Halakhah su Levitico 11:9

And thus one needs to say words of Torah over the table, because even though one has said all the blessings he is required to say, and will eventually conclude with birkat ha-mazon, saying birkat ha-mazon will not exempt him from his requirement unless he speaks words of Torah. And so our rabbis said: “Every table over which they ate and said words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the table of God [Makom], as it is said, ‘He said to me, This is the table before the Lord,’”¹³⁹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Ez 41:22. that is to say, when they spoke over it words of Torah, then “this table is before the Lord.”¹⁴⁰Ez. 41:22. “And every table over which they ate and did not say over it words of Torah, it is as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead. As it is said, ‘For all tables were full of vomit, no place [bli Makom] without excrement,”¹⁴¹M. Avot 3:3, quoting Is 28:8. that is to say, the words of Makom, i.e., God, are not mentioned there.¹⁴²R. Bahya, following M. Avot’s midrashic interpretation, also creatively attributes the use of the later rabbinic term for God – Ha-Makom – “The Place” to Isaiah’s Biblical Hebrew “bli makom,” i.e., “without God.” And all this is to instruct you that humankind [adam] was not created for eating and drink, but rather to engage in Torah. For this is what Scripture meant when it said, “for man [adam] was born for toil [‘amal].”¹⁴³Job 5:7. Our sages interpreted this in a midrash:¹⁴⁴B. Sanhedrin 99b. “’For man was born for toil’ – I don’t know if this is toil by mouth, or if it’s toiling in the Torah. When Scripture says, “The appetite of a toiler [‘amel] toils [‘amlah] for him, because his mouth craves it,”¹⁴⁵Prov 16:26. toil by the mouth is being spoken about. But this is exactly how I fulfill “For man was born for toil” when it refers to toiling in Torah, so I say it means “for toiling in Torah he was born.”¹⁴⁶In other words, R. Bahya has it both ways, since you use your mouth to “toil in Torah,” that is, by speaking words of Torah. And so they said in another midrash: Just as in the Creation, He created domestic and wild animals, birds, reptiles and swarming things, and after that created Adam, as it is said, “And God created Adam in his image,”¹⁴⁷Gen 1:27. so it was written in the Torah “This you shall eat” and “this you shall not eat,”¹⁴⁸Lev 11:9,4. and after that Adam was born. This is why Scripture connects this parashah (“Shemini”) with the next one that begins “When a woman at childbirth bears a male,”¹⁴⁹Lev 12:2. to say it is for toil in Torah he was born. And thus right after that it is written, “On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,”¹⁵⁰Ibid. 12:3. teaching that even before he was formed the Torah and commandments encircled him, and afterwards he was born. This is what it meant when it said, “When a woman at childbirth bears a male”¹⁵¹Lev 12:2. – that The Holy One Blessed be He imposed commandments before him and after him, and he is in the middle.¹⁵²In other words, even the syntax of the vv. 12:2-3 in Leviticus “sandwiches” the birth of a man between two commandments, one directed to his mother giving birth to him, the second, after he’s born, that he himself be circumcised. In other words, the man’s birth is literally surrounded by Torah and commandments. Circumscribed (and circumcised) by the Torah from his birth – of course that “proves” that’s what he was born for!This is what it meant when it said, “For man was born for toil”¹⁵³Job 5:7.– that for toil in Torah he was born.

The presence of snapir ve-kaskeset, usually translated as "fins and scales," is the distinguishing criterion which serves to identify those species of fish which are permitted as kosher. The term "scales," however, is an inexact translation of the biblical term kaskeset which occurs in Leviticus 11:9. There exist a variety of anatomical structures known as "scales" which do not satisfy the halakhic definition of kaskeset. As evidenced by the terminology employed by the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 39a, and by Targum Onkelos, Leviticus 11:9, the term kaskeset denotes only scales which can be "peeled" or removed without injury to the underlying skin.¹See also Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Leviticus 10:10; Tiferet Yisra’el, Ḥullin 3:96; and R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Teshuvot Ẓemaḥ Ẓedek, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 61. Cf., Teshuvot Noda bi-Yehudah, Mahadura Tinyana, Yoreh De‘ah, nos. 28-30, and Teshuvot Ketav Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 45. In terms of biological classification, both ctenoid scales and cosmoid scales possess this characteristic. Scales of other types, are, in fact, projections or tubercles of the skin itself rather than a separate covering. Since scales of non-kosher species are integral to the skin itself, removal of such scales causes damage to the skin. Such damage can be observed visually at the time of removal. Thus, whether or not the scales of a particular species meet the criteria of kaskeset may be established at the time of their removal. Removal of the scales without damage to the skin establishes that the scales removed constitute a separate covering, or kaskeset, and not merely projections of the skin itself.²See Dr. Israel Meir Levinger, Mazon Kasher min ha-Ḥai, 2nd edition (Jerusalem, 5740), pp. 92 ff.

Turbot is a case in point. The fish, known in Latin as Rhombus maximus and in German as Steinbutt, possesses bony tubercles but lacks the type of scale which qualifies as kaskeset. Rabbi David Feldman, Shimushah shel Torah (London, 5711), p. 19, reports that turbot is easily mistaken for kosher species such as plaice and halibut. Rabbi Feldman presents a simple method for determining whether a given fish of this type is of a kosher variety or is the non-kosher turbot. Both the kosher and non-kosher species are black on one side and white on the other. However, the various species differ in that the left side of the turbot is black, while in kosher species it is the right side which is black. Accordingly, to determine whether the fish in question is kosher or non-kosher, the fish should be held spine upward with the head pointing away from the body of the holder. If the black side of the fish is observed to be on the left, it may be concluded that the fish is a turbot. If, however, the left side of the fish is white, the fish may be presumed to be of a kosher species. Rabbi Feldman hastens to add that since this criterion is not formulated in talmudic sources it should not be regarded as absolute.³According to some authorities, there may be a positive reason to examine further for the presence of scales. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 145, regards Leviticus 11:9 as a positive commandment establishing a requirement to examine fish for the presence of fins and scales prior to eating. This requirement cannot be satisfied by examining for the presence of other criteria; cf., Ḥiddushei Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥullin 66a, s.v. u-ve-dagim. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh seems to follow Rambam’s formulation of this miẓvah as presented in his Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot aseh, no. 152. However, a somewhat different exposition is presented by Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 1:1. Cf., also Rashi, Leviticus 11:47, and the comments of R. Elijah Mizraḥi, ad locum. For a fuller discussion of these sources, see the opening section of this writer’s article in the Kislev 5749 issue of Or ha-Mizraḥ. Accordingly, a careful examination of the scales should always be made before the fish may be accepted as a member of a kosher species. However, if it is determined that the left side is black, it may be concluded that the fish is a non-kosher turbot and hence any further investigation is without purpose.