Had Boaz known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him "and he extended parched corn to her" (Ruth 2:14), he would have given her fattened calves.
RUTH RABBAH 5:6
I. Humane Treatment
Animal rights groups have long protested the condition under which animals and poultry are raised for commercial markets. Methods employed in raising calves for veal have also been an ongoing focus of attention. Animal rights groups charge that the calves are raised in inhumane conditions. Not surprisingly, those contentions have been denied by the meat industry. Nevertheless, the most successful animal rights boycott in the United States began more than twenty years ago with publicization of photographs of formula-fed veal calves tethered in tiny crates in which they were virtually immobilized. As a result, consumption of veal plummeted from an average of four pounds a year per person to approximately half a pound per year. A recent feature article in the Dining section of the New York Times1New York Times, April 18, 2007, p. F1. reports the growth of a yet nascent movement within the industry to raise pastured calves that are suckled and later fed grass and grain. Meat derived from such calves is not only "certified humane" but is reportedly more tender and more flavorful than formula-fed veal.
The meat of calves raised on grass or grain is rosy or pink in color. Formula-fed veal, in contrast, is prized for its white color which is the result of a lack of iron. R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Even ha-Ezer, IV, no. 92, addresses the propriety of inhumane treatment of animals in order to achieve that purpose.
Although wantonly causing pain to animals is forbidden, the prohibition against causing pain to animals is generally regarded as inapplicable in situations in which there is human benefit, at least when the benefit is substantial in nature.2For a fuller discussion see this writer’s “Animal Experimentation,” Contemporary Halakhic Problems, III (New York, 1989), 217-229. Nevertheless, asserts Iggerot Mosheh, infliction of pain upon animals can be sanctioned only for a recognized and legitimate human benefit. Even when normatively permitted, avoidance of causing pain to animals is regarded as an act of piety,3See ibid., pp. 229-231. at least in most circumstances.4See ibid., pp. 231-235.
Thus, although giving vent to rage or anger has a calming effect, Jewish law does not recognize that need as legitimizing either destruction of property, even one's own, or infliction of pain upon animals.5See Shabbat 105b. Iggerot Mosheh asserts that such an act, when not performed to advance a legitimate human goal, is forbidden even if the act would redound to a person's financial advantage. Trapping an animal in order to sell its pelt is permitted; however, an act of wanton cruelty that is not designed to yield a human benefit is forbidden even if one receives remuneration for inflicting such pain upon the animal. The distinction is quite simple. Fur is used to satisfy a legitimate human need for clothing and hence money may be accepted in order to satisfy another person's need for the pelt. Wanton infliction of pain does not satisfy a legitimate human need and does not acquire legitimacy simply because one is paid for performing such an act.6An analogous situation not discussed by Iggerot Mosheh or other authorities is that of a student required to perform a laboratory experiment involving infliction of pain upon an animal solely in order to satisfy course requirements. It may well be the case that a student intent upon a career in the biological sciences may justify such conduct on the grounds that the knowledge and/or skills derived from performance of the experiment is causally related to human benefit that will result from his or her acquisition of such knowledge and/or skill. However, the situation of a liberal arts student engaged simply in fulfilling a science requirement necessary to obtain a baccalaureate degree is comparable to that of a person who engages in an inhumane act in order to earn a fee. Indeed, that conclusion is entirely cogent: otherwise forbidden acts of cruelty could be rendered permissible simply on the basis of a pact between two persons who agree to pay one another for engaging in such conduct.
Iggerot Mosheh concedes that formula-feeding might be sanctioned if the purpose were to make the animals gain weight or to make the meat more tasty; both purposes reflect normal and legitimate human needs. Iggerot Mosheh asserts that white veal is neither tastier nor more healthful than other veal; any claim of that nature he declares to be prohibited as fraud. Iggerot Mosheh does not recognize any enhanced aesthetic appeal that may be associated with white veal as satisfying a legitimate human need and hence he rules that raising calves in an inhumane manner is forbidden.
