ֖ה לְמִינָֽהּ- Falcon (or Vulture) of every variety

כׇּל־עֹרֵ֖ב לְמִינֽוֹ- All varieties of Raven

בַּ֣ת הַֽיַּעֲנָ֔ה- Ostrich

תַּחְמָ֖ס- Nighthawk (or Jay, or Goatsucker, or some species of Owl)

שָּׁ֑חַף- Gull (or Sparrow hawk)

נֵּ֖ץ לְמִינֵֽהוּ- Hawks of every variety

כּ֥וֹס- Little owl (or just Owl)

שָּׁלָ֖ךְ- Cormorant (or Gull)

יַּנְשֽׁוּף- Great owl

תִּנְשֶׁ֥מֶת- White owl

קָּאָ֖ת- Pelican (or Starling)

רָחָֽם- Bustard (or Magpie)

חֲסִידָ֔ה- Stork

אֲנָפָ֖ה לְמִינָ֑הּ- Herons of every variety

דּוּכִיפַ֖ת- Hoopoe

עֲטַלֵּֽף- Bat

The Torah repeats this list in Deuteronomy 14:11-18. As you can see, most of the species on this list are uncertain in translation (which is why I offered alternate translations), although you can see the general idea. But, we know 100% that ostrich is explicitly forbidden in the Torah, we don't even need to derive anything. The birds that are kosher are generally regarded as kosher based on unbroken tradition that they are (they are cases of birds no longer being considered kosher by most Jews despite them once being considered kosher, because the tradition was broken, but we'll get to that later).

Of course, there are many more birds species besides those listed, and very early on the Sages figured signs of kosher and non-kosher birds based on the list. First, as you can see, many of the birds on the list are birds of prey, so any birds of prey are automatically non-kosher. That was easy for them to figure out.

But what about anatomical signs?

Well, they figured that out, too. (Chullin 59a)

A bird that claws its prey and eats is non-kosher (such as birds of prey).

A kosher bird has a digit seperated slightler higher behind the other three toes, a crop, and/or a gizzard that has a membrane on the inside that can be peeled. Below is a comparison of raven feet and a parrot's foot, versus duck feet and chicken feet. On the left, the raven and parrot's feet have all their toes branching out of the same level. On the right, the duck and chicken feet's back toe is slightly elevated and seperate from the other toes.

A bird that perches on a wire with two toes in the front and two in the back is non-kosher, as demonstrated below by a close-up of a parrot's feet while perching. You can see that there are only two toes in the front, while the other two are in the back.

So, in order for a bird to be considered kosher, it must not be on the list of non-kosher birds provided in the Torah, must fulfil the anatomical descriptions outlined later by the Sages, and must have a tradition of being kosher.

Israel is the largest consumer of turkey meat per capita. This is because Jews eat a lot of turkey, including kosher-keeping Jews. But.....turkey is a New World bird! How can there be a tradition of turkeys being kosher if the ancient Israelites would have never encountered turkeys???

So this is where it gets even more interesting. When turkey was first introduced to Jews, it became widely popular. It's thought that Jews first started eating it because of its similarity to chicken, and assumed it must be kosher. Eventually, the Rabbis realized they had to make a decision about the status of turkeys. If they ruled turkeys as non-kosher, then all the Jews who had already been eating turkeys would be ruled as eating non-kosher, which y'know as a Rabbi you really don't want to declare a whole bunch of Jews as doing the wrong thing. So, most Rabbis relied on a passage in the Talmud stating that a non-kosher animal cannot become pregnant by kosher animals (Bekhorot 7a). Since turkeys and chickens can hybridize, Rabbis relied on this passage to declare turkeys as kosher. There are still some Jews today that don't regard turkey as kosher, but it is accepted as kosher by the majority of world Jewry and is a very popular meat.

