Shechita & Antisemitism

A Surprising History

January, 2019

“…Let Them Eat Meat…”

Shechita: A Surprising History

It has been said that history may not exactly repeat itself, however it does seem to plagiarize from the past.

As I write this, a large percentage of the frum world is being osek in mesechtes Chullin due to daf yomi, which deals largely with hilchos shechita.

I wish to talk about shechita this week, for the above reasons, and also for rabbinic reasons that will become apparent at the end of this article.

Many may not be aware, but shechita, even today, is banned in many countries.

In Switzerland, for example, a ban has been in place since the turn of the last century. While some argue strong anti-Semitic undercurrents as the genesis of some of these bans – interestingly, the German Supreme Court abrogated the German shechita ban post WWII saying that it was both arbitrary and rooted in Anti-Semitism (BGH-IV ZR 305/59, 1960; Shechita, pg. 250) – it should bring even greater pause to us living in this great country that most of these current bans, if not all, began as protests from the (conceivably well intentioned) press, populace or animal rights groups appealing to the conscience of the body politic.

There are many in these same countries who seek today to ban even imports of Kosher meat. We must mull over the glaring prospect of future and long-term anxieties coming in the form of a knight in a white coat and a stethoscope around his neck.

In 1974, the Federal District Court of New York heard the case of Jones vs. Butz.

Helen Jones took Earl Butz to court. Mr. Butz was the USDA secretary at the time.

She was joined in her suit with several animal rights groups. Their complaint?

 Shechita was argued to be inhumane and was, also, said to be in violation of the “Establishment Clause” of the constitution (see ‘Animals in Law: A Sourcebook’, by Jordon Curnnut).

Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled that shechita would continue to be allowed, thereby creating a precedent to look back on in the future, however, the fact that this was even accepted as a case – mental gymnastics are needed to accept that the plaintiff(s) in this case should have been viewed as relevant parties affected by shechita – should cause great alarm and keen awareness toward future concerns.

But it is not so simple. It may shock the reader to learn that –as The New York Times reported (September 5, 2008, pg. A-17) – that shechita is in principle already prohibited under current animal cruelty laws, rather an exemption is in place for the religious needs of some!

Shechita has been the source of many private protests and legislative bans throughout the latter part of our Diaspora. It was banned in Vilna before the war and in Germany in 1933 as the first major law against her Jewish denizens. Like learning how vital bris mila is to our survival from the Greek’s desire to ban it, those evil men of the last century were not fools. They understood, as did chazal, that assimilation happens through food, and keeping our yahudus un-poisoned by shifting morals requires we have some limits of communal eating.

It is of critical import to note that in 1917 (see Reishtags Drucksachen der 13 Legislatur Periode II, no. 1039) in a letter still extant, the Germans assured the Jews that shechita would not be banned.

No one saw it coming.

Bans came in many forms. Some may even have seemed innocuous, at first. For example, due to influence from Germany’s bans, by 1936, the Polish Parliament banned the sale of shechted meat to anyone other than Jews.

This may seem like but a small inconvenience, but in truth it would make meat-selling impossible. Since we no longer do nikkur on the hindquarters to remove cheilev and the gid hanasheh, we often simply sell that part off. But now that would be impossible, causing the meat prices to become prohibitive!

Rav Chaim Ozer (Shu’t Achiezar 3:84; see also Shu’t Igros Moshe y’d 2:42) had to issue a unique psak temporally allowing nikkur to be re-introduced.

Already in the 19^th century, animal welfare groups had a particular carnivorous hunger for shechita banning. (For further study, see Shechita (Edut Neemana), byRabbis Munk, Munk and Levinger, Feldheim, 1976). And, already in 1894 a group was formed to publish articles that would convince the masses that shechita was indeed humane (see Shechita, pg 17).

In the late 1880’s Prussian authorities were pressured to ban shechita due to its ‘abuse’ toward animals. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch’s letters in response are strikingly harsh and his warnings unapologetically dire. He especially stressed the dangers in ever expressing doubt toward the Torah’s Law and its treatment of animals (see Shemesh Merapah pp 33, 38 in a letter sent to shochtim of New York regarding “whitening” meat, 43-44, 207-209; sefer Zikaron Yad Shmuel, pp. 246-249. See also ‘Rabbi Samson Refoel Hirsch’, Artscroll, pp. 292-293 and 12-14)

So, aside for the daf, why am a writing this brief history lesson now?

A few weeks ago I shared with the reader how I was invited to give an address at and for Harvard Law School.

 Iy’H, after Ami’s medical issue, I will conclude that story, but for now let me share what the topic was about.

In the wake of the events at Rubashkin a decade ago, in addition to many –news organizations and Jews alike – jumping to conclusions, some went even further R’l.

As many are aware, a group of conservative rabbis got together and started an organization called ‘Magen Zedek –An Ethical Certification For Kosher Food’.

They write: “The cornerstone of the program is the Magen Tzedek Standard, a proprietary set of standards that meet or exceed industry best practices for treatment of workers, animals, and the Earth; and delineates the criteria a food manufacturer must meet to achieve certification. Upon successful certification, the Magen Tzedek Commission will award its Shield of Justice seal which can be displayed on food packaging.”

Harvard Law School held a conference on Jewish Law and had invited the creator of the above project to argue its case.

I was asked to come and show why such an idea was wrong, unfeasible and quixotic.

However, what I did not discuss that day –and couldn’t – was another error in their judgment.

Let’s leave aside the true reports on shechita from the real secular authorities which are quite positive in terms of animal welfare – i.e., Dr. Temple Grandin, the leading export on the humane treatment of animals, who has worked closely with kashrus agencies for years. It is the lack of concern for and respect of history from this organization that is staggering.

Irrespective of intent, do they not realize that they are confirming an old canard in the eyes of small-minded people. Are they not aware that to many this will be seen as, ‘Finally, kosher food and that kosher ‘tax’ may become ethical’?

How safe do they believe shecitah is in galus, are we are in galus?

My, how comfortable they seem to feel in this temporary –although wonderful –home!

How naïve could they be? And, how blind to history is their public mission?

Instead of informing the world regarding how animal rights was first codified into law by klal yisroel, they have emboldened the worst of our society.  

These United States are the greatest refuge known to klal yisroel’s recent history and is a nation predicated on chesed. That chesed is extended to its citizenry in the form of a G-d given right to freedom. Regrettably, in a just society good people and causes are often infiltrated and than commandeered to fulfill a deviant end.

To be clear, it is not that I should fear that shechita will be targeted with a direct ban per se, rather, we must not lose completely the ‘Diaspora Mentality’ and indeed in many other countries they have focused on the other more “humane” ways of killing and demanded that those be the exclusive method of slaughter, with no exception for religion (as was the 1974 case before our Supreme Court mentioned above).

 “Ein Davar Chodesh Tachas HaShamesh” –There is nothing new under the sun.

This idiom is not only an observational reality but also a warning and a teaching to look at yesterday’s narrative as we move forward in our destiny of tomorrow.

I will conclude with the words of Rav Yirmayahu Kaganoff, my predacesor in Buffalo and the founder of my vaad:

“Rav Shamshon Rephael Hirsch explains the mitzvah of gid hanosheh as a message that although the spirit of Eisav will never conquer Yaakov and his descendants, Eisav will be able to hamstring Yaakov and prevent him from standing firmly on two feet. Thus Yaakov goes through history with an infirm physical stand and gait. By having to remove the gid hanasheh, whenever Yaakov’s descendants sit down to eat meat, they realize that their continued existence is not dependent on their physical strength and stamina, but on spiritual factors which can never be weakened by Eisav’s might”.