Rubashkin Press Release

Under the headline "Israel's Chief Rabbinate, Orthodox Union Refute Charges Against Agriprocessors," Rubashkin has issued a long press release claiming vindication from the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and the OU. However, the statements of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate as quoted by by Rubashkin refer to the kosher status of the slaughter itself, not to the surrounding issues of animal welfare (tzaar baalei hayyim). It should be noted that the violation of tzaar baalei hayyim is a quite serious infraction in Jewish law, and a system of slaughter that mandates unnecessary animal suffering – as Rubashkin's does – should be forbidden.

In Jewish law, the ends do not justify the means, and a technically correct shechita that regularly involves tzaar baalei hayyim both immediately before and immediately after the ritual slaughterer makes his cut should not be sold as kosher.

That Rubashkin, the OU, and the other kosher supervising agencies working at the Rubashkin slaughterhouse are misrepresnting this issue should give the kosher consumer pause.

Kosher consumers, ask yourselves the following question: Can rabbis who disregard the laws of tzaar baalei hayyim/cruelty to animals be trusted for kosher supervision?

Comments

[inquiring mind]

And your halachic proof for these psakim of yours would be what, exactly?

[Lumpy Rutherford]

The מנחת חינוך says that צר בחינם is אסור. He also says that that issues related to צר בע"ח are addressed with the requirement that שחיטה is performed on the neck of the animal and the fact that the knife is inspected after the cutting. צר בע"ח doesn't enter the picture after שחיטה.

[Shmarya]

Tzaar baalei hayyim is an issur d'orita.

Ripping the throat of an animal five seconds after shechita "to speed bleeding" is tzaar baalei hayyim – the feels this and his suffering is prolonged, not shortened. It is also unnecessary, and is not done in Canada, Australia, England, Israel, or anywhere else in the US. Regularly using electric shock prods to move the animals before shechita is also unnecessary and is not done elsewhere.

Rubashkin's system **mandates** gratuitous violations of tzaar baalei hayyim. So, what we have is a pesik reisha. Aveirot - sins - **must** be done in order to shecht the animal. Bedieved, after the fact, the meat may be kosher. Lechatchila, as an established way of doing things, the meat can **not** be kosher.

If you steal a pair of tefillin and then wear them, have you fulfilled the mitzvah of tefillin? If you **always** steal in order to wear tefillin, does that wearing count as a mitzvah?

In our case, the entire Jewish community has been 'stealing tefillin' everytime we ate Rubashkin meat. We just didn't realize it.

But the rabbis charged with the responsibility of oversight **did** realize it, but did nothing about it.

Why?

Either ignorance of the Halakha (Jewish law), or simple reishut – evil.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>Tzaar baalei hayyim is an issur d'orita.

No as I've explained before, it's an open Talmudic debate whether it's an issur d'orita or d'rabbanan. The debate ends as a Taiku.

The permissibility of eating meat is however clearly d'orita.

Tzaar baalei hayyim does not apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered dead (not a baal hayyim).

Please don't confuse this important issue by making inaccurate statements.

This is a processing issue, I applaud your efforts here. I agree with you except on your claims that the meat in question is clearly treifut. Based on the PETA video and the information available at this point that is not the case.

If you believe I am wrong, then produce Halachic experts and actual psaks that say this schita is clearly treifut and what the consequences to all of us who have used such meat with our kailim.

Yes, I making this challenge to you here, again.

[Inquiring Mind]

So, you're saying that the animal's suffering is prolonged by a process that speeds the dying process?

And, given that you believe that the system in South America is even more inhumane, you're saying that all Rabbonim are either evil or ignorant (even the greatest poskim)?

Wow.

Ya know, this should serve as some comfort to the Chabadniks who dislike your feeelings about the Rebbe. It's not just the Lubavitcher Rebbe that you feel you can second guess and be holier than thou, but all other Rabbis in the world as well.

Gee. I don't know you, but you're either one of the greatest Rabbbinical minds in the world (with thousands of sophisticated teshuvos under your belt) or you're incredibly ignorant and arrogant.

I don't want to use the word for it, but there's a certain term that the gemara uses to refer to those who publicly disparage Rabbonim. Since you're such a great poseik, I wonder what your psak is as to whether the shechitta of someone with that particular status would be kosher.

I look forward to seeing some real sources, not just your own sevoras.

