'Serendipity,' Agriprocessors-Style

You have, perhaps, 600 employees. A good dozen of them are Rubashkins. Yet, somehow, when the media comes, only…

…one is quoted, Getzel Rubashkin, who still claims to be speaking as an individual, not as a company representative and who finds hours every day to blog about the company – even though, he claims, PR is not his job. How does the media manage to find this 'non-spokesman' with such clock-like regularity? Why is it that this 'non-spokesman' is always available to speak?

It's 'serendipity,' Rubashkin-style. (That's called deception in the real world.)

Another example, this one from the AP:

.…Outside several rooms in the plant, doorways bear mezuzahs, small cases containing Hebrew verses from the Torah.

"You see it and you are reminded of your commitment to do good," said Getzel Rubashkin, a plant employee and grandson of the plant's owner.

Rubashkin said he believed the plant could recover but that it needed to burnish its image.
"We don't have much of a PR arm," he said.

Earlier this month, a group of rabbis toured the plant and spoke to workers about their conditions. They left satisfied that the plant was safe and properly treating its kosher food, said Rabbi Dovid Eliezrie, a California rabbi sympathetic to the Rubashkin family.

Plant manager Abrahams said such openness is now part of the company's strategy, and workers are focused on day-to-day operations, not the plant's notoriety.…

Agriprocessors is very open – just like a Potemkin Village.

[Hat Tip: Archie.]

Comments

[michael ben drosai]

so what does that make you? the Battleship Potemkin?

[Archie Bunker]

How about, "No man is an island" except Getzel of the 3 hour tours of Gilligan's Island?

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/257100.html

Apologies to John Donne.

[Barry]

As I stated earlier the BUSINESS MODEL for shechita is at fault. It is in the interests of the Shecita industry (which includes the various ‘supervision’ authorities) for that industry to be as large as possible (since it is a major source of income and employment for Haredim) The kosher eating public is relatively small so the best way to increase that industry is to sell meat to gentiles. Of course gentiles are not prepared to pay the extra costs incurred in shechita so the cost of opening that large gentile market is borne by the kosher eating public. The shechita industry tells the kosher consumer that ‘if you do not subsidise the sale of meat to gentiles at say 10c a pound, than it will cost you 20c a pound extra to eat kosher meat because the shechita industry will shrink considerably and we will need to find other employment for shoctim and we will be faced with bearing the cost of dealing with achoraim and treifos. That business model is similar to the anti competitive model at of Far East electronic companies who in the 1980's sold goods at below cost to Western countries. It is a form of economic dumping. At the turn of the last century, many left wing and atheist Jews campaigned against shechita on the grounds that it involved the economic exploitation of Jews by taking advantage of their religious beliefs. As far as gentile meat traders were concerned, they were happy to receive ‘a piece of the action’ of that exploration of Jews by other Jews by purchasing rejected kosher meat at below cost. According to the OU, 70% of religiously slaughtered animals are sold of to gentiles (mainly as non glatt and some as treifos) while 50% of the meat of the remaining carcasses are sold of as achoraim. That means that 85% of meat slaughter by shochtim ends up being sold to gentiles!

Despite protests by left wing Jews that kashrus was nonsense and just a way for the unscrupulous (both Jew and gentile) to exploit the Jewish masses, the religious faith of Jews remained strong and the shechita industry continued (although most Jews no longer observe kashrus) It remained in the economic interest of the Shechita industry and the gentile meat industry for it to continue using the ‘economic dumping’ business model.

The ‘economic dumping’ business model however cannot continue because of the rise of the animal welfare lobby. That lobby take the view that an animal should be stunned into deep unconsciousness before slaughter. This of course contradicts Jewish tradition. Some of the more extreme commentators on this blog suggest that as the Nazis banned shechita it follows that all (including Jews) who call for stunning are closet Nazis. This makes as much sense as stating that those Hareidi rabbis who explained their call for stricter conversion criteria then was followed in the past. because of the negative influence gentile culture has had on Jews are closet Nazis having adopted the ideas of Nazi government when passing the 1935 Law for the Preservation of German Blood and Honor. The suggestion that stunning advocates are antisemitic is clearly offensive and insulting. Those who call for stunning may do so out of proper conviction for animal welfare. We may not agree with that view however we must respect that they hold that view in good faith

American society being religiously tolerant, has however provided an exception to the requirement for stunning for slaughter carried out by religious means. The grounds for doing so is that American law recognizes the right to practice one’s religious belief by observance.

Getzel however argues that the right to carry out shecita has nothing to do with the grant of religious exemption. He argues that Congress (and maybe the American people) recognise as a matter of scientific fact, that shecita is as humane as stunning. He is being disingenuous. The photograph of the recent rabbis ‘inspection’ showed them wearing hard hats as required by law. A turbaned follower of the Sikh religion however is exempted from the need to wear such a hard hat. Would Getzel argue that Congress and the American people have ‘found’ as fact that a turban provides as good protection from head injury as a hard hat? Would a non Sikh have a right to complain to a Sikh motorcycle helmet salesman, if he found out that the skin of the helmet he bought was a painted over heavily starched worn out turban! What would that non Sikh think if that salesman had the support of his community elders in that act of deception!

The spirit (if not the letter) of animal welfare legislation requires religiously slaughtered meat to be kept out of the community outside that religion. The UK legislation which follows the same philosophical basis of the American legislation states that an exemption to the requirement to stun arises in the case of “…slaughter, without the infliction of unnecessary suffering, by the Jewish method, for the food of Jews by a Jew, who holds a licence…”. The expression of relevance is FOR THE FOOD OF THE JEWS. As long as the shechita industry with the encouragement of its rabinical supervisors ignores the spirit (and probably the letter) of the law and consensus that allows shechita by economically dumping 85% of meat produced on gentiles then it will ignore the spirit and letter of other laws for economic reasons. This attitude confirms the worst canards about Jews and their financial ethics and will impact on those Jews outside those unethical Hareidi circles. Orthodox and non orthodox, kosher and non kosher eating Jews must stand up to Hareidi financial shenanigans for their own sakes.

