Rabbi David Rosen served as the senior rabbi of the largest Orthodox Jewish
congregation in South Africa, and as Chief Rabbi of Ireland. He is
currently the American Jewish Committees International Director of
Interreligious Affairs, based in Jerusalem.
From the article:
When I served on the Cape Beth Din in South Africa, I had to join my
colleagues in visiting the slaughterhouses and checking up on the shochtim.
The kosher slaughterhouse in Cape Town was part of a general slaughterhouse
complex enabling me to view the process of killing animals in both places.
What I saw convinced me that while non-kosher slaughter was quicker and
more “aesthetic” than kosher slaughter, it failed in its claim to be more
compassionate in its methods.
...
Kashrut involves more than just the way the animal‘s throat is cut and the
checking of its vital organs. Kashrut involves the whole relationship
between humans and the animal world. Indeed our sages say specifically in
relation to shechitah that “the mitzvot were only given in order to refine
people” (Genesis Rabbah, 34; Leviticus Rabbah, 13.)
If at point Z the animal’s throat was cut the right way and its internal
organs checked, but from A to Y all injunctions and prohibitions have been
ignored and desecrated, how can that product really be called kosher?
Why is there virtually no official rabbinic dissent let alone opposition to
such practices?
There's nothing new here. This is the same old pack of quarter-truths and outright lies that Rosen has been peddling for years. This is of course the same ocher yisroel who founded the so-called "Rabbis for Human Rights", which supports our enemies and actively and deliberately helps them endanger Jewish lives.
If at point Z the animals throat was cut the right way and its
internal organs checked, but from A to Y all injunctions and
prohibitions have been ignored and desecrated, how can that product
really be called kosher?
Because even if he were right about issurim being committed, they could have no effect whatsoever on kashrus.
Read the article, and pretty much every statement of fact isn't.
Most egregiously, his claim that RFM banned foie gras and veal because of TBC is an outright lie. RMF's understanding of the metsius was completely wrong, and his issur was based entirely on the supposed fact that treifos of all kinds are common in veal calves.
: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-any-meat-today-kosher/
: Rabbi David Rosen...
: From the article:
:> Kashrut involves more than just the way the animal's throat is cut and the
:> checking of its vital organs. Kashrut involves the whole relationship
:> between humans and the animal world. Indeed our sages say specifically in
:> relation to shechitah that "the mitzvot were only given in order to refine
:> people" (Genesis Rabbah, 34; Leviticus Rabbah, 13.)
This isn't true. Tza'ar baalei chaim does not make an animal treif.
One may ask questions about whether buying meat and keeping the ZBC
industry lucrative is mesayei'ah, or at least something we should be
avoiding as a minhag chassidus. See IM 4:92:2
<http://issuu.com/silvergleam/docs/igrot_moshe_on_animal_cruelty/2?e=0>,
where RMF argues that it's tzaar baalei chaim to raise white veal. But
he does not assur the meat once shechted.
If it were true that the number of fatted ducks or geese for foie gras
or calves raised in boxes for their white veal who end up being tereifos
really is ignorable, there is no kashrus issue. And if many are tereifos,
then we have to wonder why those checking at the shlachthois aren't
rejecting them. Can we really limit to the usual rule of just checking
the lungs on beheimos when there is an iqa rei'usa for other problems? My
phrasing "if it were" tells you what I think (in short, I believe R/Dr
Tendler's research in the subject), but I do not see value in arguing
the metzi'us here.
: Where does he say it does? His whole point is that "kashrut" is a larger
: concept that whether a specific animal is treif or not.
So you say he's not talking about ksharus when he says the word kashrus.
But his implication is still that there is an issur cheftza on the
resulting meat. That hast yet to be proven. There might be an
issur derabbanan if there is a communal notion of mesayeiah -- if
the frum community supporting the white veal industry is en mass
mesayeia ZBC. I don't know if what's going on can create an
issur on me personally buying the meat.
But to us the word "kosher" would imply the meat may not be eaten.
Even if sypporting the industry is mesayeia, it would not prohibit
the meat once obtained. (And what if I obtained it as a gift, or
a guest at someone's se'udah, and mesayeia is a non-issue for me.)
: That could only be an issue if we were the only people eating this,
: or at least a significant sector of those who eat it. Instead we're
: a completely insignificant sector, except in EY. If we were to
: asser it the farmers wouldn't even notice.
The reason why Tav haYashar and the like make sense is because we own
an entire industry. If the kosher industry boycotted white veal, it
would be noticed. Not in the income dept, in marketing.
What does "it would be noticed" mean? Simply that someone, somewhere, would be aware we were doing it? What would be the point of that? Unless we were a big enough sector to harm the bottom line of those who are doing whatever it is we might object to, they would have no reason to stop doing it.
: >The reason why Tav haYashar and the like make sense is because we own
: >an entire industry. If the kosher industry boycotted white veal, it
: >would be noticed. Not in the income dept, in marketing.
:
:
: What does "it would be noticed" mean?
Noticed by marketing departments, as in the next sentence. Hey, we lost
our contract with Mendy's Heimishe Shlachthois!
When you vote as a block, you get disproportionate say.
Not that I think further discussion of this metzi'us is particularly
productive either.
No, I'm saying there are trei dinim in the Hebrew word "kashrut" -- the
technical sense, equivalent to "kashrus", and a larger sense, equivalent to
"right" (as in "let right be done").
: No, I'm saying there are trei dinim in the Hebrew word "kashrut" -- the
: technical sense, equivalent to "kashrus", and a larger sense, equivalent to
: "right" (as in "let right be done").
But there is not issur cheftza created by tzaar baalei chayim. This isn't
a matter of kashrus or "kashrus".
BTW, that also doesn't fit the context. R' David Rosen is explicitly
trying to draw ZBC into the umbrella of kashrus, and not using "kosher"
in the sense of "appropriate". (As in the Boar's Head ad, "Something's
not kosher in the ham industry", followed by accusations about their
competitors' product.)
"Kashrut involves more than just the way the animal's throat is cut and the
hecking of its vital organs. Kashrut involves the whole relationship
etween humans and the animal world...."
But in any case, my real objection is, "from A to Y all injunctions and
prohibitions have been gnored and desecrated, how can that product really
be called kosher?"
The issur of the act does not impact the kashrus of the result.
We are allowed to eat fruit from a branch that a Jew grafted.