Difference between revisions of "Realia:שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl/0"
(Original Author: Neima Novetsky, Rabbi Hillel Novetsky) |
(Original Author: Neima Novetsky, Rabbi Hillel Novetsky) |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
</infobox> | </infobox> | ||
− | <p><a href="Tehillim78-24" data-aht="source">Tehillim 78:27</a> appears to imply that the "שְׂלָו" was a bird, and most commentators<fn>See Y. Braslavy, נס השליו במדבר in הידעת את הארץ , vol. II:.339-347, part of which is available <a href="http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/tora/berslavsky-3.htm | + | <p><a href="Tehillim78-24" data-aht="source">Tehillim 78:27</a> appears to imply that the "שְׂלָו" was a bird, and most commentators<fn>See Y. Braslavy, נס השליו במדבר in הידעת את הארץ , vol. II:.339-347, part of which is available <a href="http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/tanach/tora/berslavsky-3.htm">online</a>. Yosef Braslavy (1896-1972) was a scholar who illuminated the relationship between the geography, flora, and fauna of the Land of Israel and the Biblical text. Much of his research can be found in his multi-volume series, הידעת את הארץ and in his work, מידע הארץ למקרא. This article relies heavily on his scholarship. See also M. Raanan, <a href="http://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=13271">ויאספו את השליו</a>, who synthesizes much of the earlier research on the "שְׂלָו".</fn> agree that the "שְׂלָו" mentioned in the Torah should be identified with the common quail.<fn>The quail is a small bird from the pheasant family, generally weighing around 100 grams. It is brown with streaks of white or yellow, has a short beak and legs, and, like other migratory birds, has relatively long wings. Its diet includes seeds, insects and vegetables. Quails fly south from Europe to Africa in the fall, and make their return trip northward in the spring. Before their flight across the Mediterranean they build up fats, and they then cross the Sea in one night, arriving exhausted on the coast of Israel and Sinai. Upon landing, they tend to hover close to the ground, and are easily caught with nets.</fn> This identification is based on early translations, a continuous tradition of hunting and eating quail, and characteristics of the quail which match the Biblical description:</p> |
<topic>Translations | <topic>Translations | ||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>There is a continuous history of eating and hunting quail, dating back thousands of years.</li> | <li>There is a continuous history of eating and hunting quail, dating back thousands of years.</li> | ||
− | <li>Egyptian tomb paintings feature scenes of hunting quail, which is known in Egyptian as <i>salva</i>.<fn>See A. Paz, <a href="http://snunit.k12.il/heb_journals/aretz/298008.html | + | <li>Egyptian tomb paintings feature scenes of hunting quail, which is known in Egyptian as <i>salva</i>.<fn>See A. Paz, <a href="http://snunit.k12.il/heb_journals/aretz/298008.html">"ויגז שלוים מן הים – נס חד פעמי או אירוע שגרתי"</a> in טבע וארץ 298, September 1987. Paz brings other attestations as well.</fn></li> |
<li>Quail is considered kosher as there is a continuous tradition of its identity and being eaten.<fn>See M. Raanan's article cited above.</fn></li> | <li>Quail is considered kosher as there is a continuous tradition of its identity and being eaten.<fn>See M. Raanan's article cited above.</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
<point><b>"וַיַּאַסְפוּ אֶת הַשְּׂלָו"</b> – The quail's fatigue from its journey makes it relatively easy to catch and gather.</point> | <point><b>"וַיַּאַסְפוּ אֶת הַשְּׂלָו"</b> – The quail's fatigue from its journey makes it relatively easy to catch and gather.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ לָהֶם שָׁטוֹחַ סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּחֲנֶה"</b> – This verse might refer to the drying (and preserving) of the quail in the sun, a common practice in ancient times.<fn>See the sources cited by Braslavy.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיִּשְׁטְחוּ לָהֶם שָׁטוֹחַ סְבִיבוֹת הַמַּחֲנֶה"</b> – This verse might refer to the drying (and preserving) of the quail in the sun, a common practice in ancient times.<fn>See the sources cited by Braslavy.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיַּךְ ה' בָּעָם מַכָּה רַבָּה"</b> – As early as the 4th century BCE there is evidence that some quail are poisonous.