The second cut on the halachic aspects of shechita
What follows is a compilation of my conversations with two halachic sources who pondered this subject in depth. During the last two weeks I exchanged notes and spoke with the two, they prefer to remain anonymous. Both sources often disagreed with each other. One of them deservedly called me an idiot and ignoramus repeatedly... I thank them for persevering. The two concluding paragraphs is the only content of this post to which I claim credit. Please do not reproduce this post without our permission (updates or revisions are likely in the coming days). Instead linking to the URL is requested. Sorry, this is a long post.
People debate whether or not there is Tzar Baalei Chayim ("animal suffering," which we will refer to as TBC) after shechita. In fact, there is TBC during shechita itself. You may ask how are we permitted to slaughter an animal if it is TBC? The answer is: the Torah allowed this because of tzorech adam (human need). Yes, we try to make this procedure as painless as possible; but one can't say that an animal does no feel it. (Although scientific studies show that when properly performed, there is no indication that the animal experiences pain during shechita, and EEG �electro-encephalographic� evidence, studies of the corneal reflex, etc., indicates that the animal loses consciousness rapidly if the carotid arteries are properly cut.)
The laws are derived from Talmud, where we find a passage (BT Chullin 33a) which states that one may cut a piece of meat immediately after shechita. Such meat was considered particularly tasty (implied tzorech adam). In this context, it is important to understand that there is a scriptural prohibition to eat this piece of meat before the animal actually dies. This is the mitzvah of "lo sochlu al ha-dam" ("You should not eat the blood"). This, by they way, is one of the references that conclusively disproves the proposition that shechita equals death. You can perform the shechitah, cut a piece of meat but then you must wait until the animal dies. This prohibition shows that the animal is still alive, but le-tzorech adam, we can inflict this pain as a component of shechita (this is not to be confused with the prohibition to eat �ever min hachay� for gentiles, the �ever min hachay� is not longer applicable after shechita as Gezeras ha Kosuv).
Because of this and other references, some rabbis have erroneously concluded two things: distressing an animal right after shechita is not TBC; and the animal does not feel any pain. This is fundamental error; it ignores the fact that shechita itself is TBC. The animal feels it, and it hurts. TBH exists -- but it is permissible le-tzorech adam.
So what about cutting a piece of meat right after shechita? It is difficult for us to understand now, in our days, why the meat cut immediately after shechita was le-tzorech adam; in fact, this is no longer something that we need. Therefore, today this would be an unnecessary and prohibited act of TBC.
We assume that this logic of permissible TBC as an extension of shechita is the origin of what has been referred to as a �second cut,� or a cut to sever arteries to speed up bleeding and death. If you are still awake reading this or if you might have been awake during the Musaf prayer on Yom Kippur we read in Seder ha-Avodah (service of the High Priest in the Temple on Yom Kippur): �Immediately he [the High Priest] would accept sheep for the continual offering, and cut most of the two tubes, and leave it for someone else to finish the slaughter, while he would accept the blood and dash it on the Altar, as required." (See BT Yoma 31b, interpreting this Mishnah). So while cutting of the carotid arteries to finish shechita might be called a "second cut," it still unclear how tearing of the trachea could fall into this category. The reason the High Priest only initiated the shechita was because he also had an obligation to collect and sprinkle the blood, so he relied on others to complete the shechita while he proceeded with collecting the blood. We have been informed that good shochtim cut both carotid arteries in the same cut as the tubes.
You may ask: if the cutting of a piece of meat immediately after shechita is no longer tzorech adam, what would legitimately constitute a tzorech adam? Perhaps economics is tzorech adam, and perhaps this is the genesis of removing the trachea to speed up the assembly line by accelerating bleeding? Or perhaps economics would dictate this procedure to improve quality of the beef and to avoid blood clots?
This brings us to the previously referenced machlokes (argument) between the Daas Kedoshim and Maharsham in Daas Torah. It is surprising that there are rabbis who state that an animal does not feel pain after shechita, or that there is no TBC after shechita. The Maharsham only argued about the possible prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC, not whether it exists. Surely the animals can still feel pain immediately after shechita. Only as a theoretical opinion, the Maharsham concludes that there is not a prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC after shechita. The Daas Kedoshim, by contrast, holds the opinion that there is an prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC after shechita, but just as the shechita itself was permitted letzorech adam, so would be a manipulation of animal for economic reasons immediately after shechita. In other words according to Daas Kedoshim just as tzorech adam (human need) allows us to kill an animal in the first place so is tzorech adam (human need), i.e. economics, allows us to manipulate the animal after shechita. While Maharsham holds that in principle there is no prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC after shechita so you don�t even need an excuse of economics, etc. Maharsham actually talks about a bird, although he thinks it can be extended to animals he also admitted in the passage that he had no proof.