Iggerot Mosheh's halakhic points are certainly well-considered. However, he seems to have been provided with less than complete information. Some consumers do indeed prefer formula-fed veal because of its whiteness. However, feeding calves formula rather than grass or grain also significantly reduces the cost of producing veal. Moreover, there is no gainsaying the fact that the taste is entirely different. The taste of grass- or grain-fed veal is similar to mild beef; formula-fed veal has a much blander taste. Some consumers have a marked preference for one over the other. De gustibus non disputandum est. Whether the economic and/or gastronomical benefit is sufficient to warrant the incremental discomfort caused the calves is another matter.7See Contemporary Halakhic Problems, III, 225-229.
II. Kashrut Problems
Iggerot Mosheh does, however, report that formula-fed calves have an inordinately high incidence of lumbar adhesions that render animals non-kosher. Ordinarily, there is no obligation to excise the internal organs, other than the lungs, of a slaughtered animal because disqualifying abnormalities are relatively rare. However, asserts Iggerot Mosheh, since it has been demonstrated that the conditions under which formula-fed calves are raised result in an extremely high rate of lung anomalies, it may well be the case that the diet and/or the living conditions to which those animals are subjected causes abnormalities in other organs as well. Accordingly, Iggerot Mosheh rules that the meat of formula-fed calves may not be eaten unless the internal organs are properly examined and that pious individuals should not rely even upon such examinations. Oral reports received subsequent to publication of that responsum indicate that such examinations have been carried out upon large numbers of formula-fed calves. Those examinations have not revealed a disproportionate rate of anomalies in organs other than the lung and serve to demonstrate that the concern expressed by Iggerot Mosheh is without empirical basis.
More recently, questions have been raised with regard to the permissibility of eating formula-fed veal because of the ingredients of the formula. In addition to other ingredients, the formula contains significant quantities of animal fat and milk combined in powder form. The powdered formula is mixed with hot water poured into a large vat and stirred by means of an electrical implement. Rema, Yoreh De'ah 60:1, rules that the meat of an animal that "all its life8The phrase “all its life” is understood quite literally by Teshuvot Pnei Yehoshu’a, I, Yoreh De’ah, no. 4. However, Shakh, Yoreh De’ah 60:5, understands the phrase as connoting only that the animal’s primary development took place during the period that it was fed forbidden foodstuffs. That is also the position of Teshuvot Ma’aset Binyamin, addenda, Ḥiddushei Dinim, sec. 3, and of R. Shalom Mordecai Schwadron, Da’at Torah, Yoreh De’ah 60:5. See also R. Shalom Toibes, Teshuvot She’ilat Shalom, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 153. Shakh further comments that the meat of the animal is forbidden if the animal “ate forbidden foods each morning all its life” even though otherwise it ate permitted foods. has been fed only forbidden foods" may not be eaten.9Knesset ha-Gedolah, followed by Teshuvot Ne’ot Desha, no. 37, and Ikkarei ha-Dat, no. 8, sec. 6, rule that the meat of the animal is permissible if it is fed permissible food for a period of twenty-four hours prior to slaughter. That view is disputed by Da’at Torah, Yoreh De’ah 60:5, and is impliedly rejected by Pri Megadim, Yoreh De’ah, Siftei Da’at 60:5. Cf., Levushei Serad, IV, sec. 81. Calves fed formula containing a mixture of prohibited meat and milk, it has been contended, are animals raised solely upon non-kosher food and hence, according to Rema, their meat should be prohibited. In addition, the problem is further complicated by the fact that the cooking of milk and meat together does not simply yield a foodstuff that is forbidden for consumption but results in a product which is assur be-hana'ah, i.e., from which no benefit may be derived.
Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, the Nierbarter Rav, who is responsible for kashrut supervision of major purveyors of meat, has authored a permissive responsum dealing with those issues. Although that responsum is as yet unpublished it has been circulated among rabbinic scholars as has a rebuttal composed by R. Ya'akov Yechezkel Sofer of Toronto, Canada.
