Embedded Scribd iPaper - Requires Javascript and Flash Player

Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 3 Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter
Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter with Respect to OIE
(World Organization for Animal Health) Recommendations
Pozzi, P.S.,
1
* Geraisy, W.,
2
Barakeh, S.
3
and Azaran, M.
4
1
Veterinary Services and Animal Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Israel.
2
Chief Inspector, “BakarTnuva” Slaughter Plant, Beit Shean, Israel.
3
Inspector, “Dabbach” Slaughter Plant, Dir El Assad, Israel.
4
Director, “Moreshet Avot”, Sho”b, Jerusalem, Israel.
*
Corresponding Author: Dr. P.S. Pozzi, P.O.B. 12, Beit Dagan 50250, Israel. Tel: (+972) 50-6243951, Fax: (+972) 3-9681795. Email: pozzis@moag.gov.il.
ABSTRACT
Israel is member of OIE (Organization for Animal Health) which since May 2005 has adopted animal
welfare standards, including the slaughter of animals. Finalities of these standards are to ensure the welfare
of animals, destined to food production, during pre-slaughter and slaughter processes, until their death.
In Israel, slaughter is practiced without prior stunning as required by shechita and halal slaughtering, due
to the vast majority of the population requesting kosher and halal meat. In both Jewish (Halacha) and
Islamic (Sharia) Laws, particular attention is given to avoid unnecessary pain to animals in general and,
in particular, in the course of slaughtering. Jewish shechita and Islamic dbach/halal slaughtering, when
applied in the correct manner result in comparable, or even better, than large scale slaughters with prior
stunning with respect to the avoidance of unnecessary pain. Shechita and halal, due to their intrinsic
nature and due to their routine controls on every step and for every individual animal, cannot be regarded
as negligent or intentionally painful, distressing or inducing suferance to animals. Improvements may be
possible with regards to restraining equipment, anatomical position of the cut, post-cut wound management
and continuation of procedures on carcass.
Keywords: Shechita; Halal; OIE: Slaughter; Pain.
INTRODUCTION
Cruelty to animals is resolutely forbidden in Jewish halacha.
Tanaim (teachers of the oral law) (Eretz Israel, 45-195 com-
mon era, (CE)) and Amoraim (renowned Jewish scholars
who “said” or “told over” the teachings of the Oral Torah)
(Eretz Israel, Babylon, 225-500 CE) disagree whether pro-
hibition of cruelty to animal is a Torah commandment or a
Rabbinical mitzvah (commandment) (1). Te Gaonim (the
presidents of the two great Babylonian, Talmudic Academies
of Sura and PumbeditaI) (Babylon, 6
th
-10
th
century CE)
stated that the prohibition of cruelty to animal originates
from the Torah when great grief is involved, however the
prohibition to cause even a small amount of grief should be
considered as a Rabbinical commandment. Te Shulchan
Aruch (compendium of those areas of the halacha – Jewish
religious law- composed by Rabbi Yosef Karo of Safed in the
1560’s), states that prohibition of cruelty to animals is a Torah
commandment (2). Te disagreement between the Sages
seems to be relative to the fact that a person should rescue
an animal in any case of an unfortunate event, danger or
sufering (Torah commandment) while a person should ab-
stain from inducing any form of grief to animals (Rabbinical
commandment) (3). Te Rishonim (frst commenters, prior to
Shulchan Aruch) (11
th
-15
th
century, CE) explained that some
of the commandments and laws were fnalized to avoid pain
Review Article
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 Pozzi, P.S. 4
of animals, and among these identifed the commandment
to slaughter an animal precisely from the neck “and with a
verifed (smooth and sharp) knife, so that we will not induce
too much harshness on the animal” (4).
Islamic law is also compassionate about animals, and
animals are highly esteemed by Islam (5) and Islam sharia
provides considerable support for conscientiously attending
to animal welfare (5); to the wisdom of Prophet Muhamad
is in fact attributed “Whoever is kind to the creatures of God, is
kind to himself.”
Te “Ofce International des Epizooties” – OIE was
established in January 1924 with purpose of combating
animal diseases. In May 2003 the Ofce became known
as the “World Organization for Animal Health” but kept
its historical acronym “OIE”. Te OIE is the intergov-
ernmental organization responsible for improving animal
health and animal welfare worldwide. In 2013 it had a
total of 178 member countries, among which Israel is a
member (6).
