« Alleged Embezzlement From Murdered Slumlord’s Business Account Began “A Protracted Period Of Time” Before Previously Thought, Almost $2 Million Missing | Main | Rapfogel Reportedly On Verge Of Pleading Guilty »

January 24, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I understand that you're not well versed on this issue, that you do not understand halakha, that you do not understand shechita, that you've never worked in a slaughterhouse, and that you know nothing about humane slaughter law or animal welfare.

But do try to process: that nitrous oxide was banned by rabbis is N-O-T a secret. It was banned and remains banned.

It is also detested by health advocates and lots of other people, which is why it isn't normally used.

And, again, the issue at hand now is primarily the slaughter of mammals – cattle, sheep, and goats.

And that is very different from chicken slaughter – a fact that clearly eludes you.


The issue includes chicken slaughter because the law includes chicken slaughter. Until your last post, you did not make that distinction. Neither will the lawmakers in the UK, who will be delighted to know that perhaps they can "protect" their factory farms by banning private ownership of chicken. You do not deny evidence presented as respects chicken slaughter, meaning you lose on that point. Instead, you argue, notwithstanding the actual wording & effect of the law, that matters really only concern mammals.

You were just shown that, in the case of beef in a Danish Hospital, & lamb in the case of a not so small country called the United Kingdom, that there has been de facto favoritism of a particular religion, one which appears to have upset quite a few persons.

Why won't you show us the rabbinic declaration that nitrous oxide extirpation of pain without unconsciousness is verbotten? It should be specifically prohibited if you speak the truth.

Neither have you denied that stunning, at least by use of the method of No Place for Old Men, is cruel & unusual punishment.
Not that I mind someone whose entire argument is bald assertion. It merely shows the lack of evidence behind the argument.

Here's something with which you might grapple.


As bizarre as it might sound, in fact the prediction that bans on circumcision might follow appear to be coming true in New Zealand & elsewhere.


Oh, please.


1. There is NO government regulation or law that mandates halal chicken.

2. Most chicken in Denmark is halal because a) the slaughterhouse operators are already doing halal slaughter and b) there is one imam who allows pre-stunning.

3. If there werre rabbis who allowed pre-stunning, there would be a lot more kosher-slaughtered chicken on the market.

4. Past that – and try very, very, very hard to concentrate here – the issue at hand is CATTLE, LAMB and GOAT slaughter – *NOT* chicken slaughter.

You do not understand the science, the history or the economics of this issue ar all.


1. Sedation by nitrous oxide is not used because it is not as efficient as whacking the animal with an extremely painful electrical shock. In fact, it just came to my attention that The "stunning" that is commonly used is the captive bolt pistol, blowing the brains of the beast out with air with a bolt gun to the animal's head, no different than putting a pistol in your mouth like Adolf Hitler did & pulling the trigger. The "kindness" of that technology formed the basis of a movie called No Country for Old Men, hardly an argument for kindness.

The notion that nitrous oxide anesthesia, not at lethal levels, would be objectionable is odd indeed. Are you sure the rabbis did not say you could not kill the animals with the gas? That would be very, very different. Get the documents please. Perhaps you are right; perhaps the rabbis said anything done to make the animal more comfortable before death was sinful. Let's see what they said.

2. "Much – but not all – of the chicken slaughtered there is *pre-stunned* halal slaughter and is rejected by many (if not most) Muslims worldwide." Hm. Let's see several words on this:

"A vast majority of all Danish slaughter chickens – 99 percent – are butchered using the halal method. It is a clear advantage when most of the Danish slaughter chickens are exported – some of them to countries where a majority of the population consists of Muslims who are only allowed to eat halal meat."


If only 1% of chicken are non-Halal slaughter, reasonable is saying chicken in general are Halal slaughtered. Unreasonable is saying "much-but not all--". Although you may be right about most of the Muslim world, that does not change matters. In New Zealand, they banned Kosher slaughter & now are increasingly Halal oriented. viz:

More than 70 per cent of the New Zealand lamb sold in Britain comes from halal slaughterhouses without the fact being declared on the label.

