3

Veal can be raised on formula that contains basar bechalav (a meat and milk mixture) which is asur behana'ah (forbidden to derive benefit from). Would this isur cause the meat from animals exclusively raised from such a formula to be forbidden.

Note that I do not say not kosher but forbidden for other reasons. If this is the case, would using this formula as part of the feed make a difference or not?

  • You want to know whether the animals become אסורים בהנאה? – msh210 Aug 16 '17 at 23:46
  • see trumot chapter 8 and orla chapter 3. its permitted – kouty Aug 17 '17 at 4:57
  • I vaguely recall that the OU policy had been that because they assumed the whey-tallow formula was added to a kli sheni, so it didn't qualify as bishul, and the issur hanaah never kicked in, which was why they certified the veal as kosher. Rabbi Ezra Schwartz took issue with this because the formula package indicated to pour the boiling water onto the formula, and iruy kli rishon is considered bishul. I believe another issue was raised with Rabbi Genack at a chabura he gave on the topic at YU regarding the principle of kalei habishul. In any case, I believe I also have heard that the OU... – Loewian Aug 17 '17 at 14:19
  • ...has since changed its policy. – Loewian Aug 17 '17 at 14:19
1

If a non jew is feeding it there seems to be no difference if it was forbidden for pleasure, it is just seen as forbidden food.
But it is forbidden for a Jew to feed his animals from it.

Recording if the animal is kosher:

Ramo on yora Daya 60.1

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּתְפַּטְּמָה בִּדְבָרִים אֲסוּרִים, מֻתֶּרֶת אֲבָל אִם לֹא נִתְפַּטְּמָה כָּל יָמֶיהָ רַק בִּדְבָרִים אֲסוּרִים, אֲסוּרָה 

My translation

An animal which was fattened with forbidden things is permitted,
But if it was fattened for it's whole life only with forbidden things it is forbidden


It seems the aruch hashulchan 60 6-7 argues on this and says that

The it is only forbidden if it only ate things that are "forbbiden from pleasure" becouse of idle worship, but if it at things which are "forbbiden from pleasure" for other reason it is not forbbiden

  • The Rama may mean even if a non-Jew fattens it. You misspelled idol. – sabbahillel Aug 17 '17 at 1:27
  • @sabbahillel I also think so – hazoriz Aug 17 '17 at 1:28
  • Your first sentence is not quite clear if a nonJew feeds such an animal this formula, then is a Jew forbidden to eat the meat of the animal or not. – sabbahillel Aug 17 '17 at 4:35
  • @sabbahillel according to everyone if the animal also ate other food , the Jew can eat it, if it only ate this food it seems the Ramo forbids and others pirmit – hazoriz Aug 17 '17 at 11:28
  • @sabbahillel btw the formula needs to be cooked for it to be forbbiden from benefit – hazoriz Aug 17 '17 at 11:29
1

There's a little-known halacha that an animal that has eaten nothing but non-kosher its entire life is itself non-kosher. (This is usually explained as a rabbinic prohibition because of how it looks.) One opinion in the Rishonim is this only had to do with animals brought as sacrifices (so irrelevant to our conversation); another is that it applies today, for any type of non-kosher animal feed; a third (which we apparently follow) is that the animal is rendered non-kosher only if its feed is so non-kosher that you can neither eat it nor derive benefit from it. See the Ramah and Shach on Yoreh Deah 60:1 (pdf).

אבל אם לא נתפטמה כל ימיה רק בדברים אסורים אסורה

But if it was fed exclusively its whole life only food prohibited from benefit, the animal is prohibited.

So if it's given this meat-and-milk formula as well as other things to eat, it would be permitted.

In the early 2000s the concern was raised that veal were being fed a formula that contained both meat and milk ingredients, cooked together. Rabbi JD Bleich's conclusion in a Tradition article (winter 2007) is that the way this meat-and-milk veal feed is made (among other factors) doesn't quite make it prohibited from benefit, only from eating, hence this problem would not apply; [the meat and milk in the formula weren't actually boiled directly together] however, he felt that if it took several paragraphs of nitty-gritty to explain why it's kosher, we shouldn't call it "glatt", which implies "it didn't take a great rabbi to figure out that this is kosher." There's also some discussion about whether they "finish" the animals with a few days of different feed, and again there's been talk whether they've redone the formula in general to something without meat or milk.

  • The Rama you quote doesn't say anything about benefit. Where is your translation from? – Double AA Aug 17 '17 at 1:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .