The High Court of Justice ordered the State of Israel last week to explain, within 45 days, why the process involved in making a goose liver dish has been excluded from the Cruelty to Animals Law. The process involves holding geese in tight pens and force-feeding them extreme quantities of food via a tube inserted into their throats. The animal’s liver swells to up to eight times its natural size, thus producing the desired effect for the gourmet goose dish. An Agriculture Ministry handbook says such geese “breathe heavily, have pale beaks, have difficulty walking even to the drinking trough, and are no longer able to digest food.” Similar processes have been outlawed in the United States, England, Sweden and other countries.
The petitioner, The Israeli Union for the Protection of Animals, which serves as the umbrella organization for Israel\'s animal rights groups, says that the regulation permitting the practice directly contradicts the Cruelty to Animals law itself. Atty. Ehud Peleg, speaking with Arutz-7 today, said that this practice is an egregious distortion of what he hopes is the Israeli public\'s desire to produce an ethical society.
Arutz-7\'s Yaakov Klein asked Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, chief rabbi of the Shomron town of Har Brachah, for the Torah view of the force-feeding of geese, in light of the fact that the Israeli law is named after and is based on the Torah ban on causing undue suffering to animals. Rabbi Melamed stated that although he is not familiar with the specific case at hand, \"Jewish Law prohibits causing undue suffering to animals for a small benefit to humans, but allows a small amount of suffering. [The challenge is] to draw this line.\" The rabbi pointed out that Jewish law allows the use of pack-animals, for instance, because of the relatively light amount of suffering they undergo, while the forced feeding of calves in order to increase the value of the veal produced is prohibited (as ruled by the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein). Asked why a Jewish legal ruling is not issued today to forbid goose liver products produced in this manner, Rabbi Melamed said, \"Unfortunately, the petitioners turned to the Supreme Court and not to the rabbis... I fear that the Court\'s decision will not exactly be based on Jewish law... I do not know the facts in this case; the animal rights\' organizations have a tendency to exaggerate, [although what you have described] does not seem quite just...\"
The petitioner, The Israeli Union for the Protection of Animals, which serves as the umbrella organization for Israel\'s animal rights groups, says that the regulation permitting the practice directly contradicts the Cruelty to Animals law itself. Atty. Ehud Peleg, speaking with Arutz-7 today, said that this practice is an egregious distortion of what he hopes is the Israeli public\'s desire to produce an ethical society.
Arutz-7\'s Yaakov Klein asked Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, chief rabbi of the Shomron town of Har Brachah, for the Torah view of the force-feeding of geese, in light of the fact that the Israeli law is named after and is based on the Torah ban on causing undue suffering to animals. Rabbi Melamed stated that although he is not familiar with the specific case at hand, \"Jewish Law prohibits causing undue suffering to animals for a small benefit to humans, but allows a small amount of suffering. [The challenge is] to draw this line.\" The rabbi pointed out that Jewish law allows the use of pack-animals, for instance, because of the relatively light amount of suffering they undergo, while the forced feeding of calves in order to increase the value of the veal produced is prohibited (as ruled by the late Rabbi Moshe Feinstein). Asked why a Jewish legal ruling is not issued today to forbid goose liver products produced in this manner, Rabbi Melamed said, \"Unfortunately, the petitioners turned to the Supreme Court and not to the rabbis... I fear that the Court\'s decision will not exactly be based on Jewish law... I do not know the facts in this case; the animal rights\' organizations have a tendency to exaggerate, [although what you have described] does not seem quite just...\"