I propose the following. A single kosher wholesale commission should be set up. All animals to be religiously slaughter must be purchased from the commission (at cost) after being tagged so as to be traceable. This commission will have nothing to do with the ritual elements of shechita. The supervising authorities will appoint shoctim and bodkim to their satisfaction.

These animals are all to be returned to the commission after being slaughtered and their tags checked to ensure none have been smuggled out to gentiles. A record should be kept as to which supervising authority was bodek the carcass and whether it was found to be glatt, non glatt or treif. The carcasses should then be divided into fore and hind quarters.

The treif meat should be painted green and incinerated. The remaining carcasses should be auctioned. The glatt meat will achieve a high price as the frummers will not wish to eat non Glatt. The next best price will be achieved by non glatt whilst achoraim will achieve the lowest price. It will be the commissions primary duty to ensure that achoraim (which might be at risk of being sold to gentiles) is not sold at a price which might encourage gentiles to purchase it. In other words they should set a minimum price of say 10% above similar non kosher meat. If that price is not achieved than that achoraim meat should be painted green and incinerated. You will be surprised how quickly the rabbis will allow nikkur achoraim if faced with such a possibility. By the start of WWII, Jews in most parts of Poland no longer practiced nikkur. In March of 1938, the Polish Siem passed legislation forbidding the sale of kosher-slaughtered meat to non-Jews. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky ruled that all Polish Jewish communities, without exception, should immediately reintroduce the practice of nikkur achoraim to avoid significant financial loss to the local Jewish population. There was no halachic problem in instituting nikkur, stated Rabbi Chaim Ozer. Even though nikkur was not practiced because of the lack of qualified menakkrim, avoiding the consumption of hindquarters was not an actual custom, he said.

It is not shechita that is the problem but the fact that the benefits of economic dumping have corrupted the supervising authorities. Only by having a commission with no direct financial interest in shechita and which traces meat and controls its price to keep it outside the gentile market will the reputation of shechita be restored. That commission should include non kosher eating Jews as well as gentiles to ensure that the unscrupulous do not attempt to smuggle religiously slaughtered meat from abattoirs to gentiles. I fear that the Archie Bunker may attempt to smuggle cattle carcasses out of abattoirs by hiding them up his rectum.

[Rachel Batya]

"so what does that make you? the Battleship Potemkin?"

I think it makes Shmarya the guy *on* the Potemkim who said, "We're not eating any more of this rotten meat."

[Archie Bunker]

Now back to Getzel's incorrect interpretation of the Gemara Sotah 48a.

I did a lot of research into the sugya over the weekend and this is what emerges.

Getzel claimed my understanding of the Sefer Mincha Chareivah was too much of a stretch that does not fit with the text of the Gemara. It just so happens that the Yalkut Biurim of Kollei Hachalei Torah has the same understanding of the SMC that I do.

The sefer is distributed in the US by Rabbi Leifer in Rockland County. Phone number 845-230-0708.

Stay tuned for more on this today.

[Archie Bunker]

Barry, I can see from your first few lines already that you are full of it. There are over 10 million people in the US who eat only kosher meat, most of whom are not even Jewish.

We know what your real agenda is. So explain to us, are YOU really Jewish or what insecurities to you suffer from?

[Archie Bunker]

Hey Barry, were you the guy who left Agri in disgrace after the other workers ganged up on you and gave you a wedgie on Sholom Rubashkin's door knob?

[Archie Bunker]

It appears that Barry is getting much of his cannon fodder from that Ukranian anti-Semite based in Canada who is trying to sabotage shechita and kosher supervision of all food. I forget now what his website is called.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Shmarya again posts a smear of me that is a distortion of the facts.

As I mentioned in the comments section of the previous post, I gave this reporter the tour of the plant. I specifically told him I was not to be quoted, as I am not a spokesman and I don't represent the company. He asked for an exception when I pointed out the Mezuza, and being a totally unrelated topic, I agreed. He did not ask about the PR comment, and I made no comments to him on the record about the plant or the current situation. I was simply a tour guide.

To date, I have spoken on the record once. That was during the rally. Since then I have taken a few people on tours of the plant, and had casual off-the-record conversations with a few reporters, once outside the local radio station when I stopped by to chat with Jeff and a reporter was there, and a couple times having called reporters to ask about one-sided reporting.

Must be a slow news day for Shmarya.

[Archie Bunker]

I have found a number of meforshim on masechta Sotah who have the same problems with Getzel's false interpretation that I do which amount to justification of tzaar baalei chaim and engaging in idoltrous practices.

As a matter of fact, I cannot find a single sefer that says like Getzel.

Stay tuned.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Barry is back. Your extremely long post did absolutely nothing to improve your case. You still have provided no basis for your argument that the general public is opposed to Shchita.

The law is not on your side on this, and even if you would like to argue that the law is not an indication that the general public approves of Shchita, you have still not provided anything which indicates that the general public is opposed to it, and your entire argument is built on that point.

Archie: Straw man. I did not argue with your interpretation of SMC. I simply said that that does not address the issue at hand. He only minimizes the impact of one of the procedures mentioned, he does not eliminate it, and he does not address the second procedure at all.

The discomfort caused to enable Munachas was not considered unnecessary, that is the basic meaning of that piece of Gemara, and the SMC does not change that.

