Talk:Shechita/Archive 1

Sources

I propose that this article be tagged as needing sources, either with the CN or Unsourced tag. Specific paragraphs which I think need sources are the first, second and third paragraphs. I would like to hear other people's opinion on this.Starwarp2k2 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll source it. hold off on a tag. Jon513 20:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC

Most of the stuff on shehitah is not sourcable because it is complete bunk. Shekhitah in itself has nothing to do with the command not to eat blood, but with the command, "You shall slaughter the way I showed you on the mountain." The pourging of blood is accomplished after the animal is dead in kashrus, and shekhitah does not require even one vein or artery to be cut. The only things that have to be cut are the food pipe and the wind pipe. If somebody has a wild technique to accomplish this without severing the arteries, he is completely fine and the animal is kosher. Undoubtably those things are cut, but its as a side point not as the object. The blood pressure dropping to zero in the brain bit is ridiculous as, like I said, no vein or artery needs to be cut for the shehitah to be kosher, only the two simmonim. The beginning of that satatement, about the object being to cut the majority of the veins or whatever is bunk. The object is to cut through most of the windpipe and foodpipe in large animals, and the majority of one of them in birds. Also, the last bit about the hindquarters doesn't belong in this article as that is called nikor, and has nothing to do with shekhitah. The bit about lungs is also a seperate matter called bedikah. Shekhitah is only the killing. Neither nikkor or beddikah are done in chickens or birds, for example. The part about the animal needing to be in good health is ridiculous, as one of the major sections of hilchos shekhitah is the Misukenes - an animal who's life is in danger. They may be slaughtered and are perfectly kosher as long as they demonstrate pirkus - the movement of one limb after the simmonim are cut. Lastly, the pain signal business is not accurate as the demonstration of some sort of movement after shekhitah is REQUIRED for the animal to be kosher, and shekhitah is not to prevent pain. Nobody knows the reason for shekhitah, and this is actually reflected in a halakhah of shekhitah, that we are forbidden to think of reasons for it as it is a halakhah given to Moses at Mount Sinai. (SImlah Hadashah Perek 23 sif 1) I'm sorry if I sound overly critical, but almost the entirety of the article is false, which is a unique accomplishment, but not entirely unique on Jewish articles. The Neturei Karta article is almost entirely fabrication. 88.154.158.42 21:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

welcome to wikipedia. Thank for you taking the time to write about what you think about this this article. Wikipedia is a wiki meaning that anyone can change it, and we encourage you to do so. The fastest way to make an article better is by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top of your screen.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 88.154.158.42). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

Shechita is used in this article in the modern vernacular meaning "perparation of a living animal to eaten", including bedicaka, nikkor, kashuring, etc; not in the talmudic sence refering only to the acutal slaughter. If you can suggest a name that would be more appropiate I would support such an effort (renaming an article can only be done by someone with an account for a few day, so either make one yourself or ask on this page). The animal being in good health is, as I suspect you know, a translation of triefa. Granted that there is not a strict connection being triefut and health, it is not "complete bunk". If you want to expand it to explain all the laws of treifut go ahead. In fact if you want to change anything of the article please go ahead. Jon513 09:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jon513 and others. I wrote up an article I think is pretty accurate, I'm puting sources in now. I don't know how to put it somewhere where it doesn't appear on the page so you can add what you like to it before it end up on WIkipedia. I'd like to work with you, and I think we might have an article that could be a featured article if we work together on the talk pages to keep edit wars to a minimum. I'm a shochet, and must say, there are no accurate descriptions of shechitah on the net right now that I know of. Ths would be a good accomplishment for WIkipedia. I think the Major danger to the article is people from Progressive sects of Judaism getting mad at the description of what is required for shechitah and editing it to be innacurate, so we may need to discuss a way to have their views on the matter also included, but separate from the body of the description since most people wanting to know about shechitah want to know about shechitah as it is required to be done by the Shulchan Aruch and ancient sources, and the way it is done in modern shleucht houses. Its also that people might want to know the progressive views, so maybe a seperate section with the title Non-Orthodox views, or something so there opinions are expressed accurately, but nobody gets confused and thinks they are followed in the Shleucht hauzes. Any ideas? Shia1 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Shia, I've added a section for you to fill. I am not a shochet, not do I have kabbala on shechita, although I have shechted (3 roosters using Acherim omed al gabov) after the kollel I was in finished Hilchos Shechita.For a while I was chazering with the Simlah Chadasha, but that was years ago :(. Your expertise will be greatly appreciated. -- Avi 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Avi. I'm having trouble finding sources describing the way shechitah is carried out in modern shleucht hauzes. I think we all know, as many of us have been inside and even worked in them, but I can't find any references. Do you know of any? 88.153.87.107 21:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

At http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/ you will find a video. // Liftarn

where are the halachot of shechita in the shulchan arukh? (there is an online copy here) Jon513 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Very beginning of Yoreh Deah Chelek Aleph (YD:1–28)-- Avi 12:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of what I was going to put in was from Simlah Hadashah and Maateh Asher. It would make the article a lot better if someone could put in sources straight from Shulchan Aruch and the Gemmorah Chulin. Anyways, I'm going to be in Ukraine until Monday, maybe after that I'll contibute something if nobody minds. I was wondering if anybody thought maybe bedikah needed to be a separate article. It's kind of complex to have in here. Maybe a real quick mention. What do you guys think? 88.152.11.86 01:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick mention. As should trebering have a quick mention. However, Bedikas HaSakin, Haschazah, Bedikas HaSimanim after Shechita all need proper mention. My Semicha bechinas are beginning to haunt me again (L'Da'avoni, It's been years since I have chazered these Halachos). Enjoy Uman ;) Kesiva V'Chasima Tova and a Gut gebentched yar. -- Avi 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I put in some stuff I wrote down. My sukkah's not done though, and I have to go work on it or appear lazy before the wife. I'll put some more down later, and add sources. Shia1 15:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material

The Haluk Anil study's conclusion that bolt stunning does not slow exsanguination is a concern for halal slaughter, but not for kosher slaughter. The Jewish objection to stunning rests on the fact that an injured animal may not be slaughtered for food according to Jewish law. Flourdustedhazzn 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in Bans on ritual slaughter instead. // Liftarn

Protect this article

I just removed a pornographic picture (vandalism). Perhaps this topic should be semi-protected.71.247.48.219 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find any record of that in the history. Jon513 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

added material

I have added some history of the bans on shehitah as well as removing some of the animal welfare controversy that was in the way. RPSM (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC) I will put in refernces later. RPSM (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names/spellings in English

