Daf Ditty Shabbes 155-Foie Gras

Home , Foie gras, Foie gras controversy, Gribenes, Jerusalem mixed grill

Daf Ditty Shabbes 155: Foie Gras

לָבֲא .ןיִטיִﬠְלַמ ןיִטְקְלַהְמוּ רַתַּל ןיִלוֹגְנְרתּלןְְְִַוּ.יטְִַ ֲָ

“And one may force-feed chickens.”

MISHNA: One may untie peki’in of grain before an animal on Shabbat, and one may spread the kifin but not the zirin. These terms will be explained in the Gemara. One may not crush hay

2 or carobs before an animal on Shabbat in order to facilitate its eating. He may do so neither for a small animal [daka] nor for a large one. Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so with carobs for a small animal, because it can swallow the hard carobs only with difficulty.

GEMARA: Rav Huna said: They are called peki’in and they are also called kifin. The difference between them is that peki’in are tied with two knots, whereas kifin are tied with three. Zirin, which may not be moved on Shabbat, are bundles of cedar branches eaten by animals when the branches are small and moist.

And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki’in of grain before an animal and spread them, and the same is true for kifin, but not for zirin, which one may neither spread nor untie.

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Huna? He holds that with regard to exerting oneself with food on Shabbat, one may exert himself; however, with regard to rendering food edible, one may not render it so.

Bundles of crops which are fit for animal consumption in their present state may be further prepared on Shabbat. Cedar branches cannot be eaten when bound together; therefore, one may not exert himself to untie them and render them edible on Shabbat.

3 Rav Yehuda understood the mishna differently and said: They are called peki’in and they are also called zirin. The difference between them is that peki’in are tied with two knots, whereas zirin are tied with three. Kifin are bundles of cedar branches.

And this is what the mishna is saying: One may untie peki’in of grain before an animal; however, with regard to spreading them, no, he may not spread them. And with regard to kifin, one may also spread them.

However, that is not the case with regard to zirin, as it is prohibited to spread them, and it is only permitted to untie them.

Rava said: What is the reason for Rav Yehuda’s opinion? He holds the opposite of Rav Huna’s opinion. He holds that with regard to rendering food edible, one may render it so; however, with regard to exerting oneself on Shabbat with food that is already in an edible state, one may not exert himself.

Our Daf’s discussion1 begins with a Mishnah that the rabbis find difficult to understand:

One may untie peki’in of grain before an animal on Shabbat, and one may spread the kifin but not the zirin. One may not crush hay or carobs before an animal, neither for a small animal nor for a large one. Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so with carobs for a small animal.

Half of these words are left untranslated because the rabbis themselves disagree about what they mean, but they seem to have something to do with how food is bundled — and how much work is required to open it up.

The Talmud offers two interpretations of the Mishnah, one from Rav Huna and one from Rav Yehuda. The former thinks the underlying principle of this Mishnah is that one may exert oneself to lay food before the animal (untying bundles, etc.) but one may not take food that is inedible and render it edible — in other words, the food needs to be pre-prepared. The latter, in contrast, finds the opposite principle in this Mishnah: he thinks that one may render a food that is inedible to an animal edible (for instance, by mashing up carobs for a small animal), but one may not exert oneself to lay it out.

These two perspectives on the Mishnah are gallantly argued back and forth with no definitive conclusion. This may feel all a bit arcane to those of us for whom animal feeding generally consists of scooping a cup of kibble and dumping it in a bowl, but the debate serves as a reminder that Shabbat requires us to balance guarding against work in order to create a day that is truly set aside, while still managing to live in the real world where both we and our animals receive proper care.

1 Myjewishlearning.org

MISHNA: One may not forcibly overfeed a camel on Shabbat and one may not force-feed it, even if in doing so he does not overfeed the camel. However, one may place food into its mouth. And the mishna makes a distinction, which will be explained in the Gemara, between two manners of placing food in the mouths of cattle.

One may not place food in the mouths of calves on Shabbat in the manner of hamra’a, but one may do so in the manner of halata. And one may force-feed chickens.

And one may add water to bran used as animal feed, but one may not knead the mixture.

And one may not place water before bees or before doves in a dovecote, because they are capable of finding their own food; however, one may place water before geese and chickens and before hardisian [hardeisiyyot] doves.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not forcibly overfeed a camel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is meaning of: One may not forcibly overfeed? Rav Yehuda said: One may not feed a camel to the point that it creates a trough inside of its stomach.

The Gemara asks: Is there the possibility of feeding a camel in that manner? The Gemara answers: Yes; and as Rav Yirmiya of Difti said: I saw an Arab who fed his camel a kor of food and loaded it with another kor on its back.

Rav Yosef raised an objection from that which was taught in the Tosefta: One may force-feed [mehalketin] chickens, and needless to say, one may malkitin.

And one may not malkitin doves in a dovecote or doves in an attic, and needless to say, one may not force-feed.

The Gemara asks: What is mehalketin and what is malkitin? If you say that mehalketin means that one feeds the bird by hand and malkitin means that one throws the food before them, by inference, throwing food before doves in a dovecote or before doves in an attic is also not permitted.

6 But why would that be prohibited?

RASHI

RAMBAM: Hil Shabbes 21:35

We may not feed an animal, a wild animal or a bird on Shabbat in the way one feeds [it] on [weekdays], lest he comes to crushing legumes or kneading flour or that which is similar to it. How is that? One should not feed a camel three- or four-days’ food on Shabbat, nor should he make a calf crouch—or that which is similar to it—and open its mouth and put vetch and water into it at one time. Likewise, he should not [put food down] into the mouths of doves and chickens to a place where it cannot regurgitate. But rather he should feed the animal standing and give it drink standing, or place water into its mouth separately and vetch separately to a place where it can regurgitate. Likewise, he can feed fowl with his hand to a place where it can regurgitate. And there is no need to say that he may place [the feed] in front of them and [let] them eat.

Shulchan Aruch: Orach Chayim 324:9

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 33:9)

Ramo op cit:

And there are those that validate the animal if there is no bloodspot on the outside because we are not concerned that it might have [had a hole which] healed. And so too the custom is to be lenient in our cities by the geese which we overfeed to make fat, that there is a way to fix [the forbidden animal] in the city by checking after the gullet was punctured because we are more concerned for [the case of] the lungs sticking [to each other].