All the slaughtermen in these establishments must be Muslim and say a prayer when making the cut across the animal’s throat which kills it.

The New Zealand meat industry has taken the step to ensure its lamb can be sold in Muslim markets round the world.


So, really now, if that stuff were so unacceptable to the Muslim world, why would it be economically popular? I would really not like to eat Halal chicken, thank you very much. How much must I pay for that privilege?



1. Sedation by gas is not used for various reasons that have nothing to do with ritual slaughter or religion..

2. Rabbis ruled out using gas before shechita long ago and have refused to change their opinions.

3. Denmark is very small country. Much – but not all – of the chicken slaughtered there is *pre-stunned* halal slaughter and is rejected by many (if not most) Muslims worldwide.

4. No government decree or fiat causes most chickens there to be halal slaughtered – it's a business decision based on economics. If rabbis would allow pre-stunning of chickens, kosher-slaughtered chicken would be very commonly available, as well.


Mr/Ms Rosenberg, since you cannot purchase non-Halal slaughtered chicken in Denmark, you are wrong there about the legislation's being anti-Muslim.

Calling me names is ad hominem, which usually indicates the lack of an argument.
Here's a nice article:

This Muslim blessing sounds all over the beef patients at one of the country's largest hospitals sinks his teeth in.

Hvidovre Hospital namely by religious considerations chosen that when serving beef to the more than 40,000 patients each year are hospitalized, so it must be halal slaughtered.

Increased faces stiff criticism from integration expert Mehmet Ümit Necef, associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark.

- It is a failed policy. We have freedom of religion in Denmark, and it implies that one religion provisions not being påduttes other, he says.

At the same time feels Mehmet Ümit Necef that it is a misguided into the hospital favors one minority group.

- I can understand the logic: The hospital will achieve that satisfies Muslims. But the problem is that it will irritate those who are against halal slaughter, for example, atheists or Christians, he says.

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1be_1374480839#gzSzYRhZwyrQdMXj.99

Again, why is it that Nitrous Oxide anesthesia has not been required? Assuredly, that would not bother the rabbis, for the animal would not be pre-stunned, just unable to notice the pain.



How stupid do you think people are?

This has little to nothing to do with being anti-Jewish. If anything it is anti-Muslim and that is exactly what European Jewish leaders say.

Past that, your grasp of reality is quite wanting.


Mr/Ms Rosenberg, the point is that this is anti-Jewish legislation. You cannot in fact purchase non-Halal slaughtered chicken in Denmark. Also, were the interest in cruelty real, you can bet your life the animals would experience nitrous oxide anesthesia instead of being shocked. Just try sticking your finger into an electric outlet for a few seconds to experience what the animal does. No, this is but another example of government's attempts to make life less easy for Jews, as was done in 1936 by Sweden.


Most halal supervisors allow pre-stunning, and there are NO government requirements that any meat or fowl be halal-slaughtered.
Posted by: Shmarya Rosenberg | January 26, 2014 at 01:18 PM Most halal supervisors

To repeat: virtually all chicken in Denmark is Halal slaughtered. Government or not, it is a fact that you cannot get non-Halal slaughtered chicken in Denmark these days.

The point is that the only religion affected by this legislation is Judaism, rendering this anti-Jewish legislation. One can adopt any of Hitler's anti-Jewish policies one wishes, but accountability demands transparency. Can you imagine going through a shock like that yourself? Have you ever, you know, accidentally connected to an electric wire? The electric chair is considered cruel & unusual punishment by many, including me. Why inflict it upon animals? Were the real interest animal cruelty, the requirement would be for nitrous oxide anesthesia. Dentists use it routinely before drilling teeth; the same could be done before slitting the throat or whatever. That this has not even been proposed is proof the real intent is simply, along with anti-circumcision & "anti-Zionist" legislation, to ensure government makes life more difficult for Jews.

The notion that chickens require anti-Jewish legislation is hilarious. People rip their heads off all the time without punishment from the law (ever heard of the expression "walking about like a chicken with its head torn off"?) In fact, what Jews need to do is to start raising chickens; not even the Nazis were able to stop the Kosher slaughter of chicken.