[Archie Bunker]

"The discomfort caused to enable Munachas was not considered unnecessary"

You will see soon from a number of meforshim just what a huge problem it is.

And if you learn like the Rambam, unlike Rashi, I'm not clear yet that it was even "munachas" at all. The Rambam on the Mishna Maaser Shaini speaks of a different metzius of securing the animal's feet instead. WHen I see the Rambam inside I will know exactly what the tziyur is.

[Archie Bunker]

"Straw man"

Not exactly a shtoch. Refer to psukim on Yaakov Avinu that speak of kash.

[Archie Bunker]

Getzel had argued that the cutting & hitting were two separate acts. The shita of Breisah actually is that it was the same act.

[Archie Bunker]

There are 3 seforim I am looking for that may only be available in the otzros of yeshivos like Lakewood & Mir.

I saw them referenced elsewhere.

The Sefer Minchas Sotah asks that the Gemara should have said explicitly that Rebbe Yochanan was mevatel the practice because it is idoltrous.

When I made that same suggestion by saying you have to read between the lines, Getzel was very dismissive.

[Archie Bunker]

The Sefer Toras Hakanaos asks further that the Gemara should have said explicitly that the practice was stopped because of TZAAR BAALEI CHAIM.

[Anonymous]

"Straw man"

Not exactly a shtoch. Refer to psukim on Yaakov Avinu that speak of kash.

Bunker, who gives a flying rat's ass?

[Archie Bunker]

The irony should not be lost on anyone that this same blatt Gemara is where we know that nefulos are assur because of sofeik treif - the same problem that invalidated the chickens from the Rubashkin truck accident which Getzel is in denial about even though Belsky at the OU said in public that it happened, leading him to stop eating Rubashkin product.

[Archie Bunker]

Anon, this conversation is obviously above the head of an ignoramous such as yourself.

[Archie Bunker]

Actually the Rashba in the teshuvos says we don't learn nefulos from here for a technical reason. Sefer Kerem Nata says the Rashba only means in ikkur hadin but even here it is considered a nefulah that is assur because of chumrah.

[Archie Bunker]

There is also a Sefer Minchas Knaos that may disprove Getzel but this is less clear than the other references.

So Getzel, which meforshim back up your theory of what the Gemara means?

[critical_minyan]

getzel, archie bunker,
it is a kiddush hashem that you guys are learning torah on the internet, it shows the talmud is still applicable today.
Getzel,
do you think your family still has a chezkat kashrut now that the goverment has all these allegations against them and their company agriprocessors?
also getzel, if you know for a fact that the worker who prepared the food for your table was not paid for their work but was sent out without paying, could you eat that meat?

[Archie Bunker]

My bet is that Getzel is on the phone with someone in Crown Heights or Morristown, NJ, to see if he can deny my references.

[Paul Freedman]

Barry, poor gentiles.

You have any kind of statistics to demonstrate that goys purchase either majority stock of the kosher or non-kosher or meat by product cuts from kosher slaughter? There is no "spirit" of a law if the "letter of the law" forbids something--well, maybe there is for "progressive Judaism" but not for Congress. I don't see at the simplest level how kosher slaughtered meatcould be farmed out to goys at a price point they would agree to to subsidize anything--that costs could be so differentiated that meat could be shoveled out the back door for pennies to help defray the expenses of kosher cuts that would somehow, for all that subsidizing, remain (for goys) prohibitively expensive.

Overhead and fixed costs apply to all product.

If the marginal costs, the discretionary costs per unit of kosher cuts otoh is specific to those cuts then selling inherently cheaper cuts at their normal market value is not subsidizing the kosher product, unless you mean that selling meat at market value to consumers who can consume it is subsidizing in that you don't throw it out.

Well, yeah, but that's not subsidy, it's just declining to throw out your money. A subsidy is if you could sell the non-kosher for *more* than market value to offset the costs of your kosher slaughter but I don't think that's the argument here.

No, selling at market or below market value those food stocks that cannot be sold to kosher or glatt kosher consumers does not "subsidize" those consumers or the kosher or glatt kosher product--except in the sense that if you confiscate the property of Jews or forbid them to sell their wares or boycott their product economic harm would be inflicted.

[Archie Bunker]

Next Barry will complain that canines and felines are being fed with improper pet food against their will.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Critical_Minyan:
Allegations do not remove a Chezkas Kashrus - that is what they're there for.

Halachically that food would be Kosher, just like food cooked on Shabbos. Whether or not to eat that food would be a personal call.

Archie:
You lose the bet. You mention Mforshim which mention what the Gemara should have said, ironically backing up my point that that is not what the Gemara says, which is that they were stopped for other reasons. Even you agree that according to Rashi, who is the Pashtan, the Shchita was Munachas.

[David F.]

Mr. G. Rubushkin,

I appreciate your posts on this blog.

I have a scientific background but know nothing about the technical issues of kashruth, particularly the issues of slaughter. Can you recommend a good book that will explain concepts like "nefulos" "assur" "sofeik treif" "glatt" etc.?

[Archie Bunker]

That's a dodge, Getzel. My main argument was not over shechita munachas but the other practices at Agri that are painful according to everyone. (But you already knew that) Munachas may only be a stress issue which does not constitute the issur of tzaar like inflicting blows but there are still poskim who do not allow munachas.

The meforshim say the Gemara should have *asked* and most likely construe the terutz as following this logic in the derech of the baalei musser.

The kashya alone tells us that your interpretation is morally bankrupt, to claim in the name of the chachmei Hatalmud that issurim like tzaar baalei chaim are somehow mutter.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

David,

Nufulos refers to birds which fall more than a specified distance and we suspect they may have been hurt to the point of no longer being Kosher.