<fn>Aristotle (On Plants 820:6-7) and others point to the quail as an example of an animal which can eat something which is poisonous to man but not be affected themselves. In modern times, quail poisoning is known as coturnism (from the scientific name for the bird, coturnix coturnix). A. Paz (cited above) describes a modern poisoning episode that occurred in 1980 when quail, seeking refuge from a storm during their trek across the sea, landed on a boat. The unfortunate sailors who ate from them felt the consequences within a few hours, suffering breathing difficulties and paralysis, with some even dying.</fn> Although there is disagreement as to the cause of this, one theory is that toxins accumulate in the bird during the long flight and dissipate only several days thereafter.<fn>Others have proposed that it is caused by the quail's consumption of certain poisonous seeds, and see <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar11" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar11" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 11</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> who adopts this theory.</fn> This would explain why the Israelites who "desired" meat and ate it immediately upon its landing would have been affected.<fn>In Shemot there is no description of the consumption of the "שְׂלָו", so it is possible either that the nation waited before eating it, or that this group of birds was non-toxic. Alternatively, see R. Yaacov Medan [in his <a href="http://www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega17_medan.pdf | + | <point><b>"וַיַּךְ ה' בָּעָם מַכָּה רַבָּה"</b> – As early as the 4th century BCE there is evidence that some quail are poisonous.<fn>Aristotle (On Plants 820:6-7) and others point to the quail as an example of an animal which can eat something which is poisonous to man but not be affected themselves. In modern times, quail poisoning is known as coturnism (from the scientific name for the bird, coturnix coturnix). A. Paz (cited above) describes a modern poisoning episode that occurred in 1980 when quail, seeking refuge from a storm during their trek across the sea, landed on a boat. The unfortunate sailors who ate from them felt the consequences within a few hours, suffering breathing difficulties and paralysis, with some even dying.</fn> Although there is disagreement as to the cause of this, one theory is that toxins accumulate in the bird during the long flight and dissipate only several days thereafter.<fn>Others have proposed that it is caused by the quail's consumption of certain poisonous seeds, and see <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar11" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar11" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 11</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink> who adopts this theory.</fn> This would explain why the Israelites who "desired" meat and ate it immediately upon its landing would have been affected.<fn>In Shemot there is no description of the consumption of the "שְׂלָו", so it is possible either that the nation waited before eating it, or that this group of birds was non-toxic. Alternatively, see R. Yaacov Medan [in his <a href="http://www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega17_medan.pdf">article</a>, "איפה ואיפה – עיון בפרשיות נדודי ישראל במדבר", Megadim 17 (1992): 85 (see also note 86)] who suggests that the epidemic in the second year was caused by the massive overloading of digestive systems that were accustomed to subsisting on the manna, while in the first year the nation exercised self-restraint and ate moderately.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"עַד חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים"</b> – It is unclear from this verse whether the "שְׂלָו" continued to arrive throughout the month, or if enough fowl landed at one time to last for a month. As the birds tend to migrate over a two-three month span, either is possible.</point> | <point><b>"עַד חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים"</b> – It is unclear from this verse whether the "שְׂלָו" continued to arrive throughout the month, or if enough fowl landed at one time to last for a month. As the birds tend to migrate over a two-three month span, either is possible.</point> | ||