Beginning 2001, animal welfare was identifed as a
priority in the OIE organization, and Member Countries
mandated the organization to elaborate recommendations
and guidelines covering animal welfare practices. Since May
2005, the World Assembly of OIE delegates have adopted
10 animal welfare standards, including, among others the
slaughter of animals (7). Tese recommendations are in-
tended to ensure the welfare of animals, destined to food
production, during pre-slaughter and slaughter processes,
until their death. Tese recommendations apply to both the
slaughter in slaughterhouses and outside of them, and to all
major species intended for human consumption.
Te purpose of this article is to review and compare
OIE recommendations with principles of Jewish halacha
and Islamic sharia when performing slaughtering of animals
destined to meat production for human consumption.
Jewish halacha and Islamic sharia requirements and
the OIE recommendations
Without consideration to transport of animals to the
slaughter plants, the main issues linked with “animal wel-
fare” at time of slaughter focus on: personnel (Table 1),
restraint of the animal (Table 2), slaughtering or sticking
techniques, unconsciousness evaluation, incision (the cut)
management, verifcation of death of the animal and the
time when subsequent procedures for attending to the
carcass can begin.
With the purpose of following a shared scheme, the
comparison between Jewish, Islamic requirements and OIE
recommendations will be carried out according to Chapter
7.5: Slaughter of Animals, of OIE - Terrestrial Animal
Health Code – Version 7 – 07/07/2014 (7).
Table 1: Personnel
Jewish halacha In principle anyone may practice shechita (8, 9),
however only with the appropriate authorization
(kabala le-shechita; acceptance to slaughter) by a
Sage (10).
Islamic sharia Operator competence is of great importance for
carrying out satisfactory Halal slaughter (5).
OIE
recommendations
Persons engaged in… slaughter and bleeding
of animals… should be patient, considerate,
competent and familiar with the recommendations
outlined in the present chapter and their
application within the national context.
Competence may be gained through formal
training and/or practical experience. Tis
competence should be demonstrated through a
current certifcate from the Competent Authority
or from an independent body accredited by the
Competent Authority.
Is worth emphasizing that being a shochet (authorized
slaughterer according to Jewish halacha) should be con-
sidered as a real profession requiring adequate training
which is highly regulated with specifc authorization and
subject to controls. Te Sages do not authorize slaughtering
until the candidate shochet is knowledgeable concerning all
details required; has performed a certain number of slaugh-
ters; is aware of how to maintain the shechita knife “sharp
and smooth”; is able to feel, recognize and repair defects in
the instrument and is able to recognize the efectiveness of
his slaughtering method. Te shochet himself, even when
he has received the authorization to slaughter, is obliged to
review the shechita rules, in order to avoid the risk of bad
slaughtering (non-sharp knife; bad technique) which may
induce unnecessary sufering to animals and the supplying
of non-kosher meat to the population.
In Islamic sharia, slaughter is performed by sane (men-
tally competent) adult Muslim, Jew, or Christian as they are
considered Ahl al-Kitab “People of the Book” as stated in
Surat al-Ma’idah, Ayah 5:5.
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 5 Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter
Table 2: Restraint of the animal before slaughtering
Jewish halacha “And (the shochet) shall know, that he must not hold
the sheep alone on his knees, to slaughter, without
the help of another person...
And certainly not to slaughter cattle without
assistance...” (11).
Islamic sharia Animals should be securely restrained, particularly
the head and the neck; restraining equipment should
be comfortable for the animals; animals should not
be shackled and hoisted before bleeding (5).
OIE
recommendations
Provisions relevant to restraining animals for
stunning or slaughter without stunning, to help
maintain animal welfare. Methods of restraint
causing avoidable sufering should not be used in
conscious animals because they cause severe pain
and stress.
Regarding restraint, the OIE recommendations in prin-
ciple refers to two diferent situations:
y Non-restraint:
Includes animals stunned in groups (group gas stunning in
pigs; electric stunning of single animals kept in groups: small
ruminants, pigs); free roaming animals (shotgun bullet in
ruminants). Some species are not of interest in Jewish and
Islamic slaughtering for example pigs. Some methods are for-
bidden in both Jewish and Islamic law for example shotgun
free bullet); other methods are forbidden in Jewish halacha
such as electric stunning and slaughtering of unrestrained
animals)
y Individual restraint:
a. Upright restraint, with head restraint: manual; ropes or
yokes; mechanical means (ruminants)
Shechita in upright position may be considered problem-
atic: dealing with other issue, the Shulchan Aruch- Yoreh
Deah (SAY”D): 6:4 refers (12) to the concept of slaughtering
“down to up” thus underlining the possibility that the head
of the animal may weigh on the knife, leading to pressure on
the incision wound and in so doing nullifying the perfection
of the shechita. From this, the reverse position (animal re-
strained on its back) (13) is the preferred method of restraint,
unless the head of the animal is frmly restrained and the
head cannot move down during the shechita (13) (Figure 1A
and B). On this basis, as explained later, techniques have been
developed in order to perform shechita in an upright position
which has been accepted in Jewish communities, mainly in
North America and, recently, in some European Countries.