I would think that there would be variant spellings of the word "shechita", as there are with most Jewish terms taken into English from Hebrew. I think it would be informative if someone were to add these alongside the name at the start of the article. Static Sleepstorm 10:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some words are harder to transliterate than others. There does not seem to be any popular alternative spellings for shechita. Compare the results on google for shechita (~53,000), shehitah (625), and shekhita (300). If you can think of another alternative spelling, see if it has any hits on google and if it does be bold and put it in. (shechitah has 12,400 hits but that seems too trivial to include as an "alternative spelling") Jon513 20:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I reckon it is noteworthy that shechita is often spelled "shechitah", and will add it as an alternative spelling in the opening sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Static Sleepstorm (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

The correct spelling is shehitah. RPSM (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we adopt a standard transliteration such as the French wikipedia uses, and appears to be automated from Hebrew script? Two letters in Hebrew - heth and khaph have differt pronunciations and are both rendered as ch. While one variant of hebrew pronunciation - that used by speakers of Yiddish merges these, classical Hebrew scholars and Sephardim and Arabic-speaking Jews separate them. Transliteration systems should work so that the hebrew spelling can be readily divined from the transliteration as well as the correct pronunciation. Those who use correct Sephardi pronunciation or Yemenite pronunciation that corresponds most closely to classical hebrew retaining komatz and patah and distinguishing between khaph and heth are not helped by several variants when neither of these indicates either the original Hebrew letters or the correct pronunciation. I suggest following the French system and installing whatever software they have in the all the other languages in Wikipedia. Alternative spellings may be useful for searching in Google, but not for suppporting learners of Hebrew. Shehitah is not perfect as there should be a dot under the h or the h doubled to distinguish heth from hey. The French system has a double t to distinguish tteth from taph. Enthusiastic readers should be able to find a key to a transliteration system and be able to learn Hebrew spelling and pronunciation from it. La shehita ou she'hita (héb. שחיטה shəḥiṭta) désigne l'abattage rituel des animaux ... Swedish speakers read chevra as shevra echad as eshad, as French speakers would. RPSM (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Shechita qualifications

A question was posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Shochet training and the discussion is worth reposting here as it applies. A not will be posted there that the discussion should continue here. IZAK (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Shochet training

At what age does the shochet (kosher-butcher) training begin? I know they are required to have a religious education apart from their butcher duties. I doubt there is a norm at which everyone begins, but I am interested to know if it takes places after someone graduates from Yeshiva or before. --Ghostexorcist 12:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Graduation from yeshiva? Are you using USA terminology?

To my knowledge there is no norm. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One cannot be a shochet before age 13, but I do not believe one even needs to graduate from a yeshiva (ie obtain Semicha). --Eliyak T·C 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghostexorcist: The laws of shechita ("slaughtering") exist within their own realm of rules. In some ways it may seem that to be a shochet is "easier" than being a rabbi, and in other ways, it is a specifically more complex skill that requires the shochet to be both a reliable Torah scholar especially familiar with the laws of shechita through serious study and at the same time be fully proficient in a series of skills required to set up his chalef ("slaughtering knife") and in its exact maintenance, set-up, readiness, use and application. The shochet is also required to be a known God-fearing fully Orthodox Jew who is strict about all matters pertaining to his practice of Halachik Judaism. To be a rabbi only requires scholarship whereas to be a shochet it is not necessary to be ordained as a rabbi, but it is required that the schochet be a Torah scholar, who knows the laws of shechita, and is able to pass any inspection of his tools and skills at any time. Thus, semicha ("ordination") is not required to be a shochet. The formal qualification that has been required is called a k'tav kabbalah' ("letter of acceptance/qualification") from a rabbi or rabbis who are familiar and have practiced this field of Jewish law relating to shechita. But this is a good question because the Talmud in Hullin in the first Mishna states in a general fashion: hakol shochtin... ("All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor...") and there are serious and very detailed discussions that are part of many rabbinic commentaries. Most importantly it is crucial to realize that the subject of animal slaughter in Judaism is related to the services and rituals conducted in the Temple in Jerusalem and is originally studied in that context and that is why Hullin is part of Kodashim. Kodoshim deals largely with the religious service within the Temple in Jerusalem, the Korbanot ("sacrificial offerings"), and other subjects considered or related to these "Holy Things". In the temple, as commanded in the Torah, mainly the Book of Leviticus, the kohanim ("priests") were slaughtering animals in order to offer them up as sacrificial offerings. And the priests were neither "rabbis" nor "shochtim" but their roles incorporated both functions. So the slaughter of animals within Judaism is quite a deep and complex subject. IZAK (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, as IZAK points out, certification to be a slaughter is not a matter of Jewish law (Biblical requirements or rabbinic decrees) as such. Any such requirements exist by custom and are based on individual rabbis' and organization's views as to whether or not one is sufficiently learned, skilled, and reliable. In the days of the Temple in Jerusalem, a priest was not required to do the slaughtering, it was permissable for ordinary pilgrims, including women, to slaughter their own offerings, and there are various cases discussed in tractate Pesachim which involve pilgrams slaughtering their own passover offerings. Tractate Parah, for example, discusses a dispute about whether a woman can slaughter the Red Heifer. The skill to do this may have been much more widespread than today, connected to a time when a larger percentage of people raised and slaughtered their own food. However, the custom of having certified professional slaughters is an old one, and there are certification letters dating back to at least the Middle Ages. People raising and slaughtering their own animals for their own use is less common today but is still possible and as User:IZAK points out still legal under Jewish law. However, Orthodox Jews generally will not buy or eat meat slaughtered by someone without a guarantee of that person's reliability. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Jewish law also permits fathers to circumcise their own sons (see Brit Milah, and at ceremonies I've been to the Mohel asks the father whether he wishes to do it himself to ensure the father is voluntarily appointing the Mohel as agent. A mohel I know said a couple of times in his career the father said he wanted to do it himself at that point -- and although he strongly recommended against it he let the father do it, as Jewish law permits. Although I don't have information reliable enough to put in Wikipedia, these sorts of things do seem to happen at least occassionally. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that while the Talmud may discuss the suitability of anyone, including women, to be a "shochet" it does mean that the Talmud or any source in Jewish law or that classical Judaism were ever conceived, advocated or permitted Jewish woman to serve in this role. And since User:Shirahadasha mentions circumcision, a woman may perform that too, as the Torah records that it was no less than Moses' wife Zipporah who circumcized their son, after God almost killed Moses for delaying to do so, see Zipporah at the inn -- but that does not that the Torah means to set a precedent of any sort that women should go ahead and circumcize their sons or that Jewish women should be allowed to become "official" mohalot. In serious Torah study one must always be aware of the difference between a theoretical postulate and the creation and application of a practical law (halacha le'ma'aseh). IZAK (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The following book documents examples of shechitah certificates issued to women by medieval rabbis: Grossman, Avraham. Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe. Translated from the Hebrew by Jonathan Chapman. Brandeis University Press, 2004. ISBN 1-58465-392-2 --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Josiah Berman, Shehitah, 1941 says that there were women shohtoth in one country - Italy and has an example of an Italian certificate.