In fact, the later Poskim (authorities) rejected the view of Maharsham -- specifically, the Darkei Teshuvah of the the Munchatcher Rov. He rules like the Daas Kedoshim. He then tells you to look at the Maharsham, but does not even quote Maharsham. This reflects the principle stated in the introduction to Darkei Teshuvah that when he indicates a reference with which he disagrees, it is merely to show that he is familiar with this opinion and has rejected it.
In addition, as we wrote, there are inferences from the Gemora that life does not stop at the moment of shechita (e.g. BT Gittin 70b). This would mean that the unnecessary manipulation of an animal between shechita and death is cruel, or violates the prohibition of TBC. The "gray area" is that, in fact, there would be room to rely on the opinion of the Daas Kedoshim which states that given the permissibility of TBH during shechita, it might also be permissible to manipulate (le-tzorech adam) an animal after shechita and before death. What constitutes a legitimate human need sufficient to overrule the ISSUR of TBC after Shechita is the crux the current controversy.
Hendrick TERBRUGGHEN, The Supper, c. 1620, Oil on canvas, Gem�ldegalerie, Dresden
Three is a natural tension between economic reasons of the plants and the owners on one hand and on the other hand demands of the consumers. The consumers expect that the premium on the meat products should reflect the most painless slaughter. They have been told to expect no less in every Jewish school on the face of the earth. Supervising authorities (mashgichim) are representatives of this trust. It seems that the rhetoric about the �attack on the religious freedom� is missing the point that the real attack is on our trust in the Rabbinic institutions. This internal rot goes beyond PETA�s furry pranks, it goes beyond the legal or halachic aspects if this controversy. The question that should not be swept under the carpet is what �stamp� in Rubashkin�s philatelic collection authorized yanking of the throat?
In conclusion shochtim are not the ones to blame here. The plant owners place an unconceivable work load on shochtim. The shochtim are only human and given the rate of 80 cows per day (a cow every 6 minutes during the 8hr day) or 8,000 chickens a day (1,000 chickens per hour) it is unreasonable to expect from them a level of concentration demanded by the awesome responsibility of taking life of the animals.
Barn Swallows, photo by Wilson Hsu
People debate whether or not there is Tzar Baalei Chayim ("animal suffering," which we will refer to as TBC) after shechita. In fact, there is TBC during shechita itself. You may ask how are we permitted to slaughter an animal if it is TBC? The answer is: the Torah allowed this because of tzorech adam (human need). Yes, we try to make this procedure as painless as possible; but one can't say that an animal does no feel it. (Although scientific studies show that when properly performed, there is no indication that the animal experiences pain during shechita, and EEG �electro-encephalographic� evidence, studies of the corneal reflex, etc., indicates that the animal loses consciousness rapidly if the carotid arteries are properly cut.)
The laws are derived from Talmud, where we find a passage (BT Chullin 33a) which states that one may cut a piece of meat immediately after shechita. Such meat was considered particularly tasty (implied tzorech adam). In this context, it is important to understand that there is a scriptural prohibition to eat this piece of meat before the animal actually dies. This is the mitzvah of "lo sochlu al ha-dam" ("You should not eat the blood"). This, by they way, is one of the references that conclusively disproves the proposition that shechita equals death. You can perform the shechitah, cut a piece of meat but then you must wait until the animal dies. This prohibition shows that the animal is still alive, but le-tzorech adam, we can inflict this pain as a component of shechita (this is not to be confused with the prohibition to eat �ever min hachay� for gentiles, the �ever min hachay� is not longer applicable after shechita as Gezeras ha Kosuv).
Because of this and other references, some rabbis have erroneously concluded two things: distressing an animal right after shechita is not TBC; and the animal does not feel any pain. This is fundamental error; it ignores the fact that shechita itself is TBC. The animal feels it, and it hurts. TBH exists -- but it is permissible le-tzorech adam.
So what about cutting a piece of meat right after shechita? It is difficult for us to understand now, in our days, why the meat cut immediately after shechita was le-tzorech adam; in fact, this is no longer something that we need. Therefore, today this would be an unnecessary and prohibited act of TBC.
