From the Disproofs of the Oral Law series.
4. Also, R. HaLevi asks, what does the Torah mean when it says that animals are permitted to be eaten after slaughter [Deut. 12:21]? Does that mean any kind of killing or only through slitting the animal's neck? [Cf. Rashbatz, ibid.]
Clarification: Deuteronomy 12:21 says "you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that YHWH gives you, as I have instructed you". Here, Moses says that he has already instructed the people on how to properly slaughter. Yet, it appears that no such instruction exists in the written text. From this, it appears as if Moses did not write down the instruction and that it was instead passed down orally.
Answer: 1. As a matter of fact, the Torah does contain written instruction on how to prepare animals for food. This instruction is not very detailed, and so proponents of the Oral Torah might argue that these details were passed down orally. This, however, is a fallacy with which I hope to deal in more detail later. If something is not specified, it means we can do it in any way we like. The Torah doesn't say anywhere that it specifies every single detail of every single action that a human being might take.
To see that the required manner of slaughter has already been specified, all we need to do is read the entire passage, instead of focusing on a single verse. Here it is:
When YHWH enlarges your territory, as He has promised you, and you say, "I shall eat some meat," for you have the urge to eat meat, you may eat meat whenever you wish. If the place where YHWH has chosen to establish His name* is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that YHWH gives you, as I have instructed you; and you may eat to your heart's content in your settlements. Eat it, however, as the gazelle and the deer are eaten: the unclean may eat it together with the clean. But make sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh. You must not partake of it; you must pour it out on the ground like water: you must not partake of it, in order that it may go well with you and with your descendants to come, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of YHWH.
* As it will become clear later, this place is Jerusalem.
Almost immediately after "as I have instructed you", Moses reminds the people not to consume the blood. In fact, the commandment against the consumption of blood has already been given in Leviticus 17:13:
And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an animal or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.
The command is reiterated a few verses before "as I have instructed you", in Deut. 12:16,
But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in any of your settlements, according to the blessing that YHWH your God has granted you. The unclean and the clean alike may partake of it, as of the gazelle and the deer. But you must not partake of the blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
The command is also repeated in other places.
The phrase "as I have instructed you" refers precisely to this method of slaughter in which the liquid blood of the animal is poured out of the animal. None of the other details of the slaughter process are specified because they are not important. The animal may be slaughtered by any method which removes the liquid blood from the animal.*
* As will be discussed later, some kinds of fat are forbidden for consumption. But the removal of this fat is not necessarily a part of the slaughter process. The parts of the animal which do not contain fat are kosher, regardless of whether fat has been removed from other parts. On the other hand, if blood is not removed, then the whole animal is not kosher, as the blood permeates the animal.
2. According to the Orthodox laws of shechita / slaughtering animals, it is virtually impossible to eat an animal that was hunted down. This is confirmed in an article written by Rabbi Mordechai Becher, of Yeshiva Ohr Somayach, on Kashrut.com, a leading website on Orthodox kosher information. He plainly says
Some of the laws of kashrut are designed to prevent us from becoming callous and cruel and to discourage hunting as a form of recreation or sustenance. The requirements of shechita and treifot virtually preclude the possibility of hunting.
Yet note that the commandment in Lev. 17:13 specifically mentions hunting, and yet does not note any problems related to slaughtering a hunted animal. The word for "to hunt", tsud, is used in many places in the Tanakh. For example, it is used in Genesis 27:3: "Take your gear, your quiver and bow, and go out into the open and hunt / tsud me some game".
The only Biblical requirement for slaughter is that the animal's liquid blood be completely poured out of the animal. Under this requirement, hunting for food is not a problem, and the Torah even talks about hunting in the context of slaughtering food without mentioning any problems. If Orthodox shechita was truly required, why doesn't the Tanakh mention any problems with eating or slaughtering animals that were hunted down? Especially since it already does mention slaughtering in the context of hunting.
Today, we live in a society in which we have the luxury of not having to hunt for food. Yet many people did, and some still do, live in circumstances in which they have to hunt or starve. How would these people survive if Orthodox shechita was really required?