I do very much like the system on the French wikipedia for Hebrew transliteration. it has a separate transliteration for each letter. Double t (tt) for teth, and t for taph and th for thaph (which Ashkenazim can mentally transpose to sof). That makes shehittah. It is automatic too. Can't that be a wiki standard for all languages in Wikipedia? Classical Hebreists (and Yemenites would also like to have a separation between patah and komatz, but you can't have evrerything. I think this is the best there is. See article shehita there. (They use the regular French spelling and then the automated version as a pronunciation aid). RPSM (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Major edit of last section to modify POV and other issues

I have undertaken a complete re-write to some extent of this last section, removing almost half of it. It still exists on other webpages actually at: [1] The section needs more references and more information. The issue of Shechita and attempts, some successful, to ban it are part of the European history and they have, at times, been wrapped up in other causes that have been either anti-Jewish or animal rights activism and these have engendered debates, for instance on why Hallal slaughter is allowed. THe section should present a history of these debates, strikes and legislation and it can be done in an NPOV manner. So by removing some of the POV comments and other comments that made no sense or will ill-placed, I have attempted to make this section better. I have provided additional references. But more are needed as is more information generally. If anyone has suggestions please leave me a note.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the information already exists at Legal aspects of ritual slaughter, so why not include it as bullets on this article. (*) and then link to the already existing and more professional explanation.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Integration with Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

Suggest moving much of the legal controversy section to Legal aspects of ritual slaughter and including only a summary paragraph. There seems to be a lot of duplicaiton. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

POV in See also?

In the See also section, it describes 2 of other ritual slaughtering techniques and it seems that the explanation of Jhatka is POV. I do not think there should even be descriptions and so I have removed them. However, if someone believes there is a necessity for it then feel free to add it back. --Hamster X (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to understand what POV you think that the see also section is presenting. Shechita is a form of ritual slaughter, the "see also" lists other forms of ritual slaughter. Is there any dispute that shechita is a form of slaughter dictated by a religion to prepare an animal to be eaten? Is there any dispute that what is listed in the "see also" are forms of slaughter dictated by other religions to prepare an animal to be eaten? Jon513 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

:: I do not think there should even be descriptions Why have an encyclopedia, then? Isn't an encyclopedia to explain to people things they do not know? RPSM (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jhakta should definitely be somewhere. It is a slaughter method that is used by Hindus and Sikhs and they want to use it in the UK (Great Britain) and there is specific legislation I understand to allow Jhakta by guillotine but not with a sword (I read in Wikipedia). So, if this is true, it fits in with how European governments legislate permitting and/or prohibiting traditional, religious slaughter methods. It should be in, if it is accurate. RPSM (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cruelty NPOV

While this page is informative, the last section about this practice describes it as cruel, which it may or may not be, especially in comparison to non-kosher, regular-practice slaughterhouses-it sort of contains weasel words, and violates a NPOV position. SaraK 08:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi sara, I see that you are new here - welcome to Wikipedia. The section is pretty well source and there are only a few "other Jewish groups" or the like which is not as bad of a weasel word as just "others". If you can find out which group in particular they were I would be great if you could add that to the article. I agree that there could be more on the defence POV, but they would have to quoted by notabled people, not just added. If you can find anything please feel free to add it. If you have any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page. Jon513 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose entirely and simply deleting the "Animal Welfare controversies" section. This is an article about Shechita and should explain and define that. Very few (if any) topics are without controversy, and it is not desirous to explore every controversial viewpoint about every single subject on every single Wikipedia page. If this videotaping event is so important, it more appropriately belongs on an AgriProcessors page or a PETA page. BBODO 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The controvery that has caused the method to be banned in some countries is due to animal welfare concerns and this needs to be explained~in the article. // Liftarn

I agree that this part should be removed, since it not only leaves out findings about the negative consequences of stunning, it leaves in only the negative view of one slaughterhouse as if it were representative of all. Most bans spring from ignorance - this article seems to be joining in. FlaviaR 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The material under "Animal Welfare controversies" in this article: Shehitah is repeated in two other articles:

Bans on ritual slaughter (titled changed to Legal aspects of ritual slaughter), and Ritual slaughter. One place should be decided for this material thereby reducing Wikipedia space to one-third. Some of what is said in this section (Animal Welfare controversies) is questionable. RPSM (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The controvery that has caused the method to be banned in some countries is due to animal welfare concerns and this needs to be explained~in the article. // Liftarn Not so. The controversy was started by antisemites who made contact with animal protection societies and they started a campaign in 1850 to introduce legislation against Jews in all the parliaments of Europe. It failed. Only Switzerland banned shehitah in the constitution, to their shame. Saxony's ban was removed ten year later when the Vetinary College discovered the method was humane. Hitler revived it, and current legislation is a remnant of this 62.127.255.15 (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reductio ad Hitlerum, discussion over. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is a mistake

The bit where it says organ meats and fat and whatnot are forbidden, first of all I know for a fact those are alright. Secondly the bit where it says the nerves and major blood vessels have to be removed according to the Torah, technically the Torah itself doesn't get that specific. I think maybe that should say the Talmud. The Torah just says to remove all the blood, and presumably that's just -interpreted- to include vessels and nerves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Shechita → Shechita (Kosher slaughter) — Kosher slaughter is a common search term concerning this topic. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose I went ahead and added a redirect for Kosher slaughter Dosbears (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Oppose, why? The redirect is fine, but why not just have the article's main title be at least in part in English? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason to add something in parentheses is to disambiguate. Shechita is not ambiguous.Dosbears (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think perhaps the title should be moved to "Kosher slaughter"? The topic might be more commonly known by that name. Bus stop (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what redirects are for. Shechita is the precise, correct, term and should be used for the name of the article.Dosbears (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Kosher slaughter just as precise and correct as Shechita? It has the added virtue of being in English. Bus stop (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Dosbears has pointed out, the convention is to use parentheses in article titles to disambiguate, not to provide alternative names. Andrewa (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dhabihah, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved comment claiming slaughter is humane to section on humane slaughter

Moved strongly opinionated comment on humane to appropriate section, because it's not the first information usually sought. This is not the logical first part of the discussion. I included it verbatim in the appropriate topic instead. My instinct was to chop it because it was non-neutral but I decided not to stress people out. In the right section, it is balanced by opposing opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveBurstein (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Section titled Significance in Jewish tradition

The laws of shechita are not given in the text of the Torah. Rather, the Torah only writes that the slaughter shall be "as I have instructed you." (Deut. 12:21) In Orthodox Judaism this is taken as a proof that Moses received an Oral Torah along with the text,[13] as opposed to the view that Deuteronomy is referring back to the previous book of Leviticus.