Assur simply means forbidden.

Sofek loosely translated means doubt, so Sofeik Treif means something which we have reason to believe may be Treif.

Glatt is Yiddish and means smooth. It is most commonly used to refer to the lung of an animal, where a hole or membrane would be problematic and such a lung is of the highest quality, having no concerns raised about it.

I can't think of a book that would explain those concepts, but I am more than happy to provide any information I can. Feel free to email me if you have unrelated questions of this nature - in my spare time I am involved in projects of an educational nature, and that is primarily where my passion lies.

[Archie Bunker]

There are so many ironies here. Potamkin is also a used car dealership in Brooklyn, NY, although to my knowledge they are not involved in Agri style extortion of forcing people to buy cars that don't even run.

[Archie Bunker]

Yochanan Lavie, can we count on you for some musical interlude? Perhaps "No man is an island" by Joan Baez?

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Archie, Tzar Ba'alei Chayim is not Muttar, but it applies specifically to unnecessary pain. For example, Melikah was presumably painful, but was done because that was the requirement of the Avodah.

The discussion began when the sagely "sage" commented that since Omedes can be done Munachas no longer has a place, since it causes unnecessary discomfort. I quoted this Gemara to support the argument that discomfort that allows Munachas to be done Halachically does not constitute unnecessary pain.

I believe you sided with her before I quoted that Gemara, but you definitely stepped in at some point and I maintain my position.

The fact that these practices were instituted at all is a bit hard to defend according to your position. There is no way those who initiated those practices could have missed the fact that it caused more discomfort than Omedes, while they may have overlooked the fact that it had other issues, such as giving the appearance of a Bal Mum, or possibly causing a Nevailah.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

The funny part of all this is that I am being presented as a spokesman for Agri for explaining what a Mezuzah is (a terribly distorted quote thought it may be), and dissing the PR of the company. Very important messages which the company is trying to get out there.

[Carol Ann Varley]

Getzel,
You are very intelligent; but I think you give too much credit to gentiles. The vast majority of gentiles know little Shechita, if at all. Gentiles cannot approve or disapprove of a practice which is under their cultural radar.

If Agri commissioned a national poll to check the gentile approval rating of Shechita, the response would be:

"Duh...Shechita? Is that some sort of Mexican cusine?"

[Archie Bunker]

I believe the Yalkut Meam Loez (Rav Yaakov Culi, not Rav Yerushalmi) brings from kadmonim that melikah was a very precise skill for many reasons including that it was a very quick decapitation with a very sharp nail (not unlike a sakin) that was painless. You are making a lot of convenient assumptions.

My main beef (excuse the pun) is with the overall mistreatment of animals at Agri. Agri is not the only villain, as the OU's Belsky was caught on video just standing around like everything was fine when deer were being abused before shechita at Musicon Farms.

You have a lot of nerve to innocently repeat "The fact that these practices were instituted at all is a bit hard to defend according to your position", after I earlier provided the background with the Tzeduki situation and the several other practices that Rebbi Yochanan stopped.

I was arguing with you over the nokfim detail which you try to make inseparable from the entire munachas issue.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

No, Archie. Straw Man. I began this discussion on a particular issue, and you are attempting to change that and attack whatever it is you want my position to be.

This discussion began because of a statement that Omedes is preferable as it circumvents some discomfort to the animal. THAT is what I was addressing. The Nokfim issue does demonstrate that Munachas was preferred even though it does entail additional discomfort to the animal, and stop baselessly blaming the procedure on the Tzdukim.

The Gemara would hardly need to justify the halting of the procedure the way it does if it was instituted by Tzdukim in blatant disregard for Tzar Ba'alei Chayim.

Additionally, the problem of Tzar Ba'alei Chayim is a much bigger issue than the appearance of a Bal Mum, and the Gemara would hardly disregard a stronger justification in favor of a weaker one.

[WoolSIlkCotton]

+++...it is a kiddush hashem that you guys are learning torah on the internet, it shows the talmud is still applicable today...+++

Dear Critical_Minyan,
A family that has committed one of the worse cases of Chillul Hashem in modern history, being disingenuously represented by a cunning sociopath, is arguing nuances of Torah Law with a group of well-meaning Jews who seem utterly exasperated with his fraudulent polemics. It's all designed to keep jerking us around, keep himself in the center of the circus, hoping that we will eventually tire and give up.
You call this a 'kiddush hashem'?
I doubt if G-d is very pleased with what He is seeing.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Ah, the bigot weights in.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

weighs*

[Y. Aharon]

Barry's comments go way beyond objecting to anything done at Postville. He attempts to strike a blow against shechitah itself. If kosher slaughterhouses were required to incinerate the animals found to be treif - namely a majority of the animals processed, then kosher meat would be prohibitively expensive. Prohibiting any kosher slaughtered meat from being sold to the non-kosher trade would add to the burden. It's true that the hindquarters can be processed as to remove the forbidden sciatic nerve (gid hanashe), but the procedure is difficult, will slow production, and raise costs.

There is no call for attempting to legislate what Barry advocates. As it is, influential consumers of non-kosher such as Macdonalds and other such purveyors (or supermarket chains) are at liberty to either not buy from kosher meat producers or to enforce standards such as a limiting time to unconsciousness (20 seconds) and signs of animal distress (moo rate at, say, 5% of the animals). Such standards are actually in place and some of the kosher producers qualify. I would have no objection if such standards were legislated in this country (it already exists in others).