Rema, relying upon earlier authorities, limits the prohibition against eating the meat of animals that have consumed forbidden foods solely to those animals that have been fed forbidden foods exclusively because only in such cases is the animal regarded as a "yozei" or "product" of the forbidden food. However, if the animal consumes both permitted and non-permitted foods, another principle, viz., zeh va-zeh gorem, becomes operative. The principle of zeh va-zeh gorem establishes that the product of two distinct causes, one permissible and the other non-permissible, is not prohibited since it is not the yozei solely of the product of a forbidden entity. In the case of formula-fed calves, the animal's development is attributable to two separate causes, one permissible and one non-permissible, and hence its meat is permitted.10The majority of authorities, including Pri Megadim, Yoreh De’ah, Siftei Da’at 60:5 and Da’at Torah, Yoreh De’ah 60:5, rule that, although the meat is permitted, nevertheless, it is forbidden to cause a situation of zeh va-zeh gorem by feeding the animal forbidden foods. Cf., however, Shakh, Yoreh De’ah 60:5, who asserts that, according to Mordekhai, such a practice is entirely permissible. Teshuvot Bet Ya’akov, no. 1, rules that an animal raised on permitted foodstuffs that has been fed a quantity of only forbidden food that can sustain the animal for a twenty-four hour period should not be slaughtered during that twenty-four hour period.
Rambam, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Temurah 6:5 and in Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 3:14, clearly rejects the notion that an animal is the "yozei" or "product" of the food it consumes in ruling that animals raised even on foods from which no benefit may be derived are permitted. Rambam rules that the meat of the animal is permitted because the forbidden foodstuff becomes "changed," i.e., it metamorphoses in the process of digestion,11Cf., Da’at Torah, Yoreh De’ah 60:5, who suggests that Rambam’s notion of “change” may be limited to other foodstuffs that are “changed” into flesh or fat but forbidden meat that becomes part of the body of the animal that consumes such meat does not undergo a similar metamorphosis and remains meat. and hence, for purposes of Halakhah, the forbidden substance ceases to exist before it is turned into flesh.12See also R. Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, I, no. 174, who adopts this view. Rema, however, apparently maintains that nutrients present in the forbidden food are absorbed and metabolized before the food becomes "changed."
Shakh, Yoreh De'ah 60:5, disagrees with Rema with regard to animals that have been raised entirely on food forbidden for a Jew to eat but agrees that there is a prohibition if the animal is raised on issurei hana'ah, i.e., food from which it is forbidden to derive any benefit whatsoever, even if the animal consumes both permitted and non-permitted foodstuffs. Shakh also notes that, even in such circumstances, Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 142:11, rules that, post factum, the animal's meat is permissible unless the animal's "primary development" had resulted from consumption of issurei hana'ah.13See Taz, Yoreh De’ah 142:17 Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De’ah 60:6, argues that the benefit derived from issurei hana’ah consumed by an animal is an “unusual” benefit insofar as the foodstuff is concerned and hence the meat of the animal is permissible in all circumstances unless the foodstuff was used for idolatrous purposes in which case even “unusual” benefit is forbidden. An earlier authority, Knesset ha-Gedolah, cites Maharit as having been inclined to limit the prohibition to animals that have been raised on foodstuffs of avodah zarah. That opinion is also cited by Kereti u-Peleti, Peleti 60:1. Cf., however, the authorities cited infra, note 16, who maintain that the benefit derived from feeding animals such foodstuffs is not at all “unusual.”
Basing himself upon Issur ve-Hetter he-Arukh 47:9, Pri Megadim, Siftei Da'at 60:5, rules that "if it is [widely] known" that the animal has been raised solely on only non-kosher food its meat is forbidden because of mar'it ayin, i.e., possible confusion on the part of the onlooker.14See also Darkei Mosheh, Yoreh De’ah 81:6. However, that view is disputed by Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, I, no. 147, anaf 6, and was earlier questioned by Da’at Torah, Yoreh De’ah 60:5.