<point><b>Occasional treat or daily occurrence?</b> The nation's complaint about lacking meat in Bemidbar 11 would seemingly indicate that the "שְׂלָו" of Shemot 16 was a one-off occurrence rather than being a part of the nation's regular diet like the manna.<fn>See, however, <multilink><a href="RashiArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Arakhin 15b</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> who (at least according to <multilink><a href="TosafotArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Tosafot</a><a href="TosafotArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Arakhin 15b s.v. התאוו</a><a href="Baalei HaTosafot" data-aht="parshan">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</a></multilink>'s understanding) suggests that the "שְׂלָו" arrived continuously, and that the nation complained again in Bemidbar because they desired even greater quantities of meat. See also <multilink><a href="RasagShemot16-19" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RasagShemot16-19" data-aht="source">Commentary Shemot 16:19-26</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot16-12" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot16-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:12</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="RBachyaShemot16-13" data-aht="source">R. Bachya</a><a href="RBachyaShemot16-13" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:13</a><a href="R. Bachya b. Asher" data-aht="parshan">About R. Bachya b. Asher</a></multilink>.</fn> As the "שְׂלָו" in Shemot 16 and Bemidbar 11 arrived at almost the same exact time of the year, this phenomenon could be readily explained by seasonal migration patterns. For more on the relationship between the stories in Shemot and Bemidbar and the dispute between the commentators on the frequency of the quail's arrival, see <a href="$">Selav – Shemot and Bemidbar</a>.</point> | <point><b>Occasional treat or daily occurrence?</b> The nation's complaint about lacking meat in Bemidbar 11 would seemingly indicate that the "שְׂלָו" of Shemot 16 was a one-off occurrence rather than being a part of the nation's regular diet like the manna.<fn>See, however, <multilink><a href="RashiArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Arakhin 15b</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> who (at least according to <multilink><a href="TosafotArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Tosafot</a><a href="TosafotArakhin15b" data-aht="source">Arakhin 15b s.v. התאוו</a><a href="Baalei HaTosafot" data-aht="parshan">About Ba'alei HaTosafot</a></multilink>'s understanding) suggests that the "שְׂלָו" arrived continuously, and that the nation complained again in Bemidbar because they desired even greater quantities of meat. See also <multilink><a href="RasagShemot16-19" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RasagShemot16-19" data-aht="source">Commentary Shemot 16:19-26</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RambanShemot16-12" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot16-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:12</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="RBachyaShemot16-13" data-aht="source">R. Bachya</a><a href="RBachyaShemot16-13" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:13</a><a href="R. Bachya b. Asher" data-aht="parshan">About R. Bachya b. Asher</a></multilink>.</fn> As the "שְׂלָו" in Shemot 16 and Bemidbar 11 arrived at almost the same exact time of the year, this phenomenon could be readily explained by seasonal migration patterns. For more on the relationship between the stories in Shemot and Bemidbar and the dispute between the commentators on the frequency of the quail's arrival, see <a href="$">Selav – Shemot and Bemidbar</a>.</point> | ||
Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
<opinion name="Fish">2. Fish | <opinion name="Fish">2. Fish | ||
− | <p>A minority opinion maintains that the "שְׂלָו" were a type of fish rather than birds. This approach is taken by a 14th century work called <a href="MaorHaAfeilah" data-aht="source">ספר מאור האפלה</a>‎<fn>This is a Midrashic work compiled in Yemen in 1329 by R. Netanel b. Yeshayah. See also the <multilink><a href="LekachTovBemidbar11-31" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovBemidbar11-31" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 11:31</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink> who says that the "שְׂלָו" had a fin like fish, and R. Yosef Rozin in Tzafenat Paneach Bemidbar 11:31 who says that the "שְׂלָו" was an "עוף של מים" and thus did not require ritual slaughter (see below).</fn> and is expanded on by R. Michael Dushinsky.