As to the greater humaneness of "stunning", that could depend on the actual method. The old method of bashing the heads of the animals with a sledgehammer is hardly more humane. Shooting the animal through the brain with a bolt can lead to immediate unconsciousness if the aim is good. It will, however, also lead to the splattering of said brain and the potential contamination of the meat with BSE. Anaesthetizing the animals prior to slaughter is superior, in principle, but is objected to for kosher slaughter since the animal may thereby be rendered unrevivable and therefore a neveila.

In sum, there are mechanisms to encourage or enforce higher standards of shechitah without the draconian measure offered by Barry.

Y. Aharon

[Getzel Rubashkin]

A cunning illiterate sociopath, if you don't mind.

Unless that goes without saying, since I am Chassidic.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Not only can WSC assess intelligence and literacy from a persons religious affiliation, he can also somehow make psychological assessments sight unseen.

[WoolSIlkCotton]

If the shoe fits, Getzel (or whoever is guiding you in English today)...

[WoolSIlkCotton]

I wouldn't have to personally meet John Gotti, Jr., either.

[critical_minyan]

woolsilkcotton,
you are right. this is not a kiddush hashem, it is a giant chilul hashem that this is taking place. if you run the largest kosher operation in the USA you have to go out of your way to maintain your business reputation.
i think the family has lost its chezkat kashrut. we can not believe them when they talk. getzel says they are just allegations. allegations are not enough to imprison in american law, but they are enough to lose their chezkat kashrut according to jewish law.
getzel,
you did not answer the question. would you eat food that you know for a fact was made by a laborer that was not paid a fair wage.
yes or no?

[WoolSIlkCotton]

But that's an insult to Gotti, comparing him to you.

[WoolSIlkCotton]

I wouldn't have to personally meet John Gotti, Jr., either.

[Archie Bunker]

"Archie. Straw Man"

Yes Getzel I had the zchus of being saved quite a while ago from consuming any Rubashkin product, azay vi shtait "asher lakachti miyad haEmori becharbi uve*kash*ti"

Edom fits into this so well, namely Amalek shel Edom. It was fitting that you brought up melikah and you should look up the Alter Rebbe's vort in Sefer Torah Or. The Baal Hatanya says the mitzva of mechiyas Amalek is that the "Am malak" among the Jewish people should stop separating their heads from their bodies, putting themselves in a mental state where they will not correct their own wrongs.

You are the one spinning things here and I'm sure anyone looking up my sources will agree. For good measure, I already mentioned that I took up your "pshat" with the mashgiach of a major yeshiva who also believes you are in error.

[WoolSIlkCotton]

+++in my spare time I am involved in projects of an educational nature, and that is primarily where my passion lies+++

So educate me, nonbigotted Chassid of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, what is the value of the life of a Catholic Mexican person? Is he or she worthy of the same basic human rights protections described in the Torah, or do those only apply to Chassidim? Do you feel that that Mexican you are tormenting and swindling is a human being, created in the image of G-d, or is he just a beast for you to whip?

Really, what goes through a Rubashkin's mind when he makes eye contact with a Mexican immigrant who arrives at the Agri plant for his first day in hell?

[Archie Bunker]

I wish to share what I heard this week from a rosh yeshiva. He is surprised that the OU / RCA are going along with this Rubashkin charade, that we should wait for the final determination by the Federal govt and that every allegation is or could be false.

Getzel was very vehement that it's not applicable earlier when I mentioned the shita of Rav SZ Auerbach & others that it's not the derech of the US govt to level even a single trumped up charge, let alone a slew of them.

The rosh yeshiva wonders where these Rubashkin beneficiaries have left their common sense.

I would add vos shtait, "hatayvah hagayvah ve hamammon motzeein es ha adam min ha olam" Rabbeinu Yona teitcht that these things like money make it so a person is not here because he can no longer see the world clearly.

[Archie Bunker]

Actually I mixed up elements of two maamarei Chazal by accident by the vort still applies.

[Archie Bunker]

should have read - BUT the vort still applies.

[Shmarya]

Y Aharon writes:

As it is, influential consumers of non-kosher such as Macdonalds and other such purveyors (or supermarket chains) are at liberty to either not buy from kosher meat producers or to enforce standards such as a limiting time to unconsciousness (20 seconds) and signs of animal distress (moo rate at, say, 5% of the animals). Such standards are actually in place and some of the kosher producers qualify. I would have no objection if such standards were legislated in this country (it already exists in others).

Rubashkin's attorney Nat Lewin opposes this as do other Agudath Israel functionaries – and they are lobbying hard against it.

Here is an example of this

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/08/kashrus-magazin.html

[Paul Freedman]

and the number of non-kosher slaughterhouses that supplement spike-into-brain with prior pharmaceutical anesthetics is?

On the animal treatment side, I suspect that schecita (and AgriP specifically) is serving as the scapegoat for the inherent cruelty of the meat-packing trade

http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_010.htm

[Shmarya]

Getzel Rubashkin writes:
The fact that these practices were instituted at all is a bit hard to defend according to your position. There is no way those who initiated those practices could have missed the fact that it caused more discomfort than Omedes, while they may have overlooked the fact that it had other issues, such as giving the appearance of a Bal Mum, or possibly causing a Nevailah.Before hydraulics were invented, it was very difficult to shecht an animal standing, which is why casting was the normative option for mammals.

Standing shechita then involved multiple workers restraining the animal manually. This was extremely dangerous, caused a lot of pain to the animal, and would have had a very high nevaila rate – which is why it wasn't done.

With the advent of hydraulics and the ASPC pen, standing shechita became not only possible, but the most humane option available. It provides better and faster bleedout and is the safest option for workers, shochtim and cattle alike.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

WSC: Reverting to form. Very nice. Your online persona will be judged by the comments you make.