Rabbi Teitelbaum asserts that formula-fed veal is permissible even though the animals are raised on forbidden foods for three separate reasons:
1) Despite the fact that Bi'ur ha-Gra, Yoreh De'ah 60:1, concurs in the ruling of Rema, the majority of later authorities, including Pri Hadash, Yoreh De'ah 60:5; Kereti u-Peleti 60:1; Teshuvot Pnei Yehoshu'a, I, Yoreh De'ah, no. 4; Da'at Torah, Yoreh De'ah 60:5; Nishmat Adam, Hilkhot Pesaḥ, sec. 9; Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Yoreh De'ah 60:7; as well as R. Yitzchak Yosef, Yalkut Yizḥak, X (Jerusalem, 5749), pp. 143-147, accept the permissive view of Shakh.15It should be noted, however, that Bi’ur ha-Gra, Yoreh De’ah 60:1, cites Sifri, Parashat Re’eh, in support of Rema’s ruling. Cf., Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, I, no. 174, anaf 7, who rejects Gra’s interpretation of Sifri. In addition, a number of latter-day authorities extend that ruling to include even foodstuffs from which no ordinary or usual benefit may be derived but from which "unusual" benefit may be derived.16Cf., however, R. Judah Aszod, Teshuvot Yehudah Ya’aleh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 127, who points out that even “unusual” benefit is forbidden by rabbinic decree. Cf. also, Iggerot Mosheh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, I, no. 147, anaf 5, who challenges the contention that such benefit is “unusual.” That objection was earlier raised by R. Chaim Sofer, Teshuvot Maḥaneh Ḥayyim, Yoreh De’ah, II, 20, s.v. yoẓei, in the name of R. Shlomoh Ganzfried and prompted a rather novel reinterpretation of Kereti’s comment by Maḥaneh Ḥayyim. Those authorities assert that eating meat of an animal fed such food products is not considered to be a benefit "usually" derived from the forbidden foodstuff.
2) Rabbi Teitelbaum reports that even formula-fed calves are permitted to suckle for the first seven to ten days of their lives.17Presumably, the calves are also provided with water in addition to the formula on which they are raised. Water, however, is not a nutrient and, although it is certainly a major component of every cell in the animal’s body, for halakhic purposes, it is not regarded as a fattening agent that produces body tissue. Were that not the case, in light of the fact that all animals require hydration in addition to nutrition, the halakhic discussions concerning animals raised on prohibited foodstuffs would be contrafactual. Cf., R. Moshe Chaim Schmerler of Zurich, Mesorah, no. XV (Tishri, 5759). Thus, they have not been fed forbidden foods exclusively "all their lives."
3) In addition to the forbidden meat and milk derivatives, the formula also contains a variety of innocuous ingredients. R. Dov Berish Weidenfeld, Teshuvot Dovev Meisharim, III, no. 50, rules that, even according to Rema, if the mixture fed to the animal contains only the "taste" of a forbidden food, i.e., the forbidden food has not been nullified by sixty equivalent measures of permitted food, the meat of the animal is permitted because the kosher portion of the mixture also contributes to the fattening of the animal18This is so despite the principle of ḥatikhah na’asit neveilah, i.e., a permitted food that absorbs the taste of a forbidden food becomes itself intrinsically forbidden. See Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 92:3. According to many authorities, including Rema, Yoreh De’ah 93:4, that rule applies not only to milk and meat but to other forbidden foods as well. Although milk and meat that are cooked together become intrinsically forbidden as a matter of biblical law, according to most authorities, foodstuffs that absorb other types of forbidden foods become intrinsically forbidden only by virtue of rabbinic decree. See Taz, Yoreh De’ah 92:11 and Shakh, Yoreh De’ah 92:12. Cf., however, Maharik, no. 192, and sources cited by Pri Megadim, Yoreh De’ah, Siftei Da’at 92:12. Similarly, according to most authorities, foodstuffs that absorb the forbidden taste of milk and meat become intrinsically forbidden by virtue of rabbinic law. Although the “taste” of the absorbed milk and meat is biblically prohibited, the intrinsic prohibition of the underlying substance of a foodstuff that has absorbed milk and meat is that of rabbinically proscribed milk and meat. See Shakh, Yoreh De’ah 94:22. [Shakh also cites the conflicting view of Baḥ, Yoreh De’ah 96:3, who maintains that foodstuffs that absorb milk and meat become intrinsically forbidden by virtue of biblical law in the same manner as the commingled meat and milk itself.] Since rabbinically forbidden milk and meat is not assur be-hana’ah, the portion of the formula that is neither meat nor dairy serves as a gorem, or cause, from which it is not forbidden to derive benefit and hence the principle of zeh va-zeh gorem remains applicable.