We assume that this logic of permissible TBC as an extension of shechita is the origin of what has been referred to as a �second cut,� or a cut to sever arteries to speed up bleeding and death. If you are still awake reading this or if you might have been awake during the Musaf prayer on Yom Kippur we read in Seder ha-Avodah (service of the High Priest in the Temple on Yom Kippur): �Immediately he [the High Priest] would accept sheep for the continual offering, and cut most of the two tubes, and leave it for someone else to finish the slaughter, while he would accept the blood and dash it on the Altar, as required." (See BT Yoma 31b, interpreting this Mishnah). So while cutting of the carotid arteries to finish shechita might be called a "second cut," it still unclear how tearing of the trachea could fall into this category. The reason the High Priest only initiated the shechita was because he also had an obligation to collect and sprinkle the blood, so he relied on others to complete the shechita while he proceeded with collecting the blood. We have been informed that good shochtim cut both carotid arteries in the same cut as the tubes.
You may ask: if the cutting of a piece of meat immediately after shechita is no longer tzorech adam, what would legitimately constitute a tzorech adam? Perhaps economics is tzorech adam, and perhaps this is the genesis of removing the trachea to speed up the assembly line by accelerating bleeding? Or perhaps economics would dictate this procedure to improve quality of the beef and to avoid blood clots?
This brings us to the previously referenced machlokes (argument) between the Daas Kedoshim and Maharsham in Daas Torah. It is surprising that there are rabbis who state that an animal does not feel pain after shechita, or that there is no TBC after shechita. The Maharsham only argued about the possible prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC, not whether it exists. Surely the animals can still feel pain immediately after shechita. Only as a theoretical opinion, the Maharsham concludes that there is not a prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC after shechita. The Daas Kedoshim, by contrast, holds the opinion that there is an prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC after shechita, but just as the shechita itself was permitted letzorech adam, so would be a manipulation of animal for economic reasons immediately after shechita. In other words according to Daas Kedoshim just as tzorech adam (human need) allows us to kill an animal in the first place so is tzorech adam (human need), i.e. economics, allows us to manipulate the animal after shechita. While Maharsham holds that in principle there is no prohibition (ISSUR) of TBC after shechita so you don�t even need an excuse of economics, etc. Maharsham actually talks about a bird, although he thinks it can be extended to animals he also admitted in the passage that he had no proof.
In fact, the later Poskim (authorities) rejected the view of Maharsham -- specifically, the Darkei Teshuvah of the the Munchatcher Rov. He rules like the Daas Kedoshim. He then tells you to look at the Maharsham, but does not even quote Maharsham. This reflects the principle stated in the introduction to Darkei Teshuvah that when he indicates a reference with which he disagrees, it is merely to show that he is familiar with this opinion and has rejected it.
In addition, as we wrote, there are inferences from the Gemora that life does not stop at the moment of shechita (e.g. BT Gittin 70b). This would mean that the unnecessary manipulation of an animal between shechita and death is cruel, or violates the prohibition of TBC. The "gray area" is that, in fact, there would be room to rely on the opinion of the Daas Kedoshim which states that given the permissibility of TBH during shechita, it might also be permissible to manipulate (le-tzorech adam) an animal after shechita and before death. What constitutes a legitimate human need sufficient to overrule the ISSUR of TBC after Shechita is the crux the current controversy.
Hendrick TERBRUGGHEN, The Supper, c. 1620, Oil on canvas, Gem�ldegalerie, Dresden
Three is a natural tension between economic reasons of the plants and the owners on one hand and on the other hand demands of the consumers. The consumers expect that the premium on the meat products should reflect the most painless slaughter. They have been told to expect no less in every Jewish school on the face of the earth. Supervising authorities (mashgichim) are representatives of this trust. It seems that the rhetoric about the �attack on the religious freedom� is missing the point that the real attack is on our trust in the Rabbinic institutions. This internal rot goes beyond PETA�s furry pranks, it goes beyond the legal or halachic aspects if this controversy. The question that should not be swept under the carpet is what �stamp� in Rubashkin�s philatelic collection authorized yanking of the throat?
In conclusion shochtim are not the ones to blame here. The plant owners place an unconceivable work load on shochtim. The shochtim are only human and given the rate of 80 cows per day (a cow every 6 minutes during the 8hr day) or 8,000 chickens a day (1,000 chickens per hour) it is unreasonable to expect from them a level of concentration demanded by the awesome responsibility of taking life of the animals.
Barn Swallows, photo by Wilson Hsu
posted by Tzemach Atlas at 5:34 PM
<< Home