I have provided a link to writing which displays an adequate level of literacy for your allegations to be reduced to bigotry. I also did a weekly radio program here in Postville for a short time, and I believe Jeff can testify to my ability to express myself.

Your comparing me to a mafia criminal is equally uncalled for, as you cannot produce any actions or words of mine which support that comparison, or your labeling me a sociopath.

critical_minyan: I didn't realize that was a question directed at me. I thought you were asking about Jewish law. If I knew that a particular item was produced in way which violated my beliefs, including by abusing or enslaving someone, I would not patronize that company and be an accessory to that behavior.

Archie: I don't have much to add. I believe anyone looking up the Gemara will come to the inescapable conclusion that a practice which caused discomfort to the animal was not considered unnecessary since it enabled Shchita Munachas, and was only discontinued when other considerations came up.

[Shmarya]

On the animal treatment side, I suspect that schecita (and AgriP specifically) is serving as the scapegoat for the inherent cruelty of the meat-packing trade

What a bizarre statement.

There are dozens of certified slaughterhouses that provide meat for Albertson's and McDonald's that are as humane as slaughterhouses can be. These slaughter houses are inspected frequently by third party experts.

Even before this program, I saw extremely humane shechita at a plant that shechted for non-glatt brands.

If the government's school lunch programs would adopt FMI standards and surprise audits, the meat industry would be cleaned up overnight.

But to say Agri is the scapegoat – when every third party expert be they animal welfare experts or worker safety experts – say Agri was the worst of the worst.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Shmarya, accepting the difficulties inherent in Omedes, the solution of the rings in the floor that was subsequently used was also available from the beginning. They did not utilize that solution to avoid the uncomfortable prep procedures.

I am not advocating causing more pain to the animal, I am simply pointing out that avoiding discomfort to the animal is not the overriding factor in Shchita when weighed against other issues.

[Archie Bunker]

"a practice which caused discomfort to the animal was not considered unnecessary since it enabled Shchita"

http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/cantseethefo.html

Noch a moll Getzel, you can't see the forest for the trees. Especially when you do something beyadayim, the Torah hakedoshah expects us to do our uttmost to prevent pain. This is midas Chassidus already but do you remember the Gemara where the Tanna would not even allow baby rodents to be swept away with a broom to their certain death? Rodents are not even baalei chai.

Oh, midas Chassidus? Isn't Chassidus something that the Rubashkins follow?

[Shmarya]

Getzel Rubashkin writes:I am not advocating causing more pain to the animal, I am simply pointing out that avoiding discomfort to the animal is not the overriding factor in Shchita when weighed against other issues.I know you're not advocating more pain, Getzel.

And your point about shechita is true, to a point.

The prep for standing shechita in Temple times was extremely dangerous. Of course casting would be the preferred method in that case.

The issues today are not ones of danger – if anything, the Facomia Pen is a bit more dangerous to use than a ASPCA-approved standing pen.

One cannot and should not compare issues regarding danger to life with economic issues or the like.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

I accepted your point on the issues facing standing Shchita.

My point is that in the Bais HaMikdash the rings could have been used from the start. They preferred methods which did not have the (presumed) shortcomings of the rings although they caused discomfort to the animal.

Shchita Munachas is called "Ikar Derech Shchita" in the Simlah Chadasha. Standing Shchita has many shortcomings, and minimal discomfort to the animal does not rule out Munachas.

That is my point.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

++Rodents are not even baalei chai++

Really?

As for the rest of your comment, I am not arguing against avoiding pain. I think that is clear.

[Shmarya]

Getzel Rubashkin writes:My point is that in the Bais HaMikdash the rings could have been used from the start. They preferred methods which did not have the (presumed) shortcomings of the rings although they caused discomfort to the animal.

Shchita Munachas is called "Ikar Derech Shchita" in the Simlah Chadasha. Standing Shchita has many shortcomings, and minimal discomfort to the animal does not rule out Munachas.Again, that choice was made largely due to sakana, danger to human life.

One cannot and should not compare issues of sakana to other issues.

As for the Simla Chadasha, last time I checked, one opinion doesn't make up the entirety of halakha.

Rav Moshe Feinstein ate standing shechita. Rav JB Soleveitchik ate standing shechita. Your Rebbe ate standing shechita.

Don't forget that.

[Archie Bunker]

Rodents are bichlal shrotzim.

Chayos, beheimos & oifos are baalei chai.

With OAF-os like Lubinsky & Engelmayer it's a tzorich iyun.

[Archie Bunker]

"I am not arguing against avoiding pain"

You seem pretty convinced there is no problem with slicing open an animal's forehead by hitting it with sticks, a practice of idolators and Kusim no less.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Shmarya, using the rings, which they subsequently did, constitutes danger to life? In what way? And why was it implemented if so?

I did not say there is anything wrong with Shchita Omedes.

As far as I know, Simla Chadasha is widely, if not universally, accepted in matters of Shchita.

Archie: The Gemara is the one who accepts that practice without arguing Tzar Ba'alei Chayim. The reason is, and try to follow here, because that practice was at the time the best way to implement Shchita (Munachas).

They would not, and I do not, argue that that practice would be acceptable today, when there is no need, and therefore no justification, for it.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, using the rings, which they subsequently did, constitutes danger to life? In what way? And why was it implemented if so?

It's very hard to restrain a standing animal in way that shechita can be done. That restraining is more dangerous than casting – which itself is dangerous.

Standing shechita in an ASPCA-approved pen is by far safer than either.

As far as I know, Simla Chadasha is widely, if not universally, accepted in matters of Shchita.

Not was wide as you think.

[Archie Bunker]

Sigh. Here you go again that the Gemara "accepted" the practice.