However, Dovev Meisharim apparently fails to take cognizance of Rema’s ruling, Yoreh De’ah 93:4, to the effect that the principle of ḥatikhah na’asit neveilah, i.e., the entire substance of a foodstuff that absorbs a forbidden taste becomes intrinsically forbidden, applies not only to milk and meat cooked together but also, at least by virtue of rabbinic decree, to a mixture containing any forbidden substance. If so, to the extent that the mixture fed to the animals contains even the “taste” of non-kosher food, the entire mixture is intrinsically forbidden and hence, according to Rema, the meat of the animal should be forbidden since it has been raised exclusively on an intrinsically forbidden foodstuff.
R. Shalom Toibes, Teshuvot She’ilat Shalom, Mahadura Tinyana, no. 152, adds the interesting observation that, other than with regard to milk and meat that have been cooked together, in the opinion of some authorities, the principle of ḥatikhah na’asit neveilah is not applicable in instances in which the admixture occurred “in the hands of a non-Jew,” i.e., while owned by a non-Jew. See Teshuvot Rema, no. 54 and Pri Megadim, Yoreh De’ah, Siftei Da’at 103:14, s.v. ve-hineh. with the result that the animal has not been raised on forbidden food exclusively.19Although Dovev Meisharim addresses a situation in which the major portion of the mixture is kosher, his reasoning would seem to apply equally to instances in which only a minor portion of the ingredients is kosher.
Rabbi Teitelbaum's first considerations may not be germane because Shakh's permissive view may not be applicable to formula-fed veal. Shakh permits the consumption of meat of animals raised on forbidden foods but he does not sanction eating meat of animals raised on food from which no benefit may be derived. Since the formula fed to the calves contains both meat and dairy ingredients that are combined and cooked together, it may be the case that it is forbidden to derive benefit from the mixture.20It should be noted that milk and meat of a member of a non-kosher species cooked together do not become assur be-hana’ah. See Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 87:3. Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Keritut 3:4, maintains that such is also the case with regard to the meat of an animal of a kosher species that has not been properly slaughtered. That view is accepted by R. Ezekiel Landau, Dagul me-Revavah, Yoreh De’ah 87:3. If so, since the tallow contained in the formula in question is derived from non-kosher sources, the formula would not become assur be-hana’ah. However, Pri Megadim, introduction to Hilkhot Basar be-Ḥalav, s.v. od, and R. Moses Sofer, Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah, no. 92, reject that view. Hence, according to those authorities, tallow obtained from a non-kosher species, when cooked with milk, becomes assur be-hana’ah. Moreover, R. Akiva Eger, Beiẓah, ma’arakhah zayin, asserts that, even for Rambam, it is only the non-kosher meat that does not become assur be-hana’ah, but that no benefit may be derived from the portion of that mixture consisting of milk cooked with such meat. Even "unusual" forms of benefit may not be derived from meat and milk that have been commingled in cooking.21The meat products used in the formula are certainly derived from non-kosher animals. Nevertheless, as already indicated, supra, note 20, although R. Ezekiel Landau, Dagul me-Revavah, Yoreh De’ah 87:3, maintains that the milk cooked with non-kosher meat is not assur be-hana’ah, that view is disputed by Pri Megadim, introduction to Hilkhot Basar be-Ḥalav, s.v. od and Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah, no. 92. Hence the crucial issue is whether the formula contains milk and meat derivatives that have been "cooked" together.
