Shechita Delusions And Jewish Communal Lies

"The law singles out two religions, Judaism and Islam, for specific and sole attack, requiring labeling only for animals killed by ritual slaughter. Yet for every animal expert arguing that they use uniquely cruel methods there are any number of others arguing the very opposite."

 

Shechita sophistry
The Jewish Chronicle [London]

Despite the lobbying attempts of Shechita UK, an amendment was passed last week at the European Parliament which would, if it became law, force the labelling of meat from animals killed according to the rules of Judaism and Islam.

It will now come to the full Parliament for a final vote in July. Whatever the rights and wrongs of labelling in general, be in no doubt that the arguments put forward by the amendment's sponsors, that their proposal is based on a concern with animal welfare, are pure sophistry. Were animal welfare the driving force, all forms of slaughter would have to be identified.

But the law singles out two religions, Judaism and Islam, for specific and sole attack, requiring labelling only for animals killed by ritual slaughter. Yet for every animal expert arguing that they use uniquely cruel methods there are any number of others arguing the very opposite. There is no consistency of approach, only a direct attack on religious freedom. Efforts will have to be redoubled to make sure that, come July, we are not left bemoaning a vote by the full Parliament to attack Jews and Muslims.

The above Jewish Chronicle editorial reflects the position of Shechita UK, a lobbying group meant to preserve Jewish ritual slaughter. Led by Simon Cohen, Shechita UK has specialized in mixing very old (and often very biased) pro-shechita research with modern science – which is overwhelmingly clear that animals are rendered insensate faster and more reliably if stunned before slaughter.

When the JC writes "for every animal expert arguing that they use uniquely cruel methods there are any number of others arguing the very opposite," those unnamed "experts" arguing the "very opposite" overwhelmingly wrote in the 1930s or earlier, and were often recruited by Orthodox rabbis attempting to defend shechita against Nazi attempts to ban it that were clothed in protecting animals from cruelty.

Cohen and his ilk – Nathan Lewin in the US, for example – see no or very little difference between the Nazis of the 1930s and groups like PETA and the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals today, even though PETA argues that properly done shechita is as humane as slaughter can be, and the ASPCA puts their seal on pens used to restrain animals during Jewish ritual slaughter.

The issue is how we define "properly done shechita."

Pro-shechita activists like Cohen define "properly done shechita" in superficial halakhic terms: the condition of the knife blade, the position of the cut, etc. – in other words, they define "properly done shechita" by the Orthodox and haredi definition of the minutia of halakha, Jewish law.

Animal welfare experts – including Dr. Temple Grandin, who is often misquoted by pro-shechita activists – define "properly done shechita" by other criteria: animal handling leading up to slaughter, minimizing delay from positioning the animal and slaughter, the sharpness of the knife, the swiftness of the cut, leaving the animal undisturbed after shechita until it loses consciousness, etc.

What animal welfare activists want does not in any way conflict with halakha.

Even so, Shechita UK, Nathan Lewin and other pro-shechita activists, along with haredi kosher supervision agencies (and often the Orthodox Union [OU], as well), continue to refuse to mandate the implementation of measures that would meet the requirements of animal welfare activists and experts, while at the same time calling these groups and individuals antisemitic.

Indeed, Nathan Lewin equated PETA with the Nazis and Shechita UK's Simon Cohen called labeling meat killed by ritual slaughter methods the "21st century equivalent of the yellow star," and both continue to say that shechita is not only as humane as pre-stunned slaughter, but that shechita is more humane than pre-stunned slaughter, and base that ridiculous conclusion on 80 year old 'research' recruited for the most part by Orthodox rabbis.

And that's how we get to the Jewish Chronicle's blatant error (or its blatant lie):"for every animal expert arguing that they use uniquely cruel methods there are any number of others arguing the very opposite."

Put simply, Shechita UK is lying and the London Jewish Chronicle is taking those lies and repeating them as if they were true.

This behavior will eventually lead to the labeling Shechita UK's Cohen so vehemently opposes and may one day lead to a complete ban on shechita in the European Union.

When that happens, Cohen and the Jewish Chronicle's editors will have no one to blame but themselves.

