Humane slaughter (Part 2)

 

This is a follow-up to the Oct. 19th posting titled Humane slaughter http://yohanon.blogspot.com/2009/10/humane-slaughter.html

I queried two rabbis, Yehuda Benhamu and Alexander Haber.

Their qualifications:

Rabbi Benhamu is a North African (Sefardi) rabbi who also is a shochet (ritual slaughterer). He is the rabbi of B'nai Sephardim/Shaari Shalom in Hollywood, Florida.

Rabbi Haber, although he has a Sephardi ancester, is Ashkenazi; he is the son and grandson of shoctim (ritual slaughterers); his father heads a yeshiva in Jerusalem; he is a rabbi at Cong. Bnai Israel in Norfolk VA.

I have known both for years and both have my highest respect; they normally provide the reasoning for their decisions. Both fall into the "orthodox" category.

R. Haber responded that the primary problem with stunning an animal before the cut was that the blood must forcefully "spritz" from the animal. The suggestion is that the stunning somehow reduced the arterial pressure. This is a question neither raised nor answered in the article.

Unless the blood spurts from the animal, the meat is trefe - not acceptable.

R. Benhamu agreed, but noted that the very last paragraph of the article may - may - offer a way to combine stunning with ritual slaughtering.

The last paragragh reads:

"Johnson thinks the way forward is best exemplified by Muslims in New Zealand, who use a reversible form of electrical stunning that animals can recover from if they are not immediately slaughtered. This proves the animal is alive when killed and is therefore halal"

Assuming the blood spurts from the stunned animal, will this be acceptable to the rabbinate? Possibly.

But which rabbinate? Sefardi or Ashkenazi? Israeli or outside of Israel?

By the way, R. Haber wondered if the brief, albeit intense pain of the knife might not be more psychologically damaging to the animal than the perhaps longer, albeit less severe, pain of the stunning process.

It seems to me that the researchers would have been wise to involve Jewish and Islamic religious authorities and expert ritual slaughters to participate in the study so that questions such as raised by the rabbis Haber and Benhamu could have been addressed.

To me, there are two possibilities:

One: The researchers had an agenda that might be compromised by having qualified observers present or

Two: Tim Edwards, the article's author, either had an agenda, lacked time to research the scientists' paper, or was too lazy to do what I did - ask the religious authorities - and then go back to the researchers for clairification (which I have not yet done).

Yohanon Glenn

Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Humane slaughter

An article in the FirstPost headlined "Proof of pain leads to calls for ban on ritual slaughter" once again puts kosher slaughtering - shechita - in the spotlight.

The article is at http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54850,news-comment,news-politics,after-scientific-proof-of-pain-should-we-ban-islamic-and-jewish-religious-slaughter. FirstPost is a U.K.-based effort.

Never mind that only kosher and (Islamic) halal slaughtering is discussed; never mind that the processes at most abattoirs in the US, and I suspect elsewhere, is at least as painful as a precise cut with a sharp knife, only kosher and halal slaughtering is targeted. The article even includes a photo of what appears to be a kid being slaughtered.

Ignoring that kosher and halal are targeted (while all other methods are ignored), the article does suggest that slaughtering can be "more humane" if that is not too much if an oxymoron.

According to the article, "Practitioners of ritual slaughter say the animal must be alive to facilitate the draining of blood – and that throat slitting is humane.

"But the new research suggests otherwise. Dr Craig Johnson and his colleagues at New Zealand's Massey University reproduced the Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter in calves. The calves were first anaesthetised so although their pain responses could be detected, they wouldn't actually feel anything. They were then subjected to a neck incision. A pain response was detected for up to two minutes following the cut, although calves normally fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds.

"The team then stunned the calves five seconds after cutting their throats: the pain signal detected by electroencephalography ceased immediately.

"Johnson told the New Scientist he thought this work was 'the best evidence yet that [ritual slaughter] is painful'. However, he observed that the religious community 'is adamant animals don't experience any pain so the results might surprise them'.