In describing the process used in preparing the formula Rabbi Teitelbaum is somewhat unclear. In his introductory description Rabbi Teitelbaum stresses that hot water is released into a large vat and only afterwards is the powder mix stirred into the water. If so, "cooking" takes place in a keli sheni, i.e., a secondary utensil not in contact with fire. The general rule is that "cooking," as generally understood in halakhic contexts, cannot take place in a secondary utensil. Even though, with regard to the prohibition against cooking that is prohibited on Shabbat, foodstuffs that are "easily cooked" may not be heated in a keli sheni, Teshuvot Maharil, no. 82, indicates that the concern is limited to violation of Sabbath restrictions but does not apply in other areas of Halakhah. Hence, since it is forbidden to derive benefit only from milk and meat that have been cooked together, milk and meat heated in a secondary utensil cannot become assur be-hana'ah.
However, later in his discussion Rabbi Teitelbaum indicates that, at times, additional hot water is poured into the mixed formula already present in the vat in order to raise its temperature. As recorded by Tosafot, Zevaḥim 95b, s.v. irah, there is a controversy with regard to whether a hot liquid poured from a primary utensil, i.e., a utensil heated on a stove, can effect the "cooking" of at least the upper surface to the depth of a "peel" of the substance on which it is poured. However, Pri Megadim, Yoreh De'ah, Mishbezot Zahav 88:9, maintains that the controversy is limited to a hot liquid falling upon a solid food but that all concur that no "cooking" occurs if the hot liquid is poured into a cold liquid. Similarly, no "cooking" occurs if the hot liquid falls upon a powder. In addition, R. Jacob of Lissa, Havvat Da'at, Bi'urim 91:7, maintains that a "peel" cannot become assur be-hana'ah because cooking only the surface of a foodstuff is not a natural or usual form of "cooking."
Moreover, even if the thickness of a "peel" is cooked and becomes assur be-hana'ah, many authorities maintain that if the peel falls into other food and is not recognizable in the resultant mixture it is permitted to derive benefit from the mixture. Other authorities maintain that the forbidden "peel" is nullified only in a mixture sixty times as great. In addition, although some authorities differ, Shakh, Yoreh De'ah 94:22, rules that if a mixture of cooked milk and meat becomes commingled with other food the resultant mixture is not treated as milk and meat but as a conventionally prohibited foodstuff and hence that mixture is not rendered assur be-hana'ah. Furthermore, even those who differ with Shakh regarding this issue recognize that the resultant mixture is prohibited only by reason of rabbinic decree, rather than by biblical law. Hence, since there is no issur hana'ah associated with milk and meat forbidden only by virtue of the rabbinic prohibition, the resultant mixture may be fed to animals.
In light of Rabbi Teitelbaum's premises, his discussion of whether or not the formula is assur be-hana'ah seems to be somewhat superfluous. Rabbi Teitelbaum accepts the position of Shakh who maintains that there is no restriction even ante factum upon eating meat of an animal that has been raised on forbidden foods and that the problem exists only with regard to animals raised on feed that is assur be-hana'ah. He further asserts that formula-fed calves are not raised all their lives on food that is assur behana'ah because they suckle cow's milk the first seven to ten days of their lives and also because the major portion of the formula is comprised of kosher ingredients. Accordingly, it follows that, even were the formula to be deemed assur be-hana'ah, the resultant problem would certainly affect the farmer who wishes to derive benefit from the use of such formula in feeding his cows. However, since under such circumstances the meat is permitted post factum on the basis of the principle of zeh va-zeh gorem, the consumer encounters no problem in purchasing the meat.