And our custom is to be lenient where the thorn is lodged in the gullet if there is no hole on both sides or if there is no bloodspot on the outside. And there are those who are very precise with

8 this because it is forbidden from the Torah; and it is much better to not check at all and rely on the majority [case] instead of checking and [needing to rely] on a leniency in a case where there is an imperfection.

He says that in his town they would stuff geese to make schmaltz and that a perforated veshet was common; the goose was permitted only after the veshet was checked.

On the other hand, the early 17th-century Bach (Yoreh De’ah 33) notes that because the food is forced in with pressure and is often dry and sharp, damage to the veshet is common and checking the veshet is difficult if not impossible; therefore, he was in favor of banning such force-feeding.

Chochmas Adam (16:10) preferred to ban the gavage process because of the concern for treifos but agreed that if done, it can be kosher.

In modern times, both Tzitz Eliezer (11:49, 11:55, 12:52) and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 9, Yoreh De’ah 3) came out against foie gras and suggested that even those who permitted it in earlier generations might have been machmir today.

Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, however, in 2005 reportedly approved the foie gras that was being produced in Israel at the time.

The most famous posek to permit the stuffed geese was the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De’ah 2:25; Chullin 43b), who recommended sifting and cooking the feed to soften it before the gavage.

In Europe it was the custom to fatten up geese in the months preceding Passover, since many families refrained from using any oil other than goose fat on the holiday.

9 For six to eight weeks the geese would be fed a full bucket of corn twice a day, so that by the time the holiday arrived they would be so huge they could barely waddle.

Two religious giants of the early nineteenth century, the Chatam Sofer and the Yismach Moshe, differed in their rulings as to whether the practice of force- feeding rendered the geese not kosher. The question revolved around whether or not the sharp corn grains which were forced down the throats of the birds would damage the esophagus, thus making the birds treife (unable to live another year, and therefore not kosher to eat).

The Chatam Sofer held that the esophagus would not necessarily be damaged, and so he ruled the practice permissible. (Of course, the geese had to be carefully checked before being consumed to prove that they were kosher by the process described later.) His contemporary, the Yismach Moshe felt that since the corn kernels were sharp, the likelihood was that the birds would be rendered treife by the force feedings. He ruled that geese fed in this manner would not be permissible.

The two corresponded back and forth, each presenting learned arguments to prove his point. Finally, the Chatam Sofer suggested that instead of theorizing, they should put their rulings to a practical test. Each was to take ten geese and fatten them up. Then, they would slaughter them, fill the esophagi with air and float them in a full tub of water. If the esophagus was damaged air bubbles would escape into the water, thus proving that the bird was treife. If no bubbles were seen, the bird would be kosher.

When the birds were duly fattened and slaughtered, an amazing thing took place. All the birds from the household of the Chatam Sofer proved to be kosher, whereas all the birds of the Yismach Moshe tested treife!2

2 Yerachmiel Tilles: https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380272/jewish/Reality-Follows-the-Law.htm

The particular opinion of Chasam Sofer to permit the consumption of force-fed .( ןינעלו .goose liver (foie gras) can be found in his novellae on Chullin (43b, s.v

in assessing the bird's status, the ( דב י הק ) After discussing certain checking methods material statement is:

ירחאו לכ תורמוחה ולכאי נע ו םי ועבשיו רימחמהו יא נ ו אלא ןמ יהימתמה ן ד"עפל ן יהימתמה ןמ אלא ו נ יא רימחמהו ועבשיו םי ו נע ולכאי תורמוחה לכ ירחאו

R. Menachem Zev Schick (Dayan of Tokay, Hungary) is reported saying (Tiferet Banim, Jerusalem 1989, p. 361*):

[I] asked the Da'at Sofer about it [the Chasam Sofer's ruling on force-fed geese] and he replied that the Shevet Sofer, the Ksav Sofer and the Chasam Sofer ate stuffed geese (force-fed).

Tzitz Eliezer vol. 11 §39

3 בש ט לה ו י קלח 'ט יס ' ג"נק The three opinions are summarized in

Rav Wosner4 deals with which layer of the veshet needs to be checked, and what flaws they can have

• Not more than the inner layer with a partial wound (Chasam Sofer) • The inner layer totally punctured but no marks on the inside of the outer layer • Or even if there is a puncture through the inner layer, but not totally through the outer layer.

The question is whether this method is like a thorn, like a safek thorn, and if we suspect that the wound was bigger and healed (see also Yoreh Deah 33:9).

He quotes the Chazon Ish who says that in Eretz Yisoel it would be proper not to use this method at all.

Similarly, Bnei Yissachar and most Chasidim from Eastern Europe were against this practice.

3 https://judaism.stackexchange.com/

ירעש קדצ ברהמ( םחנמ לדנעמ )טנאפ Note that R Wosner reference to the Chatam Sofer is off by one. The proper reference would be 4 . ד"וי 'יס ה"מ ה"ד התעו ה"ד ה"מ 'יס ד"וי

Perek Shira5 lists the multitude of animals in creation and the various philosophical and ethical messages that can be learned from them. Citing our gemara:

however, one may place water before geese and chickens and before hardisian [hardeisiyyot] doves.

In reference to the wild goose, we find (Chapter 4:54):

5 Daf digest

Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose 7 ז וּרָבּ ,רֶבֶגַּה רֶשֲׁא חַטְבִי ;הָוהיַבּ הָיָהְו הָיָהְו .trust the LORD is ,הָוהְי .וֹחַטְבִמ ,הָוהְי Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD: Cursed is the man that trusteth in 5 ה הֹכּ רַמָא ,הָוהְי רוּרָא רֶבֶגַּה רֶשֲׁא רֶשֲׁא רֶבֶגַּה רוּרָא ,הָוהְי רַמָא הֹכּ man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth חַטְבִי ,םָדָאָבּ םָשְׂו ,רָשָׂבּ ;וֹעֹרְז ןִמוּ - .from the LORD ְי וה ָ ,ה ָי רוּס ִ ל וֹבּ .וֹ וּ הָו Jer 17:7 “Upon finding its food in the wilderness, it says, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings…Blessed is the man who trusts in God, and God shall be his assurance.’”

