Is It Kosher?
By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
There is a new type of meat that is about to enter the kosher consumer market, and it is stirring up some serious controversy. The Hebrew-language Mishpacha magazine recently ran an article
on this type of meat and also published an alleged ruling of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita. Two rabbanim in Brooklyn have brought up the issue with this author and have asked that it be investigated.
The meat is coming out of a company in Australia. But questions abound, both on this type of meat in general and the company producing it. What is this meat? Who are the people behind this initiative? What are the underlying issues?
Meat Of A ‘Ben Pekuah’
The meat in question comes from animals that are classified as “ben pekuah,” which is an unborn calf that is found in the womb of a cow that has just been slaughtered in a kosher manner.
The Gemara in Chullin 69a states that a ben pekuah does not require its own slaughter. As we see from the mishnah in Chullin 74a, there are two categories: a premature fetus and a fully formed one. Rabbi Meir and the Sages all agree that if the fetus is not fully formed, no shechitah is required. Regarding a matured unborn calf, however, Rabbi Meir holds that it does require its own slaughter, while the Sages hold that, on a biblical level, it does not, but on a rabbinic level it does.
There are seemingly three sources as to why the ben pekuah is exempt from shechitah. The Gemara (69a) states that the verse “v’kol beheimah” is the source. It is understood to mean that the entire animal can be eaten—even the fetus found inside. Later on (69b), the Gemara returns to an original source called “beheimah ba’beheimah,” that any animal within another animal is included in the original shechitah. Finally, the Baal HaMaor (70b) understands it as falling under the rubric of “ubar yerech imo,” the fetus is considered a limb of its mother.
The repercussions of being a ben pekuah cow is that there is no concept of tarfus. The animal does not need to undergo the rigorous inspection of lungs that regular cows have to go through. Also, there are no issues of cheilev—the types of fats that need to be removed from an animal lest the consumer violate a serious prohibition known as a chiyuv kareis. The cheilev and veins of a ben pekuah cow are actually permitted (A.H. 13:2).
The blood, however, still retains the prohibition of dam eivarim, blood absorbed into the limbs. There are essentially two reasons why its blood is not included in the verse of “the entire animal” that makes the rest of a ben pekuah permitted: (1) It is no different than any other organ of the slaughtered cow; and (2) the verse only permits food that is generally eaten, and blood is a liquid and is not in that category. There is a substantive difference between these two reasons. According to the first reason, ingesting the blood is a violation of an ordinary lav; according to the second reason, the ingestion of blood would involve a chiyuv kareis.
Offspring Of A Ben Pekuah
One of the most fascinating and pertinent areas of the laws of ben pekuah is that if a cow descends from two parents that are ben pekuah, the descendant cow also only requires shechitah mi’d’rabbanan. If, however, a regular cow sires a calf with a ben pekuah cow, the calf will remain non-kosher forever. In the Gemara’s language, “ein lo takanah l’olam.”
The explanation is that we consider it as there being a delay in the shechitah process, called “shehiyah.” How so? The cow is considered to be half-shechted and half-regular. There is no greater delay in the shechitah process than this, and it is thus considered shehiyah.
Halachic Errors
This author has been in communication with the general manager of the company as well as the supervising rabbi through e‑mail and telephone conversation. The company is based in Melbourne, Australia, and it has been, they claim, a project ten years in the making. The rabbi associated with the company is Rabbi Meir Rabi, who has authored an article on the topic in the 35th volume of Techumim.
In this author’s opinion, Rabbi Rabi has made and published a serious error in his understanding of the nature of ben pekuah meat. He seems to understand the ben pekuah animal as a new, different type of creature. He cites (in footnote 6 of his Techumim article) the Meshech Chochmah in Bereishis 18:8 as being of the opinion that ben pekuah meat is not fleishig. (Avraham Avinu served butter to his three visitors, after he had served them meat. The Meshech Chochmah writes that there was no prohibition in his doing so because the butter was not considered dairy, as it originated from a ben pekuah cow. Rabbi Rabi understands this Meshech Chochmah as ruling that the meat itself is not considered fleishig.)