It can't be referring back to the previous book of Leviticus, as there is no mention of it in the written Torah /Tanakh / Old Testament. See lead at top of article that mentions this fact. It is not mentioned in Leviticus or anywhere else. The "view" is not sourced, and therefore will delete. RPSM (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism - Animal Welfare Controversies moved

I have moved the Criticism Anmal Welfare Controversies from the article to the discussion page of Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter (that originally started life as Bans on Ritual Slaughter. The reason for this is the abrupt difference in quality of writing and subject matter between the Shechita article as it was and unsourced material not properly thought through, largely erroneous, and written without first reading the major sources in the field that are not on the web, but in books.

The article Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter was set up to deal with the legislation introduced and removed and there is a body of literature on this listing what legislation was introduced and removed, describing the sociological and political reasons for the legislation and its removal. This is where any information on the legal aspects of slaughtering regulation belongs.

I have done the same thing with the Halal article where there was much repetition of information that was erronous and confused. RPSM (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Swedish article is wrong!

From the Swedish article: Skäktning är en slaktmetod föreskriven inom judendom (kosherslakten) och islam (halalslakten). I båda fallen avlivas djuret genom att halspulsådrorna skärs av med kniv.[1]

Shehitah is a slaughtering metnod that is prescribed by Judaism (kosher slaughter) and by Islam (halal slaughter). In both cases the animal is killed by the carotid arteries being cut with a knife.

Judaism does NOT prescribe the cutting of carotid arteries or of jugular veins either in cattle or poultry. The only requirement is that the majority of the food pipe and wind pipe (oesophagus and trachea) is severed. See, eg. Controversy and Crisis: Studies in the History of the Jews in Modern Britain Geoffrey Alderman p147 RPSM (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not log into the Swedish Wikipedia and point it out to them? --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't log in because I have been blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia. I have pointed this out. Many times. RPSM (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See section beginning line 37 in history of this page beginning: "Most of the stuff on shehitah is not sourcable because it is complete bunk ..." September 19, 2006. RPSM (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see it. I'll take your word for it. Many times. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Hmm. How about waiting out the period of your block and then editing the Swedish Wikipedia? --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC) The block is permanent. RPSM (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Ok, the issue is this: the animal is kosher if the wind pipe and most of the food pipe is cut through. Whether or not the jugulars or carotids are severed has no bearing on the kashruth of the animal. If the carotid arteries were intact the animal would still be kosher (if that were possible). Severing the carotids only without cutting the trachea and oesophagus is what happens in non kosher slaughter. It is called sticking and is done with a pointed knife on one side only or else on both sides of the neck. The Swedish article is called skäktning (religious slaughter) but what is described in the lead is European Christian and secular slaughter. RPSM (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In both cases the animal is killed by the carotid arteries being cut with a knife. This is true. This is how the animal is killed. But, the instructions as to how to do it are concerned soley with the trachea and oewsophagus being severed. RPSM (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise any en: user not to edit another Wikipedia because an indefblocked user suggests there's something wrong there. Especially if you're not able to read and understand Swedish with any great fluency...

RPSM, I'm glad you're clearly not socking, but surely the best solution is to get yourself accepted back in Swedish Wikipedia. Your blocklog is very brief (just one block that I can see) so it shouldn't be impossible. Then you can fix the problems yourself. I'm happy to help you by talking to some Swedish admins, if you like, and can give you advice at my user talk, but only if you wish. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the blocking message on my Swedish talk page in translation: Hi RPSM, you now have since my first comment on this page in November 2007 dwelt on the same question over and over again without showing any proof of self-awareness or trust in other users. Instead, you accuse them again and again for racism and the like. This is, as you might guess, a completely untenable situation. You are obviously incredibly stubborn and have a lot of time to get involved in issues, and it's sad that you put this time on more constructive work than chasing windmills in a few articles on Wikipedia, without wanting to hear some other opinions. Other users cannot be expected to check your edits, and check your endless discussion in eternity. Which is why I am now blocking you permanently from any further editing on Wikipedia. This is because you obviously have a POV-agenda in your work here, and did not respect the other users. / Grillo April 4, 2011, at. 22:30 (CEST)RPSM (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My objections to the Swedish article "Skäktning"

1) Skäktning is equivalent to the German term Schächten that refers to both muslim slaughter (with and without stunning) and to Jewish slaughter (that is only performed without stunning). DIALREL's glossary says that the German term is colloquial. I suppose because it means so many different things (Religious slaughter by Muslims with and without stunning and by Jews without stunning). In any one instance it needs to be redefined unless you say "Skäktning" in Sweden and Norway is prohibited.

The article talks about a method, but it refers to several methods i) Jewish slaughtering ii)muslim slaughtering without stunning iii)muslim slaughtering with stunning.

Secondly, the Swedish article Skäktning defines Jewish and Muslim slaughtering as only cutting the arteries in the neck, and this is incorrect. Neither Jewish or Muslim slaughtering is done this way. I have reverted this edit once already and cannot revert a second time as I have been blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia for ever for being a POV pusher. But there are no other competent editors there to deal with this article.

The definition in the lead is borrowed from another Encyclopedia the Swedish National Encyclopedi and the author there (I believe) is Professor Jan Hjärpe, a professor of Islamology. RPSM (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't wikipedia in swedish. Since you've today also lost the ability to post to your talk page there I suggest you just drop that language version completly and try to make edits to this language version that's useful. GameOn (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I can't read my Swedish talk page - not the older contributions/edits. Could this be because I never archived it and it grew too large? RPSM (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem, wikimedia servers have problems sometimes, including today. I've archived the talk page under different years since I assume you would want this based upon what you write above and on what you wrote to Dweller concerning having old messages lying around with accusations. If this was an incorrect interpretation I appologize and will restore. I would suggest you concentrate on making articles on this language version better, apparently you have a lot of knowledge and is willing to share that knowledge with others. GameOn (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The animal must be killed with respect and compassion has been labelled "vague" Tag removed for reasons below

The animal must be killed with respect and compassion has been tagged "vague". In this [2] interview with Professor Regenstein of Cornell University he uses the words respect and kindness, (last line, sixth paragraph) The hebrew for respect is qavod/kavod and that is the frame of mind mandated for all religious activity. For kindness, see the article Tza'ar ba'alei chayim RPSM (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Halal and Kosher

Tiny question. Could meat conceivably be both halal and kosher? I mean, technically? I have not found a reason yet, why it couldn't. Iago2¹² 16:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Some Moslems will eat Kosher if Halal is not available. But Halal is never ever Kosher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.30.139 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Can you please explain why Halal can never ever be Kosher? I found no mutually excluding rules. Iago2¹² 11:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Halacha, for Shechita to be Kosher, it must be performed by a religious Jew. If performed by such a person, the act is Shechita; if not, even if it passes Halal rules, it would not be an acceptable Shechita and thus the animal is not Kosher (having not been properly ritually slaughtered). -- Avi (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi. But meat from a slaughter performed by a Jew can be halal (Dhabihah#Prerequisites). That is no precluding condition. Iago2¹² 21:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I think. The way I understand it, all Kosher meat is automatically Halal, probably even according to those who require G-d's name mentioned as there is a blessing that the Shochet must say. So as Kosher is a proper subset of Halal, then yes they can co-exist. When I was answering, I was interpreting Halal to mean Halal and not Kosher. So while an Orthodox Jew technically only eats Halal meat, as they keep strictly Kosher, they cannot walk into a Halal-only restaurant or butcher shop and purchase anything. Whereas a devout Muslim would be able to eat in a Kosher restaurant or purchase from a Kosher butcher shop. So I think we are actually in agreement. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Avi! Iago2¹² 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Preparation

