159 Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck is Kosher: A Factually Accurate Response By: ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY and ZOHAR AMAR Introduction Several years ago we summarized the halachik history of the ka- shrut of Muscovy duck, a story that had been static for nearly a century with the duck being accepted as kosher in Israel, France and South America and not accepted in the US.1 Its lack of accep- tance in the US and by some badatzim in Israel was due to its ques- tionable mesorah [tradition] rather than a definitive statement that it is a non-kosher species. Within the last year a specific kashrut agency and its affiliated rabbinic group in the US issued strongly worded position statements declaring that Muscovy is unquestiona- bly and definitively non-kosher because, they assert, it is a dores (predator) and therefore one would be required to kasher a pot in which Muscovy had been cooked. An investigation into the basis of * This article is an expanded and updated version of the material that ap- peared in Hebrew as: Zohar Amar and Ari Z. Zivotofsky, “L’Taher et haTahor: Od b’Inyan Kashrut HaBerber,” HaMa’ayan, Tishrei 5771 (51:1): 47-55. 1 A. Z. Zivotofsky and Z. Amar, “The Halachic Tale of Three American Birds: Turkey, Prairie Chicken and Muscovy Duck,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, 46 (2003), pp. 81-103 and Z. Amar and A. Z. Zivotofsky, “Kashrut HaBerberi v’HaMulourd,” HaMa’ayan 44:1 (5764): 35-42. ________________________________________________________ Ari Zivotofsky is a senior lecturer in the Brain Sciences program at Bar Ilan University and writes widely on themes related to Jewish tradi- tions. Many of his articles can be found at <http://halachicadven tures.com>. Zohar Amar is a professor and former chairman of the department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar Ilan University. He is also director of the program in the History of Medicine. 160 : Hakirah,̣ the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought these rulings reveals factual errors and flawed methodology. Because these statements have received wide circulation and attention with- in worldwide rabbinic circles they call out for a factually accurate response, which we provide herein. First, however, we will give a brief background. With one ex- ception, all domestic ducks are believed to be derived from the wild mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). The common mallard A. p. platyr- hynchos is likely the sole progenitor of all domestic forms, with the most prominent breed (in the US and Israel) being the Pekin (Anas platyrhynchos domestica or Anas peking), introduced to the West from China in the late 19th century. The only exception is the Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata), also known as barbary duck. It is native to Mexico, Central America, and most of South America. The male weighs 2-4 kg and the female 1-1.5 kg. It is generally ac- cepted that it was domesticated in pre-Columbian South America, where it was found in the very early 16th century by the Spaniards. There appears to have been an early and rapid diffusion into the Old World. There is evidence that during this spread of the New World Muscovy to the Old World, Jews in parts of Russia treated it as kosher. Rabbi Aharon HaLevi Goldman wrote (VaYalkut Yosef 8(9):92) from Argentina in 1900 that he had refrained from shechting this New World bird until Jews from the Charshan and Besarabia areas of Russia emigrated and told him that it was eaten there with- out any hesitation. The early Jewish settlers in the southern U.S. also began eating Muscovy duck. The Muscovy has a peelable giz- zard, an “extra toe,” webbed feet, and a wide beak, all indicating that it is kosher. It does not have a standard crop, but has the same pseudo-crop found in other ducks and geese. Thus, these Jewish set- tlers treated it as kosher. It was its acceptance by the few Jews of New Orleans that led to the first known responsum about the Mus- covy. In 1861 Rabbi Yissachar Dov (Bernard) Illowy, PhD (1814-1871) arrived as the new rabbi in New Orleans and declared that the Mus- covy duck could not possibly be treated as a kosher species because there was no valid mesorah for it. In a letter written in beautiful biblical, poetic Hebrew, Rabbi Illoway presented the question of the Muscovy duck to two European rabbis, Chief Rabbi Dr. Na- Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck is Kosher : 161 than Adler of London and Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch of Germany.2 Rabbi Illoway states in his letter that there could be no mesorah on this New World bird, and further that the eggs of the Muscovy have the