b. Upright restraint; with automatic conveyors (small rumi-
nant) with the head restrained manually
As described above concerning the upright position; in
the USA, shechita of small ruminants and calves in upright
position, mechanically conveyed, is acceptable. Te animal is
restrained in a very humane manner, comfortably upright.
Another person other than slaughterer holds the head of the
calf and sheep (14).
Figure 1: A. Upright restraint of calves. B. Upright restraint of small
ruminants (drawing from 14).
A
B
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 Pozzi, P.S. 6
It is emphasized that, contrary to the USA, EU
Regulation 1099/2009 (“Protection of animals at time of
killing”), does not allow manual head restraint for shechita,
halal even if small ruminants (sheep, goats, young calves) are
mechanically conveyed in an upright position.
c. Upright restraint, with single leg restraint/in fexion and
where the animal stands on 3 legs and the head is not
restrained, as in the case of pigs: this species is not of
interest as they are disallowed in Judaism and Islam.
d. Reverse restraint: mechanical; rotating box.
Starting 19
th
century new mechanical restraint systems
were introduced being more secure and safe for slaughter-
plant operators and with the ability to speed up operations
(Figure 2). Reverse restraint with the support of mechani-
cal/rotating box has a long and controversial history. It was
developed in UK for local shechita in 1908 under public
pressure for the abolition of rope-restraint. Te technique
was approved by RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty in Animals) in 1927 and approved by UK Shechita
Board in 1929. In 1930 it was approved by the UK Chief
Rabbi and introduced in UK slaughter-plants in 1933,
becoming compulsory for shechita in 1950 (15). In 1990
the method was phased out and eliminated and eventually
outlawed by the end 2013 in favor of the USA upright model.
Animal welfare is a continuing evolutionary concept, for
which something innovative at end of 19th century or in
the 1930s, already after WWII required new refections and
changes, and this statement is valid to this day.
Starting the 1950’s in the USA, on the initiative of Rabbi
J. Soloveitchick, the American Orthodox Union (OU) started
using the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of
Animal Cruelty) pen, with its modifcations, specifcally for
shechita, and OU progressively switched from shechita in
reverse restraint to shechita in upright restraint.
Founded in 1866 by Henry Bergh, ASPCA was the frst
organization having as mission “to provide efective means
for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United
States.”OU is managed by Rabbi M. Genack, past student
of Rabbi J. Soloveitchick; considered ideologically close to
Rabbi M.S. Shapiro and Rabbi S. Berembaum. Te OU
supervises the kasherut of some 8,000 plants in more than
80 countries.
Gradual adoption of shechita in upright position in the
USA is part of the wider context in the search of a shared
point of view between animal welfare concerns – including
stress and panic reduction – and keeping of halachic prin-
ciples. In East European countries, it wasn’t uncommon to
Figure 2: One of the frst rotating pens, the “Weinberg” pen, presented in Holland in 1928. Mr. H. Weinberg appears in the picture, on the left,
with black overcoat (16).
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 7 Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter
use shechita in the reverse position and attempts to introduce
this kind of slaughter in the USA had negative consequences
on the common perception of the shechita. Te OU, under
Rabbi M. Genack’s leadership, strongly supported shechita
in the upright position, in which the chin of the animal is
held in order to avoid the disqualifcation of shechita due
to “drassa” (halachic defnition for hacking or pressing or
any undue pressure). Tis was supported by projects of T.
Grandin for the ASPCA together with Rabbi J. Soloveitchick
and Rabbi M. Feistein (17).
In upright shechita the restraint of head and neck through
the chin lift avoids the neck “falling” on the knife during
the cut, which thing could induce the shochet to “force” the
cut, or could even arrest the cut itself, which nullifes the
shechita but also induces unnecessary pain to the animal due
to prolonged or forced action (Figure 3).
