Naked Chef Jamie Oliver Becoming a Kosher Slaughterer

I would have to ask Oliver whether non-kosher slaughter is any better.

The term "humane slaughter" has always struck me as an oxymoron, anyhow. 

That he has a good teacher, one who really knows how to do the job precisely. The knife has to be so sharp, the cut so clean, that the animal doesn't know it even happened. I don't think there is a need for hysterics, unless one in not at all confident in the inherent integrity of the process.

If things don't go well, it just shows that our training is becoming lax, that our supervision is lax, that our skills are not where they need to be. If there is pain, then we need to apologize and say this hasn't been done correctly.

In a word, we should collectively be a mensch.

There is a tone in the letter that hints Oliver may be another Vanessa Redgrave or Alan Rickman. This feeling isn't warranted as of yet, and banning the show would be the worst possible move. We have nothing to cover up, we should be proud of the proper techniques of shechitah, and continue to demand, and in the cases of those in training, strive for excellence.

It's not as if the Jewish community in Britain is without cameras and video equipment.  It's not like Youtube and European version of video sharing don't exist.  If the BBC does it's typical one-sided agenda driven reporting, we can correct this by also covering the events.

That is, if our Kosher is actually kosher.

"If the idea of banning shechita gains popular approval...other Jewish practices such as circumcision are sure to soon be under threat."

I sincerely doubt that.  What someone does to themself (or their children) is a different issue that what someone does to an animal.  Kaporos might be in jepoardy, but I always thought that was cruel to the chicken.  In addition, the Muslim community would be equally distressed if circumcision was banned (and not even mentioning halal), and there are a lot more of them to yell wolf than there are Jews.  Let's not lose sight that there are some bad examples of everything in the world, including shechita.  (See films of Postville, Iowa, for example.)  Perhaps we should just take this as a wake up call to clean up our act.

Kosher slaugher is supposed to look awful. It gets blood out of the animal as quickly as possible, so the animal loses consciousness. The bloodier it looks, the less pain. 

"If shechita really looks awful, can’t we consider the possibility that it is awful?"

 How something looks would be worthy of judgement if it weren't for the (very human) aversion to the sight of blood, particularly a lot of blood.  When shechita is done correctly, there is a lot of blood flow, which is pretty gory to see.  On the other hand, when shechita is done right, the artery is severed immediately causing the blood to the brain to cease flowing, rendering the animal unconscious and without pain. Compared to the less-bloody method of stunning the animal, which is often incorrectly applied and can not only cause pain in the main blow, but also if it fails to cause a total loss of consciousness.  Whether or not any animal slaughter is "humane" is open for debate, but focusing on shechita will absolutely make it "look" like the more painful alternative - regardless of the facts.  

 I think pressuring the channel not to air the ep is shortsighted, though.  Insisting that it be a fair documentary (showing expert opinions that back up the Orthodox method - which DO exist in sufficient numbers, as the science behind it is palpable), would be a smarter solution.  We have nothing to hide. I believe kosher slaughter is one of the most humane methods there is.  Again, once you can accept eating animals in the first place.

This was a hoax by Jewdas, the UK based radical Jewish collective

see here:
http://jewdas.org/news/shechita.htm

There really is an issue building about how kosher is Kosher. Tamar wrote about Rubashkin, I've heard of a similar controversy in Brazil. So whether Oliver is doing this or not, is not really the point.

There are quite a few significant Midrashim explaining the essence of shechitah, that is should be painless for the animal, that if we are truly in tune with nature, the animal essentially gives its permission for the slaughter. Now if we ourselves are so distanced from nature, from our inner nature, and we can't even do this mitzvah properly, then we have to face this. I think more and more Jews might sense this at some deep level and are deciding to be vegetarians, or fishitarians at the very least.

On the other hand, when shechita is done right, the artery is severed immediately causing the blood to the brain to cease flowing, rendering the animal unconscious and without pain.

Yes, well, not that I care, but I think I take umbrage with the implication that severing an artery is enough to induce unconsciousness. Aside from the fact that pain is carried through the nervous system and not the circulatory system, studies seem to show that animals slaughter ritualistically in this method end up conscious for at least a good 2 seconds, if not more. Compared to a correctly applied captive-bolt pistol to the brain, which produces instant unconsciousness, that's hardly human, homeslice.

the animal is feeling the onset of sleep, as opposed to all of the involuntary responses, which keep moving after death, that are caused by a gunshot.

The problem is making sure it's done correctly.  And that is no small problem. 

It's absurd to start with the premise that shechita is the ideal method of slaughter. It creates all sorts of errors:

(1) No true Scotsman: naftali argues that shechita is defined as a painless method, so anything that doesn't get the right results must not be the correct method. The failure to accept the reality of shechita prevents shechita from being subject to criticism.

(2) Double standards: as naftali states, shechita is pretty hard to do properly because "the knife has to be so sharp, the cut so clean [...]." Yet, Michal criticizes the conventional method of stunning for being "often incorrectly applied." If the argument is against incorrect application of the conventional method, application of a more difficult, ritualistic method isn't going to solve any problems. (And this error is Michal's, not nafali's.)

First: I like when Dave Strauss posts because he uses .. good .. words to say .. things .. I want to say.

Anyway,  Naftali, I don't know where you get the assertion that the animal is "feeling the onset of sleep" just prior to falling unconscious and collapsing. I imagine this could only be true for you if "Feeling the onset of sleep" involves "violently gushing blood," "being in unspeakable pain," "and collapsing in on yourself" prior to convulsing and scrabbling about to stand up, despite the physical wherewithal to do so.

I'm just guessing you haven't read that much about how this procedure is supposed to work.  Whenever there is pain or injury, the sympathetic nervous system leaps into action, given the cues from the point of injury.  Shechita is supposed to insure those cues are never triggered.  Hence, the animal, because no blood will be getting to the brain, will fall asleep.  

And did you really have to use someone else's words as if they were mine?  After your first sentence, that's what you did. 

The only question is, do things actually go like this in kosher meat plants?  I don't know the answer to that.  But that's not a problem with the law. 

It was us...enjoy.

http://www.jewdas.org/news/shechita.htm

Read it. Interesting mix of reason and satire. After doing it enough times, mixing reason and satire, can you tell the difference?

Ringleader

www.nicejewishgirlsgonebad.com

www.myspace.com/nicejewishgirlsgonebad