"The findings have earned Johnson the inaugural Humane Slaughter Award from the Humane Slaughter Association. Dr James Kirkwood, the charity’s chief executive, said: 'This work provides significant support for the value of stunning animals prior to slaughter to prevent pain and distress.' "

The U.K. has a law that requires all animals about to be slaughtered to first be stunned.

Caveat: I am not a rabbi or shochet, nor do I play one on tv. I consider myself to be an observant Jew.

The article is correct is stating that the animal must be alive to be killed. With kosher slaughtering, the animal must not only be alive, it must be healthy and in otherwise no danger of dying. A wounded animal that dies from its wounds is trefe - not kosher. A sick animal no matter who slaughters it by what method is trefe.

I understood kosher slaughtering to be a means to teach us - humans - respect for all life, even an animal's.

Loss of consciousness, and by extension loss of any sensation of pain, is supposed to be nearly instantaneous. I know that "unconsciousness" does not necessarily equate to being pain free. Ask anyone who has attended a cancer or burn patient.

If the animal is alive and well at the time it is stunned, and if the stunning only makes the animal insensible to pain, the animal - it seems to me - is not damaged and the stunning is a fist step in the slaughtering process; much akin to securing the animal before the cut.

If the whole idea of kosher slaughtering is to spare the animal pain (while teaching us respect for all life), I would think that observant Jews (I dislike the term "orthodox") would be some of the first in line to accept and insist upon stunning. On the other hand, if we only pay lip service to the Torah's mandates, then I can see where resistance will be strong.

The question I put before anyone reading this is simple:

Is there any reason, based on Jewish law, why stunning an animal as part of the slaughtering process would render the animal unfit for kosher use.

I asked that question to some acquaintances. One's response completely ignored the question and challenged the research on "where the pain was measured." Does it matter? Is my correspondent asking if the animal was brain dead, Judaism's current definition of death (used primarily to harvest organs for transplant)? Death was caused not by stunning - that simply immobilizes the animal and renders it - the researchers claim - pain free when the knife cuts the jugular.

Unless there is something missing in the news article - and I suspect the research paper provides a great deal more details - it seems to me that the rabbis should, rather than exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction (as some Jews did to the article) consider why we slaughter as we do and what impact stunning would have to either improve the slaughtering process or make the animal unfit for kosher use.

ABOUT COMMENTS: Comments are desired. There are only two requirements. Comments must be signed with a real name (otherwise the comment will be deleted) and I ask that you let me know if you are (a) Jewish and if you are Jewish, are you a "professional" Jew (e.g., rabbi, hazan, religious school teacher).

Rabbis Yehuda Benhamu and Alexander Haber's comments are found in "Humane slaughter - Part 2" http://yohanon.blogspot.com/2009/10/humane-slaughter-part-2.html

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Eye of the beholder

I am reading Jos. Teluskin's Biblical Literacy (ISBN 0-688-14297-4, Wm. Morrow & Co., 1997).

Most of Rabbi Teluskin's comments on various Biblical portions present a new twist on the “straight text.”

One that I found particularly interesting was on Essau and Jacob. Has Essau been treated fairly by the rabbis of old? Teluskin, following the rabbis' admonishment to turn the Torah over and over again, turns the Essau story over and speculates that maybe, just maybe, Essau's actions might be – if not justified, then mitigated by circumstances.

He takes a psychological approach to the sibling conflict; as he does with Joseph and his brothers.

Unlike the Torah, which simply lays out a personality's life, the good and the bad, the rabbis of old often work hard to make a person “almost” all good (e.g., Abraham and Moses) or absolutely evil (Essau, Korach, Balaam).

I've always thought Korach, Aviram, Dotan, and Balaam got an undeserved bad press. There was no Paul Harvey to intone “the rest of the story.”

Bilaam especially.

He is, according to the Torah, a prophet of G-d and a man who publicaly acknowledges HaShem's authority (B'Midbar/Numbers 22, 8-13).