“Te OU’s preferred method of shechita, from a halachic
perspective, is upright shechita. Indeed, the OU will only grant
supervision to shechita on reverse position if steps are taken by
the company seeking the supervision to ensure the comfort of
the animal ” (17). In the EU the use of the rotating pen is
forbidden in Austria and the UK. In 2012 EU Commission
called for a study (SANCO/2012/10357) to be performed
in countries in which shechita is practiced, with the purpose
of comparing shechita feasibility with restraint equipment
in an upright/standing position with respect to reverse/back
position. Results have been recently published, however
limited to a small number of animals and abattoirs: i.e. 215
animals in total (31 cattle, 114 sheep and 70 broilers) in 3
abattoirs (one slaughtering cattle, one sheep; one poultry
plant) were included in the study (19). However, in this study,
when relating to the struggling of cattle judged according
to the restraint position (upright, in modifed Cincinnati-
ASPCA pen), struggling of sheep, time to unconsciousness,
the results from SANCO study difered to those data on
shechita performed in the USA and Canada, observed by
T. Grandin, in diferent USA slaughterhouses and involving
some thousands of animals (18, 20).
e. Manual body restraint:
In contrast to shechita of small birds like chickens, during
livestock slaughtering, the shochet is not allowed to restrain
the animal by himself. Casting may be acceptable if the
head is well restrained. Tis is commonly practiced on sheep
and goats. During the shechita of large animals restraint is
mandatory (11) and in the past, before restraining devices
were realized, restraint was obtained by reversing the animal
on its back, like any other non-kosher slaughter (Figure 4).
Figure 3: ASPCA pen modifed with chin-lift to accomplish with
shechita in upright position (drawing from reference 18).
Figure 4: Restraining during shechita in Holland in the XVIII century
(21).
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 Pozzi, P.S. 8
f. suspension and/or inversion for poultry: shackling by legs
on an automatic rack with or without stunning):
Tis is forbidden by Jewish halacha however it may be
accepted by Islamic sharia (for example, commonly used in
slaughter-plants in several Islamic countries) (22, 23).
Stunning methods and derogations of stunning obligation
Taking into account that both in Jewish and Islamic law
restraint is compulsory, this section refers only to stunning
methods (OIE recommendations) applicable in the course
of restraint (Table 3).
Table 3: Comparison of the laws of halacha, sharia and the
OIE recommendation
Jewish halacha Stunning is not permitted. Death of the animal
must be the consequence of the direct act of
the shochet (24) and performed on a healthy
and “able to stand” animal (25), which is in
opposition to stunning. Captive bolt stunning
induces perforation of the meninges (and then,
brain), thus rendering the animal unacceptable for
consumption (26).
Islamic sharia Some streams/communities conditionally allow
electric stunning only (23, 27) if the animal is not
dead.
OIE
recommendations
Slaughter without stunning is not prohibited. Focus
is on restraint methods when slaughtering without
stunning.
Death resulting from other than a direct act of the
shochet and other than in the accepted method, renders
the animal unacceptable for consumption. Non-penetrating
stunning, even electric, has not been proven to induce ir-
reversible damage (mainly haemorrhages) of the Central
Nervous System (CNS), thus rendering the animal unsuitable
for consumption.
Te method of stunning put the Muslims, too, in a
contentious state compared to their traditional method of
slaughtering, as when stunning is used, it should not lead
to death of the animal before it is slaughtered. Apparently
the approach is wider and diferent than in Jewish halacha.
While we refer to Nakyinsige (23) and Zikrulla (27) for
a complete discussion, we summarize the main issues,
discussed in diferent Islamic Conferences and in diferent
countries (23, 27):
y Procedures, electrical current, must be supervised by
accredited Muslim personnel; head-to-body electric
stunning is not halal compliant (23).
y Penetrative stunning: not permitted.
y Non-penetrative stunning: may be permitted on con-
dition that the skull and bones are not cracked and
death is caused by the slaughterer only.
y Electro-narcosis may be tolerated, including water-
bath for poultry: animals should not die before the
actual slaughtering; the animal should be able to re-
cover within twenty seconds after been stunned; the
animal should not sufer any pain.
y Carbon dioxide in the slaughtering procedures is
permitted with the condition that it does not kill the
animal or induce sufering.