Most halal supervisors allow pre-stunning, and there are NO government requirements that any meat or fowl be halal-slaughtered.


Stop eating mammal flesh. It is unhealthy & cruel. As for Kosher slaughter's being more or less sadistic than regular slaughter, that's sort of like saying shooting a person through the back of the head is kinder than shooting them through the heart. Both Kosher & non-Kosher slaughter, having seen photographs, are cruel.

The real point, however, is the hypocrisy of European nations. Every one that has instituted anti-Kosher slaughter permits Halal slaughter, such that all chicken in Denmark undergo Halal slaughter, whether the consumer wants it or not. This trend has metastasized throughout Europe. The real point is to make life less comfortable for Jews. That, after all, is why Kosher slaughter was banned in Sweden in 1936!

If Europe were truly interested in animal cruelty, it would first & foremost ban hunting, would it not? After all, hunting is intensely cruel. No, Norway, with its kindness to farm animals, has determined that cruelty to more intelligent & endangered whales is a national right.

An even worse stance is now taken as respects circumcision. Beware those who adopt Hitler's policies while saying they have nothing against Jews.

state of disgust

"Several kosher plants have adapted Temple's guidelines.

Posted by: JekyllJacobson | January 26, 2014 at 09:31 AM"

Name one large - or even medium - size kosher plant that uses Temple Grandin's guidelines for kosher slaughter.


On item #4
Several kosher plants have adapted Temple's guidelines.



Seraphya Berrin

Kosher slaughter by shechita is no more humane than other current methods of slaughter, it is not less humane either. They are both relatively barbaric. While any method of slaughter can be relatively humane, you are still killing which is a violent act. When people used to end the life of animals prematurely, it was done on a small scale so that people could have their urge to eat flesh filled. Now it is almost always done by corporations who have money as their only real consideration. The raising and killing of animals is shielded from the public and bad things happen behind those closed doors. The companies are happy for slaughterhouse workers to torture the animals as long as the place runs efficiently. The sadistic ones take pleasure in harming the animals in ways that aren't built into the system of efficiency and profit.
The difference between other modern methods of killing an animal and shecita is miniscule compared to the chasm that separates actual humane slaughter from what is going on in most slaughterhouses (both kosher and not).
If there is real concern about animal rights, then let us install live streaming web cameras from all slaughterhouses (and not just the killing floor) instead of picking on specific methods of ending the animals life.
In fact, while we are at it, let us install cameras in ll places animals are raised and transported.
The ridiculous focus on the few seconds or even in the worst cases few hours of the extinguishing of life should be moved to the horrible conditions the animal live in for years. The animals that Kosher meat and non-kosher meat are the same animals raised in the same awful conditions.


Not all Europeans are cowardly


Steven Wolf

I do not wish to know to much of any kind of slaughter, for if I did might have difficulty in eating meat again thereafter.

As it is I try and limit my meat consumption, though do not see vegetarianism as an option for myself. At present I buy kosher meat , for reasons perhaps more sychological then anything else.

My doubts regrading are that it is not nessesarry organic, and I have grave concerns regarding antibiotics in the food chain.

Sadly in Western Europe, Jews are a dwindling minority and Muslims are an ever increasing one, who tend to vote as a block, so bluntly for that reasion Hallal will be protected, even after shcacita is expended.


While the British have officially banned fox hunts, they are still quite popular there and take place in various forms both legal and illegal. See the wikipedia story.


1) The British outlawed fox-hunting years ago

2) The British outlawed inhumane slaughter years ago.

3) Toyreh-true yidden don't give a fuck about cruelty to animals unless it's a club to beat the goyim with. Othrwise they would have found a Halachic way to stun. Shackle and hoist would not exist

4) The Orthodox love to say "See, the great Temple Grandin says kosher is kewl!" But they don't read the rest of her opinions which say it COULD be humane. And they tend to not actually demand that their meat be produced along those guidelines

5) They also whine about how hallal slaughterers aren't as skilled as schochets. They neglect to say the actual process of killing is pretty much the same. It's only the picking through afterwards where we see much difference

6) Along those lines, hallal allows for beheading which is much quicker and more humane than throat slitting, especially for large animals.

