The nature of the relationship between man and animal
(כט) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּה֩ נָתַ֨תִּי לָכֶ֜ם אֶת־כָּל־עֵ֣שֶׂב ׀ זֹרֵ֣עַ זֶ֗רַע אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י כָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶת־כָּל־הָעֵ֛ץ אֲשֶׁר־בּ֥וֹ פְרִי־עֵ֖ץ זֹרֵ֣עַ זָ֑רַע לָכֶ֥ם יִֽהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָֽה׃ (ל) וּֽלְכָל־חַיַּ֣ת הָ֠אָרֶץ וּלְכָל־ע֨וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֜יִם וּלְכֹ֣ל ׀ רוֹמֵ֣שׂ עַל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֔ה אֶת־כָּל־יֶ֥רֶק עֵ֖שֶׂב לְאָכְלָ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃
(29) God said, “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food. (30) And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, [I give] all the green plants for food.” And it was so.
(א) לכם יהיה לאכלה ולכל חית הארץ. הִשְׁוָה לָהֶם בְּהֵמוֹת וְחַיּוֹת לְמַאֲכָל, וְלֹא הִרְשָׁה לְאָדָם וּלְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְהָמִית בְּרִיָּה וְלֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר, אַךְ כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב יֹאכְלוּ יַחַד כֻּלָם, וּכְשֶׁבָּאוּ בְנֵי נֹחַ הִתִּיר לָהֶם בָּשָׂר, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי וְגוֹ' כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב שֶׁהִתַּרְתִּי לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל:
(1) ולכל חית הארץ AND TO EVERY BEAST OF THE EARTH — Scripture places cattle and beasts on a level with them (human beings: that is, it places all alike in the same category) with regard to food, and did not permit Adam to kill any creature and eat its flesh, but all alike were to eat herbs. But when the era of the “Sons of Noah” began He permitted them to eat meat, for it is said, (Genesis 9:3) “every moving thing that lives should be for food for yourselves … “even as the herb” that I permitted to the first man, so do “I give to you everything” (Sanhedrin 59b).
(ג) כָּל־רֶ֙מֶשׂ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוּא־חַ֔י לָכֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָ֑ה כְּיֶ֣רֶק עֵ֔שֶׂב נָתַ֥תִּי לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־כֹּֽל׃ (ד) אַךְ־בָּשָׂ֕ר בְּנַפְשׁ֥וֹ דָמ֖וֹ לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽלוּ׃
(3) Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you all these. (4) You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.
(א) בשר בנפשו. אָסַר לָהֶם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, כְּלוֹמַר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ בּוֹ, לֹא תֹאכְלוּ הַבָּשָׂר:
(1) בשר בנפשו — He here prohibited to them אבר מן החי the eating of a limb cut from a living animal, that is to say that בשר בנפשו (literally, flesh together with its life) means so long as its life is in it you shall not eat the flesh.
נתתי לכם את כל. מאחר שניצלו בתיבה שעשיתם ועל ידכם באה להם הצלה הרי הם בידכם לעשות להם כטוב בעיניכם.
נתתי לכם את כל, “I have allocated it all to you in a similar manner.” The reason why G-d permitted eating living creatures after they had been killed, was that all of them had to thank man for having kept them from perishing during the deluge. As a result, all the animals were now totally at the mercy of man.
(כו) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
(26) And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.”
The Source for צער בעלי חיים
(ה) כִּֽי־תִרְאֶ֞ה חֲמ֣וֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ֗ רֹבֵץ֙ תַּ֣חַת מַשָּׂא֔וֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ֖ מֵעֲזֹ֣ב ל֑וֹ עָזֹ֥ב תַּעֲזֹ֖ב עִמּֽוֹ׃ (ס)
(5) When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden and would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him.
מאי טעמייהו דרבנן דאי ס"ד כר"ש לכתוב רחמנא טעינה ולא בעי פריקה ואנא אמינא ומה טעינה דלית בה צער בעלי חיים וליכא חסרון כיס חייב פריקה דאית בה צער בעלי חיים וחסרון כיס לא כל שכן אלא למאי הלכתא כתביה רחמנא לומר לך פריקה בחנם טעינה בשכר
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis that there is a distinction between unloading and loading with regard to remuneration? The reason is that if it enters your mind that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let the Merciful One write only the mitzva of loading, and then He would need not write the mitzva of unloading, and I would say: Just as with regard to loading, where there is no potential suffering of animals and there is no potential monetary loss for the owner, one is obligated to load the burden, with regard to unloading, where there is potential suffering of animals and there is potential monetary loss for the owner, is it not all the more so clear that one is required to unload the burden? Rather, with regard to what halakha did the Merciful One write the mitzva of unloading? It is to tell you: The mitzva of unloading the burden is performed for free, but the mitzva of loading is performed with remuneration.