But Cohen, et al, won't blame themselves. Instead, they'll continue to blame 'antisemitic' animal welfare activists who would have been easily appeased with simple changes in animal handling that in no way conflict with halakha.

Comments

[seymour]

the whole no stunning is a big lie including the whole shichtha

nowhere does it say in the torah does it say how to kill an animal etc.

Yet they try to imply that any changes
is against the torah and shichtha must be more humane since god said that is how to kill an animal.

The only problem is that gd never ever said that, it is all man made, therefore it could be flawed. But they will never ever admit the truth.

If I am wrong please quote me where in the torah it mention shichtha

[seymour]

to equate this to Nazi simply says that they really do not know how to argue their point logically.

The Nazi argument is simply a cop-out when they do not get what they want.

As FM says just change a few little things and all is fine, however the rabbies never ever want to be told what to do by goyim. or that maybe the previous generations where wrong and there are more humane way of killing an animal. If they would admit that then everything can be questioned and they cannot have that

[the usual chaim]

your take is not entirely fair. if, as you say, organizations like peta grant that shechita could be done humanely given the criteria you mention, you are right. however, as you have rported before, the stunning issue is not the same as the sort of things you mention with respect to peta's demands. there it comes to a question (that i am in no position to answer) as to whether or not the meat is kosher at all. thus "What animal welfare activists want does not in any way conflict with halakha" isnt necessarily true. it may be, but i dont think it is as simple as you portray it.

the truth is that the modern meat industry is, in its entirety, barbaric and also grossly irresponsible from a environmental and health standpoints. much mor would be achievd by attacking "big meat" and starting society-wide initiatives to reduce meat consumption overall. although i am sympathetic to the concerns of the EU, i think this is a blatant case of picking on the small guy and ignoring much mor pervasive problems that nobody wants to face

[seymour]

to equate this to Nazi simply says that they really do not know how to argue their point logically.

The Nazi argument is simply a cop-out when they do not get what they want.

As FM says just change a few little things and all is fine, however the rabbies never ever want to be told what to do by goyim. or that maybe the previous generations where wrong and there are more humane way of killing an animal. If they would admit that then everything can be questioned and they cannot have that

[Deremes]

I cant comment much in the particulars about Shechita.I am not a schocet or an expert.
But a couple of points.

A week or two before the Nazis invaded Poland, a parliament member in Poland a woman who was a Nazi sympathizer was trying to ban Shechita.
Not that i am trying to compare but figured ill throw it in.

Is PETA to be compared to the Nazis? not at all.

The Nazis petted their dogs while they shot Jews.
Will PETA kill people to protect animals? without a doubt.

Who is to define what halakha is?
It is someone who observes the Torah without negotiations. In the last two hundred years it become know as Orthodox Judaism.
Reform/Conservatives rabbis can tell their members what ever they desire.Observant Orthodox Jews have their rabbis who defines what halakha really is.

Dr. Temple Grandin is being quoted (or mis-quoted) by pro-shechita activists only to prove a different opinion to the anti-shechita activists. Not that they need her opinion what cruelty is. Because the Schulcan Orech and all the poskem told us for generations how to schect and nothing is considerd kosher besides their pesokim.

Kosher supervision organizations has an agenda to supply kosher meat.
The violent PETA has an agenda to ban Shechita or the killings of any other animal.
They might agree NOW with certain ways of Shechita because they claim there is no pain.But once they have their way they will try to ban it all together.

[Shmarya]

You simply prove my point.

You don't know the facts, you don't know the halakha, and you don't know the science.

Even so, you are 100% sure you are correct because your rabbi told you that you are.

You're ignorant, and you're too ill-informed to know it.

[Shochet]

The word Shchita in all of Torah & Tenaach means Kill. What ever the contemporary meathod happens to be, is all called Shchitah.

The whole meathod of the knife at the throat, was just copying the Goyim of those years.

The word Treifu means a dead animal, on the ground in the field, killed by another animal.

Neveilu means an animal which died of natural causes, and was not killed for the purpose of human consumption.

Any kosher animal killed by people, by any means, for human consumption, is permitted.

[Deremes]

On this one i have to agree with you.