[jewishwhistleblower]

I want to emphasize that Judaism debated and took action on the issues of tzaar baalei hayyim centuries ago before many of the present day Johnny come lately types.

Despite the fact that the schita may technically not be treifut and not a clear violation of tzaar baalei hayyim, does not prevent us from establishing and accepting the processing changes recommended by PETA. None in my view create any Halachic problems or undue financial burdens.

Whether tzaar baalei hayyim is a issur d'orita or d'rabbanan it clearly is an issur.

[Shmarya]

"So, you're saying that the animal's suffering is prolonged by a process that speeds the dying process?"

It speeds the animals bleeding process, but the pain caused by the throat-ripping makes the animal remain sensate for a longer time. This has been noted by Dr. Grandin and others.

[Shmarya]

As for the tzaar baalei hayyim issues,

1. Before shechita there are abuses including heavy unnecessary usage of electric shock prods. Address this, please.

2. The animal remains sensate after shechita for a period of time. If the throat is ripped during that time period, the animal feels it and the pain caused by the throat-ripping **prolongs** its suffering by extending the period the animal is sensate. Address this, please.

[Lumpy Rutherford]

Does any one have a source, grounded in הלכה, that says that צר בע"ח is an איסור after שחיטה?

[jewishwhistleblower]

Your whole basis for your kashrut/treifut arguments are:

1) Tzaar baalei hayyim is an issur d'orita.
2) An animal is alive for a period of time after schita (the single cut of the blade).

I continue to challenge you for actual Halachic sources or written psaks on this.

Again:
1) No, as I've explained before, it's an open Talmudic debate whether it's an issur d'orita or d'rabbanan. The debate ends as a Taiku.

The permissibility of eating meat is however clearly d'orita.

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does not apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered dead (not a baal hayyim).

[Shmarya]

"2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does not apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered dead (not a baal hayyim)."

According to the rabbonim I have spoken with, death occurs after a period of time, usually about 20 seconds after the cut. Your understanding of death in this case, along with your understanding of tzaar baalei hayyim, is simply an incorrect understanding of Halakha and is predicated on ignoring the facts of the case. On top of that, your practical understanding of today's shechita process is flawed. Further, you fail to address the tzaar balei hayyim issues immediately **before** shechita.

[Shmarya]

Who holds that death takes time?

1. Rabbi Yisroel Belsky of the OU and Yeshivas Torah Vadaas.

2. Rabbi Shear-Yashuv Cohen, Chief Rabbi of Haifa and member of the Chief Rabbinate's select Kashrut Committee.

3. Rabbi Raful, the Israeli Rabbinate's head of shechita.

4. Rabbi Menachem Genack of the OU – but only after I pinned him down.

5. Shechita UK, the PR body of British Orthodoxy set up specifically to deal with shechita issues.

[jewishwhistleblower]

1) You've again ignored.
2) You've again mistaken opinion/science for Halacha/psak. I'm not asking about meanigless scientific term like life/death. To clarify:

Please provide a psak/halachic basis that an animal is a baal chayim after schita (the single cut of the blade). If so for how long?

>Further, you fail to address the tzaar balei >hayyim issues immediately **before** shechita.

You're the one claiming the schita is clearly teifut. You provide the psaks to meet the claim. If there is clearly tzaar balei hayyim occuring before schita:

1) Where is your psak saying that?
2) Where is your psak that as a result all schita is clearly treifut (your unbacked assertion)?

Until you've produced such information what can I really comment on or address?

Unless there is further information beyond the PETA video and what you've posted, your assertion that the schita is clearly treifut is not suppotable.

I continue to support what you're doing here, but techniclly at this point it still is a serious processing issue NOT a kashrut issue (at least with the currently available information).

[jewishwhistleblower]

>Your understanding of death in this case,
>along with your understanding of tzaar baalei
>hayyim, is simply an incorrect understanding
>of alakha and is predicated on ignoring the
>facts of the case. On top of that, your
>practical understanding of today's shechita
>process is flawed. Further, you fail to address
>the tzaar balei hayyim issues immediately
>**before** shechita.

Maybe you should be less concerned with my "understanding" and adding issues to this argument thread and more concerned with clearly addressing what I've raised (2 specific points).

Attacking me doesn't strengthen your arguments.

If I'm wrong show me.

A continuing challenge ...

[Lumpy Rutherford]

I'm still looking for a source, grounded in הלכה, that says that צר בע"ח is an איסור אחר שחיטה.

