Dear Rabbi Klass,
It has been a while now that a number of countries, where Jews reside, have outlawed shechita – Jewish ritual slaughter. Especially disturbing is what is happening now in Greece and Belgium, since they portray shechita as being cruel. What are we as Jews to do? Is there any recourse for us in this matter so fundamental to our people?
M. Goldblum
Via e-mail
Synopsis: Last week we discussed the difficulties faced by Jewry post-Holocaust in rebuilding itself. The attack on shechita in many countries is just another manifestation of this difficulty. In Poland today one may not so much as attribute any Polish complicity with the Nazi regime to any of the atrocities to the Jewish people that occurred during the Holocaust. For them to forbid shechita is clearly galling. However, now we are faced with so many other countries, such as Greece, Belgium, Australia, and New Zealand, all with Jewish populations, joining the bandwagon in outlawing shechita and causing great trepidation among their Jewish citizens. Not all of the problem should be attributed to anti-Semitism, as there is a movement to equate animals to humans, to which the Torah does not subscribe.
* * *
Answer: An editorial a few weeks ago on these pages (Nov. 21) responded to the latest shechita ban now in Greece. It enumerated some of the countries – all with Jewish populations (or that serve nearby Jewish populations) that ban shechita: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Slovenia and Estonia.
As a very young child I remember my father revered Reb Anshel [Albert] Klass, z”l, traveling to Albany, New York, to lobby against proposed bans on shechita and against the Sunday “blue laws” that caused great hardships for the Sabbath observant merchant. These were matters to be fought. My father did not do so for any recognition. He was selfless in his efforts. After much effort on the part of many prominent individuals the matter was resolved for the most part. (Unfortunately, blue laws do remain in effect in some locales.)
Let us excerpt from that editorial.
[We are fortunate that] here in the United States the issue was resolved many years ago with the passage of the so-called Case-Javits Amendment to the U.S. Humane Slaughter Law (after its lead sponsors Sens. Clifford Case and Jacob Javits) which provided for a ritual slaughter exemption from the law’s stunning requirement as a matter of protection for the free exercise of religion.
But it also contained a critical plus. Largely through the evidence of shechita’s fundamental humanness compiled by Dr. Isaac Lewin, the eminent historian, the definition of humane slaughter itself was also amended by the addition of an explicit recognition of the humaneness of “a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by the anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument” which the law describes as “in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith…”
The law was challenged in a federal court by “friends and guardians of all livestock and animals now or hereafter awaiting slaughter in the United States,” an animal rights group and a separation of church and state advocacy group, all claiming that permitting religious slaughter without pre-stunning violated the constitutional requirement of separation between church and state. It was heard by a three-judge constitutional court.
The defense of Case-Javits in a federal court constitutional challenge marked one of the first appearances of Dr. Lewin’s son, the noted constitutional lawyer Nat Lewin, on behalf of the Jewish community. The case went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which declined to review the decision of the three-judge court upholding shechita.
An article by Nat Lewin in the Jewish News Service on his experience in defending shechita in that case should serve as a road map for going forward in Europe. Here is a pertinent excerpt:
“On its behalf, I presented the legislative history of the law to the three judges. Judge Palmieri’s opinion (one of the three judges) of kosher consumers follows:
The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (“COLPA”) was permitted to intervene as a representative of kosher consumers. On its behalf I presented the legislative history of the law to the three judges [Judges, Judge [Edmund] Palmieri’s [one of the three judges] opinion said that “the interveners have made a persuasive showing that Congress was fully and competently advised with respect to Jewish religious practices.” He concluded that the provision authorizing slaughter without stunning by the Jewish ritual method was a “justifiable legislative determination that the stated method of slaughter is indeed humane.” The three judges agreed that stunning and Jewish ritual slaughter “are alternative methods,” and that each “is supported by legislative history as a justifiable legislative determination that the stated method of slaughter is indeed humane.”
One hopes that the European Jewish communities will try to build upon the U.S. approach and make full use of the evidence adduced and presented to the Congress and the courts. Nor can any of it be explained away by the role played by anti-Muslim bias. That might be part of it but right now from all appearances it seems that anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world and we should recognize it for what it is. We fail to do so at our peril. It should never be forgotten that the first edict issued by Adolf Hitler as Germany’s chancellor was to prohibit animal slaughter that did not feature pre-stunning!
To be continued