Also, here's a comment he left with Miriam:
The waves [ie: complaints about the practices in Portsville ] are small because certain pockets are very deep, and many Orthodox bloggers feed off them, either directly through employment by the OU, etc., or indirectly through rabbis and friends who do. Also, Rubashkin is a Chabadnik and he supports many Chabad institutions. Most Orthodox "pulpit rabbis" in America (outside of NY and Baltimore) are Chabadniks. The Crown Heights Beit Din also supervises the shechita in Postville. Add to that the fact that vast majority of non-Orthodox Jews do not keep kosher and that a large section of the J-Blogisphere is not Orthodox.Excellent points Shmarya, but would you be quite this animated if a quiet family of Yekkis from Washington Heights owned the Portsville abattoir?
And then add one more thing – Agudath Israel and Nathan Lewin both compared PETA to the Nazis. If you have not seen the video (and most are too squeamish to watch it), the idea that PETA is antisemetic (which it is not) is enough to keep many people quiet.
But mostly, follow the money. That's where you'll find your answer.
8 comments:
If I understand correctly, Shmarya is insinuating that I am being easy on this matter because I have friends who work for the OU. I'm not really offended, just astounded.
When people jumped to say that wigs from India are forbidden, they were condemned on the J-Blogs for failing to investigate properly and being overly anxious to prohibit things.
When people jumped to say that water in New York City is forbidden, they were condemned on the J-Blogs for failing to investigate properly and being overly anxious to prohibit things.
I think I'm being consistent in saying that a serious issue has been raised and it needs to be investigated. Knee-jerk reactions don't benefit anyone.
Why should we be satisfied with statements by people who have failed to investigate properly and seem overly anxious to prohibit things?
Simcha, it is fair to ask why the same people who rushed to burn wigs and ban water are taking their time now.
Also, you are not mentioned by name in Shmarya's comment. Had your name appeared I would not have republished it here. It did not occur to me that he might be referring to you - or anyone-, specifically, and I am still not certain your conclusion is justified.
Both of those issues took time to reach the top. Most rabbis in the yeshiva world do not read the NY Times or the Des Moines register. Nor do they read Shmarya's blog.
Well they should.
I've spoken to a few Rabbis about this. Not big names, you understand, but Rabbis all the same. They all had the same knee-jerk reaction: It's PETA, who cares what they say? Which troubles me.
I'd also like to know if treating animals cruely invalidates a kosher shchita.
My own view: if they are mistreating animals at Rubashkan's plant consumers should know - even if PETA is the messanger. If this abuse is systemic, I don't care if Eliyahu himself is the shochet. I'm not eating their meat. Nor should you.
חיי אדם:
לצר בע"ח דכתיב לא תראה את חמור אחיך וגו הקם תקים וגו והיינו משום צער בע"ח ומ"מ כל דבר שצריך לצרכי ב"א מותר
Neat trick, with the Hebrew.
Let's pretend that we know for sure that the Rubashkan meat was slaughtered correctly, which is by no means clear: Isn't there such a thing as a novel b'reshus hatorah?
I don't know if נבל ברשות התורה applies here. I do know that שחיטה is what allows us to eat the animal, but I don't know how צר בע"ח enters the picture. Take a בן פקועה, that animal is considered to be already slaughtered. As such, one is allowed to cut off a piece of it and eat it. I'm sure it feels pain, but if one wants to eat his בן פקועה one piece at a time, I don't know if we have the right to call that person a מנבל.
I think this might be the definition of menuval.
Post a Comment