<fn>M. Dushinsky, <a href="http://shaalvim.co.il/torah/maayan-article.asp?backto=23&ed=%E2%EC%E9%E5%EF%20%FA%EE%E5%E6%20%FA%F9%F2%E1%20&id=640 | + | <p>A minority opinion maintains that the "שְׂלָו" were a type of fish rather than birds. This approach is taken by a 14th century work called <a href="MaorHaAfeilah" data-aht="source">ספר מאור האפלה</a>‎<fn>This is a Midrashic work compiled in Yemen in 1329 by R. Netanel b. Yeshayah. See also the <multilink><a href="LekachTovBemidbar11-31" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovBemidbar11-31" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 11:31</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink> who says that the "שְׂלָו" had a fin like fish, and R. Yosef Rozin in Tzafenat Paneach Bemidbar 11:31 who says that the "שְׂלָו" was an "עוף של מים" and thus did not require ritual slaughter (see below).</fn> and is expanded on by R. Michael Dushinsky.<fn>M. Dushinsky, <a href="http://shaalvim.co.il/torah/maayan-article.asp?backto=23&ed=%E2%EC%E9%E5%EF%20%FA%EE%E5%E6%20%FA%F9%F2%E1%20&id=640">"ההיה השלו מין דג"</a>, HaMaayan 52:4 (5772): 47-49 cites this interpretation in the name of his uncle R. Yerachmiel Dushinsky.</fn></p> |
<topic>Relationship to the Biblical Account | <topic>Relationship to the Biblical Account | ||
<p>While this identification is not supported by the verse in <a href="Tehillim78-24" data-aht="source">Tehillim 78:27</a> which speaks of Hashem raining down fowl, it does illuminate several noteworthy features of the Biblical account.</p> | <p>While this identification is not supported by the verse in <a href="Tehillim78-24" data-aht="source">Tehillim 78:27</a> which speaks of Hashem raining down fowl, it does illuminate several noteworthy features of the Biblical account.</p> |
Version as of 08:18, 20 January 2015
שְׂלָו – Fish or Fowl
Part of Speech | Noun |
---|---|
Occurrences | 4 (in 3 texts) |
Possible Identifications |
|
Related Words |
Overview
Almost all scholars identify the "שְׂלָו" with the common quail, a bird from the pheasant family. Every fall and spring, on their route between Europe and Africa, quail migrate over the sea, landing in the Sinai desert. They arrive exhausted and are easy prey for hunters. Some quail have been found to be poisonous, causing paralysis and even death. The miracle of the "שְׂלָו" in Shemot and the accompanying plague described in Bemidbar can thus be understood on the backdrop of the quail's natural migration patterns and characteristics. However, there is also a minority opinion which posits that the "שְׂלָו" is a fish, and there are several features of the Biblical account which might support such an identification.
Biblical Occurrences
The "שְׂלָו" is mentioned in only two stories in Torah, and these episodes are referenced in two additional places in Tehillim.1
- Shemot 16:12-13 – When the nation requests food in the desert, Hashem provides them with both manna and "שְׂלָו".
- Bemidbar 11:18-34 – When the nation complains about the manna, Hashem brings them "שְׂלָו" as a punishment, and many people die upon eating the "שְׂלָו".
- Tehillim 78:26-31 – In reviewing many of the nation's sins, the Psalm recounts the events of Bemidbar 11. The term "שְׂלָו" is not used, but rather "עוֹף כָּנָף".
- Tehillim 105:40 – This Psalm briefly mentions the story of Shemot 16 in the context of its historical survey.
Rabbinic Sources
- Bavli Yoma states that there are four species of "סליו": שיכלי, קיבלי, פסיוני, and שליו.2
Identification Options
1. Common Quail
Modern Hebrew | שליו |
---|---|
Scientific | Coturnix coturnix |
Picture | by Guérin Nicolas |
![]() |
Tehillim 78:27 appears to imply that the "שְׂלָו" was a bird, and most commentators3 agree that the "שְׂלָו" mentioned in the Torah should be identified with the common quail.4 This identification is based on early translations, a continuous tradition of hunting and eating quail, and characteristics of the quail which match the Biblical description:
Translations
- Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translates "שְׂלָו" as פִּיסְיוֹנִין (the pheasant family of which quail are a part).5
- The LXX translates it as ortygometra. This is a related species, known in Hebrew as מלכישליו (king of the selav), as it is slightly bigger than the regular quail and often joins the migrating quail pack.
Traditions
Relationship to the Biblical Account
There are many points of contact between what we know about the common quail and the description of the "שְׂלָו" in Bemidbar 11:18-34 and Tehillim 78:26-31.
2. Fish
A minority opinion maintains that the "שְׂלָו" were a type of fish rather than birds. This approach is taken by a 14th century work called ספר מאור האפלה24 and is expanded on by R. Michael Dushinsky.25
Relationship to the Biblical Account
While this identification is not supported by the verse in Tehillim 78:27 which speaks of Hashem raining down fowl, it does illuminate several noteworthy features of the Biblical account.