Ask the Rabbi: May Jews eat meat and fish together?

The Talmud records a warning against eating meat and fish cooked together since the combination causes health problems and bad breath.

By SHLOMO BRODY
In this photo provided by P.J. Hahn, dead fish are seen on t (photo credit: AP)
In this photo provided by P.J. Hahn, dead fish are seen on t
(photo credit: AP)
The talmudic prohibition of consuming kosher meat and fish together touches upon several issues that relate to the intersection of science and Jewish law.
The Talmud records a warning against eating meat and fish cooked together since the combination causes health problems and bad breath (Pessahim 76b). As such, the combination becomes forbidden, since Jewish law strictly forbids activities which are directly harmful to one’s health (Hilchot Rotzeah 11:5-6). Legal scholars thus classified this prohibition along with other activities forbidden for health reasons (YD 116).
What is the health threat? While Rashi understood that this combination can cause the biblical disease of tzara’at, others believed it to cause a more general plague. Some contemporary writers posit that the sages feared that people might focus on removing the relatively larger bones found in meat and therefore dangerously neglect to remove the smaller fish bones. This notion, however, is not found in earlier sources, with scholars acknowledging for a few centuries that nowadays this combination is harmless. While the Conservative movement repealed this prohibition, it has remained normative in Orthodox law.
Since early medieval times, scholars have warned people not to follow talmudic medical advice, which was deemed unreliable (Otzar Geonim, Gitin 68b). The Talmud reports, for example, that fisherman suggest the best time to eat fish is just as turns putrid (!), advice which the medieval Tosafists quickly dismissed as no longer accurate, at least outside of Babylonia (Moed Katan 11a). In fact, practitioners of talmudic medicine – which reflected ancient scientific understanding – were threatened with excommunication, since their harmful actions would lead to scorning of more timeless talmudic teachings (Yam Shel Shlomo, Hullin 8:12).
A broader question remains, however, regarding how potential changes in nature (or our understanding of it) – known in Hebrew as hishtanut hateva’im – should impact Jewish law. As Rabbi Neria Gutel has meticulously documented, medieval scholars remained divided and inconsistent on when to change norms based on flawed scientific assumptions.
For example, the Talmud (Hullin 42a, 57b) lists several types of wounds which were believed to kill an animal within 12 months, thereby making it non-kosher (treifa). Maimonides asserted that the list of terminal injuries remains exclusive and unchangeable, even as some noted that the list remains, from a biological perspective, partially inaccurate in both its admissions and omissions (Hilchot Shehita 10:12-13).
Some scholars dismissed such criticism as flawed and nefarious (Shu”t Rashba 1:98). Yet others contended that the injury list distinctly stems from oral traditions which were not intended to be altered. In other areas of Jewish law based on flawed scientific assumptions, the norms may change in light of contemporary knowledge (Igrot Moshe EH 2:3:2). One famous example is the prohibition of drinking water left uncovered overnight lest snakes poison it (Avoda Zara 30a). Medieval scholars contended that with the danger no longer present, the law became null (YD 116:1).
As a general rule, a senior legislative body is required to abolish rabbinic decrees (Eduyot 1:5). Yet scholars asserted that this law became automatically nullified since the decree was limited exclusively to areas in which this decree existed (Shu”t Binyamin Ze’ev 222).
Interestingly, while Rabbi Yosef Karo codified the prohibition against the meat and fish combination (YD 116:2), Maimonides never mentions it (Ma’achalot Assurot 9:23). Some asserted that he believed a danger only existed if the meat and fish were actually cooked together, and not simply in the same oven (Yam Shel Shlomo, Hullin 7:15), a minority position adopted by other authorities (Darchei Moshe 116:3). Others more convincingly argued that Maimonides believed that the original concern was limited to certain types of fish in a given locale, but would not apply in areas with no health concern (Shu”t Be’er Sheva 35). Indeed, Rabbi Avraham Gombiner (17th century, Poland) asserted that this prohibition no longer applied, like many other talmudic health decrees (Magen Avraham OC 173:1).
While others shared this sentiment (Maharsham 4:124), most decisors did not adopt it in practice (Yad Ephraim YD 116). Some 19th century scholars asserted that one must take any precaution with potential health concerns (Maharam Schick YD 244), with others contending that we may not allow for the overturning of this rabbinic decree (Hatam Sofer 101). Others questioned these sentiments, yet ultimately ruled that we should not go against the ruling found in the Shulhan Aruch (Shu”t Divrei Malkiel 2:53:12).
Yet many scholars believe that especially given the negligible health fears, the taste of a minimal amount of fish particles gets nullified by larger quantities of other permissible substances (Yabia Omer YD 1:7-8). As such, many Worcester sauces in which anchovies constitute less than 1/60th of the product may be used with meat. Those with problematic quantities will frequently have “Kosher-Fish” stamped on their kashrut label.
The writer, online editor of Tradition and its blog Text & Texture (text.rcarabbis.org), teaches at Yeshivat Hakotel.
JPostRabbi@yahoo.com