Red this section. 'The animal cannot be stunned by electronarcosis, captive-bolt shot to the brain, or gas, as is common practice in modern animal slaughter, for this would inflict such injuries to the animal rendering the shechita invalid.'. I removed the reference to injuries. If you want to restore it, then please provide a source, and please reword to make it clear that the reference to injuries is a religious Jewish claim. Otherwise the word injuries is a word to avoid.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll look for source. In the meantime, could you explain why you feel that "injuries" is a word to avoid. To me, it doesn't fit any of the categories in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and injury is certainly a neutral description of at least captive-bolt shot and arguably the other methods, too.Sjö (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Injuries" is not a word to avoid. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

the word injuries is clearly an opinion in the case of gassing, and electric stunning.. These are considered injuries only because of a religious opinion. Otherwise the word injury would not be applied. If the word stunned or made impervious to pain were to be used, then these would be objected to by those who claim that schecita is a form of stunning. It must be made clear that the term injury is a loaded one, and is not neutral. A more correct phrase would make it clear that e.g it is the blemish on the skin that is objected to in the case of stunning, it is this that is referred to as an injury. That is clearly an opinion, and should be made clear.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source that is currently quoted says the following: "Jewish law does not permit pre-stunning because it requires the animal to be uninjured at the time of shechita, and all pre-stunning methods involve an injury to the animal. There is also concern that the pre-stunning might kill the animal, and so render it unfit to eat." The source uses the word "injury" without a qualifier. It would be helpful if you could find a secondary source with the same authority that explains the same while invoking the halachic concept of "tereifa". Alternatively, we should be following the source. JFW | T@lk 10:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Jewish law states that in Temple sacrifices the animals used must be perfect and unblemished. Then, that in killing animals for food without being part of a sacrifice the method of slaughter is to be the same as for the animal sacrifices. This means that the condition that only unblemished animals be used for food applies. This acts as protection for the animal as in rearing it, the animal must not come to harm. Any method involving damaging the animal in any way is prior to the prescribed method of slaughter is not acceptable and will disqualify it as food for religious Jews; eg shooting a steel bolt through the skull one or more times will count as an unacceptable injury. The animal must be healthy and sound before it is killed by a method prescribed by Jewish law. RPSM (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what constitutes a blemish or injury will be found in Jewish legal sources that are in Hebrew or Aramaic.RPSM (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The animal must be "healthy and uninjured" Under Jewish and Islamic law, animals for slaughter must be healthy and uninjured at the time of death, which rules out driving a bolt into the brain - though some Muslim authorities accept forms of stunning that can be guaranteed not to kill the animal. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271 RPSM (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Health issues with kosher slaughter

Hi,

recently I've read about halal slaughter, which is basically the same as kosher slaughter, considering the cutting technique. It was said that by cutting the throat of the animal, germs from the stomach can enter the blood and flesh of the animal when it throws up in the process and/or bleeds out afterwards, since the contents of the stomach run out thru the severed throat and get in contact eith the flesh, the veins and arteries and the lungs there. It wa salso said that this constitutes a real health hazard to the consumers of the meat won in that way. So I propose to add a new section called "Health issues" or something like that where this is discussed thoroughly. Link to an article about that: http://french-news-online.com/wordpress/?p=8974#axzz1qj1ueVHW -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

World Jewish Congress Resolution mentioning that banning shechita has long been a manifestation of anti-Semitism. "Controversy" section moved (for the third time) to "Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter" to avoid repetition.

That the anti-Shehitah campaigns are manifestations of anti-Semitism is incontrovertable. This is shown by the following resolution of the World Jewish Congress and by the 1906 artícle by Professor Gottfried Deutch of Hebrew Union College, Cincinatti (signature D) in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

Modern anti-Shehitah campaigners are sometimes secular fundamentalists, who refuse to recognize that an ancient method preserved within a religious framework can give results superior from an Animal Welfare POV to more modern inventions (reference later - Meat Science textbook by author with a Chinese name).

This post constitutes an outline of the article subject matter of a possible article Controversies in Religious Slaughter or The Kosher Slaughtering Debates. It is not necessary to gather any old material (especially out of context) that can be construed as "proving" that Muslim or Jewish methods are "cruel" as there is a vast literature on this subject that explains the phenomenon why the US Humane Slaughter Act explicity defines Religous Slaughter as humane (there is no dispensation as the Wikipedia article erroneously states) while the Swiss, Norwegian and Swedish effective bans enacted in the 1930s after racist campaigns and racist debates in the respected legislative assemblies are worded exactly the same as the German law in the Third Reich and the laws in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy (and all of Nazi-occupied Europe) that were abrogated by Allied Command with an order explicity stating that these laws were not intended to promote Animal Welfare but were race laws. (exact wording in The Right to Practice Shehitah (Munk, Munk & Berman).

World Jewish Congress Resolution:

AFFIRMS the united view of Rabbinic authorities world-wide that according to halacha:

• the banning of shechita is historically associated with attempts to delegitimise Jewish religious practices and has long been a manifestation of anti-Semitism; and

• allowing recreational hunting of animals (for example in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand), resulting in animal death, injury and suffering in numbers far greater and in ways not experienced in shechita, is indicative of a double standard being applied to the Jewish community on the question of animal welfare.

RESOLUTION: GB1106-5 World Jewish Congress

The other matter is a question of respect. Only Islamic and Jewish slaughter have a "Criticism" section. Although there are controversies, eg in the Catholic Church, there is no subsection to the main articles in the "Catholicism" article dealing with these, or for that matter the several inter-religious disputes (Copts/Muslims Rohingya/Thai Bhuddist, Islam/Bahai)

The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia deals with bans against Shehitah in Saxony and Switzerland under the heading "Anti-Semitism" and defines anti-Semitism by giving examples of Blood Libels and Shehitah bans:

"Other Countries.

This article is limited by the definition of Anti-Semitism as the opposition to Jews on the ground of their ethnical inferiority. Therefore it is unnecessary to refer to the condition of the Jews in countries like Persia and Morocco, where religious fanaticism needs no scientific pretext. However, the blood accusations of Corfu, April, 1891, resulting from the murder of a Jewish child, and the subsequent riots may be referred to in this sketch, but will be treated more appropriately under Blood Accusation. Another instance of Anti-Semitism is given by the enactments which have been passed prohibiting the killing of animals according to the Jewish rite in Saxony, by an order of the minister of the interior March 23, 1893, and in Switzerland by a referendum, Aug. 20, 1893.