Office of the Chief Rabbi

The concept of "House of Lords" and "hereditary monarchy" are barbaric.


I believe that the U.K. has banned fox hunting. Schechita is next.


But those Brits who oppose blood sports can avoid participating in a fox hunt or eating game birds. Shechita is unique in that people who oppose it (and who may not legally carry it out) are denied the choice of avoiding eating such meat.


But those Brits who oppose blood sports can avoid participating in a fox hunt or eating game birds. Shechita is unique in that people who oppose it (and who may not legally carry it out) are denied the choice of avoiding eating such meat.


For the HYPOCRITICAL British to lecture Jews on animal cruelty is a joke. When these dandies do away with their so humane fox hunts, where a terrified fox is chased by packs of dogs, and their pheasant hunts, where live birds come crashing down to earth after being hit with some buckshot, maybe then they can open their poorly maintained mouths.


I am a strong proponent for humane handling. Anyone following Temple's guidlines, suggestions and requirements is operating humanely.
Killing an animal is never 'nice' to watch regardless of how it is put to death.


. this whole cycle of violence cannot be abated as so long as there continue to be complex, industrialized, mass producing kill mills. If i was to attempt to resolve the matter in question. i would suggest that as a matter of maintaining an heir of civility under absolute inhumane conditions, all animals should be set free to roam about as they please. And anyone who craves meat and would like to have meat for their meals, themself should go on the hunt and get their hands bloodied. In doing so, perhaps the propper homage will be paid to the animal. And the quiet death they so suffer won't seem so pointless. This would be more in keeping with being present, conscious and aware of that which is given to us for the purposes of sustaining our life force. . .



my thoughts exactly with one exception. the manner of shechita isn't just a matter of tradition. the rules are set forth in the talmud, which in ortho theology is god's word.
they are powerless to change according to their way of thinking. of course as you wrote,
rabbi berkovitz shows how things can and should be changed when needed even according to halacha.

JessicaR -

agreed 100%


In the UK 88% of Hallal cattle are pre-stunned while only 10% of kosher slaughtered cattle are stunned after shechita so this is largely a Jewish issue.

David, the case for labelling meat slaughtered through an exception to animal welfare law cannot be ethically challenged. Labelling the major part of ritually slaughted meat sold to non-Jews will decimate the UK shechita industry (which is a major source of funding for organized Britsh Jewry) since the general market will not wish to take on the political and bureaucratic cost of selling such labelled meat. Sure, kosher meat can be imported, and therefor not interfere with Jews right to eat kosher meat but how will British Jews make up for the financial hit of losing that industry?

British rabbis will have no choice but to back track on opposition to stunning as alternatives such as importing meat or reintroducing porging are not financially viable.


In my view, it is more important to address the conditions animals endure in factory farms. Animals, regardless of how they are eventually slaughtered, suffer horrendous cruelty for months.


I don't know anything about animal slaughter. But to me, "kosher" should mean having the animal feel as little pain as possible. And if current kosher means the animal suffers more, that it is time to update what was probably considered humane in the 7th century.


JekyllJacobson--Lets not shove aside tzar bal chaim it is the basis of all other things.


The Torah does not state the specifics of shechita, which are a matter of tradition. The problem is that the frum-velt's malaise over forming a Sanhedrin to deal with matters of controversy -- as the Torah does require -- means that there is, in the minds of the orthodox, no way to change things. And yes, a Sanhedrin can change things, even going so far as to suspend or reinterpret Torah laws when circumstances require. See R' Eliezer Berkovitz's "Not in Heaven." The inability to come to agreement, or address pressing matters like shechita or agunot, is a self-inflicted wound.


Temple Grandin did say that. She never stated "in a single motion" though (as per David's conditions).
Temple's opinion counts in the field of humane slaughtering.

