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