However, a complication with regard to the post factum status of such animals arises from the fact that the proprietors of many, and probably the majority, of slaughterhouses and meat processing plants are non-Jews. That is certainly true with regard to the cattlemen who raise calves. As is evident from Shakh's analysis of the ruling of Shulḥan Arukh, Yorah De'ah 142:11, the meat of an animal that has been raised both on issurei hana'ah and on permissible substances is, post factum, permitted on the basis of the principle of zeh va-zeh gorem. However, purchasing such an animal from a non-Jew might well be considered to be ante factum since refraining from doing so will result in no actual financial loss to a Jew. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabi'a Omer, VII, Yoreh De'ah, no. 7, sec. 1, demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of halakhic decisors regard a situation of that nature as post factum.22See also R. Yitzchak Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, X (Jerusalem, 5769), 147. It is certainly clear that if no other veal is available, or is not available at a reasonable price, all authorities would agree that the situation is to be regarded as post factum.
More significantly, Rabbi Teitelbaum's contention that the problem is obviated since the fact that the calves suckle after birth for a period of seven to ten days invokes a consideration that is certainly subject to dispute. Shakh himself asserts that Rema's reference to an animal that has consumed forbidden foods "all its life" is not to be understood literally but as connoting that the animal's primary development was the product of forbidden foodstuffs.23See supra, note 9.
Rabbi Sofer's objections are based on a number of considerations that would render the formula assur be-hana'ah:
1) Pri Megadim, Oraḥ Hayyim 318:30, maintains that "easily cooked" foodstuffs cooked in a secondary utensil are considered to be "cooked" not only for purposes of Sabbath prohibitions but also with regard to the prohibited cooking of milk and meat.
2) If the stream of hot water remains attached to its source and the powder is poured into the water, some authorities maintain that not only a "peel" of the powder is "cooked" but that the entire quantity of powder added in that manner is deemed to be "cooked." Those authorities maintain that, in effect, each particle of powder is discrete and, since its thickness is less than that of a "peel," each particle becomes cooked sequentially.
3) Even if the entire quantity of powder is placed in the vat before the hot water is introduced so that only a "peel" is "cooked" by the hot water, each successive "peel" is "cooked" as the powder is stirred while water is constantly added.
Rabbi Sofer further objects that it is forbidden to feed animals foodstuffs that contain even a "taste" of issurei hana'ah. That objection is well-taken insofar as feeding animals is concerned. Direct benefit may not be derived from foodstuffs containing a "taste" of issurei hana'ah because the "taste" of the forbidden substance cannot be separated from the food it permeates. However, as stated by Pri Megadim in his introduction to Hilkhot Basar be-Halav, permitted food containing a small quantity of issurei hana'ah may be sold to a non-Jew provided that the value of the issurei hana'ah is deducted from the purchase price. Similarly, insofar as an animal raised on such feed is concerned, the animal should be deemed to have been raised on a mixture of issurei hana'ah and kosher food with the result that, post factum, the meat of the animal is permitted on the basis of the principle of zeh va-zeh gorem. Rabbi Sofer fails to address the additional consideration that the calves are fed cow's milk exclusively during the period immediately following birth.
III. Conclusions
Resolution of the question of the permissibility of veal derived from formula-fed calves is dependent upon adjudication of a number of halakhic issues:
1. The primary issue is whether the formula is assur be-hana'ah as a form of milk and meat that has been cooked together. That is unlikely to be the case for a number of reasons:
a) It may well be the case that the "cooking" of all but a small portion of the produced formula takes place in a secondary utensil.
b) A substantial portion of the formula consists of entirely innocuous ingredients. The consensus of opinion is that ḥatikhah na'asit neveilah does not apply to otherwise permissible foodstuffs that absorb commingled milk and meat. Accordingly, the principle of zeh va-zeh gorem would serve to negate the prohibition against deriving benefit from commingled milk and meat.
The contention that the calves are suckled for seven to ten days during the initial post-partum period is probably not a sufficient factor to render the principle of zeh va-zeh gorem applicable but, in light of the foregoing that consideration is superfluous.