[Shmarya]

Your contention is as follows:

A. Even though the animals were sensate when the throat-ripping was done, no tzaar baalei hayyim is involved.

B. You base that on the assertion that the animal is "Halakhicly" dead for Jews with regard to eiver min ha hai at shechita.

You fail to understand that #2 does not necessarily apply to throat-ripping while the animal is still sensate and that it does **not** apply lechatchila.

Why? Proof? Keep reading:

1. The Israeli Rabbinute does **not** allow the animal to be dismembered in any way until after it is insensate. In practice, this averages about 20 seconds.

2. They also will **not** allow a shechted animal ("Halakhicly dead," in your understanding) to be shot or stunned if it is still sensate 30 seconds or more after shechita.

3. If #1 or #2 are done, the Rabbinute regards that animal as **not** kosher. This is also true in Canada, Great Britain, etc.

4. Why? If the animal is "Halakhicly dead" anyway, why not make use of its meat?

5. Because most poskim regard #1 and #2 as acts that **contribute to the animal's death.** In other words, since the animal did not die soley from the shechita, the animal's meat is **not** regarded as kosher.

[Lumpy Rutherford]

In other words, since the animal did not die soley from the shechita, the animal's meat is **not** regarded as kosher.
-----------------------

Where does it say that the animal has to die for us to eat it?
For example, a בן פקועה, a live animal that is considered to have
already undergone שחיטה, can be eaten by cutting pieces from it
while it's still alive -- צר בעלי חיים isn't even a concern. It's seems
that it's שחיטה that renders the animal מותר, not it's death.

[jewishwhistleblower]

Again you fail to address the 2 issues I've addressed above and continue to confuse issues.

>Your contention is as follows:
>
>A. Even though the animals were sensate when the
>throat-ripping was done, no tzaar baalei hayyim is
>involved.

see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

>B. You base that on the assertion that the animal
>is "Halakhicly" dead for Jews with regard to eiver min
>ha hai at shechita.

see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

>You fail to understand that #2 does not necessarily
>apply to throat-ripping while the animal is still
>sensate and that it does **not** apply lechatchila.

see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

>Why? Proof? Keep reading:
>
>1. The Israeli Rabbinute does **not** allow the animal
>to be dismembered in any way until after it is
>insensate. In practice, this averages about 20 seconds.

Processing reasons not Halachic reasons.
see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

>2. They also will **not** allow a shechted animal
>("Halakhicly dead," in your understanding) to be shot
>or stunned if it is still sensate 30 seconds or more
>after shechita.

Processing reasons not Halachic reasons.
see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

>3. If #1 or #2 are done, the Rabbinute regards that
>animal as **not** kosher. This is also true in Canada,
>Great Britain, etc.

Processing reason not Halachic reasons. While technically, kosher they have certain processing standars which they require. This is the same reason why animals stunned after death are not acceptable in some juristictions.
see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

>4. Why? If the animal is "Halakhicly dead" anyway, why
>not make use of its meat?

Processing reason not Halachic reasons. While technically, kosher they have certain processing standars which they require. This is the same reason why animals stunned after death are not acceptable in some juristictions.
see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

>5. Because most poskim regard #1 and #2 as acts that
>**contribute to the animal's death.** In other words,
>since the animal did not die soley from the shechita,
>the animal's meat is **not** regarded as kosher.

Could you cite these psaks that the animal was still a baal hayim after schita (the single cut of the blade)?
see 1 and 2 which you have not addressed.

[Shmarya]

So, let me see if I understand your argument.

Even though the Rabbinute, etc., will **not** allow throat-ripping or dismemberment until the animal has the chance to become insensate – approximately 20 seconds, according to Rabbi Cohen, a figure science agrees with as an average – and regards any animal stunned, shot, etc., in that timefram to be **treife** for the reason stated above, you dismiss all of this as a "processing issue"?

[jewishwhistleblower]

בן פקועה
is a good example of a technical halachic argument that basically blows away everything you've said about Tzaar baalei hayyim and the kashrut/treifut issues.

This is a processing issue NOT a kashrut a issue (at least based on current information).

My challenge remains.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>So, let me see if I understand your argument.
>
>Even though the Rabbinute, etc., will **not** allow
>throat-ripping or dismemberment until the animal has
>the chance to become insensate – approximately 20
>seconds, according to Rabbi Cohen, a figure science
>agrees with as an average – and regards any animal
>stunned, shot, etc., in that timefram to be **treife**
>for the reason stated above, you dismiss all of this
>as a "processing issue"?