Yochanan Lavie

People who single out schechita, w/o mentioning hallal, have an agenda other than humane practices, IMO. I think Temple Grandin said kosher slaughtering can be done humanely, and we who eat kosher should demand it be done as humanely as possible.


I meant to say .....the throat is cut AND APPEND "in a single motion",......


The comments from the House of Lords are shocking. Kosher slaughter when done properly is a fair and humane method of killing an animal (although killing anything is never a pleasant process). Note that I am not talking about treif slaughter as happened at Agriprocessors or the outdated and barbaric "hoist and shackle" method.

It is also surprizing that Halal slaughter was not mentioned as it truly is unacceptable. Halal slaughter does not require a trained technician, it does not specify the type of knife or its' sharpness (they may be and often are curved and blunt) and the whole process is ad hoc and barbaric and cruel.

In kosher slaughter, ☆when done properly☆ , a razor sharp, straight knife is used by a skilled technician and the throat is cut, incuding the carotoid arteries and jugular veins. This results in a rapid loss of blood pressure to the brain and rapid unconsciousness and later brain death due to cerebal hypoxia. There is no immediate pain from the cut as cuts with razor sharp knives don't hurt straight away as anyone who has cut themselves with a razor sharp knife woukd know and the animal is dead before the cut could hurt.

I no longer eat kosher meat myself, not since I became disillusioned with orthodoxy, only kosher types of meat, but respect the right of those that do want to eat it and I also expect the slaughter to be done in a perfect technically correct manner and with kind treatment of the animals prior to slaughter (in accord with Temple Grandin's recommendations).


While they’re on the topic of unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted for religious reason, hopefully, the topic of Bris Mila will be next on the agenda.

Alter Kocker

Eventually the governments of the world will ban Kosher slaughter as it is cruel. The EU is getting really close. The US is likely 10 years away. The orthodox will either pay massively inflated prices (more so than now) for meat that is shechted in Israel (which likely will give in to Haredim)or they will become vegetarians.


eat chicken or turkey [fowl]
biblically fowl is not considered to be meat. Sort of like fish. But the rabbis went nuts back then too.


They will continue to eat only meat from Shechita unless it is banned, whereby they will eat no meat at all. If the Torah doesn't think it is cruel, than Orthodox Jews are not going to question it.

Posted by: js36 | January 24, 2014 at 01:23 PM

maybe I missed it in my yeshiva days but does it say in the torah how to do Shechita


Alter Kocker, Even assuming everything you said is correct, Jewish law will not change because it is decided that it is more cruel than modern methods. Therefore, it is a conversation that will go nowhere with orthodox Jews. They will continue to eat only meat from Shechita unless it is banned, whereby they will eat no meat at all. If the Torah doesn't think it is cruel, than Orthodox Jews are not going to question it.


Shechita was a humane way to kill in the past now we have better ways but you cannot tell that to people who believe wrote the torah. even thought the Torah never states how to do a Shechita


The endurance of pain in an otherwise healthy being is what needs to be addressed.


When you are dying it really doesn't matter...

Alter Kocker

Simply put, Kosher and Halal are animal cruelty. A creature must be rendered insensate before the kill, and whether or not the world of rabbis agrees, disagrees or is so bound by halachic rules that they cannot fathom that the food they consume is treated with disdain and outright cruelty in it's last moments.

I read that Kosher shechita takes the life of the animal in approximately 10 seconds. Non Kosher renders the animal insensate in under 2 seconds. That does not sound like much, but consider this: How would you feel if your throat was slashed and you were in agony, anguish and fear for 10 seconds versus not feeling a thing before you die.

Ergo, Kosher is cruelty.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Failed messiah was established and run in 2004 by Mr. Shmarya (Scott)Rosenberg. The site was acquired by Diversified Holdings, Feb 2016.
We thank Mr. Rosenberg for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish Community


Comment Rules

  1. No anonymous comments.
  2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.
  3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.
  4. Do not sockpuppet.
  5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.
***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Search this site with Google:


FailedMessiah.com in the Media