Bones of "neveila" (improperly slaughtered animal) that have no marrow or moisture do not impart forbidden taste (based on Shulchan Aruch 99:1) because they are not fit for eating (Taz 99:1). The Taz's reasoning should apply to the bones, tusks and other inedible parts of a temeiah (forbidden animal) as well.
Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin, director of The Biblical Museum of Natural History in Beit Shemesh has an article on this in his Rationalist Judaism blog, here.
The paragraph that probably answers your question is:
A system of classification has no independent reality. It is simply a means by which we measure and describes the animal kingdom, depending upon our ...
No. No matter how they would be classified:
Fish: Scales could not be removed without ripping skin.
Reptile, insect, animal (Behema/Chaya): Neither a grasshopper, nor split hooves. See picture below.
Bird:* No mesora for Ashkenazim. For Sefardim, it would need characteristics (simanim):
Extant crop: Subject to observation of specimen.
Peelable inner lining ...
The Midrash Tanchuma (Vayikra 1:8) asks your question:
ולמה קריבין קרבן מן העוף ומן הכבשים ומן הצאן ומן העזים ולא מן הדגים, שנאמר, [ו] אם מן העוף עולה קרבנו, אלא בשביל שהם בשר ודם כמו האדם ויוצאין מבטן אמן כמו האדם, מכפרים על האדם. אבל הדגים, ביצים הם ויוצאין מהן וחיין.
And why do we offer up sacrifices from birds, sheep and goats but not from fish?
Prof. Eliezer Segal, in an essay entitled "Monkey Business," discussing the unfortunate contemporary phenomenon of "Islamicist clerics" preaching that Jews, generally, are descended from apes and pigs, says that there is no Jewish source to be found for this story:
Unfortunately, in all the vast stores of ancient rabbinic literature, no text has yet ...
The Passuk (Vayikra 11,13) uses the phrase ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף לא יאכלו when describing all birds bats and insects
The word עוף essentially means "a being that flies"
This is proven from Tehilim where Dovid Hamelech says:
ואמר מי יתן לי אבר כיונה אעופה ואשכנה
And I said If only I would be given wings like a dove I would fly...
So if one classifies ...
The Maharal (Gur Aryeh ibid) explains that the Gemara which says that a person will surely die in a pit full of snakes and scorpions is only when it is full of snakes and scorpions, but this pit just had a few.
The Ohr HaChaim explains that the brothers felt Yosef was deserving of death because he had testified falsely about them to their father in matters ...
The Jerusalem Talmud (Tractate Megillah) quotes Rav Imi telling his
assistant that if a scholar should visit and need to sleep in the
Synagogue, he should let him, and allow him to bring his donkey and
other objects in as well.
This opinion is codified in the Ran in Tractate Megillah.
Rav Moshe Feinstein in his Responsa writes, ...
Rambam, Laws of Prohibitions on Relations, 21:19 (or #20, depending on your edition):
וכן אסור לאדם שיקשה עצמו לדעת, או יביא עצמו לידי הרהור ...
ולא יסתכל בבהמה חיה ועוף, בשעה שמזדקקין זכר לנקבה; ומותר למרביעי בהמה להכניס כמכחול בשפופרת, מפני שהן עסקין במלאכתן ולא יבואו לידי הרהור.
A man should not bring himself to arousal ... [gives a few ...
Rashi to Shmuel Aleph 15:3 explains that the Amalekites were sorcerers and were capable of disguising themselves as animals - and for this reason Shaul was commanded to kill even the animals.
In his commentary to Devarim 25:19 he brings another explanation: The eradication of the memory of Amaleik had to be absolute, and even if animals remained alive they ...
A colleague of mine reminded me that there is actually a Gemara in Berachos 44b that describes a young healthy goat as a 'bar zuza', meaning it costs one zuz. He explained that although Chad Gadya states that the goat was bought for 2 zuz, there are major commentators (see Haggados of the Vlna Gaon and Chasam Sofer) that explain that the repetition of "Chad ...
R. Yosef Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim 3:1, writes:
Coral is intermediate between inanimate matter and plants. We also
find the sea sponge, which only has the sense of touch, and is an
intermediate between plant and animal stages. We also find the
monkey to be intermediate between animals and man.
This idea is repeated, for example by R. Moshe Isserles (the Rema) ...
There are a few explanations, all of which (except one) can be found by looking at the following commentaries on the verse cited in the question, Deut. 23:19:
Ibn Ezra thought that dogs were simply understood to be disgraceful animals and not to be associated with the purity of sacrifice
Ramban writes that dogs are used for hunting and are therefore ...
Excrement and urine of a live animal (and in fact anything except an entire limb from a live animal) are not ritually impure, and thus don't affect your hat. (Rambam Avot HaTumah 2:3)
As an aside, excrement and urine of a deceased animal (as opposed to its flesh) also are not ritually impure. (ibid. 1:15)
R Moshe Feinstein (Even HaEzer IV:92:2) is against raising veal in inhumane ways. He doesn't say the meat is not kosher (see e.g., this answer on MY). Nevertheless, some (e.g., R Moshe Dovid Tendler, the son-in-law of RMF) do not eat veal for ethical reasons.