Show me an actual written psak that such meat is halachically treifut.

There are many things that any given Kashrut council will not accept (ie. stunning the animal after schita) for their "standard" of kashrut. Many of these standards have nothing to do with halacha, they are more processing standards. That does not make meat that uses different "standards" treifut.

Can you even quote Rabbi Cohen as saying the meat at Rubashkin's is clearly treifut? I'd like to see you get a statement from him at this point in writing as to that.

My challenge continues ....

[Shmarya]

Your "challenge" continues?

As a general rule, rabbis will not say that other rabbis are certifying treife as kosher.

Why?

1. Because those other rabbis tend to sue, and secular courts cannot be in the business of deciding kashrut. Therefore, the outcome of such cases invariably favors the "other rabbis."

2. Because of the byzantine nature of Jewish law, it is always possible to find an authority somewhere that agrees with you. That is another reason why rabbis use the term "not acceptible" or "does not meet our standards" rather than "treife."

3. To debate – in a secular court or in the public square – why rishon "a"'s opinion is rejected and the various and varied opinions from rishonim "b", "c", "d" and "e" are accepted and joined together to be used as a majority against "a" is a very difficult task.

Yet, to argue this issue in a way that the "jewishwhistleblower"can understand necessarily involves #1, #2 and #3.

As for Rabbi Cohen, try reading my interview with him. Try to understand the position he's in, and what the OU and KAJ claimed when presenting their case to him. Then, after you've done that, try to PROCESSS the information.

Further,if the OU, etc. declared the meat treife, that would involve a hefsed of unbelieveible proportion for the Jewish community. Since there is a way to rule it kosher – and there is, bedieved – this is what was done.

My argument with the OU on this really has more to do with its failure to admit the wrong, explain the hefsed, etc.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>Your "challenge" continues?

Yes, because you still haven't addressed the specific issues I've raised.

>As a general rule, rabbis will not say that other
>Rabbis are certifying treife as kosher.
>
>Why?
>
>1. Because those other rabbis tend to sue, and secular
>courts cannot be in the business of deciding kashrut.

Seperation of church and state, mesirah. A bogus point on your part. Can you produce such kashrut lawsuits that were settled in a court of law in the US?

>Therefore, the outcome of such cases invariably favors
>the "other rabbis."
>
>
>2. Because of the byzantine nature of Jewish law, it
>is always possible to find an authority somewhere that
>agrees with you. That is another reason why rabbis use
>the term "not acceptible" or "does not meet our
>standards" rather than "treife."

As long as you're within technical Halachic standards, it's not treifut. Many kashrut organization have varying standards for procedures after schita. The Israeli Rabbanut does not accept meat from any plant other than Rubashkin's because of processing procedures but that doesn't mean it's an issue of kashrut or that the meat is treifut.

>3. To debate – in a secular court or in the public
>square – why rishon "a"'s opinion is rejected and the
>various and varied opinions from
>rishonim "b", "c", "d" and "e" are accepted and joined
>together to be used as a majority against "a" is a
>very difficult task.

Seperation of church and state. It won't be dealt with in court. All bogus points you're making.

>Yet, to argue this issue in a way that
>the "jewishwhistleblower"can understand necessarily
>involves #1, #2 and #3.

Try just producing a psak or citing a Halachic basis.

>As for Rabbi Cohen, try reading my interview with him.
>Try to understand the position he's in, and what the
>OU and KAJ claimed when presenting their case to him.
>Then, after you've done that, try to PROCESSS the
>information.

Again, he won't say it is clearly treifut.

>Further,if the OU, etc. declared the meat treife, that
>would involve a hefsed of unbelieveible proportion for
>the Jewish community. Since there is a way to rule it
>kosher – and there is, bedieved – this is what was
>done.

Yet, you're saying that without a halachic basis. Which is my problem with what you claim.

>My argument with the OU on this really has more to do
>with its failure to admit the wrong, explain the
>hefsed, etc.

Which I have no problem with, my problem is your claims as to kashrut/treifut which you have no basis for.

[Shmarya]

1. Cases have gone to secular court.

2. Suing for Libel and Slander, for example.

3. Different standards mean – think here, process, don't just automatically react in your >>>>> style – that LECHATCHILA a violation of those standards is TREIFE.

BEDIEVED, is a different story and depends on the cricumstance.