Rabbi Rabi then claims that Rav Moshe Shternbuch writes the same thing in his responsa, Teshuvos v’Hanhagos Vol. IV #319. He further writes that he was told by Rav Shternbuch that according to all opinions, the meat is pareve, and that he was also told this by Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita.
However, it seems to this author that the Meshech Chochmah is only saying that milk from a ben pekuah cow is not considered dairy, because it has the halachic status of a pre-shechted cow.
Milk from a shechted cow is only forbidden by rabbinic decree, on account of maras ayin, but is biblically permitted. The Meshech Chochmah makes no mention of any possibility of the meat being considered pareve. Nor is there any such indication in Rav Shternbuch’s writings.
As far as the next two citations purporting to show that Rav Shternbuch said it is considered pareve as did Rav Chaim Kanievsky, there is no such indication in the Rishonim or Acharonim on the relevant Gemaras, nor in the responsa, nor in the poskim. It is difficult to conceive that such a view would have escaped mention in the nearly 1,600 years since the Gemara was written.
It is especially difficult to accept that Rabbi Shternbuch would say that all would agree that this is the case. I am conjecturing that Rabbi Rabi incorrectly understood both of these gedolim.
This matter is so obvious that there is almost no need to prove it, but Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 87:6) clearly shows that the only issue is the milk, not the meat. Rav Elyashiv, zt’l, in Kovetz Haaros al HaTorah (page 308) clearly indicates this too.
Problems With Hashgachah
Although the above represents a substantive error, it would still not forbid ben pekuah meat. Why bring it up, then? Because a ben pekuah meat operation must ensure that no non-ben pekuah cow can mate with the ben pekuah cows.
True, DNA testing is alleged to be utilized in the process, but a claim based on DNA testing is only as good as the weakest link in the chain. Someone else assuring me that DNA testing was done is not necessarily foolproof and only boils down to one person’s assertions.
Let us also realize that a ben pekuah cow can ruin the cows in a regular herd, preventing them from being kosher in the future. This is a grave responsibility when commercially producing so many ben pekuah cows. Also, the milk of a ben pekuah cow is always forbidden by rabbinic decree because it is considered that it came from a slaughtered cow.
How does the Australian religious community view Rabbi Rabi? A website called J-Wire reports as follows: “Rabbi Meir Rabi took over the reins of authorising foodstuffs from Rabbi Shlomo Rudszki, a former chief minister at Melbourne’s South Caulfield Hebrew Congregation. However, many members of the community do not recognise his Kosher VeYosher certifications and the dominant Kosher Authority has told J-Wire that whilst they are still checking Nestlés and Peters ice cream products, there has been no decision made and they state that the products classified as kosher by Rabbi Rabi are yet to pass their tests.”
Rabbi Rabi’s website, kosherveyosher.com, lists an approbation from the London Beis Din. However, when the London Beis Din was contacted for verification, the following reply was received:
“Dayan Abraham has asked me to send you a copy of a letter which he sent to Rabbi Rabi, over a year ago. In the light of this letter, he regards Rabbi Rabi’s continued use of his letter of recommendation to be dishonest.
“Regards, David Frei, Registrar, London Beth Din.”
When speaking to the London Beis Din representative, this author was told that the dayan of the London Beis Din felt that Rabbi Rabi was undermining kashrus in Australia by his private hechsher and had requested—actually demanded—that he remove the letter back in 2007, in 2010, and again in November 2014. Rabbi Rabi completely ignored it.
Response From Company And Mashgiach
The author contacted the managing director of the company, Stephen Bloch, as well as the rabbi, Rabbi Meir Rabi, and the following exchange took place:
5TJT: Where is this ben pekuah operation happening?
A: In Australia. Original shechitah is performed in a private location. They have opted to set up a private location where all the equipment is required, built according to Dr. Temple Grandin.
5TJT: Has she been at the site?
A: No, she has not been. We have an independent auditor that monitors the process.
5TJT: Are the owners, or the majority shareholders, religious Jews?
A: Some are. Some are not. But why should that make a difference?