The article is by Gottfried Deutch (Signature D) Professor of Jewish History at Hebrew Union College, Cincinatti.

The explanation given by Professor Deutch of Anti-Semitism has not yet been included in the English Wikipedia. Robert Wistrich, the author of Antismitism: the longest hatred repeats in the introduction of his book Professor Deutch's defintion. Although the word Anti-Semitism is generally used to refer to any antagonism of hatred towards Jews, this is not its primary meaning, and should be avoided where possible. The primary meaning of Anti-Semitism is the modern movement (1860) that sought to prove by scientific means that Jews needed to be made separate from the national population. The concerns of the Anti-Semites were Racial Hygiene and to ban Shehitah - and this they tried to do by scientific, or pseudo-scientific means that would be in concord with The Age of Reason see Jewish Encyclopedia articleRPSM (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Another error in Wikipedia is the Tiszlareszlár affair - A Blood Libel (false accusation of a Jew for murder. Once again the primary source is the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. But an essential detail is missing. The innocent Jew accused of murdering a little girl was a shohet - a Jewish ritual slaughterer - not mentioned in the article. (A secondary source with a toned down version was used). This is one of three Blood Libels were two anti-Semitic campaigns merged - the over one hundred innocent Jews accused of murder and the anti-shehitah campaign. The Tiszlaeszlár affair was used in the Swiss anti-Semitic campaign so as to convince the Swiss population to vote for a ban in the referendum.

My point is this: there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the anti-Shehitah campaign was a manifestation of anti-Semitism - which modern campaigners try to tone down or deny. Ingvar Svanberg quotes Michael Metcalf, a Harvard trained historian who studied the Swedish campaign. Metcalf says that while Animal Welfare was the ostensibly the outward concern, to the initiated inner circle the aim was to reimpose restrictions and disabilities on the Jews. The modern European meat scientists who refuse to accept evidence based research are said by the American meat scientists to be following a religion (as they deny logical findings)of "secular fundamentalism".

I have no desire to append a discussion on Anti-Semitism in the article, and these articles written together on controversial subjects by opposing parties are something between a blog and a narrative and useless for the uninformed to obtain information.

Therefore any discussion of "Controversies" is going to go far and away outside the boundaries of the subject and could be a separate article. But not here.

The same "Criticisms" are being dumped over the years on both the Jewish and Muslim articles which is repetitious, and the anti-Semitic campaign of the 1930s is being repeated today with Muslims as targets according to Pascal Krauthammer RPSM (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're trying to suggest a change is made to the article, please could you briefly make that suggestion? We're all volunteers here and you need to bear in mind WP:TLDR. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Animal Welfare Controversies

This section is growing again from zero. 1) Agriprocessors in Iowa and the criticism against it was not criticism of the Jewish method of slaugther. I couldn't believe it. I've been in at least 30 other kosher slaughter plants, and I had never ever seen that kind of procedure done before. … I've seen kosher slaughter really done right, so the problem here is not kosher slaughter.

If the problem is not kosher slaughter, it is irrelevant here. There is good and bad kosher slaughter as well as good and bad secular slaughter. No point in erroneosly pretending that you are criticizing a method, when, in actual fact, you are criticizing one individual plant.

The same applies to shackling and hoisting: it is used in Jewish slaughter and in non-Jewish slaughter. It is not a part of Jewish slaughter. It is a separate handling technique.

Moreover the whole section is a collage of odd quotes that does not run together as a unit or have a line of logical thought. The rest of the article does and is factual giving information. I propose erasing the whole section. Any objections? RPSM (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The section could be pruned, but it does mention an important aspect of the debate and so should remain in the article, IMO. Reading the text, and the references, it's clear to me that the section is not only about one individual plant, but also about the general question about animal welfare aspects of the method used in kosher slaughter. Sjö (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What is IMO?

It's an acronym for "in my opinion", not uncommon on the Internet. Sjö (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, I value Seth J. Friedman's comments above - at the moment in the second paragraph on this page viz. to get to the bottom of the story about Jewish slaughter - and how it was one of the areas where stresses and conflicts between various groups played out; which groups were involved (there are and have been internal Jewish conflicts) as well as friction with the host Christian authorities from the Middle Ages as well as with Muslims.

There is an article on Agriprocessors already including internal criticism from Jewish authorities. Is it really necessary to repeat this in the article here without mentioning the internal criticism and that the practices (extraneous to shehitah laws, such as ripping out the trachea of bovines) - now discontinued. The folowing is from the Agriprocessors article:

Jewish authorities were split, with former Chief Rabbi of Ireland, David Rosen, and Shechita UK, along with many non-Orthodox rabbis from the Conservative movement, criticizing Agriprocessors, while Orthodox kashrut organizations continued to stand by the kashrut of the meat. Under pressure from the Agriculture Department, the Orthodox Union kosher certification authority and Israel's chief rabbinate, the plant changed its practices.

The question is: how hard should the Agriprocessors section be pruned? RPSM (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading the text, and the references, it's clear to me that the section is not only about one individual plant, but also about the general question about animal welfare aspects of the method used in kosher slaughter.

Ben Goldsmith of PETAsays that:

On the issue of banning shechita: We’re an animal rights organization, so of course we feel that the high Jewish standards of compassion are best met by putting an end to all slaughter, but we don’t have a particular disdain for shechita and in fact, the ritual and commitment to compassion of kosher slaughter make it—as we’ve said consistently—better than nonkosher slaughter in the United States. So of course we’re not going after kosher slaughter first. Those who want to stand up for shechita, however, are doing their efforts a disservice by defending the horrors that we documented at AgriProcessors. In fact, I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with the fact that defending kosher slaughter will be easier if slaughterhouses abide by a uniform set of guidelines that have been endorsed by Jewish leaders.

and in fact, the ritual and commitment to compassion of kosher slaughter make it—as we’ve said consistently—better than nonkosher slaughter in the United States.

As this is as it were from the horse's mouth - the Animal Rights Organization that did the undercover film says that their opinon is that kosher slaughter is consistently better than non-kosher slaughter it is not about the shehitah method in general, but about a particular plant. Any plant that is large scale and loses attention to detail will have workers and animals suffering. The question is a matter of long shifts, the use of untrained, poorly paid and illiterate workers who do not have the proper papers, line speeds that are too high etc and these factors affect both kosher slaughter and non-kosher slaughter. But (according to PETA, who ought to know, kosher slaughter is consistently better than nonkosher slaughter - so it can't be about the method used in kosher slaugter - not the Agriprocessors part at least. RPSM (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my text that you quoted above. The section is not only about Agriprocessors, as anyone can see when they read the text and the references. There is also general critique of the method of cutting without stunning. There have also been critique of the methods used to restrain animals before slaughter in order to make the cut possible (though they are not mentioned in the references that are in the article now). These are the stated reasons that kosher and halal slaughter is prohibited in some countries. It would be an incomplete article if it didn't mention this aspect.