But now that you agree that there is no justification for gratuitous inflicting of pain maybe you can use your connections to ensure that the animals at Agri are not mistreated.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Sorry, I don't get your argument.
I am pointing out that a less painful option (the rings) existed, and yet a more painful option (disorienting the animal) was adopted.

Based on this, I believe the argument can be made that the increased discomfort to the animal was considered acceptable because it enabled a superior Shchita.

And your point is...?

On the Simlah Chadasha, do you care to back that up, especially regarding his position on Shchita Munachas?

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Archie. The Gemara discusses the practice being stopped when other considerations were raised. NOT because of Tzar Ba'alei Chayim, even though the increased pain to the animal is evident from the outset.

[Shmarya]

Getzel Rubashkin writes:Sorry, I don't get your argument.

I am pointing out that a less painful option (the rings) existed, and yet a more painful option (disorienting the animal) was adopted.

Based on this, I believe the argument can be made that the increased discomfort to the animal was considered acceptable because it enabled a superior Shchita.You're comparing apples to oranges.

Pre-hydraulics, it was more difficult to restrain an animal standing and to do proper shechita – hence the preference for casting.

We have hydraulics now.

As for the Simla Chadasha, you could ask the many poskim who paskened to use the ASPCA-approved pen. I named two above. Your Rebbe wasn't a posek.

[Archie Bunker]

Getzel, for the umpteenth time, there can be other reasons that are not explicitly mentioned by the Gemara.

Meanwhile you miss the boat yet again and do not acknowledge that you can do something to alleviate the suffering of animals before they turn into Agri hamburger meat.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Shmarya.

I did NOT, repeat, NOT, say there is anything unkosher about standing pens. Any psak that permits a particular standing pen would be aimed at addressing the numerous concerns Shchita Omedes presents. There is no need for a psak that standing Shchita is kosher. The Simla Chadasha allows standing Shchita as well, yet he maintains that Munachas is preferable.

My point is that arguing against Munachas on the grounds of Tzar Ba'alei Chayim does not hold Talmudic water. We have a clear example of preference for a procedure which increased discomfort to the animal because it enabled an better Shchita. This is between two Munachas options.

The rings are equivalent to your standing pens - they offer less pain for the animal. That argument did not make the case for the rings until other considerations arose, and it doesn't make the case for eliminating Shchita Munachas because of Tzar Ba'alei Chayim.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Archie, the barn was modified to Temple Grandin's suggestions, and there is no Tzar Ba'alei Chayim going on in Agriprocessors.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

And the Gemara would hardly argue "it looks bad," when according to you it could have argued "it is bad."

[Getzel Rubashkin]

a* better Shchita

[Y. Aharon]

Getzel: Rav Belsky has an article wherein he states that the preference for non-upright shechitah advocated by some is due to a misreading of a Shach. The Shach was referring to a case where the chalaf was stationary and the animal's head was moved back and forth over it to do the shechitah. Clearly, in such a case, the shochet has no real control over the amount of pressure being exerted on the animal's throat. That is not at all comparable to the situation where the shochet cuts the throat of a standing animal from below.

Y. Aharon

[Shmarya]

Getzel Rubashkin writes:My point is that arguing against Munachas on the grounds of Tzar Ba'alei Chayim does not hold Talmudic water. We have a clear example of preference for a procedure which increased discomfort to the animal because it enabled an better Shchita. This is between two Munachas options.Again, Getzel, you are comparing apples (pre-hydraulics) to oranges (hydraulics).

The reason menuchas used to be better shechita was the issue of restraint with regard to the animals head and neck moving and the shochet's (or kohen's) reaction to the problems of that restraint.

The ASPCA-approved pen has removed those issues.

[Shmarya]

I should add that menuchat is now inferior to omedet for several reasons, not the least of which is bleedout.

[Carol Ann Varley]

Spellcheck: cuisine (not cusine)

Pardon moi!

[Shmarya]

Y. Aharon –

You can see that in my interview with Rabbi Belsky, as well.

[Anonymous]

Hey Barry, were you the guy who left Agri in disgrace after the other workers ganged up on you and gave you a wedgie on Sholom Rubashkin's door knob?

Posted by: Archie Bunker

This is the same dickhead who thinks he's the Gadol Hador.

Yeah, I can see a real Talmid Chacham posting this.

You moron.

[State of Postville]

Getzel, just what kind of employee of the plant are you that you can sit and respond all day long. I bet you are not on the line toiling alongside that other workers that are now making a mere $10/per hour. My fact is that nope just another spoiled, snot-nosed "Rubish"kin that doesn't do anything all day long, except to screw the hard working people on the line in the plant that do your families dirty work. I remember you and your friends running around the plant several years ago ordering people who are your elders like they were mere pheasants. Oh by the way, is your family still screwing people out of their overtime pay? If you think this is a lie, I have alot of evidence gathered to prove this point(paycheck stubs from employees who have been shorted all of their overtime).

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Y. Aharon and Shmarya: The preference for Shchita Munachas is mentioned in the Simlah Chadasha. He is not referring to a stationary Chalaf.

Shmarya, neither I nor you have the credentials to establish what is a better Halachic Shchita. That was not my point.

My point was simply that the argument that prepping for Munachas causing more discomfort than Omedes is not in itself a valid argument.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

++I remember you and your friends running around the plant several years ago ordering people who are your elders like they were mere pheasants.++

You are a liar. And I believe it is spelled "peasants." You must be a Chassid.

[Archie Bunker]

To the anonymous big mouth, I never claimed to be "gadol hador". Evidently, you feel that someone who can read seforim is leagues beyond you.

[Archie Bunker]

Getzel, a pheasant is a bird favored by hunters.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

I know what a pheasant is, thank you.