On the other hand, some streams and/or in some coun-
tries, local Islamic Communities do not accept any form of
stunning (27):
y Stunning or electro-narcosis of any form is of no
beneft to either humans or animals; UK,1986 (27).
y It is unlawful to eat meat coming from poultry and
cattle stunned prior the actual slaughtering; EU Fatwa
Council, 1991 (27).
y Stunning is not allowed as an Islamic method of
slaughtering as it causes harm to the animal as well
restricts spilling of the blood from the animal; UK,
2005 (27).
y Electric shock is unlawful; Yemen, 2006 (27).
y If the (electrically stunned) animal was defnitely alive
at the time of slaughter and was slaughtered correctly,
it would be considered halal. However… it is appro-
priate to avoid such meat as far as possible, because
staying away from doubtful things is part of the faith;
Pakistan, 2005 (27).
Slaughtering techniques/sticking
We should consider four diferent issues:
1. Adequacy of the instrument (knife) for slaughtering
(Table 4)
2. Performing the cut (Tables 5 and 6)
3. Defnition of slaughtering
4. Point of cut
Table 4 : Adequacy of the instrument for slaughtering (knife)
Jewish halacha Knife must be long at least twice the width of the
neck of the animal to be slaughtered (28). Te
knife must be “sharp and smooth” (29); it must be
rechecked after every shechita and before the next
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 9 Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter
Jewish halacha
(continue)
one (30) “and if he did not check, he will not slaughter”
(30). Te point of the knife is, traditionally,
square (see fgure below) in order to avoid making
incisions with it or using it for sticking. Te knife
must be wide enough not to be closed over by the
incised tissues.
Islamic sharia “When you slaughter (an animal), slaughter it with
perfection, you should sharpen your knife and you
should give relief to the animal ” (31). Te knife
must be without blemishes or damage (5, 23);
recommended length should be twice the width of
the neck (23).
OIE
recommendations
A very sharp blade or knife of sufcient length so
that the point of the knife remains outside the
incision during the cut; the point of the knife
should not be used to make the incision; the
incision should not close over the knife during the
throat cut.
Figure 5: Poultry and small ruminant knives.
Shechita’s knife is proportional to animal size (at least
“twice the width of the neck”), which means about 45-48 cm
for a veal calf and 55-60 cm for adult cattle.
Performing the cut:
According to Jewish law, the shochet should slaughter in
the smoothest way, avoiding the imperfection /inaccuracies
(illustrated and explained below) (14, modifed), which nul-
lify the shechita itself (Table 5). When explaining shechita
laws, Sefer HaChinuch (4) clearly relates to the obligation
of avoiding unnecessary pain to animals during slaugh-
ter. Te restraint of the animal is fundamental because it
prepares and presents the animal to the slaughter in the
correct way.
Defnition of slaughtering
According to Jewish halacha, an animal – as such – is con-
sidered forbidden to eat, and only the shechita (slaughtering
according to Jewish halacha) transforms it into that suitable
for consumption. Imperatives of shechità are derived from
a mitzvà (commandment) which is found in the book of
Deuteronomy, 12:21.
«...you may slaughter animals from the herds and focks
the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and in
your own towns you may eat as much of them as you want».
From the written text it is not possible to derive a particular
methodology of slaughtering, but this is derived by the Oral
Law, which is detailed and regulated both regarding the
technique of slaughtering and the eligibility of the shochet
to practice it.
Table 5: Comparison of the laws of halacha, sharia and the OIE
recommendation for performing the cut for slaughter
Jewish halacha “on the esophagus and on the trachea. And in birds,
on the veins too” (32). Te strict halacha requests
to severe the esophagus and trachea in mammals
and blood vessels also in birds. Already in the 10
th
century CE, it was established that (33) “a beast
needs the cut of the strings” (large blood vessels),
and later again, too (34), and this is the common
practice of shechita.
Islamic sharia Stunning (if used), severing of trachea, esophagus
and both the Carotid arteries and Jugular veins
(23). Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the
fesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated
to other than Allah, and (those animals) killed by
strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long
fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a
wild animal has eaten, except what you (are able to)
slaughter (before its death) (35).
OIE
recommendations
All animals should be bled out by incising both
carotid arteries, and the vessels from which they
arise (e.g. chest stick).
Te need for severing the large blood vessels in the neck
during shechita derives from the repeated severe prohibi-
tion in the Torah of consuming blood (36) and therefore the
need of purging the meat from its blood. Te topographical
proximity between the halachic location of shechita cut, the
halachic need of severing both (or most of ) oesophagus and
trachea, automatically includes the cut of most or all the
large blood vessels (the two Carotid arteries; the external and
the internal Jugular veins) in the neck, therefore inducing a
massive and rapid blood loss.