4. You want a written pesak din on a problem – throat-ripping – that has not been seen at other slaughterhouses, or in the known history of pesak. And you want this, in writing, less than three weeks after the PETA video was made public. That Rabbi Belsky said that the throat-ripping should not have been done, that tyhe Rabbinute is clear that they will not accept that meat if throat-ripping continues, that Shechita UK and Rabbi S-Y Cohen all agree that the throat-ripping should not happen, none of this is enough for you. Yet anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Halakhic system knows that such written pesak dinim take time – often months – before they are released. You argue foolishly, and worse yet, compulsively.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>My argument with the OU on this really has more
>to do with its failure to admit the wrong

Maybe you should set an example for the OU by admitting you're wrong about the meat being clearly treifut as you asserted to me before on protocols.

Maybe you could admit that you're wrong about the halachot too.

For example you said above:
>Tzaar baalei hayyim is an issur d'orita.

You have no basis for that assertion. It's an open Talmudic debate whether it's an issur d'orita or d'rabbanan. The debate ends as a Taiku.

בן פקועה
clearly shows the status of an animal after schita. It contradicts everything you've said about Tzaar baalei hayyim after schita. Unlike your arguments it's based in actual halacha.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>1. Cases have gone to secular court.

Cite any such case involving 2 Orthodox Kashrut bodies in the US, that was decided by a secular court.

>2. Suing for Libel and Slander, for example.
see above

>3. Different standards mean – think here, process,
>don't just automatically react in your >>>>> style –
>that LECHATCHILA a violation of those standards is
>TREIFE.
>
>BEDIEVED, is a different story and depends on the
>cricumstance.

No, I'm saying there are processmg standards that some authorities require that have nothing to do with whether the meat is treifut. For example, no other schita from the US other than Rubashkin is allowed by the Israeli Rabbanut. That does not make the rest of US schita treifut.

>4. You want a written pesak din on a problem – throat-
>ripping – that has not been seen at other
>slaughterhouses, or in the known history of pesak. And
>you want this, in writing, less than three weeks after
>the PETA video was made public. That Rabbi Belsky said
>that the throat-ripping should not have been done,
>that tyhe Rabbinute is clear that they will not accept
>that meat if throat-ripping continues, that Shechita
>UK and Rabbi S-Y Cohen all agree that the throat-
>ripping should not happen, none of this is enough for
>you. Yet anyone with even a cursory understanding of
>the Halakhic system knows that such written pesak
>dinim take time – often months – before they are
>released. You argue foolishly, and worse yet,
>compulsively.

No, I want any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

>You argue foolishly, and worse yet,
>compulsively.

Can you address my solitary, original 2 questions without personal attacks?

[Shmarya]

1. Until just over two weeks ago, NO POSEK EVEN CONTEMPLATED THAT THROAT-RIPPING (as opposed to a normal second cut) WAS HAPPENING.

2. I have addressed your questions. Try re-reading my posts, the interviews I've done, etc.

3. Your argument about processing standards is wanting. You also fail to distinguish between BEDIEVED and LECHATCHILA.

Here's a sha'alah for you:

It's ossur to shecht a mother animal and it's child on the same day. But, if it is done, the meat from both animals is still kosher.

Does that mean that a system of slaughter can be instituted and deemed kosher that **always** violates that Halakha?

[Shmarya]

"I'm saying there are processmg standards that some authorities require that have nothing to do with whether the meat is treifut. For example, no other schita from the US other than Rubashkin is allowed by the Israeli Rabbanut. That does not make the rest of US schita treifut."

You confuse real deyot in Halakha – upside-down vrs. standing shechita – with a practice, throat-ripping (as opposed to a normally done second cut), that has no real deyah to support it.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>1. Until just over two weeks ago, NO POSEK EVEN
>CONTEMPLATED THAT THROAT-RIPPING (as opposed to a
>normal second cut) WAS HAPPENING.

So you claim that in the past centuries nothing even similar was ever done after schita?

Nonsense.

Again, I want any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

>2. I have addressed your questions. Try re-reading my
>posts, the interviews I've done, etc.

No you haven't. My two question (again) were:

Your whole basis for your kashrut/treifut arguments are:

1) Tzaar baalei hayyim is an issur d'orita.
2) An animal is alive for a period of time after schita (the single cut of the blade).

I continue to challenge you for actual Halachic sources or written psaks on this.