אמר רבא מדברי שניהם נלמד צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא ואפי' ר"ש לא קאמר אלא משום דלא מסיימי קראי אבל מסיימי קראי דרשי' ק"ו משום מאי לאו משום צער בעלי חיים דרשינן
Rava says: From the statements of both of these tanna’im it can be learned that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law. As even Rabbi Shimon says that he disagreed with the opinion of the Rabbis only because the verses are not clearly defined; but had the verses been clearly defined, we would have learned the same a fortiori inference. Due to what factor can that inference be learned? What, is it not due to the matter of suffering of animals, which is a factor in unloading and not a factor in loading, that we would have learned the a fortiori inference?
Does Tzaar Baaeli Chayim apply for human need or benefit?
מדברי שניהם נלמד צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא - וא"ת א"כ אמאי עוקרים על המלכים ולא מדרכי האמורי (ע"ז דף יא.) וי"ל משום דכבוד מלך ונשיא עדיף כמו בל תשחית דנדחה מפני כבודם
From these statements we learned prevent animal suffering is required by Torah- if you want to say why do we detach [tendons of animals] upon [death] of Kings and not [subject to prohibition] to the ways of the Amorites (Avodah Zara 11a) and some say because of the honor of the king and leader it is preferable like prohibition against destroying that we push off because of their honor
כל דבר הצריך לרפואה או לשאר דברים לית ביה משום איסור צער בעלי חיים (א"ו הארוך סימן נ"ט) ולכן מותר למרוט נוצות מאוזות חיות וליכא למיחש משום צער בעלי חיים (מהרא"י סי' ק"ה) ומ"מ העולם נמנעים דהוי אכזריות:
Any [action] needed for healing or other reasons, there is no prohibition of "causing pain to animals" (Issur V'Heter Extended 59). And therefore it is permitted to pluck the feathers of wild geese, and there is no potential problem of "causing pain to animals" (Mahar"i 105). Nevertheless, the world withholds from it because of its cruelty.
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III Part II, Chapter IX Animal Experimentation, 55
A somewhat modified position is espoused by R. Joseph Teumim, Pri Megadim, Oraḥ Hayyim, Mishbezot Zahav 468:2. Pri Megadim reports that his advice was sought by an individual who maintained exotic birds in his garden and was fearful that they might take flight. The interlocutor sought a ruling with regard to the propriety of breaking "a small bone in their wings" in order to render them incapable of flight and prevent financial loss to their keeper. Pri Megadim's response was negative for, in his opinion, "za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim, other than in case of great need, is forbidden." Apparently, Pri Megadim distinguishes between ordinary "need" or "benefit" and "great need" and sanctions za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim only in the latter situation. In a similar vein, Teshuvot Avodat ha-Gershuni, no. 13, quotes a certain R. Tevel the Physician as declaring that za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim cannot be sanctioned for purposes of realizing "a small profit."
A somewhat modified position is espoused by R. Joseph Teumim, Pri Megadim, Oraḥ Hayyim, Mishbezot Zahav 468:2. Pri Megadim reports that his advice was sought by an individual who maintained exotic birds in his garden and was fearful that they might take flight. The interlocutor sought a ruling with regard to the propriety of breaking "a small bone in their wings" in order to render them incapable of flight and prevent financial loss to their keeper. Pri Megadim's response was negative for, in his opinion, "za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim, other than in case of great need, is forbidden." Apparently, Pri Megadim distinguishes between ordinary "need" or "benefit" and "great need" and sanctions za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim only in the latter situation. In a similar vein, Teshuvot Avodat ha-Gershuni, no. 13, quotes a certain R. Tevel the Physician as declaring that za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim cannot be sanctioned for purposes of realizing "a small profit."
Is hunting permitted?
Rabbi Landau begins by saying that recreational hunting would not be prohibited because of concern for צער בעלי חיים (causing pain to animals) because "there is no prohibition of צער בעלי חיים in case of human need." He cites Tosafot (בבא מציעא לב: ד"ה מדברי) as a source for this principle and the Rema (אבן העזר ה:יד) accordingly rules that "the prohibition of צער בעלי חיים does not apply in case of human health needs or other human needs." Rabbi Landau believes that since hunting serves a purpose of recreation it does not violate the צער בעלי חיים interdict. Moreover, he adds that only torturing a creature is prohibited but putting an animal to death is permitted.