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 Pozzi, P.S. 10
Point of cut (here only ruminants are considered, without
extension to birds):
Table 7: Comparison of the laws of halacha, sharia and the OIE
recommendation for the location of the cut
Jewish halacha Te place for the shechita is in the neck... below
the slope of the thyroid... to the upper extremity of
the (right) pulmonary lobe... (37) and in principle
one will slaughter down of the large ring (cricoid
cartilage (37)).
Islamic sharia Cutting of the throat or slitting the hollow of the
throat, which eventually cause its death. Tus,
the best way is too severe the trachea (hulqum),
esophagus (mari’i), and both jugular veins
(wajadain) to hasten the bleeding and death of
the animals. However the four schools of thoughts
(Shaf, Maliki, Hambali, Hanaf) slightly difer in
their opinions (27).
OIE
recommendations
Bleeding out by severance of blood vessels in the
neck without stunning.
Te halacha location for a kosher cut is relatively wide,
starting few centimeters down the cricoid cartilage, down
to the basis of the neck, immediately before the frst rib.
But the SAY”D already referred to an ancient tradition
(37) by which the cut is performed “in correspondence of the
folded ear of the beast and of the animal ” – so far in the upper
third of the neck.
Sharia scholars, despite diferences regarding the method
of slaughter, all agree that the site of slaughter under normal
circumstances should be the upper part of the chest and
throat (5, 23, 27). Te spinal cord should not be cut and the
head not severed completely (5, 27). Slaughter must be done
in such a way that the animal’s life departs quickly and ani-
mal will not be left to sufer; bleeding must be spontaneous
and massive. Slaughtering must be done once only; during
slaughtering the animal must not be lifted up; multiple acts
of slaughter on one animal are prohibited. A least two of the
four blood vessels must be severed in order for the animal to
become permissible for consumption (27).
Referring to slaughter without prior stunning (shechita
and halal slaughtering) the main issues are represented by
slow blood loss and blood inspiration in the respiratory tract.
Slow blood loss prolongs the time to unconsciousness, while
blood inspiration induces pain due to sufocation.
Slow blood loss is the consequence of two diferent
events:
Table 6: Te laws of halacha for performing the cut for slaughter
Defnition of
inaccuracy
תוכלה
הטיחש
Translation and explanation (14, modifed)
תיתכלה הרדגה source — רוקמ
delay
הייהש
Hesitation, during the incision, for even a
moment.
.רומגיש ינפל ןיכסה תא היבגהו טוחשל ליחתה
הייהש רועישכ בכעתנו דח וניאש ןיכסב המהב טחושה
...הטיחשב
ב :ג"כ — העד הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
ג :ג"כ — העד הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
pressing
הסרד
Hacking or pressing instead of sliding with
forward and backward movements.
ךתוחכ הטמל ךתחו קחדו ראווצה לע ןיכסה תא חינה
.תושק וא ןונצ
...הסרד אלב טוחשל רשפא יא הזה רועיש ןיאש לכש...
א :ד"כ — העד הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
ךרואל סחייתמ ףיעס — ב :ד"כ(
םרוגכ ןיכסה לש קיפסמ אל
)הסרדל
digging
הדלח
Knife stabbed into the neck or buried by fur,
hide, or feathers in the case of a bird. Te
knife must be visible along all the shechita.
...ןיכסה תא סינכהש
ךבוסמ רמצ תחת וא רועה תחת ןיכסה תא דילחה
...הראווצב רושקה תילטמ תחת וא המהבה ראווצב
ז :ד"כ — העד הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
ח :ד"כ —
slipping
המרגה
Slaughtering above the large ring in the
windpipe or below upper lobe of the lung
when it is infated.
יואר וניאש םוקמב )הטמל וא( הלעמל הנקב טחושה
.הטיחשל
.הטיחשה םוקמל ץוח ןיכסה תא הטהו טוחשל ליחתה
בי :ד"כ — העד הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
tearing
רוקע
Tearing the esophagus or the trachea during
the shechita.
It may happen if there is a nick in the knife.
Tearing can occur in heavy birds if not
correctly restrained.
.הטיחשה ןמזב טשוו וא הנק )םיערקנ( םירקענש
עקרקב ולגר קוחדיש רהזיל ךירצ לוגנרת טחושה
רוקעי אלש ידכ עקרקב ולגר ץועני אלש ונהיבגי וא
.םינמיסה
וט :ד"כ — העד הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
כ :ד"כ —
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 11 Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter
1. Failure to cut both carotid arteries
In a 2008 study, it was determined that the prevalence of fail-
ure to cut a carotid artery was 6% during shechita slaughter
and 1% during halal slaughter (38). Failure is mainly due
to the inclination of the knife during the cut (Figure 6).