Your assertion Tzaar baalei hayyim is an issur d'orita is unsupportable as indicated above.

>3. Your argument about processing standards is
>wanting. You also fail to distinguish between BEDIEVED
>and LECHATCHILA.

No, you're just confusing my above questions by bringing other aspects into play.

As you do here:

>Here's a sha'alah for you:
>
>It's ossur to shecht a mother animal and
>it's child on the same day. But, if it is
>done, the meat from both animals is still kosher.
>
>Does that mean that a system of slaughter can be
>instituted and deemed kosher that **always**
>violates that Halakha?

Again irrelevent to my questions. In part as you've not demonstrated any clear Halachic problem LECHATCHILA or BEDIEVED.

בן פקועה
I can slaughter a mother animal as it's givig birth. The child animal can be eaten without schita.

see above:
>Where does it say that the animal has to die for us
>to eat it? For example, a בן פקועה, a live animal
>that is considered to have already undergone שחיטה,
>can be eaten by cutting pieces from it while it's
>still alive -- צר בעלי חיים isn't even a concern. It's
>seems that it's שחיטה that renders the animal מותר,
>not it's death.

Further, the same is true of the offspring of such an animal as well.

So you could have a whole herd of such animals. All could be killed in the most inhumane manner or eaten while still by societal standards alive. All technically within Halacha.

Where is your basis for everything you've claimed about Tzaar baalei hayyim after schita based on this?

[jewishwhistleblower]

>Further, the same is true of the offspring of
>such an animal as well.

To clarify the offspring if both parents are בן פקועה.

[Shmarya]

"So you claim that in the past centuries nothing even similar was ever done after schita?"

According to the testimony of LOTS of rabbonim, that is true.

Your assertion that tzaar baale hayyim is NOT d'orita is also wrong. The Rambam and dozens of other poskim hold that tzaar baa'ei hayyim IS d'orita. A few other poskim disagree, but the majority holds that it is d'orita.

Further, even if it were d'rabbanan, that would NOT change my point. To have a system of shechta that mandates the violation of tzaar baalei hayyim either immediately before or immediately after the act of shechita (or both) is forbidden.

[Shmarya]

As for the bedieved/lechtchila issue, it is central to the case at hand.

[Shmarya]

And, as for shechting an animal as it is giving birth and then eating the newborn without shechita, aside from the rabbinic condemnation of this practice, the issues at hand are not similar. Why?

The 'newborn" is born of a 'dead' animal. The argument is over whether it Halakhicly needs shechita (i.e., does the shochet make a bracha on its shechting or not).

This case is an EXCEPTION to the normal laws of shechta, not the rule.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>"So you claim that in the past centuries nothing even
>similar was ever done after schita?"
>
>According to the testimony of LOTS of rabbonim, that
>is true.

Again you simply ignore my question. Clearly if tzaar baalei hayyim is an issue AFTER schita you must be able to point to some psak/halacha.

I want any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

>Your assertion that tzaar baale hayyim is NOT d'orita
>is also wrong. The Rambam and dozens of other poskim
>hold that tzaar baa'ei hayyim IS d'orita. A few other
>poskim disagree, but the majority holds that it is
>d'orita.

My assertion is that this is a classic Talmudic dispute that ends as a taiku. Your assertion that it is d'orita is not supportable unless you've spoken to Eliyahu Hs'Navi lately.

>Further, even if it were d'rabbanan, that would NOT
>change my point. To have a system of shechta that
>mandates the violation of tzaar baalei hayyim either
>immediately before or immediately after the act of
>shechita (or both) is forbidden.

Again, answer my question above. Is this your mere opinion or do you have a psak/halachic source for this.

>As for the bedieved/lechtchila issue, it is central to
>the case at hand.

I don't even know what the halachic problem you are referring to is as you have yet to cite a psak or halachic source.

>And, as for shechting an animal as it is giving birth
>and then eating the newborn without shechita, aside
>from the rabbinic condemnation of this practice, the
>issues at hand are not similar. Why?
>
>The 'newborn" is born of a 'dead' animal. The argument
>is over whether it Halakhicly needs shechita (i.e.,
>does the shochet make a bracha on its shechting or
>not).
>
>This case is an EXCEPTION to the normal laws of
>shechta, not the rule.

Shmarya, this "dead" animal is moving after schita as it is giving birth. It's more relevent than anything you've said.

The fact that d'orita I can tear off a piece of this off-spring while it's still alive and eat it (without schita or any form of slaughter) seems more relevent than anything you've said.