Translation from Ohr Somayach:
Who are the hunters mentioned in the Torah?”, he asks rhetorically. Nimrod and Esav, the two individuals identified as hunters, were also the personification of rebellion against Heaven and cruelty towards man.
After stating these reasons based on mussar (ethics) the author issues his ruling that hunting is forbidden because of the risk it presents to the hunter. ("Just as the hunter is out to kill his prey, the animal is out to kill the hunter.") If someone hunts for his livelihood he is permitted to expose himself to this level of risk just as the Torah permitted one to climb high fruit trees, cross oceans and travel deserts for his livelihood despite the fact that each of these carries with it a degree of risk. But if hunting is done simply as a form of sport one is guilty of exposing himself unnecessarily to such a degree of risk, and therefore violates the Torah command to guard against danger to life, a sin that makes his situation even more precarious.
Who are the hunters mentioned in the Torah?”, he asks rhetorically. Nimrod and Esav, the two individuals identified as hunters, were also the personification of rebellion against Heaven and cruelty towards man.
After stating these reasons based on mussar (ethics) the author issues his ruling that hunting is forbidden because of the risk it presents to the hunter. ("Just as the hunter is out to kill his prey, the animal is out to kill the hunter.") If someone hunts for his livelihood he is permitted to expose himself to this level of risk just as the Torah permitted one to climb high fruit trees, cross oceans and travel deserts for his livelihood despite the fact that each of these carries with it a degree of risk. But if hunting is done simply as a form of sport one is guilty of exposing himself unnecessarily to such a degree of risk, and therefore violates the Torah command to guard against danger to life, a sin that makes his situation even more precarious.
Rambam, Guide of the Perplexed, Book III, chapter 17
… Divine Providence extends to every man individually. But the condition of the individual beings of other living creatures is undoubtedly the same as has been stated by Aristotle. On that account it is allowed, even commanded, to kill animals; we are permitted to use them according to our pleasure…. There is a rule laid down by our Sages that it is directly prohibited in the Torah to cause pain to an animal based on the words: "Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass?" (Numbers 22:32). But the object of this rule is to make us perfect; that we should not assume cruel habits; and that we should not uselessly cause pain to others; that, on the contrary, we should be prepared to show pity and mercy to all living creatures, except when necessity demands the contrary: "When thy soul longeth to eat flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:20). We should not kill animals for the purpose of practicing cruelty or for the purpose of sport.29
… Divine Providence extends to every man individually. But the condition of the individual beings of other living creatures is undoubtedly the same as has been stated by Aristotle. On that account it is allowed, even commanded, to kill animals; we are permitted to use them according to our pleasure…. There is a rule laid down by our Sages that it is directly prohibited in the Torah to cause pain to an animal based on the words: "Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass?" (Numbers 22:32). But the object of this rule is to make us perfect; that we should not assume cruel habits; and that we should not uselessly cause pain to others; that, on the contrary, we should be prepared to show pity and mercy to all living creatures, except when necessity demands the contrary: "When thy soul longeth to eat flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:20). We should not kill animals for the purpose of practicing cruelty or for the purpose of sport.29
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III Part II, Chapter IX Animal Experimentation by Rabbi J. David Bleich
Jewish law clearly forbids any act which causes pain or discomfort to an animal unless such act is designed to satisfy a legitimate human need. All authorities agree that hunting as a sport is forbidden. Although many authorities maintain that it is not forbidden to engage in activities which cause pain to animals in situations in which such practices yield financial benefits, there is significant authority for the position that animal pain may be sanctioned only for medical purposes, including direct therapeutic benefit, medical experimentation of potential therapeutic value and the training of medical personnel.7
Jewish law clearly forbids any act which causes pain or discomfort to an animal unless such act is designed to satisfy a legitimate human need. All authorities agree that hunting as a sport is forbidden. Although many authorities maintain that it is not forbidden to engage in activities which cause pain to animals in situations in which such practices yield financial benefits, there is significant authority for the position that animal pain may be sanctioned only for medical purposes, including direct therapeutic benefit, medical experimentation of potential therapeutic value and the training of medical personnel.7
Is eating Veal halakhichly problematic?