I don't know the facts about Schchita.
I don't know the science.
I am 100% sure what i said because the rabbis of Klal Yisroel told us for generations what is or isn't halakha. And that held up Judaism for all those hundreds of generations.
So you call that ignorant? then I'm proud of it

[Shmarya]

Yes, you're so ignorant that you don't realize what your rabbis are telling you is not how halakha was practiced for thousands of years. In fact, it isn't how halakha was practiced 250 years ago or even how it was normatively practiced before WW2.

You're a shoteh and you revel in it.

[Mendy]

Pro-shechita activists like Cohen define "properly done shechita" in superficial halakhic terms: the condition of the knife blade, the position of the cut, etc.

Animal welfare experts define "properly done shechita" by other criteria: animal handling leading up to slaughter, minimizing delay from positioning the animal and slaughter, the sharpness of the knife, the swiftness of the cut....

As someone that learned Shchita i can say that "the sharpness of the knife and the swiftness of the cut" is of paramount importance to the Shochet.

Just to illustrate Shmarya's knowledge of the "facts"...

[Shochet]

Deremes

Which Rabbis of Klal Yisroel?

The rabbis who say that if one carries on Shabbos on Boro Park (with the Eiruv) should be stoned, Or the Rabbis that say that its fine?

The Rabbis, that say that if you use an Eiruv-carrier, for Eidim at a Chuppah, the engagement is not valid, and the girl can immediately get married to another man?

The Rabbis who say that if one eats the worms in fish he must be spanked (6 x 39 times), or the Rabbis that say that its OK?

[Shmarya]

Mendy –

Apparently learning shechita didn't help you with your literacy skills or your ability to process information logically.

Is there overlap between what animal welfare activists and pro-shechita activists want done?

Of course.

But shochtim who have worked with Dr. Temple Grandin put an animal unconscious much faster than the average shochet who has not. And that's the point.

Now toddle off.

[Mendy]

How about addressing the inaccuracies i raised in your article instead of resorting to name-calling...

[Shmarya]

How about addressing the inaccuracies i raised in your article instead of resorting to name-calling...

Posted by: Mendy | April 28, 2011 at 01:35 PM

You didn't raise any actual inaccuracies.

You did, however, show that you don't comprehend what you read.

[Mendy]

Shmarya,

In your article it's quite clear that each group has their distinct agenda, without overlap!

An 'inaccuracy' would be an understatement, it's an unequivocal distortion of the truth! (one of many on this site...)

[Shmarya]

In your article it's quite clear that each group has their distinct agenda, without overlap!

Like I said, you have serious reading comprehension issues.

[Mendy]

Easy way out...

I rest my case.

[Shmarya]

You're a moron, Mendy.

You don't even understand what I wrote let alone why you're wrong.

Tell us, which rabbi taught you? Where in Chabad did you learn?

[Mendy]

I dont see why it's relevant, but with a local Shochet here in Crown Heights.

[Shmarya]

I dont see why it's relevant, but with a local Shochet here in Crown Heights.

I just wondered who would educate someone like you.

[Deremes]

Shochet,
I hope you are not a real shochet.

I was referring mostly to the Poskim (rabbis) of the previous generations. And to the rabbis who are pro or anti Eiruv.

But listen,to most of you Orthodox rabbis don't count because all rabbis do, is protecting child molestors.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

nowhere does it say in the torah does it say how to kill an animal etc.

For that matter, it is not stated anywhere that the animal has to be even killed, just schechted -- cf. בן פקועה.

Mendy read the article again,

they both want the animal to die fast and painlessly as possible.

however, the rebbeis will never take advice from science since they think that what they do is perfection and g-d said so.

But of course g-d never said any such think.
the y did, but will never admit that

[Yechiel]

I can't help but have a good laugh.
Each side carrying on with stuff they know very little or nothing about.
Besides the issue at hand is about labeling, not about how to expedite the unconsciousness of animals.
There are multiple factors that come to play in how quick an animal will go down. Not all are directly related to how it is slaughtered.
Anyone who can think straight will agree that a dying animal's pain and agony is for a very short time and needs not be of any concern. Pain should rather be associated with living beings who continue to live in agony for great periods of time and later also have flashbacks.