For comparison Slaughterhouse has a section about animal welfare concerns, and it's reasonable that this article also has one. One reason why this is especially relevant here is that kosher slaughter often is presented as especially humane, and a neutral point of view requires that opposing opinions are included in the article, if they are prominent. Sjö (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but I thought it a well written article:

http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2012/04/04/d-rf-r-r-reepalus-uttalanden-ett-angrepp-p-den-judiska-identiteten

OM FÖRFATTAREN

Harry R:son Svensson är doktorand vid Centrum för maritima studier på Historiska institutionen vid Stockholms universitet. Svensson skriver en avhandling om örlogsstaden Karlskrona som kosmopolitisk hamnmiljö och integrationen av Karlskrona Mosaiska församling i denna kontext.RPSM (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are trying to tell me something by posting an article about anti-semitism in Swedish, please spell it out instead. I really and truly don't understand why you post that text, a text that as far as I can see isn't about improving the encyclopedia in general or this article in particular.Sjö (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Harry R:son Svensson is writing a doctoral thesis for the Maritime Studies at the Historical Institution at the University of Stockholm. It is not the main thrust of the article that is relevant here (it is not relevant at all) but his introduction - a potted history of the Jews in Sweden and in Europe as well as a few "most quoted authors" on the subject of Jewish identity - useful as background to the subject of the kosher slaughtering debates, a related subject. His references are of interest. The controversies have been studied in a sociological context e.g. Dr Regenstein says that what is presented as concern for Animal Welfare is in fact an attempt to retain control of the meat trade. RPSM (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is a point of view that can be worth mentioning, provided there are reliable sources to confirm that it is widely argued (which I believe it probably is). On a side note, I would like to point to the behavioral guideline Assume good faith in regards to this question, since I read your (now withdrawn) text about editors with an "agenda". 09:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew it so as to keep the discussions to essentials. As, you know, I was accused of having an agenda on the Swedish site. I think that derives from the fact that what is the "norm" in Sweden is to really and truly believe that Shehitah is cruel (unless you are a Jew or a Muslim). The DialRel project included a questionaire asking people what they spontaneously thought and the responses confirmed this. Will look for link later. RPSM (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(INSERTED) Link is here "It was nearly unanimous in the kosher focus group that shechita was the "best" method of slaughter, preferable to any other method, including conventional and halal." This is p 17 of Consumer and Consumption Issues - one of the dialrel reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPSM (talk • contribs)

Back to the discussion about the section: I think it could be restructured. As I see it these are the main topics (in the order in which they appear in the section)

1. Criticism of specific slaughterhouses
2. The rebuttal to 1 that those slaughterhouses didn't follow kosher rules
3. Criticism of kosher slaughter's cutting, restraining and handling practices
4. Efforts to improve those practices

A #5 could be added per your suggestion: Rebuttal of criticism as "an attempt to retain control of the meat trade"

How about rewriting the section to put the topics in this order:
3 Criticism of kosher slaughter's cutting, restraining and handling practices
5 Rebuttal of criticism as "an attempt to retain control of the meat trade"
4 Efforts to improve those practices
1 Criticism of specific slaughterhouses
2 The rebuttal to 1 that those slaughterhouses didn't follow kosher rules

That way the Agriprocessors part doesn't get the prominent position that it has now, but it's still mentioned, and the topics follow in a logical order. Sjö (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The article Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaughter is about secular law. It has a note appended to the article:

For aspects of ritual slaughter governed by religious law, see shechita and dhabiha. This means that the article Shechita (this article is about the Jewish Religion, and believe me, it's difficult enough to understand it, whatever level you are at. This is why the kosher slaughtering debates do not belong here. And I don't want to read that this or that aspect of a particular method is cruel, when cruelty to animals is by no means confined to Jews or Muslims. See PETA's film Glass Walls narrated by Sir Paul McCartney. A general call went out on this article to clear up weasel words, etc and I have not heard that this order has been countermanded. RPSM (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm restoring the section for the reasons I stated above. As an answer to your comment above that this article is about Jewish religion, Wikipedia articles should attempt to cover all notable aspects, and they should avoid presenting the subject only from one point of view.

I read your edit comment Material moved to Talk Page of article"Legal Aspects of Ritual Slaugter" (for the nth time) according to administrators HG instructions. To me, the fact that you have removed the section several times and that it has then been restored suggests that there is a consensus for keeping it.

Also, I can't find any adminstrators suggesting or instructing you to remove the section. The closest thing I can find is User:HG explaining on your talk page that talk pages are primarily used to discuss questions about how to edit the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Sjö (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to set out a plan etc. Much appreciated. At this stage I am gathering more material, so couldn't fit in to a strictly choreographed scheme, but message to me is get more organised. Thanks anyway. RPSM (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

References

References/links - looking for kashering of meat prior to cooking (leave salt on for one hour and wash off with cold water -

Star-K kashrus authority

Kashering meat - My Jewish Learning RPSM (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

'Procedure'

in the first sentence, "shochet" links back to this page (shechita).Colbey84 (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Biblical Source

The first line of the section could use a citation. The first line states, "but nowhere in the first Five books of Moses are any of the practices of shechita described." I will reference an academic book called The Essential Talmud, Thirtieth Anniversary Edition, written by Adin Steinsaltz and published by Basic Books.

Specifically, I will use Chapter 24: Dietary Laws, Page 224, which states, "The Laws of shehitah (ritual slaughter) are not elaborated in the Torah, but their existence is implied in the verse: 'And thou shalt sacrifice... as I have commanded thee' (Deuteronomy 12:21)."

Please, if anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Grayson234-01 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That looks like a good reference, feel free to add it to the sentence. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

New Section about shochtim

I want to introduce a section about shochtim (plural of shochet). Shochet redirects to the Shechita page, but doesn't include a section specifically about the shochet. Shochtim are referred to frequently in the Shechita page, so it seems that shochet should get some background. Shochet is first referred to under the 'Procedure' section. It states, "The procedure, which must be performed by a shochet..." but doesn't elaborate on what a shochet is. Shochet is referenced 12 times in total under the sections: Procedure, Forbidden Techniques, The knife, Other Rules, Giving of the Gifts.

My goal is to explain what shochtim are and their importance in Jewish society. I will reference an academic book called The Essential Talmud, Thirtieth Anniversary Edition, written by Adin Steinsaltz and published by Basic Books.

Specifically, I will use Chapter 24: Dietary Laws, Pages 224-225. Those pages explain the events leading up to the first shochtim, how shochtim are trained, why they're trained, and their importance to the Jewish community.

In the beginning, I'll write about their studies. The paragraphs will state, what they study, why they study, how/where they study, and the need for them to study.