It is only due to a Rabbinical decree that I need to slaughter a בן פקועה.

Thanks for trying to address my 1st question. Clearly, I'm not satisfied or impressed with your answer. As to my 2nd question, you still haven't addressed it.

[Shmarya]

"The fact that d'orita I can tear off a piece of this off-spring while it's still alive and eat it (without schita or any form of slaughter) seems more relevent than anything you've said.

It is only due to a Rabbinical decree that I need to slaughter a בן פקועה."

The Halakhic question at hand is "does an embryo need shechita?" Why? Because the calf born from a shechted mother has the din of an embryo. In order to rectify this problem the rabbonim required shechita for the new-born calf. If anything, this is support for my position.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>The Halakhic question at hand is "does an embryo need
>shechita?" Why? Because the calf born from a shechted
>mother has the din of an embryo.

And d'orita the answer is clear, no.

>In order to rectify
>this problem the rabbonim required shechita for the
>new-born calf.

No not to rectify any problem. They enacted a Rabbinical prohibition so it wouldn't be done.

>If anything, this is support for my
>position.

Your logic alludes me.

Further, the same is true of the offspring of two
בן פקועה animals as well.

So you could have a whole herd of such animals. All could be killed in the most inhumane manner or eaten while still by societal standards alive. All technically within Halacha d'orita.

Again, where is your basis for everything you've claimed about Tzaar baalei hayyim d'orita after schita based on this?

[jewishwhistleblower]

I would further note that Rashi mentions "eiver min hachai" as one of the three sins that Yoseph accused his brothers of.

Commentators take the position that it is inconceivable to us that they were guilty of violating what is one of the seven laws of Bnei Noach.

There are several explanations as to what precisely they had done בן פקועה is one such explanation.

Regardless, a בן פקועה clearly moves, is alive and due to schita of the mother can d'orita be eaten while still alive or after any form of humane/inhumane killing.

Clearly, schita changes the status of an animal from a baal hayyim.

So again for the dozenth or so time:

I want any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

[Shmarya]

The calf in that case has the din of an embryo. You don't even begin to understand the implications of that.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>The calf in that case has the din of an embryo.

Further, the same is true of the offspring of two
בן פקועה animals as well.

The offspring of 2 of your "embryo" animals still has the same status. This animal is born normally and can still be killed in the most inhumane manner or eaten while still by societal standards alive. All technically within Halacha d'orita.

>You don't even begin to understand the implications
>of that.

Again, how does denigrating me help your argument.

[Shmarya]

An animal embryo is exempt from shechita. So what does one do about an embryo that walks and breathes? In your understanding of the case, d'orita you just rip off a leg and eat it, because the 'embryo' in this case is exempt from shechita and tzaar baa'ei hayyim laws. In actuality, the rabbonim codified a ban against that not because the practices were common, or even that they happened at all, but in order to **ensure culpability** and **ensure punishment** in order to prevent these things from ever being done.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>An animal embryo is exempt from shechita. So what does
>one do about an embryo that walks and breathes? In
>your understanding of the case, d'orita you just rip
>off a leg and eat it, because the 'embryo' in this
>case is exempt from shechita and tzaar baa'ei hayyim
>laws. In actuality, the rabbonim codified a ban
>against that not because the practices were common, or
>even that they happened at all, but in order to
>**ensure culpability** and **ensure punishment** in
>order to prevent these things from ever being done.

Source for your assertions above please.

How does this address the fact that if two such "embryos" breed, their offspring is also treated the same way?

Why does this only apply to an "embryo" when the mother is shechted?

Could it be the schita is the key?

Is it possible that the schita changes the status of an animal from baal Hayyim to something else?

And I'll ask yet again:
Can you cite any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

[Shmarya]

1. "How does this address the fact that if two such "embryos" breed, their offspring is also treated the same way?"

Because two 'embryos' 'born' from a shechted mother have the d'orita status of … 'embryos', not calves. If they later breed, their decendants would also carry that status.

"Is it possible that the schita changes the status of an animal from baal Hayyim to something else?"

In order to prevent people from making the same mistake that you are making, the rabbonim required shechita on those 'embryo-calves'. This does not mean that before the rabbonim acted people made the mistake that you are making. It simply means that the rabbonim closed the loophole in Halakha and codified that closure, both to prevent your mistake and to teach lessons about the case.

How can I make that assertion? What is my source?