Rabbi Arthur Segal: PEREK SHIRA: GOOSE SINGS DEREK

R’ Chaim Kanievski, shlit”a, explains this esoteric message of the wild goose based upon our daf. A domesticated goose, which has been trained to live among people, is not capable of finding its own food. If it is not fed by man, it will starve to death. It does not possess the instinct to be able to procure food on its own, as our daf reports, “The sustenance of the goose is dependent upon man.”

However, the wild goose has no one to feed it. It lives in the wild, and Hashem provides it with the ability to find food on its own. No one feeds it other than Hashem, and it survives.

We see, therefore, that the bird that is dependent upon man is cursed, in that it is weak and frail without direct assistance. The bird which trusts in no one other than in Hashem is truly blessed, as Hashem is reliable and trustworthy to provide its sustenance.

A bas relief depiction of overfeeding geese

Ancient History of Stuffing Geese

As early as 2500 BC, the ancient Egyptians learned that many birds could be fattened through forced overfeeding and began this practice. Whether they particularly sought the fattened livers of birds as a delicacy remains undetermined.6 In the necropolis of Saqqara, in the tomb of Mereruka, an important royal official, there is a bas

6 McGee, Harold (2004). On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen. Scribner, p. 167): "Foie gras is the "fat liver" of force-fed geese and ducks. It has been made and appreciated since Roman times and probably long before; the force- feeding of geese is clearly represented in Egyptian art from 2500 BC."

15 relief scene wherein workers grasp geese around the necks in order to push food down their throats. At the side stand tables piled with more food pellets, and a flask for moistening the feed before giving it to the geese.7

The practice of goose fattening spread from Egypt to the Mediterranean.[12] The earliest reference to fattened geese is from the 5th century BC Greek poet Cratinus, who wrote of geese-fatteners, yet Egypt maintained its reputation as the source for fattened geese. When the Spartan king Agesilaus visited Egypt in 361 BC, he noted Egyptian farmers fattened geese and calves.8 It was not until the Roman period, however, that foie gras is mentioned as a distinct food, which the Romans named iecur ficatum;9 iecur means liver and ficatum derives from ficus, meaning fig in Latin. The emperor Elagabalus fed his dogs on foie gras during the four years of his reign. Pliny the Elder (1st century AD) credits his contemporary, Roman gastronome Marcus Gavius Apicius, with feeding dried figs to geese in order to enlarge their livers: "Apicius made the discovery, that we may employ the same artificial method of increasing the size of the liver of the sow, as of that of the goose; it consists in cramming them with dried figs, and when they are fat enough, they are drenched with wine mixed with honey, and immediately killed."10 Hence, the term iecur ficatum, fig-stuffed liver; feeding figs to enlarge a goose's liver may derive from Hellenistic Alexandria, since much of Roman luxury cuisine was of Greek inspiration. Ficatum was closely associated with animal liver and it became the root word for "liver" in each of these languages: foie in French,] hígado in Spanish, fígado in Portuguese, fegato in Italian, fetge in Catalan and Occitan and ficat in Romanian, all meaning "liver"; this etymology has been explained in different manners.

7 Toussaint-Samat, Maguelonne (1994). History of Food. Blackwell Publishing Professional, p. 425

8 Ginor, Michael A. (1999). Foie Gras: A Passion. John Wiley & Sons. P.3

9 Sagar, Khan (12 February 2015). "About the history of foie gras". foiegrasgourmet.com. Foie Gras Gourmet.

10 Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Book VIII. Chapter 77

16 Jewish influence in European Cuisine

Eileen Levine writes:11

Jews, too, are a part of the foie gras story: The practice spread to Greece and Rome, where legend has it that the Romans used Jewish slaves to feed the geese dried figs, calling the resulting product iecur ficatum, or “fig liver.” As Jews moved northward into western and central Europe during the Middle Ages, they took the tradition with them, carrying it to Alsace, then France, where the dish was named foie gras, or “fat liver.” New methods of feeding were developed, and throughout Europe, Jews sold the fattened goose liver to non-Jews. Joan Nathan, in her book, Quiches, Kugels, and Couscous: My Search for Jewish Cooking in France, says that by the 16th century, “Jews were seen as the best purveyors of foie gras.” A 1571 cookbook by the Pope’s chef praised the liver of a goose “raised by the Jews.”

By this time poultry had become key to European Jewish cooking. Living in lands where olive oil was not always plentiful and forbidden by the rules of kashrut from using lard or using butter with meat, Jews relied on poultry fat—schmaltz in Yiddish. In fact, goose fat was often preferred over chicken or duck fat because its lower melting point resulted in a creamier consistency. Geese were what Mark Caro, in his 2009 book, The Foie Gras Wars: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World’s Fiercest Food Fight, described as “prodigious portable producers” or “walking larders.” In addition to cooking with goose fat and consuming goose liver and giblets, Jews ate roasted goose and stuffed goose neck, made gribenes (cracklings) out of the skin and plucked the feathers to make down comforters.

Foie gras did present complications for Jews. For one, unlike other parts of an animal, the liver cannot be kashered through soaking and salting—instead, it must be broiled or grilled over a flame. In addition, the esophagus of the bird must be inspected after slaughter to ensure it has no holes, scars or blemishes, which would indicate suffering while the animal was alive. More

17 complex, however, were the ethical questions. In the 11th century, the French scholar Rashi warned Jews against the force-feeding practice, “for having made these beasts (geese) suffer while fattening them.” This went against Jewish law prohibiting tza’ar ba’alei chayim, suffering to animals, although some rabbis claimed that since none of the geese’s limbs were harmed and the geese did not feel discomfort in their throats, foie gras was not treife, or forbidden. Other rabbinic scholars suggested that it is only permissible to inflict pain on an animal when the benefit of doing so is significant; since there are no real nutritional benefits to foie gras, the process of force- feeding was questionable.

Jewish cuisine used olive oil in the Mediterranean, and sesame oil in Babylonia, but neither cooking medium was readily available in Western and Central Europe, so poultry fat (known in Yiddish as schmaltz), which could be abundantly produced by overfeeding geese, was substituted in their stead.12 The delicate taste of the goose's liver was soon appreciated; Hans Wilhelm Kirchhof of Kassel13 wrote in 1562 that the “Jews raise fat geese and particularly love their livers”.