What about peacocks? Well, peafowl are mentioned numerous times in the Tanakh and in Jewish history as being eaten, but today, the Orthodox Union does not certify them as kosher. Peafowl are genetically related to other kosher birds and have all the necessary signs.....but they are no longer considered kosher by major Orthodox opinions. This is because the last record of peafowl being considered kosher and eaten by a Jewish community was in the mid 19th century. The tradition was broken, and therefore peafowl aren't eaten or certified, despite the fact that they technically are kosher.

Now here's where is gets fun- somehow, the distinctions between kosher and non-kosher birds fit really neatly within our modern understanding of bird phylogeny. Most kosher birds fall under the Galliformes (chickens and friends) and Anseriformes (ducks and friends) Orders, which are more closely related to eachother than they are to any other Orders, and make up the Superoder Galloanserae. The only kosher birds that don't fall into that Superorder are pigeons and doves, but pigeons and doves are already considered a little different by the Sages- they're the only birds that can be used as offerings in the Temple. This is yet another example of how well the ancient Jewish animal classifications fit with out modern phylogenetic understanding, it's super cool. Because grebes and gallinules look a lot more similar to ducks than chickens do, but nope, they are not kosher while ducks and chickens are, and indeed, ducks and chickens are more closely related to each other than ducks are related to grebes and gallinules.

So, in conclusion- ostriches aren't kosher because

1) They are listed among the non-kosher birds in the Torah

2) They are missing toes- their toes are not in the configuration outlined in the Talmud, and in fact they only have two very large toes, as you can see below:

3) They do not have a crop (all ratites do not have crops)

Hope you enjoyed this long-winded way of answering why ostriches aren't kosher :)

Further Reading:

A Peafowl by any other Name

What Are the Signs of a Kosher Bird?

The Liberated Bird: Let’s Talk Turkey

trying to prove a point to my homophobic parents!!

reblog if you think it's okay to drag the corpse of your rival around the walls of his home city on account of your unrelenting rage

it really is crazy how quickly people were willing to just let chatgpt do everything for them. i have never even tried it. brother i don't even know if it's just a website you go to or what. i do not know where chatgpt actually lives, because i can decide my own grocery list.

i wisely turned off the notes on this when it was at 700 but oh my god stop telling me what you "just" use it for in the notes shut the fuck up shut the fuck up I AM NOT A CATHOLIC PRIEST, I DO NOT ABSOLVE YOU. WRITE YOUR OWN EMAILS.

honestly kudos to Elementary for gender swapping John Watson in what we all thought was an attempt to make johnlock palatable to the masses and then proceeding to not only make them entirely platonic but also become the ONLY modern adaptation where i actually feel like them being platonic makes complete sense

The first couple seasons of this show are excellent for exactly this reason. Watson as a doctor-turned-sober companion with impeccable boundaries was a fantastic juxtaposition to Sherlock's chaos. It made the experience of being a genius but also a mental shitshow much more relatable and realistic, emphasized how frustrating and unreasonable he was, and also forced the writers to show him actually working on his addiction and impulsivity.

And the progression from "earnest intent but extreme frustration" to "grudging respect" to friendship was the only arc that made sense, at all, and its great that it was always abundantly clear it wouldn't go any farther.

honestly kudos to Elementary for gender swapping John Watson in what we all thought was an attempt to make johnlock palatable to the masses and then proceeding to not only make them entirely platonic but also become the ONLY modern adaptation where i actually feel like them being platonic makes complete sense

My adaptation of the God of Arepo short story, which was originally up at ShortBox Comics Fair for charity. You can get a copy of the DRM-free ebook here for free - and I'd encourage you to donate to Mighty Writers or The Ministry of Stories in exchange.

Again it's an honour to be drawing one of my favourite short stories ever. Thank you so much for the original authors for creating this story; and for everyone who bought a copy and donated to the above non-profits.

It never gets old and it always makes me cry.

@ilgalantuomo ❤️

i taught a baking class for 12 year olds today and we made your garden variety chocolate chip cookies, but i’m a big believer in Questioning Everything and the who/what/where/why/when/how behind things, so the first part of the class was purposely letting the kids do things the wrong way, to show and explain why we do things the way we do.