[Yechiel]

In addition to my previous post
Where in the torah it states how shechita is done? וזבחת כאשר צויתיך.
A great portion of tractate Hulin is dedicated to the Halakhot of kosher meat. That is for those who believe in CHAZ"L.
Karaites need not respond. Though it is my understanding that they also use a similar method to slaughter animals.

[yidandahalf]

Jews, get over yourselves. The entire issue for the supporters of relgiously slaughtered animal product is profit. Deluding religous customers it is otherwise has proven to me an extremely successful business model. Times; however, have changed. The world is not the same as it was onehundred years ago in many ways and this very model is no longer tenable.

[Al farabi]

3500 years ago, when people were tearing limbs off live animals and eating them, shechita laws were appropriate under the banner of preventing cruelty to animals. Clearly, today this is no longer the case. Most frummers that I know can't stand to be around animals. The response of the chabad family members to my pet dogs always astounds and disgusts me - they routinely kick them and refuse to touch them. My 2 dogs are endowed with more sensitivity and kindness than the Haredim I have had the misfortune of meeting. As some of the commentators above have noted, the whole shechita business is exactly that - a business, and has squat to do with holiness or preventing cruelty to animals. The non- Jewish world would do us andthe animal kingdom a great favour by banning shechita outright - and yes, those disgusting blood thirsty Brits should ban fox hunting while they're about it too - they can continue to satisfy their blood lust by killing fellow human beings at soccer matches, as they are accustomed to doing, showing us their true nature, regardless of the pomp and ceremony of the wedding today. While the rabbis are prepared to use time switches and Shabbat lifts which weren't around 3500 years ago, they won't update the laws of shechita - makes them stink, doesn't it?

[Paul]

I am stunned by the willingness of people here to ignore what the current debate in the European Parliament is about.

1. Launched initially by the Environment Committee of the EP, the debate contains one amendment among hundreds on an initial document updating legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs. ALL foodstuffs, not just meat and not just kosher or halal meat.

2. This is not a debate about animal welfare, methods of slaughter, the rights and wrongs of shechita, the perception that European shechita is more barbaric than its sanitised US version (see Rubashkin et al) or indeed whether Temple Grandin has a better method than Europeans have.

3. After years of work by the European Commission, they wrote this document about how to label food. Where it comes from, how it is produced, how to codify the additives, what size the font should be and all manner of other questions relating to food labelling. In this whole treatise, there was not a word about stunning, nor about religious slaughter methods.

4. Once it hit the Envi committee of the EP, some people tried to place in an amendment calling for the labelling of all non-stunned meat. WHY?

5. The answer is very simple. Large amounts of Halal-produced meat is sold on the general market. Most ovine (sheep,lamb) meat produced in France, Belgium and The Netherlands is slaughtered Halal. Most New Zealand lamb imported into the EU is also Halal. That's a market decision. As is the fact that a very large chain of fast food hamburgers in France only sell Halal meat.

6. Right-wing politicians in Europe caught up in a debate about national identity such as Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel are concerned - generally for electoral reasons - about what they see as an encroachment of Islam into the general European society.

7. So they want to stop all this Islamic meat being sold to non-Muslims without their knowledge.

8. Now, of course you can't decide to write on a piece of lamb "This is Muslim meat." That would be discrimination. So instead, you decide to push for "This meat was not stunned before slaughter."

9. Clearly, these people don't care about specifying other slaughter methods on the label since the target is Muslims, not protecting the animals.

10. In fact, we have a perverse inter-dependence here of animal rights activists and ultra-right politicians. In the EU, it's anti-Muslim and led from the centre-right but because its couched in animal rights terms, the Greens jump on board. In The Netherlands, it's the other way round. There, the one animal rights MP proposes banning non-stunned slaughter. The far-right jump on that bandwagon because it will hit Muslims (and Jews).

11. The truth is though that most Muslim meat in Europe IS STUNNED and in general it's only the Jewish meat that isn't.

12. Now, the governments of the member states and the EU Commission know that this is discriminatory, has nothing to do with food labelling legislation and that is why the European Council threw out this amendment last year and why when it xcame to a real debate about slaughter methods in the European Parliament in 2009, the parliament voted overwhelmingly to support the retention of shechita rights.