2. Assuming that the formula is not assur be-hana'ah, the second issue is whether the meat of an animal raised exclusively on forbidden foods is prohibited. That issue would arise by virtue of the presence of non-kosher tallow in the formula even if the formula did not include milk derivatives. A permissive ruling with regard to that question is contingent upon:
a) acceptance of Shakh's view, in opposition to that of Rema and Bi'ur ha-Gra, that the meat of an animal raised exclusively on forbidden foods is not forbidden; or
b) recognition that the formula contains innocuous ingredients in addition to the forbidden milk and meat derivatives coupled with rejection of the opinion that ḥatikhah na'asit neveilah applies at least by virtue of rabbinic decree to forbidden substances other than commingled milk and meat;24See supra, note 18. or
c) the unlikely determination that suckling during the post-partum period is a factor sufficient enough to render the principle of zeh va-zeh gorem applicable.
Assuming that there is no problem of issur hana'ah resulting from biblically prohibited cooked milk and meat, a kashrut supervisory authority would be justified in relying upon the position of Shakh since it appears to be accepted by the majority of latter-day authorities. However, certification of veal raised under such conditions as glatt kosher is more problematic.
The term glatt, or the Hebrew ḥalak, in its literal meaning refers to the fact that the lungs have been found to be "smooth," i.e., no adhesions are present that might compromise the kashrut of the animal. The reason for that standard is that the presence of an adhesion requires a determination that the adhesion is not of a nature that would render the animal non-kosher. Such a determination usually requires adjudication between conflicting halakhic opinions and also presents issues with regard to the method employed in removal of the adhesions prior to examination for a possible perforation.
The Gemara, Hullin 37b, cites Ezekiel 4:14; "… I have not eaten of neveilah or treifah from my youth until now," and offers a remarkable interpretation. Neveilah and treifah are forbidden to all Jews. It would have been unthinkable for Ezekiel to have violated those prohibitions. Hence, his almost boastful comment would have been entirely superfluous. Accordingly, the Gemara understands Ezekiel to have exclaimed, "I have not eaten of an animal with regard to which a scholar ruled," i.e., Ezekiel, as an act of piety, refused to eat meat whose kashrut was the subject of any doubt even if it was ruled to be kosher by a competent scholar.
The term glatt in common parlance has acquired the connotation that food described in that manner is not in the category of behemah she-horah bah ḥakham, i.e., it is not a foodstuff whose kashrut was subject to question and whose acceptability is contingent upon a permissive determination by a scholar. That expanded connotation of the term glatt is entirely understandable since the piety adopted by Ezekiel and emulated by others was assuredly not limited to lumbar adhesions. Adhesions of the lungs are simply the most common problem requiring an opinion of a scholar with regard to the kashrut of the animal. Adjudication of a controversy between Rema and Shakh certainly entails a "ruling of a scholar" which those who adopt a glatt standard of kashrut would be unwilling to entertain.
There is one expedient that would serve to remove virtually all questions with regard to the permissibility of veal derived from formula-fed calves. A formula that contains no forbidden ingredients has been devised and patented.25U.S. Patent no. 6,348,222 (issued February 19, 2002). However, for reasons that are not clear but which presumably are economic in nature, that product has not been adopted by the veal industry. Levushei Serad, IV, sec. 81, cited by Pitḥei Teshuvah, Yoreh De'ah 60:2, suggests that even if an animal is raised entirely upon forbidden foodstuffs its meat is permissible if the animal is fed permissible food exclusively "two or three days" prior to slaughter.26See supra, note 9. Although that authority does not make a final determination with regard to this matter, he strongly inclines to that view.27See also R. Benjamin Adler, Kashrut u-Treifot be-Of 9:6. If so, feeding the calves kosher formula at least during the two- or three-day period preceding slaughter would obviate the problem.28Levushei Serad does, however, suggest that it may be forbidden intentionally to generate a zeh va-zeh gorem in the same manner that it is forbidden intentionally to nullify a forbidden substance. There is, however, no restriction preventing a non-Jew from acting in that manner before selling the animal to a Jew.