[Shmarya]

Y. Aharon and Shmarya: The preference for Shchita Munachas is mentioned in the Simlah Chadasha. He is not referring to a stationary Chalaf.

He is misunderstanding the Shach. He is a minority opinion. He is not God.

My point was simply that the argument that prepping for Munachas causing more discomfort than Omedes is not in itself a valid argument.

It is a valid argument. The gemara you rely on had valid shechita concerns based on the difficulty of restraint as I explained several times above.

Those concerns are absent today.

Shmarya, neither I nor you have the credentials to establish what is a better Halachic Shchita. That was not my point.

We know bleed out rate is far better standing.

We know it is far more humane standing.

It is less dangerous for workers standing.

We know the only reason to do menuchat is a minority opinion based on a misreading of the Shach.

I'd say we can safely say standing is better.

[Anonymous]

To the anonymous big mouth, I never claimed to be "gadol hador". Evidently, you feel that someone who can read seforim is leagues beyond you.

Posted by: Archie Bunker | August 18, 2008 at 05:36 PM

All of your learning is slime.

You are a zero.

And I can learn circles around you.

And you are still a dickhead.

[Rachel Batya]

I just got up the nerve to watch the 2004 PETA video. Don't worry, I won't go into all my responses to it, which have been expressed by enough people already. But it raised some questions that I would like to have answered:

1. I noticed that when the shochet slit the throat, he didn't just do a single clean motion. He actually sawed back and forth. My understanding is that there has to be a clean, quick severing of the carotids to induce insensibility to pain. When I've shechted chickens, that's the way I've done it, and the animal goes down immediately. Is it acceptable to saw back and forth like that and still call the process shechittah? And if it's not, does this kind of thing still happen in kosher slaughterhouses?

2. Does the shochet say a bracha before shechting each individual animal? Or is there a general one before the whole thing begins?

3. What happens to the blood that ends up all over the floor? Since it's supposed to be buried in a bed of earth, how does this happen? I've always been extremely careful to make sure that all of the animal's blood is in one place so that it can be buried with the proper bracha. And I don't mix up the blood of one animal with another. It's seems to me a way of respecting each animal.

In general, it was troubling to me to see the process, not because of the obvious horrors, but because it was so impersonal. I realize that this is an inescapable element of factory farming. It seems to me that much of the intent of shechittah is to raise the animals, to feed and water and care for them, so that one can feel the gravity of taking their lives. This is impossible in any kind of factory environment.

If these questions have already been answered somewhere, just point me to the right place.

Many thanks...

[Getzel Rubashkin]

++[The Smach] is misunderstanding the Shach. He is a minority opinion.++

I would be interested in hearing who exactly is the opposing opinion. The Smach definitely has seniority over R' Belsky, and I don't believe R' Belsky would make the arguments you are making in his name.

You continue to argue as if I am defending Shchita Munachas based on that Gemara, which I am not.

Until you establish that the preference for Munachas has no Halachic standing the other things you mention are irrelevant.

[Shmarya]

The Smach definitely has seniority over R' Belsky, and I don't believe R' Belsky would make the arguments you are making in his name.

1. He made them himself.

2. The Simla Chadash doers not have seniority over Rabbi Belsky or anyone else. That is not how halakha works.

3. The Simla Chadasha's understanding is a minority opinion.

[Maverick]

I hardly think that you are any type of authority in learning. Even if you were, it would be inappropriate for you to act as one in a situation where you personally stand to gain (and if you dare say that you do not stand to gain, which is obviously not the case, it will definitively prove that your statements are not to be trusted).

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Shmarya,
1. He discounted the Smach?

2. As a matter of fact it does. Acharonim cannot contradict Rishonim. My history is a bit weak, but I am interested in hearing if R' Belsky discounted the Smach's opinion. I believe the Smach has been mandatory learning material for Shochtim for a very long time, long before R' Belsky got his Smicha.

3. Repetition will not cut it. Do you have facts? Names? Opposing opinions?

[Getzel Rubashkin]

I am not saying the Smach is a Rishon.I am pointing out that there is a Halachic concept, Ein Bais Din Mivatel Divrei Beis Din Chaveiro Eloh Im Kein Eloh Im Kein Hu Godol Mimenu B'Chochmoh Ub'Minyan.

A Bais Din cannot negate the words of a fellow Beis Din unless it is greater in knowledge and numbers.

It is generally accepted that previous generations were greater. Again, I am interested in whether R' Belsky discounted the Smach.

[Archie Bunker]

I believe that anon at 5:41 pm is a hotheaded Lubavitcher bochur who believes that ANY kind of foul mouth language is appropriate against a Rubashkin misnagid.

Somehow I seriously doubt though that he amounts to much in learning.

[Shmarya]

1. He discounted the Smach?

2. As a matter of fact it does. Acharonim cannot contradict Rishonim. My history is a bit weak, but I am interested in hearing if R' Belsky discounted the Smach's opinion. I believe the Smach has been mandatory learning material for Shochtim for a very long time, long before R' Belsky got his Smicha.

3. Repetition will not cut it. Do you have facts? Names? Opposing opinions?1. Yes.

2. a simplistic understanding of how halakha works.

3. You haven't brought any sources that say the Simla Chadasha is the posek acharon for shechita.

[Archie Bunker]

Who is the "Smach"?

[Archie Bunker]

"Acharonim cannot contradict Rishonim"

Really?

The Ran is even cholek on the Savoroyim who were either 2 or 3 eras before him.

The Gra who may have been as great as the Rashba was cholek on Rishonim.

There are a number of people in this generation who arrogantly think however that they may argue on various Achronim even though THEY have no right to do so.