12 Eileen Lavine (18 November 2013). "Foie Gras: The Indelicate Delicacy". Moment Magazine.

13 (1525?-1602?) was a German Landsknecht, Baroque poet and translator. He left a rich and versatile collection of works. The Ausläufer collections contain sixteen works. His printed and handwritten works number more than 60

Bartolomeo Scappi14

Appreciation of fattened goose liver spread to gastronomes outside the Jewish community, who could buy in the local Jewish ghetto of their cities. In 1570, Bartolomeo Scappi, chef de cuisine to Pope Pius V, published his cookbook Opera, wherein he writes that "the liver of [a] domestic goose raised by the Jews is of extreme size and weighs [between] two and three pounds".[31] In 1581, Marx Rumpolt of Mainz, chef to several German nobles, published the massive cookbook Ein Neu Kochbuch, describing that the Jews of Bohemia produced livers weighing more than three pounds; he lists recipes for it—including one for goose liver mousse.

János Keszei, chef to the court of Michael Apafi, the prince of Transylvania, included foie gras recipes in his 1680 cookbook A New Book About Cooking, instructing cooks to:

14 (c. 1500 – 13 April 1577) was a famous Italian Renaissance chef. His origins had been the subject of speculation, but recent research shows that he came from the town of Dumenza in Lombardy, according to the inscription on a stone plaque in the church of Luino. Prior to this, the first known fact in his life had been that in April 1536 he organised a banquet while he was in the service of Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggio.[2] He served several other cardinals after this, then began to serve pope Pius IV, entering the service of the Vatican kitchen. He continued to work as a chef for the pope Pius V. Scappi is often considered one of the first internationally renowned celebrity chefs.

19 "envelop the goose liver in a calf's thin skin, bake it and prepare [a] green or [a] brown sauce to accompany it. I used goose liver fattened by Bohemian Jews, its weight was more than three pounds. You may also prepare a mush of it."

Foie gras (English: /ˌfwɑːˈɡrɑː/ ( listen), French: [fwa ɡʁɑ]; French for '"fat liver"') is a specialty food product made of the liver of a duck or goose. According to French law,[1] foie gras is defined as the liver of a duck or goose fattened by gavage. In Spain[2] and other countries, it is occasionally produced using natural feeding.[3] Ducks are force-fed twice a day for 12.5 days and geese three times a day for around 17 days. Ducks are typically slaughtered at 100 days and geese at 112 days.[4] Foie gras is a popular and well-known delicacy in French cuisine. Its flavor is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of an ordinary duck or goose liver. Foie gras is sold whole, or is prepared into mousse, parfait, or pâté, and may also be served as an accompaniment to another food item, such as steak. French law states that "Foie gras belongs to the protected cultural and gastronomical heritage of France."[5] The technique of gavage dates as far back as 2500 BC, when the ancient Egyptians began keeping birds for food and deliberately fattened the birds through force-feeding.[6] Today, France is by far the largest producer and consumer of foie gras, though it is produced and consumed worldwide, particularly in other European nations, the United States, and China.[7]

Gavage-based foie gras production is controversial, due mainly to the animal welfare concerns about force-feeding, intensive housing and husbandry, and enlarging the liver to 10 times its usual volume. A number of countries and jurisdictions have laws against force-feeding, and the production, import or sale of foie gras; even where it is legal, a number of retailers decline to stock it.

20 Physiological basis

Gavage des canards à foie gras en cages individuelles

The basis of foie gras production is the ability that some waterfowl have to expand their esophagus and to gain weight, particularly in the liver, in preparation for migration.15

Wild geese may consume 300 grams of protein and another 800 grams of grasses per day. Farmed geese allowed to graze on carrots adapt to eating 100 grams of protein but may consume up to 2500 grams of the carrots per day. The increasing amount of feed given prior to force-feeding and during the force-feeding itself cause expansion of the lower part of the esophagus.

15 Skippon, W. (2013). "The animal health and welfare consequences of foie gras production". Canadian Veterinary Journal.

21 Force-feeding16

The force-feeding of birds, that are often confined and with no means of escape, is both cruel and damaging to their health. Feed is administered using a funnel fitted with a long tube, forcing it into the bird's esophagus. Modern systems use a tube fed by a pneumatic or hydraulic pump. Force- feeding can cause violent trauma to the bird's esophagus, which can lead to death. Around a million birds die during force-feeding in France every year, with mortality rates 20 times higher than those reared normally. Force-feeding also causes the liver to swell to up to ten times its natural size, impaired liver function, expansion of the abdomen making it difficult for birds to walk, death if the force feeding is continued, and scarring of the esophagus.

Typically, birds will be free-range prior to force-feeding. Geese are not caged in foie-gras production, but 87 per cent of ducks are confined to individual small wire cages not much bigger than their bodies, where only their heads are free to facilitate force feeding. Despite these cages being banned in 2011, France has continued their use them and intends to do so until the end of 2015 (they are gradually being replaced with group cages that are hardly an improvement). The remainder – and most geese – are enclosed in small enclosures (pens). Only male ducklings are used in French foiegras production (as they put on weight quicker and their livers are less venous); almost all females are killed at just a day or two old by either being gassed or thrown alive into industrial macerators (as many as 38 million annually).

Both sexes of geese are used in foie-gras production. Ducks are force-fed twice a day for 12.5 days and geese three times a day for around 17 days. Ducks are typically slaughtered at 100 days and geese at 112 days. The Trade France is the leading foie-gras producing country, with 78.5 per cent of world production. Foie-gras is also produced in Hungary (8 per cent), Bulgaria (6 per cent), the United States (1.4 per cent), Canada (1 per cent) and China (0.6 per cent). In 2012, France produced 18,750 tonnes of foie-gras. Production has doubled since 1994. Despite moves in Europe to ban it, gavage is now protected by French law as part of their cultural and gastronomic "heritage".

Foie-gras cannot be sold as French unless it is the result of force-feeding. Foie-gras production is banned in several countries, including most of the Austrian provinces, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Israel and since 2012 California (in a move spearheaded by Viva!).