The first paragraph will explain why there was a need for shochtim. In the Talmudic Era, beginning in 200 CE with the Jerusalem Talmud and 300 CE with the Babylonian period, and extending through the medieval ages, rabbis started to debate and define kosher laws. As the laws increased in number and complexity, follow ritual slaughter laws became difficult for the Jews not trained in ritual slaughter laws. This resulted in a need for a shochet, someone who has studied shechita, to perform the slaughtering in the communities.

The second paragraph is devoted to how and where the shochtim studied. The shochtim study which animals are kosher, what disqualifies them from being kosher, and how to prepare animals according to the laws of shechita. Subjects of study include the preparation of slaughtering tools, ways to interpret which foods follow the laws of shechita, and types of terefah. Terefot (plural of terefah) are reasons why animals considered kosher can become non-kosher, due to pre-slaughter physical conditions like sickness or injury.

The third paragraph is devoted to how the shochtim studied. Shochtim studied under rabbi to learn the laws of shechita. Rabbis were the academics who, amongst themselves, debated how to apply laws from the Torah to the preparation of animals. I'm not sure if I should include this, but it would help the reader understand why the rabbis were important. The Torah states that only fish with both fins and scales are permitted, but the rabbis think it is a difference between bony fish and cartilaginous fish. Cartilaginous fish are not allowed, while bony fish are, but there are fish that fall somewhere between cartilaginous and bony, so those needed clarification on which were and weren't allowed. Rabbis also conducted experiments to determine under which terefot animals were no-longer kosher. Shochtim studied under these rabbis, as rabbis were the ones who first understood the laws of shechita.

The fourth paragraph is about the social status of shochtim. Shochtim are essential to every Jewish community. In medieval ages, the shochtim were treated as second in status, just underneath rabbis. Due to the need for learning from the rabbis and the Talmuds, not everyone knew the laws of shechita. Thus, in order to follow the laws of shechita, shochtim enabled untrained Jews to maintain a kosher diet.

Please, if anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Grayson234-01 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that it's a good idea, but for a new page. I think the two pages are different enough. We do mention shochet here, but the main sections would be appropriate in a new page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a redirect from [[Shochet[[ to shechitah but that can be changed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Sir Joseph! Grayson234-01, I agree with him - this could be a good independent article. If you're interested in pursuing this you will definitely need multiple sources and I'd recommend that you draft this in your userspace first. I'm going to ping your teacher Chapmansh so she can weigh in on this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Grayson234-01, if you plan to add only 200-300 words, as the assignment in our class requires, then I don't see any problem with adding it to this article. Adding that small of a contribution would only strengthen this article, as there's an obvious need to know about Shochtim in an article on Shechita. Chapmansh (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree. We could benefit from a new article and in this article have a short paragraph about shochtim with a "see main article" pointing to shochtim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shechita. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130531191226/http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pb8347.pdf to http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/pb8347.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Gender of the shochet

The claim is made in Comparison_of_Dhabiĥa_Halal_and_kashrut that "any sane Jew" who is sufficiently knowledgeable of the procedure may legally perform shechita. Yet as is well known, at least in the last few centuries, the job is invariably done exclusively by men. This article itself makes this assumption by using the term "he" in several places. Is there any authority for forbidding a woman from becoming a shochet? Rpresser 18:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chaval that I do not remember this on the tip of my tongue, but I believe the first tosafos in Chulin discusses this. -- Avi 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

it is the first sif in shulchan orech. women can shecht but we are noheg for them not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.157.148 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the source there. Jon513 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the very first tosefos in Gemorrah Chulin. Also, in Simlah Chadashah it mentions that at least according to Ashkenazim we do not allow women to shecht because they tremble and don't like to be yelled at either. We worry if they treifed up someone's 4,000$ cow they would just not say anything rather then get yelled at. He says b'di eved we don't even allow it anymore because she has transgressed two minhagim rather than just 1: she shechted without kabbalas shechitah (a license basically), and she shekhted as a woman. Having transgressed two minhagim it shows she's most likely a free thinker and we can't trust her shechitah anyway. 212.179.204.74 03:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my stomach is thoroughly turned now. <unwatch Shechita and all other halachic articles> Rpresser 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

See more discussion below. IZAK (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See my response below --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kabbaloth were issued to women in Italy that authorized them to shekht chickens. This was because they would go early to the family's summer residence, in order to get things ready; and of course in rural areas there would not be kosher butchers on every corner. I will check the reference. RPSM (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Animal rights topic categories

See the discussion on the topic of this article at the talk page of related article, Talk:Halal § Animal rights topic categories. Rasnaboy (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The following section was removed: Below the section is reinstated by copying and pasting from the history:

The section needs more references and more information. The issue of Shechita and attempts, some successful, to ban it are part of the European history and they have, at times, been wrapped up in other causes that have been either anti-Jewish or animal rights activism and these have engendered debates, for instance on why Hallal slaughter is allowed. THe section should present a history of these debates, strikes and legislation and it can be done in an NPOV manner. So by removing some of the POV comments and other comments that made no sense or will ill-placed, I have attempted to make this section better. I have provided additional references. But more are needed as is more information generally. If anyone has suggestions please leave me a note.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to carry out what Seth J. Frantzman suggested (as well as Shirahadashah some years back which is to review the literature and to describe what the controversies were and are. RPSM (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

BBC article - Times to lose consciousness at variance with those given in artice

A review by Karen von Holleben and others (2010) of studies relevant to assessment of time to loss of consciousness following a ventral neck cut concluded "most of the cattle seem to lose consciousness between five and 90 seconds after the cut", and "sheep seem to lose consciousness within two to 20 seconds after ventral neck cut". Time to loss of consciousness had been found to average 12-15 seconds in a recent study in poultry.

As stated in this review: "In summary, part of the welfare concerns about performing a ventral neck cut on an unstunned animal arises, because following the cut it may take some time to achieve unconsciousness."

Modern stunning methods are a major advance in pursuit of the humane ideal (that also lies behind various ancient traditional slaughter methods) of avoidance or minimising the risk of causing pain or other unpleasant feelings at the time of slaughter.

Dr James Kirkwood (BVSc PhD FBS MRCVS) is a veterinarian and chief executive and scientific director of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.RPSM (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The times to lose consciousness in the BBC article are taken from DIALREL Report on good and adverse practice - Animal welfare concerns in relation to slaughter practices from the viewpoint of veterinary science. Page 33 RPSM (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Dr Regenstein's criticisms OF DIALREL

https://www.shechitauk.org/dialrel-a-critical-review-of-their-published-recommendations/ RPSM (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Temple Grandin's times for cattle to lose sensibility

https://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.box.variables.time.lose.sensibility.html RPSM (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Link to Jerusalem Post article

https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Pre-slaughter-stun-less-humane-than-shechita

The gist of the article is that interviews with psychiatric patients provide evidence that stunning by electrocution is painful RPSM (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)