“why do we bake cookies at 180 for 9 minutes when we could do 400 for 2 minutes?” -enter the godawful lump of coal with a still gross wet and uncooked inside

“why do we have to scoop out little cookies instead of doing the whole tray?” -ok well that one you can technically do if the spread is even. you just end up with one giant, structurally unsound cookie. “PLEASE CAN WE MAKE GIANT COOKIES” (we did make 1 giant tray cookie)

we talked a lot about why consistency is important, but i don’t think it really hammered home until i said “okay everyone gets ONE cookie, that’s fair, right?” and then handed out cookies of hugely varying sizes. + baked one fat lump of a cookie that still wasn’t done at the 9 minutes, vs the regular one i put in that came out charred by the time the first was actually done.

we also made a row of cookies where each one had one single differing ingredient omitted, like a cookie with no flour, or a cookie with no butter, and laid them all out on a single tray to bake together to see how each ingredient affects the outcome.

two of the little girls added cocoa to their cookie doughs until it matched the colour of each others skin to make best friend cookies, and that almost made me tear up a bit 🥺

got briefly distracted (…for over half an hour…) talking about how eggs form when someone cracked an egg and it had 2 yolks

expertly tolerated being asked how old i am (just turned 31 the other day) which was immediately followed by asking if i watched the moon landing live on tv

was so focused on keeping track of all the kids that in the end i forgot to make a cookie for myself, but it’s ok because one of the girls gave me this

tiny……….

the class went well and they asked if i wanted to do another one in a couple weeks and i said yeah, and they’re taking uh… fuck, what’s the word for inventory when it’s people?? attendance?? whatever, they’re trying to see who’s interested to get a feel of if it’d be 1 three hour class again or if there’s too many kids so we’d do a couple classes. anyways, i love the emails from Concerned Parents.

“will there be knives involved?” we are baking cookies.

“what temperatures does the oven get to/will it be hot enough to burn?” we are baking cookies.

“will there be [insert ingredient used in cookies]?” we are baking cookies.

“are you using fahrenheit or celsius?” ??????? d-does it matter?? it’s going to get Hot. (also celsius; this is ontario)

“are the ovens childproof?” no?? i’m assuming you’re asking if i’m going to let your kids reach into the ovens while i’m staring out a window in another room. i will not be allowing your children to use the ovens. they will not be left unattended. 

“why is the library baking class taking place at the high school?” the library does not have 10 ovens. the library does not even have 1 oven. the high school has many ovens.

“what if i don’t want my child to have cookies? can you let her make muffins instead?” this is a baking class for cookies. we are baking cookies.

“cookies aren’t healthy. why don’t you make [insert whatever]” do you know how many cookies i can make with a $40 budget and a trip to the bulk store? we are making cookies.

“who needs a class to bake a cookie, why not teach something more valuable?” IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE COOKIES, KAREN, IT’S ABOUT FAMILIARIZING CHILDREN WITH THE ART AND SCIENCE OF BAKING/COOKING/FOOD, ABOUT TRYING NEW THINGS, MAKING MISTAKES AND REALIZING THAT THE MISTAKES ARE NOT ONLY OKAY TO MAKE BUT VALUABLE IN AND OF THEMSELVES, FAMILIARIZING THEM WITH INDEPENDENCE, THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THINGS CAN COME TOGETHER TO FORM A NEW AND BETTER WHOLE, ALL WHILE HAVING TRYING TO INJECT A MODICUM OF JOY INTO THEIR LITTLE LIVES. SORRY THAT THERE ARE CONCEPTS AT PLAY YOU CAN’T SEEN TO UNDERSTAND HERE. MAYBE YOU SHOULD COME JOIN AND I’LL LET YOU MAKE A FUCKING COOKIE.

Olivia Jaimes’ Nancy continues to amaze and delight.