3. 1 Samuel 14:31-34 says:
They struck down the Philistines that day from Michmas to Aijalon, and the troops were famished. The troops pounced on the spoil; they took the sheep and cows and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and the troops ate with the blood. When it was reported to Saul that the troops were sinning against YHWH, eating with the blood, he said, "You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone over to me today". And Saul ordered, "Spread out among the troops and tell them that everyone must bring me his ox or his sheep and slaughter it here, and then eat. You must not sin against YHWH and eat with the blood".
Saul's troops are starving. They slaughter the animals. The only thing that they are criticized for is for leaving the blood inside the animals. Saul tells them to slaughter the animals on the new altar so as to remove the blood from the animals.
The reason that the troops did what they did was that they were very hungry, and didn't want to wait long before eating. They thus slaughtered the animals very quickly, forgoing any possible rites. The only thing they are criticized for, the only thing they did wrong, was failing to pour out the liquid blood from the animals. There is no mention of any other fault, such as failing to follow the Orthodox laws of shechita.
Posted by Ami at December 31, 2003 05:57 AM | TrackBackActually, I completely understand your point. I want the bulk of this site to be positive, not negative. Because of this, I was a bit ambivalent about posting the Disproofs articles.
However, I think these articles serve an important purpose, because there are many people who think that rejecting the Oral Law is ridiculous, as, at one time, did I. Again, I do not wish to attack anyone; I just want to explain why I reject the Orthodox position.
Gil Student's defense of the Oral Torah is very thorough. I have not seen proofs for it that are significantly different from his. Thus, once I finish this series of articles, there will be little need for me to argue against Orthodoxy. If anyone raises an objection, I will refer them to one of the articles. But without the articles, I would be open to constant attack.
At that point, once I get the Disproofs articles out of the way, I will move beyond criticism to what I really want to do, that is, to write about Judaism, as I see it, in positive terms. The artcles are, IMHO, important because they dispel the usual Orthodox criticism that the Oral Law is necessary, and that without it, one is forced to make up stuff.
In the meantime, even as I am posting the Disproofs articles, I am also posting some positive content as well. If you have any ideas, I am all ears.
Thanks. :-)
Posted by: AH at January 5, 2004 02:39 AMI was thinking more on the line of the Sabbath article you wrote...no mud slinging....no so and so doesn't do it right....but rather this is what I believe and this is why and how I practice Torah. As an example, even if they are the best candidate, I do not vote for anyone who runs a negative campaign. Tell me why I should agree with you, not why I should disagree with others. Shalom!
Posted by: Rav at January 4, 2004 03:49 PMI'm trying to show the Orthodox position wrong not to attack them, but precisely to show or to find which observance is correct. If the Oral Torah is truly from God, then my observance and my position is not correct. If it is not from God, as I am trying to show here, then it could be correct. As a first step, I have to establish that my observance *could be* correct, which is what I am doing here.
I can't do everything at once or think of everything at once. That's why I'm adding articles to the website over time. See?
Yes, both could be wrong. But over time, I hope to show that that's not so.
Posted by: AH at January 1, 2004 10:23 PMHow about showing that your observance is in alignment with Torah, rather than needing to prove someone wrong. Just because someone is wrong in an argument, doesn't make the other person right. You could both be wrong (or right)! Happy New Year! Shalom!
Posted by: Rav at January 1, 2004 02:57 AMI'm sorry to hear that you respect me less. :-))
*Merits:* I thought proving or disproving something *is* making a case on the merits. How about you *prove* that your opinion is right, then we will talk.
As for a lowly non-Rabbi individual having enough intelligence to make a simple interpretation, you know very well what I am going to say: Deuteronomy 30:11
Surely, this Instruction which I enjoin upon you this day is not too baffling for you, nor is it beyond reach. It is not in the heavens, that you should say, "Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?" Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who among us can cross to the other side of the sea and get it for us and impart it to us, that we may observe it?" No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.
Posted by: AH at December 31, 2003 10:22 PMAmi...
It seems to me you spend all this time and effort in an attempt to disprove Halakhah, then give us your own opinion as to how things should be done...which is, in itself, an interpretation and understanding. Doing your own thing is not always a good thing! Deut 12:8 "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes".
I would respect you and your ideas more if you made your case on its merits, rather than attempting to prove someone else wrong and your belief right.
Shalom!