12. Frankly, as a liberal - firstly for human beings and then for animals - I would hope that I would not find myself on the same side as people trying to hijack a food labelling bill because they don't like Muslims.

But apparently, the possibility that a couple of dozen hareidi rabbis could get a kicking (along with the two million other common or garden European Jews), appears to make sensible people support stupid things.

So let's summarise. The motivation isn't to hit Jews. Neither is it to protect animals because nobody is proposing other amendments to label foodstuffs about other methods of slaughter or how the animals are reared or transported or force-fed or entertained or castrated or whatever.
But the label will identify ONLY Jewish meat. Just like the yellow star ONLY identified Jews.

So the bleeding heart liberal position is to OPPOSE the amendment. Do you get that now, Shmarya?

[Dr. Dave]

Are other types of food being labeled and protested?

Is there a movement in the EU to prevent lobsters being sold live to be boiled to death alive?

How about the use of horse meat in several EU countries? How are the horses killed?

It does seem that kosher/hallal are being singled out.

[A. Nuran]

Yechiel, that's a simple false equivalence. Science bases its conclusions on facts, experiment and observation. Religion does not.

We can measure how much time it takes for an animal to lose consciousness under different conditions, how much agitation it shows before and all those other things. Tradition and religious dogma cannot do that.

On one hand you have shamans saying "The animal dies immediately because our book says that Invisible Sky Friend says so. And we are supposed to pretend you don't exist if you don't agree."

On the other you have people who have measured the time it takes to lose blood pressure, physiological signs of distress, and experiments that show how suffering can be minimized.

To equate the two is dishonest. It really is that simple.

[masortiman]

thank you Paul

What bothers me, personally, is not either side of the shechita issue on this one (I would like to see shechita done per Grandin, I am not sure as a practical matter how we get there - Magen tzedek is focusing on labor issues, not animal cruelty, IIUC, I dont think Masorti has the wherewithal for another initiative like that, and I dont know if any O authorities are doing so) but the missed opportunity for out reach to and common cause with the muslim community.

[Shmarya]

If you read the new article written by Dr. Grandin that I just posted, you'll see that Paul and his fellow travelers completely misrepresent her opinions.

Here's the link:

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/04/the-problems-with-kosher-slaughter-explained-by-the-worlds-foremost-expert-678.html

[Yechiel]

A. Nuran
When I said both sides... I mean the commenters on this blog. I did not say that the animal does not suffer. I DID say that (even according to science) it suffers pain for a short period of time AND the animal is dying. It does not continue to live and remember its pain.
If you do not believe in what is taught in the talmud, then I this argument is pointless. If you do believe in it, please refer to tractate Hulin where the exact procedures of shechita are prescribed.
I do believe though that care should be taken to minimize the suffering of the animal prior to shechita and people should also be properly trained...

[Yechiel]

As 'proof' to my point not only the shechita has an effect on the animal's losing consciousness; this from Temple Grandin, THE expert:
2) keep animals calm before slaughter, since an agitated animal is more difficult to kill and takes longer to become unconscious;

(An excerpt from another post on this blog.)

I strongly agree with proper animal handling prior to slaughter.

[yidandahalf]

Dr. Dave,

If it seems as if religious slaughter is being singled out it is because it is being singled out. The reason is the convenience of the current interpretation of the Church and State (law, ammendment, clause? Help me out here) in it's allowing the religious profiteers to operate with impunity in areas others may not. The fact that the 'others' commit equally egregious acts on a regular basis may and can be addressed as well; however, the issues are separate and two wrongs do not a right make.

[WoolSilkCotton]

Yechiel, the wise men of the Talmud did the best they could to codify the Torah into a set of rules for daily practice. Exactly who and when declared them to be infallible, and not subject to criticism and re-evaluation as new information becomes known?

Therein lies the problem with the frumma. Once a person is declared a 'rabbi', everything he says cannot be questioned or challenged, and everyone must blindly obey, even if what he said is shown to be problematic.

[No Light]

Al Farabi - fox hunting has been banned in the uk for years you idiot.

[Boris]

Hey unfinished nazi scum! Bla blaing?
Make pictures ? Long distance,it`s a pity...