The Talmud Explained – Saving Rubashkin Money Just Does Not Cut It

I just looked up the section of the Babylonian Talmud (Hullin 33a) cited by Tzemach Atlas in his post. (Please see my post immediately below this.) It is referring to removing a small section of flesh from the throat immediately after shechita, soaking it, salting it, and then eating it only after the animal has died.

Why was this done?

For a medical reason. This flesh was considered to be a tonic, probably a way of consuming part of a living animal without violating the Halakha of eiver min ha hai.

(Flesh and blood from living – or mortally wounded – animals was commonly thought of in the ancient world as containing the animal's life force. Its consumption was thought to transfer some of the animal's strength to the eater.)

As the Talmud says, if one wanted to remain in good health, one would do this. As with all medical advice given in ancient sources, this no longer applies (unless it has been confirmed by modern medicine). Further, it is important to keep in mind that this was not done because the meat tasted good, was a delicacy, or for financial reasons. It was done for medical reasons only and, as such, no financial or non-medical lesson should be learned from it.

Comments

[FNU.LNU]

Assuming all you say is correct:

How does it logically flow that because they used the meat for medical purposes therefore we can not make deductions for economic reasons? I assume we all accept that we should (a) avoid tzar baalei chayim, (b) make sure people do what needs to be done to stay healthy, and (c) as able, allow a world where people should be able to afford those things they desire in their lives. Each of those has value.

You say (b) comes before (a) and (c) is last. There is no clear logical reason for that. Just as it is not clear that eating meat nowadays is for the 'needs of man' when there are many healthier (and often cheaper) vegetarian alternatives for most of us. Let's be honest: we kill those animals becuase we like the taste of meat better.

The gemarah may not be a clear proof for those arguing economic reasons but it can certainly be brought as part of an argument.

[Shmarya]

Medical/Pekuakh Nefesh reasons supercede all others (except for the well-known big three of Avoda Zara, Sexual impropriety, and murder). Wanting the special taste of that meat is not in the same category; needing that meat to maintain health is.

[FNU.LNU]

The big three concern yehoreg v'all yaover and, as comes to my mind, is not implicated.

Agreed: Health is clearly the first priority; we do not let a chicken live so a man can starve. But ... it is not clear that our value on minimizing tzar ba'alei chayim trumps here.

You say wanting the taste of meat does not trump the tzar ba'alei chayim. Biblical decree allows us to slaughter the cow, even though today we kill it merely because we want the special taste of meat ... nearly all adults do not need meat but eat it due to preference. Ein simcha eleh b'basar (a festivity needs meat).

Lets put in another way: if removing the trachea immediately upon slaughter keeps the price of meat from tripling, very few kosher-observant people would demand it be stopped. Why would they be wrong?

Why is the pain and terror of slaughter (do you think there is no pain or terror?) permitted but the pain allowing the poor to eat the meat is not?

When it comes to a penny a meat, we can be 'merciful' but with each extra penny it is less clear. There is a balancing test going on here and no bright line rule.

Taking the gemarah as you presented it: One can read the gemarah as allowing all activities that have a value behind it greater then that of causing the additional pain to the cow. Not merely health. One can make an argument that cheap meat does meet that test.

It is not clear; there is subjectivity. But that's how public policy works. That's why the health regulations do not demand 100% perfection in the slaughter as an absolute rule.

[Shmarya]

No, I'm sorry but you are incorrect.

We are allowed to eat meat ONLY because there is a biblical decree allowing us to. But that meat must come from an animal that has been properly shechted, which has traditionally been understood to require the absolute minimization of pain to the animal.

But the Talmudic case mentioned allows one to cause additional pain to the animal? Why?

Not because of financial or taste reasons– ONLY because of health reasons.

But those health reasons no longer exist.

As for the idea that kosher meat would rise in price without the throat-ripping, beside the fact that there is no true financial-based 'heter' for causing additional pain to the animal, the idea that the price of kosher meat would spiral upwards is foolish. No other kosher meat producer does the throat-ripping. Are their meats more expensive than Rubashkin's? No.

Furthermore, Rubashkin's concerns about blood spots could be eliminated by proper handling of the animal before shechita along with ensuring that shochtim sever the carotid artery with their cut.

Don't agree to torturing animals to make up for Rubashkin's mistakes.

[fnu.lnu]

According to halacha, we are allowed to do anything not prohibited.

We are allowed to eat meat since Noah because G-d never prohibited it. He Limited the way Jews do slaughter but the reasons we eat are our own.

G-d does not force us to eat meat. Do not hide behind what He did not Say.

Lets be honest: all non-vegeterians today (with some medical exceptions) have decided that eating something less healthy (given our diets) but with a good taste trumps killing the animal, the pain and terror.

One can not know, but it certainly is legitmate to speculate that the animal would rather endure the pain and torture caused by Rubashkins unnecesarily premature trachea removals then endure the death, pain and torture that are part of the schita, i.e. many people would rather endure great pain for a short period and live.

If you are 100% against torturing animals then (unless health dictates otherwise) you are logically compelled to be a vegeterian. How, as a value judgment, does good taste or a happy event trump? G-d did not force the meat in your mouth.

And remember, there is a minority position that shocking the meat after slaughter is still kosher meat. If tzar ba'alei chayim trumps all one would think that it would implicate here and we'd shock the animals. Killing without the shock is a chumra with a kulla.

Also, why do we force such crazy schedules on the shochets, virtually insuring they will make mistakes that cause the animal pain. It is not halacha but ECONOMICS that triggers that. We could have less meat at far higher prices but greater reliability of less pain ... yet we do not do that. Is that wrong?

Why if the animal is turned upside down for Israeli - but not US -- hechsher is that ok? The OU and KAJ do not believe G-d Wants that, yet they do it anyway. Why? Because either the economics (extra economy of scale, extra market [if Israel actually accepts US meat] and not replacing the machine) or the value of Jewish unity (and thats weak) trumps that. Yet last week the Israeli requirement was sufficent reason for you to support the cow being flipped at the plant.

The rhetoric of 'torture' applies to all meat we eat. Do not pretend regular shechted meat does not torture the animals. We all must accept our complicity in that. Now choose if we are complicit in a crime.

Yes, today we choose to cause death and pain to animals for better tasting food. We value good taste in our diets not only above the cow's life (and the pain at its death) but above our health. Yet I have yet to see the psak against the Shabbos chulent, McDovid or Rubin's Deli in Brookline.

Rubashkin did a terrible thing because it caused terrible pain to the animals for apparantly insignificant economic reasons, but again, if the pain was caused in an effort to keep costs to a third, find me the frum community that would make a psak against it.

There is a balancing test in causing less pain versus economies of scale. Today, we are stricter then we were in the past and I think that's a good thing. But then I am not deperately poor. And I know we could, if we wanted, be stricter still. In many scenarios I would support that.

Not having the gemarah text in front of me, I can only base myself on your summary. You read the text one way - you insert the word ONLY, you never show the text to say that -- but it is not necessary to read it thus: Why should I think they are bringing this example only for health? Maybe the chiddush of the example was that this neck meat= health was a so-called 'old-wives tale' at the time and the gemarah shows even rumor of a greater need allows you to trump tzar ba'alei chayim. But economic concerns today are measurable; the only variable being the value we put on it.