5TJT: Because some people, particularly in New York, only purchase meat items from Sabbath-observing Jews. They would not eat from a place where the unobservant owner of the establishment might have possible control over things.
A: We understand and appreciate that. And there have been numerous problems in kashrus even with such a system with shomer Shabbos owners. We, however, have a system in place that ensures the absolute integrity of the meat. On our website, we have the auditor’s report and a foolproof system in place. The auditor monitors everything and we even use DNA tracking to ensure that it is only this meat that is being used.
5TJT: Is the auditor is an observant Jew?
A: No. He is not. But it is a guaranteed system. And creates a mirsas.
5TJT:Mirsas is a halachic tool that works regarding other foods, but it is not an effective halachic tool in regard to meat. Is there a posek that has signed off on this idea that a gentile auditor is equivalent to a mashgiach?
A: We do not use it as a mashgiach. It is no different than the simanim that all hashgachos use. I have in my possession the identifying material, plumbas stickers of hechsherim, of numerous hashgachos that were just left at the place and they never bothered to pick them up. Our integrity, our system, will inspire much more confidence.
5TJT: I, too, have such a collection—from the top hechsherim as well. But let’s get back to this concept. Let’s assume even, for the sake of argument, that your system is one hundred times better than a regular hechsher. But do you have a posek, other than yourself, that has signed off on this idea that a goyish auditing firm can be acting in the role as mashgiach in your foolproof system? Do you have a gadol or posek that has seen this system and has approved of this system where the hashgachah is overseen by a gentile auditor?
A: We do. I have to speak to him about whether I can use his name.
5TJT: OK. I have two more topics to bring up.
[The next phase of the conversation was a debate as to the reading of the Meshech Chochmah mentioned above. Rabbi Rabi claimed that the Meshech Chochmah must hold that it is pareve because otherwise the rabbinic prohibition of using ben pekuah milk would have kicked in. The author responded that if he held that it was pareve, he would have said that, and one cannot build an entire edifice based upon a question, and that there are numerous answers to that question. Perhaps there was no prohibition of maras ayin in the time of Avraham Avinu because there were no other Jews—and that is just one possible answer.]
5TJT: I had contacted the London Beis Din and they said that they have repeatedly asked you to take down their letter on your hechsher’s website, and yet you refuse to do that. Don’t you feel that you are morally obligated to comply with their request?
A (Rabbi Rabi): Well, it depends on why they are requesting that they take it down.
5TJT: Let’s assume the worst possible reason, for the sake of argument. Let’s assume that your competitors in the field of kashrus had actually gone as far as bribing the London Beis Din to get them to ask you to take it down. Don’t you feel a moral obligation to take down the letter?
A: No, I do not.
5TJT: I think that this is a serious error on your part, in terms of public relations.
A (Stephen Bloch): This actually has nothing to do with us; it is not on the ben pekuah site—it is on the rabbi’s own website.
5TJT: Still, it does reflect on your company as well, as long as he is your endorsing rabbi.
A (Rabbi Rabi): I responded to the dayan of the London Beis Din and said that I would be willing to take down the letter if he would provide the same letter to me on his own letterhead rather than that of the London Beis Din.
5TJT: Still, if I were you, I would comply as soon as possible with the request of the London Beis Din and not use a letter that they do not wish you to use.
• • •
Subsequent to this conversation, Rabbi Meir Rabi sent some written communications allegedly from Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita, that purport to show that Rav Chaim holds that ben pekuah meat is pareve. This author has sent inquiries to Rav Chaim to verify the accuracy of this, as well as to Rav Shternbuch. We will print it in the future as soon as we receive the information.
There is also a letter that was signed by gedolim in Eretz Yisrael against the commercial production of ben pekuah meat because of numerous problems associated with it. The problems are that milk from a ben pekuah cow is forbidden mi’d’rabbanan; it will lead to leniencies in other shechitah; and it is virtually impossible to have adequate supervision. The letter is signed by Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, Rav Nissim Karelitz, and others as well.
The author can be reached at Yairhoffman2@gmail.com.