General animal protection laws in Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom mean that production is essentially banned there also. In 2012, 8 MEPs called for foie- gras to banned across Europe. 191.5 tonnes of foie-gras was imported into the UK in 2012 (of the top six EU importers outside of France the UK was the only country to increase imports). The UK consumes more French foie-gras than Germany, twice as much as Italy and four times more than Holland.

However, the true figure of animal product imported because of this trade is likely to be much higher, as this statistic does not include duck/goose meat, goose fat or other by-products. Most

16 https://stop-foie-gras.com/en/node/39

22 foie-gras in the UK is sold by restaurants, bistros and pubs. Through campaigning by groups such as Viva!, no major supermarket chain currently sells foie-gras in Britain.

The Lisbon Treaty17

When the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009 it amended the 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union' (TFEU) and introduced the recognition that animals are sentient beings.

Article 13 of Title II states that:

"In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the EU countries relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage."

National governments may adopt more stringent rules provided they are compatible with the provisions of the Treaty but Community legislation concerning the welfare conditions of farm animals lays down minimum standards.

17 https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en

23 Modern Kashrut issues

Some Rabbis were concerned that eating forcibly overfed geese violated Jewish food restrictions. Some rabbis contended that it is not a forbidden food (treyf) as none of its limbs are damaged and the geese did not feel any pain in their throats from the process. This matter remained a debated topic in Jewish dietary law until the Jewish taste for goose liver declined in the 19th century.

Another kashrut matter, still a problem today, is that even properly slaughtered and inspected meat must be drained of blood before being considered fit to eat. Usually, salting achieves that; however, as liver is regarded as "(almost) wholly blood", broiling is the only way of kashering.

Properly broiling a foie gras while preserving its delicate taste is difficult, and therefore rarely practiced. Even so, there are restaurants in Israel that offer grilled goose foie gras. Foie gras also bears resemblance to the Jewish food staple, chopped liver.

This debate has continued to modern times, but foie gras has remained popular. The dish became one of Israel’s first exported products shortly after 1948, when it was introduced to the fledgling Jewish state by Moshe Friedman, a Hungarian Holocaust survivor and third-generation goose farmer, according to Gil Marks in his Encyclopedia of Jewish Food. Friedman convinced the government to fund the production of goose livers on his kibbutz; the product was then sold to an Alsatian pâté manufacturer.

In recent years, the production of foie gras has come under fire. Some European countries have banned forced feeding of animals, as did Israel in 2005, forcing many Israeli producers to move elsewhere. Today, nearly 80 percent of foie gras—often made with less expensive ducks—is now produced in France, primarily in the Dordogne and Alsace regions, with smaller quantities made in Hungary, Belgium, Spain and Bulgaria. It is also produced in the United States, where in 2012, California enacted a ban on the sale of force-fed foie gras.

Today, the largest American producer of foie gras is Hudson Valley Farms in Ferndale, New York, founded in 1990 by Michael Ginor, a Seattle native and Brandeis graduate who spent two years with the Israel Defense Forces, and Izzy Yanay, who once managed Israel’s biggest foie gras farm. Their Moulard ducks, a crossbreed between a Muscovy male and a Pekin female, are bred with cage-free methods and fed by workers inserting corn by hand through a plastic tube two or three times a day for just a few seconds.

Ginor responds to attacks by animal-rights activists by maintaining that this method of force- feeding “is more gentle, more caring and most humane. We do minimal damage to the ducks.” But it isn’t cheap: A one-and-a-half pound portion of fresh foie gras costs $89. None of the duck goes to waste—products on sale include duck breast or magret, duck legs to make confit, duck bones for stock and duck innards sold mostly to Asian buyers. To cater to Jewish customers, the company hopes to offer a kosher foie gras in the future.

Foie gras bears a similarity to that staple of European Jewish cuisine: chopped liver. Popular in countries such as Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania, chopped liver arrived in the United States along with immigrants in the late 19th century. Chopped liver, however, is typically made from chicken,

24 beef or calf, and does not come from force-fed animals. Delicious as it may be, it has come to stand for something insignificant, as in “What am I, chopped liver?” Such has not been the fate of foie gras: whether in a terrine or a torchon, the controversial dish remains, for many, the epitome of elegance.

Ari Zivatoksky, an Israeli scientists writes: 18

“A misguided effort on foie gras”

Rather than banning foie gras production, wouldn’t it make more sense to permit it, but under reasonable controls that guarantee the birds’ welfare, Jewish

We read daily in the newspapers about a current legislative initiative to supposedly right a serious wrong by banning the importation of foie gras.

We believe this is a misguided effort based on erroneous premises.

It is not our intent to defend the right to eat foie gras or to encourage the practice of force-feeding animals. Rather, it is to explain our serious reservations about the proposed legislation to ban the importation of the delicacy.

The production of foie gras was officially outlawed in Israel almost a decade ago but implementation of the ban was delayed by protracted appeals, and then finally enforced in 2006. It is ironic that many European countries have outlawed the production of foie gras, despite most

18 Ari Zivotofsky is on the faculty of the Bar-Ilan Brain Science Program and researches kashrut issues related to animals. Doni Zivotofsky is a small and large animal veterinarian.

25 having never actually produced it. Furthermore, worldwide, other than the state of California, no jurisdiction currently bans its importation or sale.

Foie gras (French for “fat liver”), the product of a process that is well over 4,000 years old, is a delicacy made from the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened, often by “force- feeding.”

The process used to enlarge the liver, which utilizes the bird’s natural mechanism for storing energy before its annual migration, indeed sounds awful, so why do we oppose the ban?

Because it is based on bad science, bad Halacha, bad policy and bad politics.

Bad science

At the heart of the matter lies the question: Is foie gras production an inhumane practice? In general, gauging pain and suffering in animals presents a difficult scientific challenge, but it is widely accepted that anthropomorphically defining these issues results in inaccurate conclusions. For example, the popular human emotional response is that certainly free-range chickens are healthier and happier than their cooped brethren. Yet recent studies out of the UK’s University of Bristol revealed that when given a choice, chickens in fact prefer to not range, and those who do are less healthy and actually present health and hygiene problems.