Igg’rot Moshe, Even Haezer 4:92
in regard to young calf not long ago that they are fattened that every calf is in its own pen, which is so narrow that it does not have space even to take a few steps, and the calves are not fed the appropriate food for them, and have never tasted their mother’s milk, but they are fattened with very fatty liquids that animals do not benefit from this
for those who do this that this is certainly forbidden on the basis of tzaar baalei hayim. Even though it is permissible [to cause pain to animals] in order to satisfy human needs, by slaughtering animals for food, or by employing animals to plow, to carry burdens or other such things, it is not permissible otherwise to cause them suffering, even when one comforted by it. For example, if a non-jew wants to kill or injure an animal that is angry at him it is for sure forbidden. Even if, he were to be paid for this evil act that it comforts him and permits him to eat it even for others even for non-jews.
Similarly, one can feed them things [despite being less than ideal food, causing discomfort (added by the translator)] if it improves the flavor of the meat, or to fatten the meat such that people who eat it will enjoy it more than if you fed it hay. However, [in the case of veal] not so when the purpose is to cheat and mislead people that they be fed something that is no better and just to cheat them since they will see the meat is whiter and not the usual red and they will mistakenly think that the meat is better for health and more enjoyable and they will pay more for it
Ḥakirah, the Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought
Rav Moshe actually forbids the veal in particular less because of inhumane animal treatment, but because of ona'ah, price gouging and misleading people. However, if people knew that there was no difference in quality he states, it might be possible to permit this if they informed customers that this meat was no better in quality, just prettier and that customers might prefer a prettier meat.
Has Treatment of Kosher Animals Improved?
Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler revisits the question of Kosher Veal
Since then, Rav Tendler, Shlit”a, and many of his and Rav Moshe’s Talmidim, have abstained from eating veal due to his shver’s psak which was largely based on his research.
In the ensuing 30+ years through social activism and legislation the veal industry has dramatically changed the way it raises calves. Today, in many cases calves are nursed by their mother after birth (which also addresses the issue of Nisgadel al yedei Issurei Hana’ah), live in clean, group housing, often are fed grain when they get old enough, in addition to formula, and in general are much healthier the in the past. These changes are not yet universal but by 2017 the American Veal Association has committed that they will be an industry standard across the board.
Rabbi Dr. Tendler has been considering for a while whether the issues raised in the 80’s were still relevant, and wanted to see this with his own eyes.
Rabbi Dr. Tendler was impressed with the health of the animals and the STAR-K Kashrus requirements. The fact that the calves nurse from their mothers after birth, are group housed instead of caged and in many cases eat grain as they get older, are very different than the veal of the past, he explained. He said that if these changes could be confirmed industry-wide the issues that drove Rav Moshe’s Psak may possibly be alleviated.
When he discussed the STAR-K kashrus standards in the plant with the owners David, Michael, Danny and Alan Bierig he said that in his opinion they exceeded all of his Kashrus expectations.
source: https://www.star-k.org/articles/news/3296/rabbi-dr-moshe-tendler-revisits-the-question-of-kosher-veal/
In the ensuing 30+ years through social activism and legislation the veal industry has dramatically changed the way it raises calves. Today, in many cases calves are nursed by their mother after birth (which also addresses the issue of Nisgadel al yedei Issurei Hana’ah), live in clean, group housing, often are fed grain when they get old enough, in addition to formula, and in general are much healthier the in the past. These changes are not yet universal but by 2017 the American Veal Association has committed that they will be an industry standard across the board.
Rabbi Dr. Tendler has been considering for a while whether the issues raised in the 80’s were still relevant, and wanted to see this with his own eyes.
Rabbi Dr. Tendler was impressed with the health of the animals and the STAR-K Kashrus requirements. The fact that the calves nurse from their mothers after birth, are group housed instead of caged and in many cases eat grain as they get older, are very different than the veal of the past, he explained. He said that if these changes could be confirmed industry-wide the issues that drove Rav Moshe’s Psak may possibly be alleviated.
When he discussed the STAR-K kashrus standards in the plant with the owners David, Michael, Danny and Alan Bierig he said that in his opinion they exceeded all of his Kashrus expectations.
source: https://www.star-k.org/articles/news/3296/rabbi-dr-moshe-tendler-revisits-the-question-of-kosher-veal/
OU Bans Shackle and Hoist Slaughter
JTA — The Orthodox Union has told its approved beef purveyors in South America to stop using a controversial slaughter method.
The OU, which is the largest kosher certifying agency in the United States, sent a letter to its meat purveyors in June notifying them that it would no longer accept meat slaughtered using the “shackle and hoist” method, said Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO of the organization’s kashrut division.
The letter came after Israel decided to ban the import of any meat slaughtered using the method, in which the animal is pulled into the air by its legs and then flipped onto the ground before being slaughtered. Critics of the method, which is commonly used in South America but not permitted in Israel, say it puts unnecessary stress on the animal and is inhumane.