Where the blood loss is delayed the animal is not rendered
immediately unconscious and therefore remains sensitive to
pain (18) in the case of incorrect wound management (18)
or too rapid initiation of processing the carcass.
2. Occurrence of a false aneurysm
When a severed artery rim retracts within its connective
tissue sheath and the artery rim becomes blocked or sealed
(23, 38), as below (Figure 7).
It has been noted that insurgence of false aneurism is
higher when:
y Te cut is performed in a low position in the neck
(corresponding to 3
rd
-4
th
cervical vertebra (CV)) (38),
(data relating to halal slaughter) compared to cutting at
the 1
st
CV (39). Studies in the USA (39) revealed false
aneurisms in 1% of arteries of cattle with shechita at 1
st
CV level; but up to 30% when shechita is performed
in a lower position in the neck (3
rd
CV).
y Te cut is “slow” (probably due to imperfect sharpness
of the knife, or hesitation by the shochet). A possible
explanation is that a slow knife stroke may be more
likely to stretch the (elastic layers of) arteries and induce
(retraction, shrinking and) occlusion (18).
Blood inspiration
Blood inspiration in the respiratory tract has been dem-
onstrated, with diferent incidences, both in stunned-then
sticked animals and not stunned (shechita/halal) animals
(40) slaughtered in an up-right position. Incidences ranged
as summarized below (Table 8):
Table 8: Blood inspiration of the slaughtered animal comparing
stunning, shechita and halal
Stunned-sticked Shechita Halal
Trachea: blood lines 21% 19% 58%
Trachea: red foam 0% 10% 19%
Upper bronchi: blood 31% 36% 69%
Preliminary observations conducted in a large kosher
slaughterhouse in Israel, on 400 veal slaughtered in reverse
position, revealed an incidence of 3% (41); this discrepancy
may be caused by slaughtering in diferent positions and is
worthy of further investigations.
Figure 6: Cross section of a neck of a calf: schematic representation of
the failure to cut a carotid artery (#2) due to knife inclination (“Hullin
Illuminated”, 2003, 136; modifed; courtesy of author, Rabbi Y.D. Lach
and Feldheim Publisher, Jerusalem, Israel).
Figure 7: False aneurism development: 1. Elastic layer of the artery retracts and shrinks; 2. Clots precipitate on the severed rim; 3. Blood fow
reduces and slows down; 4. Artery is occluded; blood fow arrested (picture: courtesy Dr. W.Geraisy). (drawing: courtesy OIE).
1 2 3
4
4
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 Pozzi, P.S. 12
Anatomical details in the vicinity of the incision are
of utmost importance: the higher the location of incision
(halachically lower than cricoid cartilage), the closest to each
other, anatomically, the Common Carotid artery and the
Vagus nerve, further than the external Jugular vein and then
the internal Jugular vein. Running in a shared connective
sheath with the Truncus Sympaticus, the Vagus, through its
ramifcations, innervates the trachea and then lungs through
the pulmonary plexus, besides the heart.
When performing the shechita/halal cut correspond-
ing to 1
st
CV position, the sensory nerve to the respiratory
tract is severed. When the shechita/halal cut is made at a
lower position- corresponding to 2
nd
to 4
th
CV, the sensory
nerve may remain intact and distressful sensations could be
transmitted to the brain before the animal loses sensibility.
Performing the shechita cut at the anatomical position of
the neck corresponding to 1
st
CV reduces the likelihood of
irritation associated with blood aspirated into the respiratory
tract. It is likely that both the Laryngeal nerves (sensory
signals from the upper respiratory tract) and the Vagus nerves
(signals from the lungs and lower trachea) will be severed
when the neck is cut in this position. Severing the main
Vagus ramifcation during the shechita/halal may also have
important consequences in terms of welfare of the animal in
the form of diminution or elimination of painful stimuli from
the respiratory tract, in case of blood inspiration (23, 42).