When the Moabites and Midianites send a relatively low-level delegation to Balaam, the prophet tells the visitors to stay the night while he (Balaam) inquires of G-d (v 8). G-d tells Balaam to stay home; the message is relayed to the delegates and they are sent on their way.

When Balak, Moab's king at the time (v4) and his Midinaite associates heard Balaam's response from the messengers, Balak decided to “up the ante.”

This time, a high level delegation visits Balaam and offers all manner of inducements that the prophet should return with them to curse the people (Israel).

Again, Balaam tells his visitors to cool their heels while he checks with his Boss.

This time G-d tells Balaam to go with the delegation, but to say only what HaShem tells him to say.

Both Teluskin and I agree that at this point Balaam seems to have G-d's OK to make the trip.

The rabbis of old, and many today who only can echo the old, severely castigate Balaam for even entertaining the delegation.

Wasn't it enough that G-d already told Balaam to stay home, they challenge? Balaam should not have bothered G-d again, they opine.

But that simply is not logical, nor is it the way of several of the Torah's greatest heros.

Abraham argrued with G-d over the destruction of Sodom and Gemorra. Argued with Him!!

Moses argued with G-d many times for many different reasons. First, he didn't want to be G-d's representative to the Hebrews or to go before the reigning pharaoh.

He argued with G-d more than once over the destruction of the multitude that left Egypt using the typical parents' refrain “What will the neighbor's think” (people will say You led them into the wilderness to die).

He argued with G-d over his death – he was human after all and who really wants to die when there are “things to do, people to see, and – especially in Moses' life – places (across the Jordan) to go.”

As you get older your willingness to come to terms with your own demise drastically changes.

Besides, if G-d had really wanted to keep Balaam home, He could have prevented the second delegation from arriving at Balaam's home office. Nothing very big – a storm, perhaps. Constant, absolute darkness, maybe. Both pretty much Standard Operating Procedure for HaShem.

From my perspective, I think Balaam acted exactly as HaShem expected him to act.

He acted properly and with full respect to G-d.

Despite the offers presented to him, he told the delegation to wait while he asked G-d what to do. The Torah doesn't even suggest that Balaam was seeking permission to go; he certinly wasn't begging to go. He told the delegation that he had to inquire of G-d . . . to ask G-d what he should do.

I do that when I need “another opinion.” I'll wager that most of us – including the rabbis of old – also turned to G-d to help them resolve a thorny question. Moses cerainly did – again and again and again. Just ask the daughters of Zelophehad (B'Midbar/Numbers 27 v 1) .

I think Balaam got a bad press.

So what about the donkey he beat?

In the whole story of Balaam, from the time he is introduced until the time he blesses Israel, there is nothing that makes him fully human; where are the failings listed in the Torah? Is he perfect; better than Moses? Moses had his faults. Abraham, Yitzak, Yakov all had their faults; the emmahot (mothers) likewise were less than perfect.

So maybe, just maybe, the story of Balaam's donkey was introduced to make sure we understand that, as all the other personalities, he was just human and had his failings. The rabbis – and PITA – sieze upon the incident as a sign that HaShem really did NOT want Balaam to make the trip.

That doesn't make sense to me . . . Balaam already had “work experience” with HaShem; the Boss knew Balaam would do as he was instructed, regardless of promises of riches and fame. (Fame he already had, and one suspects wealth, too.)

I understand that the rabbis base some of their feelings toward Balaam on one verse (B'Midbar/Numbers 31 v8) that states “… Balaam the son of Peor they (the Israelites under Pinehas) slew with the sword.” The rabbis insist that Balaam was still in town working as a prophet for Ba'al Peor, but given his apparently long-standing relationship with a very jealous G-d, the rabbi's suspicion has a false ring to it.

---

By the way, how many animals speak to humans in the Torah?

Just two. Havah's (Eve's) snake and Balaam's donkey.

---

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com