Similarly, animal rights organizations report on the horrible suffering endured by the ducks and geese used for foie gras – but these militant groups oppose all meat consumption, so this should come as no surprise. These birds are fed three times daily for less than 10 seconds via a process called gavage. Various veterinarians and veterinary organizations have repeatedly investigated the foie gras issue. A 2004 study in the World’s Poultry Science Journal concluded that the feeding procedure produced neither physiological indicators nor behavioral responses indicating stress.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), for its part, has called for additional research, but in the meantime has refrained from criticizing the practice. This cannot be attributed to financial incentive, as the US produces well under 2 percent of the world’s foie gras.

In 2004 and 2005, the AVMA’s House of Delegates (HOD), the US accrediting body of veterinary medicine, was forwarded resolutions from its animal welfare committee to oppose the production methods for foie gras.

After hearing testimony from 13 delegates, the HOD declined to take a position but issued the following simple statement: “Limited peer-reviewed, scientific information is available dealing with the animal welfare concerns associated with foie gras production. But the observations and practical experience shared by HOD members indicate a minimum of adverse effects on the birds involved.” Moreover, in 2006 the AVMA again voted to oppose anti-foie gras resolutions. The most important aspect of all of the various reports was the personal visit.

26 The HOD sent delegates to visit foie gras farms; Dr. Thomas Munschauer, their representative, visited a New York farm. He reported: “It didn’t seem like the birds were distressed.” He judged the facility to be better than most places where broilers are raised. “For the most part, they appear to be well cared for.”

So too Dr. Robert Gordon visited a farm and stated, “After being on the premises, my position changed dramatically,” positively. He also testified that tube feeding is less distressing than taking the rectal temperature of a cat and urged the AVMA to take a position based on science – not emotion.

In June 2005, The New York Times editor Lawrence Downes was invited to a visit a foie gras farm and he “saw no pain or panic... The birds submitted matter-of-factly to a 15-inch tube inserted down the throat… The practice...seemed neither particularly gentle nor particularly rough.”

Similar sentiments appear to be the norm for those who visit, rather than merely read about, foie gras farms. The description of the process as presented in media reports and animal rights campaigns indeed sounds unpleasant, but as in all decisions that are based on reality, the facts must be ascertained. Has even one of the many MKs supporting this law visited a farm, or are they relying on hearsay? Emotion-driven legislation is a mistake in this instance, as it was in the misguided legislation passed by the previous Knesset that is further exacerbating an existing rabies epidemic in Israel.

Bad Halacha

This proposed law has the support of several religious MKs, who argue that the biblical prohibition of tza’ar ba’alei hayim – causing undue suffering to animals – is violated in foie gras production.

Halacha is a precedent-based system and, fortunately, great halachic authorities over the last 250 years have written a great deal about the kashrut of foie gras. Some, such as the Bach and Bnei Yissachar, have even banned foie gras in strong terms, while others permitted this very popular delicacy. In all of the relevant, pre-21st-century literature, we have found that the halachic discussions, without exception, focus on the treifos issue – i.e. does the process lead to an impermissible perforation of the esophagus – yet never raise the question of tza’ar ba’alei hayim.

Elsewhere when a practice does violate that principle, the rabbis do address it. For example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein discussed the permissibility of veal, and raised questions of both treifos and tza’ar ba’alei hayim. Yet the numerous European rabbis who discussed foie gras did not raise the cruelty issue, and it was not mentioned until Rabbi Ovadia Yosef did so in the 21st century. And unlike most of the MKs who live in urban settings, most of these rabbis saw the ducks and their feeding methods, and presumably were satisfied with the ethics of the practice. The rabbinate is attuned to these issues.

Before granting its initial certification to Israeli foie gras in 1969, the Chief Rabbinate turned to Rabbi Israel Meir Levinger, DVM, who modified the feeding process in order to prevent treifos, avoid Shabbat desecration, and, yes, to avoid pain to the bird.

27 Bad politics

When involved in public policy, it is crucial to be careful with whom one goes to bed. This legislation was initiated and drafted by extremist animal rights groups. While many of their objectives sound laudable, internationally these militant animal rights organizations will stop at nothing – including terror – to achieve their goals.

In this way, the only building at Bar- Ilan University in which a biometric security entry system is employed is the one in which one of us works. It is not because of the top-secret research taking place there, but rather because animal research aimed at understanding neurodegenerative diseases and other human ailments takes place within its premises. And no, it is not for fear that the monkeys might escape, but because the facility must be protected from vigilantism of these groups.

In other countries, their counterparts have released animals, destroyed data and scientific equipment, and threatened researchers and their families. It reached the point that in 2006 the US Senate felt compelled to unanimously pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. A lab near mine which studies memory and learning is currently unable to import its animal model via El Al thanks to the efforts of such groups.

And what is this animal model? Aplysia – a type of sea slug which does not even have a central brain.

Just because some of their ideas have value does not mean that one should collaborate with them. One of the most pro-animal rights governments of the 20th century was the German Third Reich. We find it unlikely that if these MKs were approached by Nazis who requested their participating in the passing of some worthwhile legislation, they would team up with them.

These groups are merely using the Knesset for whatever steps they can but will never be satisfied. After foie gras production was banned, one of the spokesmen for such a group, a self-declared anarchist and anti-Zionist, was asked what other issues are on the agenda. He replied: “The main issue is to persuade people to get rid of meat, eggs and milk.”

Is this what the Knesset has in store for us? Both the Talmud and modern social psychology emphasize the importance of the company one keeps.

The Knesset should be staying far away from such groups.

Bad policy

It is also important to look at the global context when passing national legislation. Judaism cares very much about animal suffering and there is a biblical prohibition aimed at preventing tza’ar ba’alei hayim. We are told that this legislation will help make Israel an or lagoyim, a universal model for national ethics.

Unfortunately, this legislation is more likely to backfire. Rather than other nations being impressed and following our lead, European rabbis and Jewish community leaders, including but not limited

28 to the head of the Paris Rabbinical Court and the secretary-general of the European Jewish Congress, have warned that European countries may try to use this as one more weapon in their efforts to ban shechita. In particular, France (producer of almost 80% of world foie gras), but other European countries as well, are likely to argue that just as you, Israel, have determined that what we do is immoral and have therefore banned it, it is our right to determine that the Jewish method of slaughter does not meet our standards of morality.