signs of non-kosher eggs. Both Rabbi Hirsch and Rabbi Adler responded that Rabbi Illoway was correct in prohibiting the Muscovy. That was not the end of the pre-21st century discussion regard- ing the Muscovy. Many other authorities dealt with the question and many permitted it, some using arguments similar to those used to permit a nearly universally accepted New World bird, the tur- key. For example, the Netziv (Meishiv Davar 22), when asked about “geese that are larger and different from the common goose,” per- mitted them and argued that once a bird is widely accepted the bur- den of proof falls upon those who would prohibit it to bring proof that it is a dores and thus prohibited. Barring such a proof the bird should remain permitted. This argument is equally valid for the turkey and the Muscovy duck. Several decades after Rabbi Illoway, another European newly arrived on US shores seems to have addressed the same issue. Rabbi Leeber Cohen (born ca. 1874), upon taking a job as rabbi in Mem- phis, TN, discovered that he was receiving many queries about a new kind of “goose” about which he had previously answered sev- eral questions in Europe. In 1916 he published Chiddushei Chaviva, the first half of which is devoted to the question of the new “goose” which, according to his description, seems to have been the Mus- covy duck. He concluded that based on the “egg signs” discussed in the Talmud, the bird under discussion was permitted. Two South American rabbis also engaged in lengthy discussions about the Muscovy duck. The above-mentioned Rav Aharon Halevi Goldman permitted the Muscovy for several reasons, including a report that the Netziv and Rav Naftali (Hermann) Adler (1839- 1911) had permitted it.3 In response to the fact that some rabbis continued to challenge the kashrut of the Muscovy, Rav Yosef Aha- 2 See “The Controversial Letters and the Casuistic Decisions of the Late Rabbi Bernard Illowy,” by his son Henry Illoway, Berlin, 1914, p. 162-165. 3 Divrei Aharon, Yerushalayim, 5741, 25-31 (pp. 72-81). 162 : Hakirah,̣ the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought ron Taran, a shochet in Argentina, took up the gauntlet of rebuttal. He realized that the naysayers had not personally observed the bird and were under the misimpression that it was a dores. In an effort to strengthen their position, those who sought to ban it sent a pair of birds to Yerushalayim to have Rav Shmuel Sa- lant (1816-1909), the av beit din, rule on it. The male bird died en route, but the female successfully completed the lengthy journey. Rav Salant initially refrained from ruling on the matter due to his advanced age and requested that Rav Chaim Berlin, who was then visiting the city, rule on the matter. When Rav Berlin was fed all manner of fiction, such as that the bird breeds with snakes, he re- fused to rule and returned the question to Rav Salant. Rav Salant immediately ordered his shochet to slaughter the bird and on erev Pesach a letter was promptly dispatched to Argentina stating that the bird had been eaten following Rav Salant’s ruling. Rav Shmuel Salant committed his opinion to writing in a responsum dated 25 Kislev 5668 (1908). Rav Taran publicized that letter, as well as sev- eral other permissive rulings from European rabbis, including one from Rav Naftali (Herman) Adler (1839-1911), chief rabbi of the British Empire and son of former Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler (1803- 1890) who had prohibited it years earlier.4 Almost 50 years later, the chief rabbi of Yerushalayim, Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873-1961) testified (Har Tzvi YD 75) that the Muscovy was eaten in his day in Yerushalayim based on the ruling that was issued to an Argentinean emissary who had brought a bird with him. Although he does not specify that it was his teacher Rav Salant who had permitted it, the significance of the fact that it was well known that it was accepted and that it had been permitted after observing a live bird cannot be overemphasized. Subsequently, the Muscovy was commercially raised in Israel for decades and accepted as kosher by the chief rabbinate and various local kashrut organiza- tions. This was not merely theoretical; it was shechted by the tens of thousands for decades as “mehadrin” under the Jerusalem and Ki- ryat Shemona rabbinate. It was and continues to be accepted and slaughtered as kosher in France. In recent years in Israel the prima- ry usage of Muscovy was to cross a male with a pekin female to 4 Zichron Yosef, Yerushalayim 5684, 1a-5b. Clarifying Why the Muscovy Duck is Kosher : 163 yield a mulard (also spelled moulard) for the production of foie gras (foie gras de canard; as opposed to goose liver foie gras d'oie).