This really might be the finest 4th wall joke ever pulled off.

-- Terry Pratchett - A Slip Of The Keyboard: Collected Non-fiction

patricia lockwood has officially completed 6 years of her full 1000 year sentence

🎶Thousand years of mom jail! Kitty kicker!🎵

its 1am and i am overwhelmed with love for a person who kindly and knowledgeably answered questions on a forum about niche topics. this is not the first time and it absolutely will not be the last

I wanted to figure out how to identify/describe a silver blade vs a steel blade for a fic, and I found a post on silver-collecter.com from 2010, and answers from a man named uncle_vic:

in this same thread, olewheat asked about another silver piece; uncle_vic explained that blades were not made from silver, because it'd be too soft - often carbon steel would be silver plated, and eventually get pitted.

after a volley of questions, several users asked if they could contact uncle_vic directly. vic responded, very kindly:

I am always, always charmed by a clearly veteran hobbyist helping out new people on a forum, and i wanted to see what else uncle_vic posted, what other nuggets about his life i could learn, and it turns out he was a pillar of the community:

He joined in 2006, when the website was only 2 months old, and throughout the next 6 years, he helped many identify their silver pieces, and welcomed them all with: "Hi there and thanks for joining us", and always ended with a "Regards, Uncle Vic"

He helped so often, he'd post on the social thread to let people know he'd be gone without internet access for an extended period of time!

These often didn't get many interactions, but he did so anyway, like a journal made public: one about how a hurricane was reaching him in Baton Rouge; several about his fishing trips, like this one in 2011:

A year later, he wrote a similar vacation post, which became his final topic on the forum, titled: "Gone fishin'".

In May 2012, 3 months later, a newer user asked Vic what type of fishing he liked.

Vic replied: (content warning for cancer)

This was Uncle Vic's last post on the silver-collecter.com forums. Unflinchingly honest, and this time, instead of his usual "Regards", he ended with "Keep the Faith".

According to the obituary posted in the same thread, he passed away the next day, at his camp on the Tickfaw river -- well known for fishing.

--

This isn't the first time I've come across kind, dedicated forum users, usually knowledgeable retirees, who suddenly stop posting; it certainly won't be the last. But everytime I fall in love with them, and in turn, with humanity even more, to see what we leave behind.

A retired Cajun lawyer from Baton Rouge found a silver collecting forum from a hobbyist magazine in 2006, and decided to spend the next 6 years, up to his dying day, sharing his life, his love, and his knowledge with strangers.

Thank you, Uncle Vic, for the forum users you helped; thank you for the countless, anonymous users who found your posts through search engines like me.

I'm glad your corner of the internet exists so that, 12 years since you've been gone, I can visit and you can still teach me a whole lot about identifying silver and silver makers.

They say that the way you should view disagreements in relationships is “us vs the problem” and not “me vs them” and I think that to a certain extent that mindset can also be helpful when engaging in political or ideological movements

Taking feminism as an example, it’s a lot easier to see trans people and intersex people and even cis men as your allies within the movement when you view your movement as “us vs inequality and sexism” and not “women vs men”

If you’re some form of a socialist then working with people with different political ideologies than you becomes a lot easier when you view the problem as “us vs the bad system” instead of “socialists vs everyone else”

I personally at least find most problems easier to tackle once I attach this sort of mindset into it. You do not inherently in every situation need to view other human beings as your enemy. And in fact when your goal is to solve the problem and not to Defeat Your Opponent then you can get more creative with your problem solving.

do people know that a french ex-president (nicolas sarkozy, from 2007 to 2012) is currently wearing an electronic bracelet after he was sentenced for corruption and influence peddling? do people know? i want everyone to know 😌

and that bernard squarcini, the head of internal security (DGSI) during sarkozy's presidency, just got convicted for influence peddling and has to wear an ankle bracelet for at least two years? 😌🙏

and that marine le pen, leader of the far-right party et one of the (ex)favorites for the 2027 presidential elections, has to wear an ankle bracelet for at least two years and is ineligible for five years?? 😌🙌✨️