It behooves us to be careful judging practices approved in other countries.

While we may disagree and insist that shechita is indeed humane, this is irrelevant to the fact that they might use such an argument, and responsible Jewish voices from Europe should be heard. Indeed, this proposed legislation closes what would seem to be a hypocritical loophole. The proposed legislation implies that simply outlawing foie gras production within Israel did not reduce the overall suffering of ducks caused by Israelis, necessitating the proposed ban on its commercial importation. This despite the fact that the majority of foie gras produced in Israel was for export. Several European countries have already banned shechita but have left open the option of importing kosher meat. What this legislation does is provide them with ammunition to close that option for their Jews.

We commend our elected representatives for their efforts in improving the ethical standards of the country, but we are concerned about the misplaced priorities in this particular case. It would seem (I say this tongue in cheek) that those concerned about the ethical source of food should ban the importation of chocolate, for which many thousands of children labor in inhumane conditions to harvest the cocoa beans; or products made in sweatshops in China; or quinoa, whose export is leading to famine in its native lands.

Moreover, banning foie gras production put many people out of work. Israel produced over 500 tons annually. For centuries, this has been a Jewish business – documented as far back as the 11th century. In 16th-century Western Europe, Jewish suppliers were the principal source of fattened goose liver, and in the 19th century it was widespread both commercially and privately, particularly among Hungarian Jews. The proposed legislation will lead to more unemployed Israelis, who currently travel to Hungary to produce and slaughter the ducks and geese.

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook was known as an advocate for animal welfare, yet he stopped short of advocating general vegetarianism, because he correctly foresaw that a society that is overly concerned with animal welfare will lose sight of the need to care for its human citizens. Is owning a pet ethical? There are many examples of pets who are mistreated.

Why don’t we ban pets? Because pets can be treated in the most luxurious conditions or be horribly abused, and there are laws in place that attempt to protect pets and ensure that the former occurs more than the latter. The same is undoubtedly true with regard to foie gras. There can be farms in which the conditions and the process are done in a most inhumane manner, or there can be farms such as those described above in which the animals are treated better than many pets.

29 Foie gras production is clearly not intrinsically bad (as is, for example, bull fighting). Rather than banning foie gras production across the board, wouldn’t it make more sense to permit it, but under reasonable controls that guarantee the birds’ welfare and the Jewish values that we hold so dear?

In 1948, a Hungarian Holocaust survivor and third-generation goose farmer arrived in Israel and began producing one of the young country’s first exports — foie gras. It remained strictly an export item until the late 1970s, when kosher foie gras produced from mallard became available in Israel. By 2000, Israel was the third largest producer of foie gras in the word, behind France (where 80 percent of the world’s foie gras is produced) and Hungary. And then the animal rights lobby flexed its muscles. In 2003 the Israeli Supreme Court banned foie gras production, and by 2006 all production in Israel was ceased, with operations transferred to Hungary (today shochetim travel to Hungary to shecht geese and produce kosher foie gras). While kosher foie gras continues to be imported from Hungary, in 2013 MK Dov Lipman, with the backing of the animal rights lobby, moved to ban its sale in Israel.

------

30 A Case of Fake News19

Zivotofsky writes:

Despite efforts by some to demonstrate that force feeding geese is cruel and was recognized as such by Jews in previous generations, it’s a common misunderstanding based on a mistranslation that seems to defy explanation, and one of these situations where people keep repeating an error because they didn’t examine the primary source. In contemporary Jewish anti-foie gras literature, two “quotes” are regularly bantered about, even by scholars. One is a “quote” from Rashi and the other from a 14th century ethical will.

Both quotes can be found in the book “The Foie Gras Wars: How a 5,000-Year-Old Delicacy Inspired the World’s Fiercest Food Fight” (2011) by Chicago Tribune reporter Mark Caro. On p. 26 he writes:

“Rashi interpreted the tale to mean that Jews would have to face the music ‘for having made the beasts[geese] suffer while fattening them’.”

And on p. 26-27 he writes:

“In a 14th-century ethical will, a dying man, Eleazar of Mainz, instructs: “‘Now, my sons and daughters, eat and drink only what is necessary, as our good parents did, refraining from heavy meals, and holding the gross liver in detestation’.”

The comment of Rashi sounds like it may indeed be a condemnation of fattening geese. It turns out that Rashi never wrote any such thing.

First, the source for this “quote” is Bava Basra 73b and as is well known, on 29a of Bava Basra of our printed texts, there is a note in bold letters in the Rashi column that says: “until here is the commentary of Rashi zt”l, from here on in is the commentary of Rabbeinu Shmuel ben Rav Meir”, i.e. Rashbam. The first error is therefore that the comment was not written by Rashi but by his grandson.

Nonetheless, even if Rashbam had written that, it would be of significance. But he didn’t. The comment was made on the 10th of the fantastic, esoteric tales of Rabbah bar bar Chanah. The story is:

דומלת ילבב תכסמ אבב ארתב ףד ע ג דומע ב דומע ג רמאו הבר רב רב :הנח אנמיז אדח הוה אק ןנילזא ,ארבדמב זחו י נ ן והנה וא ו ז י יטמשד יפדג והי נמשמ י והי אקו אקו והי י נמשמ והי יפדג יטמשד י ז ו וא והנה ן נ י זחו ידגנ ילחנ אחשמד ,והייתותמ מא י נ א הל ו : תיא ןל גב ו י וכי אקלח אמלעל ?יתאד אדח לד י ג אפד , אדחו ילדידאח . אמטא . יכ יאתא הימקל יברד ,רזעלא רמא ל י : תע י ד י ן לארשי ל י ת ן לע ןהי תא דה י ןיד א ןיל Rabbah b. Bar Hana also related: We were once travelling in the desert and saw geese whose feathers fell out on account of their [excessive] fatness, and streams of oil [fat] flowed under them.

19 Foie Gras “Fake News”: A Fictitious Rashi and a Strangely Translated Ethical Will by Ari Z. Zivotofsky

31 I said to them: ‘Shall we have a share of your [flesh] in the world to come?’ One lifted up its wing, the other lifted up its leg. When I came before R. Elazar he said to me: Israel will be held accountable because of them.