This is the normative way of learning gemaras like this one. This method is discussed in many classical sources, I believe including Avraham ben HaRambam's explanation of aggadita.

2. I've given you the testimony of rabbis.

The reason the Rabbinute waits after shechita until the animal has bled out before dismembering the animal is as I have stated above. The Rabbinute acts that way based on … a pesak din!

Further, I have pointed out to you that the throat-ripping done at Rubashkin is very different from the second cut done at some other shechitas. You cannot ask for a "psak or halachic source in the past centuries" to rule on it, when, in this case, the "it" is not known to have existed before now.

[jewishwhistleblower]

And I'll ask yet again:
Can you cite any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

[Shmarya]

I'll answer yet again:

I've given you the testimony of rabbis.

The reason the Rabbinute waits after shechita until the animal has bled out before dismembering the animal is as I have stated above. The Rabbinute acts that way based on … a pesak din!

Further, I have pointed out to you that the throat-ripping done at Rubashkin is very different from the second cut done at some other shechitas. You cannot ask for a "psak or halachic source in the past centuries" to rule on it, when, in this case, the "it" is not known to have existed before now.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>I'll answer yet again:
>
>I've given you the testimony of rabbis.

Which do not indicate what you claim at all.

And I'll ask yet again:
Can you cite any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

>The reason the Rabbinute waits after shechit a until
>the animal has bled out before dismembering the animal
>is as I have stated above. The Rabbinute acts that way
>based on … a pesak din!

Produce tha psak then.

I want to see that the reasoning for this is:
2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And not merely, some mere processing issue as I contend after the animal is no longer a baal hayyim.

>Further, I have pointed out to you that the throat-
>ripping done at Rubashkin is very different from the
>second cut done at some other shechitas.

So what? It's done after schita. It's mere processing at this point.

>You cannot ask for a "psak or halachic source in the
>past centuries" to rule on it, when, in this case,
>the "it" is not known to have existed before now.

I can ask for a psak that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

>In order to prevent people from making the same
>mistake that you are making,

Mistake? I've given you a biblical source that indicates it was done and is proper d'orita (Yosef's brothers.)

>the rabbonim required shechita on those 'embryo-
>calves'. This does not mean that before the rabbonim
>acted people made the mistake that you are making.

See above.

>It simply means that the rabbonim closed the loophole
>in Halakha and codified that closure, both to prevent
>your mistake and to teach lessons about the case.

Not a "loophole" or "mistake" at all. The Rabbonim acted as they did not want this practice being done.

[jewishwhistleblower]

>Further, I have pointed out to you that the throat-
>ripping done at Rubashkin is very different from the
>second cut done at some other shechitas. You cannot
>ask for a "psak or halachic source in the past
>centuries" to rule on it, when, in this case, the "it"
>is not known to have existed before now.

Are you telling me that in the past centuries there has never been an animal that moved after schita?

And never a question whether after schita, with the animal still moving whether it could be cut or should be left alone for a period til it stops moving?

Give me a break!

And I'll ask yet again:
Can you cite any psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

[Shmarya]

"Mistake? I've given you a biblical source that indicates it was done and is
proper d'orita (Yosef's brothers.)"

NO. You have given a late aggadic source.

[Shmarya]

If you want the pesak din from the Rabbinute, wait a few months until Shechita-gate calms down, then ask them.

[Shmarya]

"Are you telling me that in the past centuries there has never been an animal that moved after schita?"

No. I'm telling you that there is no history of throat-ripping within 5 seconds or so of shechita.

[jewishwhistleblower]

I give up.

Obviously you have no halachic basis for your statements and as I indicated before:

Tzaar baalei hayyim does not apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered no longer a baal hayyim.

If I'm wrong, please cite any written psak or halachic source in the past centuries that backs up your assertion that:

2) Tzaar baalei hayyim does apply after the schita (the single cut of the blade) as the animal at least Halachically is considered still a baal hayyim.

And also the time frame after schita it is a baal hayyim.

Unless, you're conceeding no such psak/halachic source exists.

[Shmarya]

Don't give up. Just go back to Drisha for a refresher course.

[Pasak din on shmarya]

lechtchila shmarya is a moron.

bedieved he's an even bigger moron.

shmarya - get a psak din from a rav (in writting) that supports your position and post it on your website! That's all you need to do to end this and have support for your pathetic side. Face it, it's you against big Rebbonim, who will win?