Israel’s agriculture department banned the method for imported meat last year and gave slaughterhouses, many of which also produce kosher meat sold to the US, until June 1, 2018, to comply. The Israeli policy said that slaughterhouses had to install rotating pens to turn the animal upside down, which is seen as more humane than using shackle and hoist.
JTA — The Orthodox Union has told its approved beef purveyors in South America to stop using a controversial slaughter method.
The OU, which is the largest kosher certifying agency in the United States, sent a letter to its meat purveyors in June notifying them that it would no longer accept meat slaughtered using the “shackle and hoist” method, said Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO of the organization’s kashrut division.
The letter came after Israel decided to ban the import of any meat slaughtered using the method, in which the animal is pulled into the air by its legs and then flipped onto the ground before being slaughtered. Critics of the method, which is commonly used in South America but not permitted in Israel, say it puts unnecessary stress on the animal and is inhumane.
Israel’s agriculture department banned the method for imported meat last year and gave slaughterhouses, many of which also produce kosher meat sold to the US, until June 1, 2018, to comply. The Israeli policy said that slaughterhouses had to install rotating pens to turn the animal upside down, which is seen as more humane than using shackle and hoist.
Is any meat today kosher? By Rabbi David Rosen (Senior Rabbi in South Africa)
Most cows for slaughter are kept and transported in severely restricted confines and their horns are cut or burnt off without any anesthetic to prevent them damaging one another in such confined areas. They are pumped with hormones and antibiotics that change their physiology and restrict their natural functioning.
One should also note that these hormones and antibiotics are retained in the flesh consumed by humans, with many negative consequences.
The situation is even worse for dairy cows. In order to induce maximal lactation which produces litres of milk for human consumption, calves are immediately taken away from their mothers (in direct contravention of the Biblical prohibition, Leviticus 22:27); and the hormones pumped into them enlarge their udders to such an extent that dairy cows are often incapable of walking.
It should be evident to anyone with eyes in his or her head that virtually all animal products on the market today are the result of practices that categorically contravene Jewish law and ethics. And even if eating these products is considered a halachic obligation (which is not the case), under these conditions it would be a mitzvah habaah baveirah, the product of illegitimate means which disqualifies the ends.
It should be clear that the rationales of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Hayim David Halevi are not just relevant today to foie gras and veal, but apply across the livestock/animal food production industries.
Some of it is due to ignorance, but most of all these facts are uncomfortable and it is much easier to avoid or deny them. But might it not also have to do with the fact that the kosher food industry, and all the rabbinic supervision and authorization inextricably bound up with it, constitutes an enormous industry relating to the livelihoods, interests and power of myriads of people? One wonders whether it is even possible to stop the train of this enormous immoral enterprise where both legitimate and not so legitimate interests are so inextricably intertwined.
responsible rabbinic leadership should be advocating a plant based diet as much as possible, as the most kosher diet available for most people today.
Most cows for slaughter are kept and transported in severely restricted confines and their horns are cut or burnt off without any anesthetic to prevent them damaging one another in such confined areas. They are pumped with hormones and antibiotics that change their physiology and restrict their natural functioning.
One should also note that these hormones and antibiotics are retained in the flesh consumed by humans, with many negative consequences.
The situation is even worse for dairy cows. In order to induce maximal lactation which produces litres of milk for human consumption, calves are immediately taken away from their mothers (in direct contravention of the Biblical prohibition, Leviticus 22:27); and the hormones pumped into them enlarge their udders to such an extent that dairy cows are often incapable of walking.
It should be evident to anyone with eyes in his or her head that virtually all animal products on the market today are the result of practices that categorically contravene Jewish law and ethics. And even if eating these products is considered a halachic obligation (which is not the case), under these conditions it would be a mitzvah habaah baveirah, the product of illegitimate means which disqualifies the ends.
It should be clear that the rationales of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Hayim David Halevi are not just relevant today to foie gras and veal, but apply across the livestock/animal food production industries.
Some of it is due to ignorance, but most of all these facts are uncomfortable and it is much easier to avoid or deny them. But might it not also have to do with the fact that the kosher food industry, and all the rabbinic supervision and authorization inextricably bound up with it, constitutes an enormous industry relating to the livelihoods, interests and power of myriads of people? One wonders whether it is even possible to stop the train of this enormous immoral enterprise where both legitimate and not so legitimate interests are so inextricably intertwined.
responsible rabbinic leadership should be advocating a plant based diet as much as possible, as the most kosher diet available for most people today.