The questions you raise are nevertheless important and I have also become increasingly sensitive to ...
Despite this being an old question, it recently came up in conversation, so I'll take a stab at it. Three of these sources (the exception being the Chizkuni, which I found myself) come from a footnote to Eliezer Brodt's article on ברכות הראייה printed in Yeshurun vol. 26
There are indeed a few commentaries that mention werewolves:
Rashi, in his commentary ...
One may not raise pigs anywhere. (Shulchan Aruch CM 409:2)
One may not raise vicious dogs unless they are always enchained. If one lives in a border town (where he fears the nearby enemy) he may release the dogs at nights. (:3)
Animals do not impart or contract ritual impurity while alive (at least not in any situation remotely likely for a pet owner (or ...
As CharlesKoppelman said in the comments above, it is the custom of some Jewish people to prefer surrounding their children with only pure, kosher images, including those of animals. This is, as he said, not universal, nor even extremely common, AFAIK.
I suggest you just ask the parents beforehand. They'll be glad to tell you :D
Sources for the scholarly:...
I would think not, because they probably wouldn't be kosher animals.
The basic requirements for being a kosher animal are laid out in Deuteronomy 14:6:
וְכָל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע שְׁתֵּי פְרָסוֹת
מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה בַּבְּהֵמָה אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ
And every animal that has a split hoof and has a hoof cloven into two
Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 298:1
אין אסור משום כלאים, אלא צמר רחלים ואילים עם פשתן. אבל צמר גמלים וצמר ארנבים ונוצה של עזים וכל שאר מינים, מותרים בפשתן.
The only thing forbidden because of Shaatnez is sheep and ram wool with linen; camel wool, rabbit wool, goat hair, or other similar items are permitted with linen.
The rule that only sheep and ram wool ...
Kosher mammals (cows, sheep, goats, deer, etc.) and birds (pigeons, chickens, etc.) must be killed by kosher slaughter. So if your pet pigeon dies of natural causes, it’s not kosher. (In fact, if you kosher-slaughtered it but then found it had a massive tumor that would have caused it to die soon anyhow of natural causes, it’s still not kosher!)
Kosher fish ...
I sent this question a couple of years ago to the OU. They sent me back:
Thank you for contacting the OU.
This has differing opinions among poskim. Some view it as yotzai min
ha'tamei because the non-kosher animal digests the bean and this
improves it. Others view it as pirsha b'alma [waste matter whose Importance has become Nullified] and permit ...
In otzros hatorah page 263 on "vayiftach hashem es pi haton" rabenu bechayeh is quoted asking that Bilam should have been amazed but he was not. He should have marveled at this wonder. However because of his cruelty and evil nature and desire to go curse the Jews, he answered the donkey's question. It continues that from here you can understand why people ...
Per Shatnez Testers of America and Chabad.org no.
When we speak of wool, we are only referring to wool obtained from
sheep or lambs. Other materials, such as camel's hair, mohair, angora,
cashmere or alpaca wool, present no shatnez problems.
Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (131:1) states:
ואל יחשוב האדם שזוהי כפרתו ממש, אלא יחשב כי כל מה שעושין בעוף הזה, היה
ראוי לבוא עליו בעונותיו. ויתאונן על חטאיו, והקדוש-ברוך-הוא ברחמיו יקבל
A person should not think, however, that this ceremony itself actually atones for him. On the contrary, [he should look at the ceremony as symbolic in nature, ...
You seem to be looking for the Bar Yuchnei. Talmud Bechoros 56b:
פעם אחת נפלה ביצת בר יוכני וטבעה ששים כרכים ושברה שלש מאות ארזים
Once the Bar Yuchnei's egg fell and it flooded sixty cities and destroyed three hundred cedars.
The gemara there says that normally this wouldn't happen, but this particular egg was rotten so the bird threw it away.
Biblical scholarship usually identifies the word kelev here as a colloquial term for a male prostitute — this seems clear from the parallelism within the verse (zonah [f.] = kelev [m.]) as well as with the previous verse (qedesha [f.] = qadesh [m.]). The terms qadesh/*qedesha* may refer to 'sacred' cultic or temple prostitution, while zonah and kelev would ...
The only Rishon I saw who identifies the Dag Gadol in his commentary is [R Eliezer of Beaugency to Yonah 2:1], and he identifies it as a "בַלְיינְא וכיוצא בו", which is a baleine (etc.) in French (see also here) or a whale in English. Therefore, I find it very hard to believe that there is any issue with explaining it as such, and I would recommend that ...
Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 5:22 holds that pets are not Muktzah at all. This would mean that even if the pet is feeling fine you may pick up and cuddle your dog on Shabbos. Although there are those who disagree with this ruling, possibly in a case of hardship, pain or discomfort your rabbi will permit relying on it.
Yabia Omer 5:26 says that one may move a ...