My American ass watching other presidents face some form of consequence for wrongdoing…

And Sarko's trial isn't even finished yet, he might get 7 years in prison. (He basically may have received illegal campaign funding from Muammar Gaddafi in some shady backroom deals).

there's this horrible school of attempted literary criticism on here that holds that 1. everything in any given author's work is autobiographical, especially if it seems "real" and 2. those themes seeped into the work subconsciously, revealing something about the author that they're either trying to hide or unaware of themself. it drives me up a wall, since it seems to deny the fundamental skills that make people good writers: the empathy to imagine and portray experiences that one hasn't had oneself and the ability to take one's personal emotional experiences or worldview and fold them, consciously, into the unworked clay of a narrative.

“If you say trans men don’t have male privilege then you’re saying they aren’t real men!”

Right yeah, because the metric by which we should be judging if someone is “really” their gender is living up to the cis standard of that gender. Of course. That sounds like a very healthy attitude to bring to the trans community.

(And that’s not even getting into how this just ends up reinforcing the already existing structures of toxic masculinity within the cis patriarchy.)

As an enby AMAB married to a trans man, who has had lots of conversations with him about before vs. after transition, this is a subject that needs a *lot* more nuance than "yes they do" or "no they don't." Y'all need to be consistent about intersectionality.

Are trans men oppressed? Yep. Definitely. They certainly don't have *straight* privilege or *cis* privilege. However! That is not the same thing as having *male* privilege, at least for those who have undergone visual transition. That's a much more mixed bag. Locker rooms are certainly an issue, as are surgery outcomes, and the ability to walk around topless depends on the quality of the surgery, scarring, etc.

But, in terms of the day-to-day social interactions with coworkers or clueless randoms? Yes. Many trans men to have male privilege in those situations, especially if they start a new job post-transition. Here's a few things my spouse noticed. Suddenly, he is allowed to be brusque or a little short with people, and isn't gaslit for being "mean" whenever they dare correct someone or have a slightly bad day. He isn't interrupted when he is speaking. He is given credit for his ideas. Annual reviews at work don't focus on nebulous emotional content but are focused on actionable tasks. He doesn't get catcalled in the street, or comments about his weight.

All of those are examples of male privilege. And he's well aware of them, and uses them to be an ally to his women who are coworkers - promoting their views, acknowledging them, ensuring they aren't interrupted, etc.

Intersectionality matters, and can help you be an ally. Your trauma and oppression are real. But they aren't the only type of trauma or oppression. Two things can be true at the same time without contradicting! Precision and nuance matter. Don't enable TERF language, but don't throw out nuance and compassion either!

I see you may have misunderstood what I meant.

You saw this post as a claim that no trans men no matter how passing or stealth will experience male privilege because of being assumed to be a cis man.

However, the point I’m more trying to make is that there is no systemic access to male privilege across the whole of trans men and mascs. It is not correct to say “trans men and mascs have male privilege,” or even just, “trans men have male privilege,” as the majority of us are not cis-passing, and it calls into question the validity of anyone who is not trying to achieve cis-passing.

So you’re kinda doing what the post is outright trying to make a point against, which is that we shouldn’t be treating transmasculinity as though the goal of all of us is to be bottom and top post-op forever-T. That is some of us, yes, but that is not the standard by which our experiences should be measured against unless those are particular goals for ourselves to try to achieve.

Trans men and mascs may have an ability, when cis-passing, to access male privilege on the condition of maintaining cis-passing in any scenario they find themselves in. This does not mean that trans men and mascs, as a whole, as a group we are talking about, have male privilege.

I’m not sure where you’re seeing TERF rhetoric, nor do I see where I am being non-intersectional.

Reblogging for the expanded post context, which is a significant improvement on the original (and matches why i included some caveats in my post).