How The Slifkin Ban Explains Rubashkin's Rabbis, Part 1

If you want to understand why Rubashkin is (largely) getting a free pass from right-wing Orthodoxy, it is important to understand the right-wing Orthodox view on science.

Scientists and veterinarians have clearly stated that the animals shown on the PETA video suffered unnecessarily. Orthodox rabbis who have made statements on the Rubashkin-PETA issue have disagreed with them:

It's just like "a chicken running with its head cut off," said one prominent rabbi. Another repeatedly claims that the animals are just like a "drunk trying to stand" on wobbly legs, and we all know a drunk does not feel anything.

As several animal scientists have told me, the ignorance of simple biology needed to make these statements is overwhelming.

Here's a primer on science and right-wing Orthodoxy, courtesy of Da'as Hedyot.

As you read this post please remember that in rabbinic eyes, animals walking three minutes after shechita are insensate, do not feel and may very well already be dead.

Comments

[Lumpy's Right]

Finally!! Shmarya tells us where he puts his faith. Given the choice of a Rov, who says that an animal is dead versus the scientist, who claims that it's still alive, Shmarya picks the scientist. Thanks so much for that valuable insight. Now, we know that although you appear to be a sincere guy who tries to put forth his views, you nonetheless are something other than a maamin in chachomim.

[Steven I. Weiss]

Shmarya - There's a pretty large flaw in your analogy here, as the most prominent usage of the chicken example was Rabbi Menachem Genack of the Orthodox Union, who isn't as chareidi or anti-science as those who've signed on to the ban.
The overlap just isn't there.

[Shmarya]

Rabbi Belsky made the chicken remark several times, including in his interview with me. In fact, I believe Rabbi genack's first use of it is as a quote from Rabbi Belsky. I've also had it repeated to me by other rabbis who are haredim, and have many credible reports from around the country of local Agudah-linked rabbis using the analogy. Rabbi Kohn from KAJ has also used it. If memory serves me, Avi Shafran has also used a similar remark to justify Rubashkin. And of course, RUBASHKIN himself has used that analogy.

The overlap stands.

[Steven I. Weiss]

Shmarya - My point was that if a scientifically-aware/minded rabbi uses it, you cannot make this all about the closed-off-religionists versus the scientists. It doesn't matter how many ultra-Orthodox you stack up on top of the Modern Orthodox defenses; the Modern Orthodox defenses themselves make the overlap illegitimate.
Of course, the legitimacy of Genack's opinion in the first place is something that can be reasonably questioned in this instance and, if found to be worthless, my point can be disregarded, but I don't think we've reached that point.

[Shmarya]

SIW –

The MO rabbi you mention relied on KAJ and Rabbi Kohn (a Gerrer Hasid) for the day-to-day supervision at Rubashkin. Further, the sources he cites to maintain that position are all haredi and based on the pesak of Rabbi Kohn.

The overlap stands.

[Isa]

Dear Lumpy's Right:
"Given the choise of a Rov... or a scientist..." this writer seems to think that a Rov is better on animal science
OK
When is the last time you saw a rabbi (and not a medical doctor) about some medical problem??? It was once done.
If you think a Rov knows more about animal science than a scientist then maybe you need to see a Rov next time you have a pain someplace like upper left side near your heart. Maybe his 'cure' will be a picture of the Rebbe to be placed over your heart.

[Lumpy's Right]

Isa,
I think you misunderstood. The Torah (both Torah Shebichsav and Torah Shebaal Peh) are NOT medical guides, they are Ruchinus guides. As such, Torah is nothing but pure Emes. Poskim today certainly rely on modern medicine. As my Rosh Yeshiva told me, if you want to study plumbing/medicdine/electonics, you can't look in Shas. You have to look in a plumbing/medicine/electronics text. However, if the Torah tells us that an animal is dead, then it's dead. This, despite what scientists tell us. My argument is NOT that the earh CANNOT be 15 billion years old, but that we have to recognize that there are points to be made by legitimate talmedai chachomim on both sides. To say that one side or the other is definitely right is not proper.
Regarding shechita, it's clear that everyone holds that the animal is dead after shechita. Therefore, we might have a case where scientists and the Torah disagree. In that case, I would choose the Torah side of the argument.

[Isa]

Dear Lumpy's Right:
I always thought that in the frum world being more strict was the way to go. I have seen a mehetza that was a balcony and STILL had a curtain so if any man turned around then he STILL wouldn't see any women. Then there are people that wait longer for Shabbat to end,etc etc.
Regarding shechita, satisfying the animal scientists would make the meat kosher beyond ANY doubt. In this way Shmarya is being more strict.
After all who wants to be Conservadox?

[Lumpy's RIght]

Isa,
You bring up an interesting point about always being strict. To bring an example discussed in no less than Slifikin's book (Mysterious Creatures), there is a discussion about lice. The Gemarah in Shabbos says that because lice generate spontaneously (as opposed to being the result of sexual reproduction), they are ALLOWED to be killed on Shabbos. Although it would appear from science that conditions are different than those described in the Gemarah, Rav Dessler speaks at length about how the Gemarah only gave ONE reason (rather than all of the reasons it is OK to kill lice). On that basis, Rav Dessler said that we should be lenient, and not refrain from killing the bugs. Rav Dessler goes on at length about how when a Gemarah conflicts with certain aspects of science whether the results would be to be lenient or strict, we still follow the Gemarah.