Commenting on the last line, Rashbam commented: ם”בשר תכסמ אבב ארתב ףד גע מע ו ד ב דומ . ןתיל םהילע תא ןידה – םתאטחבש בכעתמ חישמ ו שי םהל רעצ ילעב יח םי ןתואל וא ו ז םי תמחמ נמוש ן משתח יזוו ןולם ח לברצםלש חש כת תטב

According to the Rashbam, the Jews are responsible for the suffering of the geese in that the geese had to live extra-long with unnatural fat because the Jews sinned and thereby delayed the coming of the Messiah and the slaughtering of these geese.

The Rashbam was discussing a fanciful story involving the suffering of mythical geese whose feathers fall out and whose fat drips off of them, i.e. who were clearly suffering and are different from a typical goose. Such geese he suggests may suffer due to their excessive fat. He makes no mention of the fattening process and says nothing about any suffering during that process or about the suffering of geese that his Jewish neighbors were raising.

And how about the ethical will?20 It is a facsimile edition of the 1926 original. Beginning on p. 207 is “The Ideals of an Average Jew (Testament of Eleazar of Mayence)” and on p. 212 it indeed says: “Now, my sons and daughter, eat and drink only what is necessary, as our good parents did, refraining from heavy meals, and holding the gross liver in detestation.”

20 Hebrew Ethical Wills (JPS Library of Jewish Classics) (English and Hebrew Edition) [1976], Israel Abrahams (Editor), Judah Goldin (Foreword)

From this it is not at all clear why liver should be so disliked, and it is certainly not obvious that he is talking about foie gras. It could be that he simply abhors liver (perhaps because, as Chazal note, it is full of blood).

In an effort to better understand, I looked on the other side of the page, at the Hebrew text. And what a shock! It seems that when Israel Abrahams (Reader in University of Cambridge and a Senior Tutor at Jews’ College) translated this text he used some poetic license, likely never suspecting it would be then adopted by the anti-foie gras activists. Here is what the Hebrew found in Abrahams says:

נב י י נבו יתו ותוחפ אנ הליכאמ יתשו הי קר ידכ .ךרוצ לאו זבזבת ו וממ ן הליכאל יתשלו .הי ןכ יה ו וי ן . בא ו ת י נ ו םידיסחה םילכוא ידכ ךרוצה אלו הליכא הסג תואלמלו ןסירכ . יהל ו ת לכ םהימי חכ שו כ םיי ל ה

No mention whatsoever of liver! It appears that it is not an actual translation. It seems strange that Abrahams fabricated the liver in the English. He says the translation was made on the basis of two Hebrew texts. Maybe he translated straight off of them and the Hebrew in his edition is not accurate. The first is a text that is based in a Munich MS and appears on Moritz Güdemann’s Quellenschriften (Berlin, 1891, reprinted by Philo Press in 1968).

There on p. 296 one finds an almost identical text:

33 נב י י ותוחפ אנ הליכאמ יתשו הי קר ידכ ךרוצ לאו זבזבת ו וממ ן הליכאל יתשלו .הי ןכ יה ו יתובא נ ו תב וי ן םידיסחה םילכוא ידכ ךרוצה אלו הליכא הסג תואלמלו ןסירכ תויהל לכ םהימי שוחכ םהימי לכ תויהל ןסירכ תואלמלו הסג הליכא אלו The other manuscript is Bodleian MS cat Neubauer No. 907, fols. 164a-166a (not 166b as Abrahams erroneously wrote) and the relevant section is at the top of 165a (I thank Ezra Chwat for his assistance in obtaining this ms.). As can be seen the text is identical to that found in the Abrahams’ book.

There seemed to be a final possibility. In his introduction, Abrahams notes that a previous translation, into German, had appeared in the journal Jüdische Presse, Berlin 1870, p. 90.

However, it is only a translation of the first half of the will, ending just before the relevant section. It says that it was to be continued, but unfortunately that was the first year of the journal and the next issue (12) is missing (as are several others such as 3, 7, 9, 10) from the digitized microfilm at that website and I have been unable to locate it in any Israeli library. the translation until that point seems to be accurate and it is hard to ascribe the insertion of the liver to the German translator (I thank Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel and Prof Michael Segal for assistance with the German).

It thus seems clear the liver was inserted into the English transition for some inexplicable reason, but certainly does not appear in this 14th century ethical will.

Once an author is convinced of the authenticity of the sources they often embellish. In the academic work, Food and Morality: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery (2007) edited by Susan R. Friedland, there is a chapter called the foie gras fracas: sumptuary Law as Animal welfare? By Cathy K. Kaufman, a scholar- chef and Adjunct Chef-Instructor, Institute of Culinary Education, in New York City.

On p. 126 she writes:

“The best written evidence for the medieval production of foie gras – and its ambiguous moral status – is found among the writings of the Ashkenazi Jews who spread throughout Europe. Rabbi (sic) Rashi ……”

But in fact we have shown that among the Jewish writings there is ZERO evidence regarding any ambiguous moral status!

Even the well-known American cookbook author Joan Nathan couldn’t avoid this pitfall.

Recently, in her King Solomon’s Table: A Culinary Exploration of Jewish Cooking from Around the World (2017) on p. XXI she wrote:

“Rashi was a thinker who knew both religion and agriculture. He condemned, for example, the force-feeding of geese to produce foie gras ….”.

The book that is the source for many of these other articles is the beautiful coffee-table book Foie Gras: A Passion (1999) by Michael Ginor and Mitchell Davis. Ginor, an American who spent two years in the IDF and while in Israel discovered foie gras, co- founded, co-owns, and is President of NY based Hudson Valley Foie Gras and New York State Foie Gras, the most comprehensive foie gras producer in the world. His book is an absolutely comprehensive book on everything one could possibly want to know about foie gras.

And there on p. 11 he quotes the non-existent Rashi and on p. 12 the English version of the strangely translated ethical will. I have no idea where he found those two quotes that have today become so common in the vegetarian literature.

The fact that all one has to do is look in the Hebrew originals to see that these quotes are fake news, explains why they are found in English sources and I have not yet found them in any of the Hebrew works on animal rights.

Chicago lifts two-year ban on foie gras

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-foiegras/chicago-lifts-two-year-ban-on-foie-gras- idUSN1452520620080515