Unconsciousness evaluation times
Te length and height of the blade, perfect sharpness, knife
inclination, allow the severing of both Jugular veins and
Carotid arteries, thus allowing a fast and massive blood loss,
including arterial bleeding, and a sudden drop of arterial
pressure to the brain (43, 44), down to 1/3 of original blood
pressure in less than 2 seconds (minimum 0.36 seconds;
maximum. 2.4 seconds in calves; minimum 0.6 seconds;
maximum. 3.0 seconds in sheep) (43, 44). Te quick drop
in blood pressure, due to severing the Carotid arteries, also
induces vertebral artery blood to fow towards the lowest
pressure point i.e. the severed carotids, instead of fowing
towards the CNS via the vertebral arteries (43, 44). Te
cerebral cortex is particularly sensitive to this rapid pressure
fall, and consciousness is considered lost irreversibly within
approximately two seconds (44). Several studies have been
summarized (23) in which calves brain activity – measured by
electroencephalogram (EEG) or electrocorticogram (ECG)
is lost almost immediately after shechita/halal; however
there are also studies in which some animals take a relatively
prolonged time to lose consciousness or develop changes in
spontaneous or evoked activity (23). Tese data have been
lastly criticized also considering the fact EEG is maintained
in anesthetized animals and humans under surgery, while
traces are evident even after beheading (44). Te massive
hemorrhage is apparently not infuenced by animal posi-
tion, either right up or reverse, when animals are correctly
restrained. When a shochet uses a rapid cutting stroke, 95%
of the calves loose posture and collapse almost immediately
(18); sheep between 2 to 5 seconds; calm cattle between 10
to 15 seconds (18). Te diferences between cattle and sheep
may be explained by diferences in the anatomy of their blood
vessels (18, 38, 39). Failure in severing both arteries and/or
the occurrence of false aneurisms, even in one of the arteries,
should be avoided with appropriate cut, due to defnitely
prolonged collapse time to up to 30 seconds, or even more
so considering animal welfare issues (18).
Wound management
Correct management of the time-frame between the cut and
loss of consciousness is of extreme importance, in order to
avoid and/or minimize any unnecessary painful stimulus to
the slaughtered animal.
Table 9: Comparison of the laws of halacha, sharia and the OIE
recommendations for wound management after slaughter
Jewish halacha And if the slaughtered (animal) it is still twitching,
it is akin to alive (45).
Cutting is prohibited from an animal which is still
convulsing (46) – until its soul has departed.
Islamic sharia It is highly discouraged to do the processing or
skinning of the animal while it is convulsing (27).
No part of animal’s body should be cut of and
it should not be skinned, or thrown into boiling
water, or plucked before one makes sure it is
completely dead.
OIE
recommendations
After incision of the blood vessels, no scalding
carcass treatment or dressing procedures should be
performed on the animals for at least 30 seconds or
in any case until all brain-stem refexes have ceased.
Te practice to remove hypothetical blood clots just
after the bleeding should be discouraged since this
may increase the animal’s sufering.
According to Jewish halacha it is forbidden “to eat” from
an animal until it is dead: »and you should not eat the soul with
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 13 Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter
the meat», Deuteronomy 12: 23; the interpretation is that one
should wait until the soul (blood) of the animal has left. “And
really, there is no crueler thing in the world than cutting an organ
or meat from the animal that is still alive...” (47).
On the other hand, the shechita itself does not make
the animal automatically suitable for consumption until the
cut itself has been checked (48) through an operation called
“checking of the signs”. Te purpose of this check is to verify
that in the slaughtered animal all the “signs” have been cut:
trachea, esophagus, blood vessels (32, 33, 34). In poultry,
where the bird being held manually during the shechita,
this check is mainly visual. In ruminants the cut signs may
be examined visually or by touching with the hand, which
is the usual practice today, due to the fact the blood does
not allow a clear view of the area. Tis check is mandatory
in order to declare the shechita as valid, however it can be
postponed according to Jewish halacha (49), and this should
be the current practice from an animal welfare point of view.
Tis is of primary importance, because touching or stimulat-
ing cut’s edges before loss of consciousness would induce pain
(50). On the other hand, “observations of hundreds of cattle and
calves during kosher slaughter indicated that there was a slight
quiver when the knife frst contacted the throat” (50) or even
no finching (50) or defense refex (51). Using a perfectly
sharp knife, stimulation of cut edges is minimal (14) and
considered below the pain pathways activation (44) before the
few seconds necessary to loose consciousness, on condition
that the cut area is kept untouched and not stimulated in any
way (touching; friction of cut edges; contact with objects,
part of immobilizing pen, foor, exsanguination table, etc.);
cut edges should remain open and immobilized for the time
requested to loss of consciousness. For this purpose, frm
restraint of the head is mandatory, regardless whether the
cut is performed in up-right or reverse position.
Head/chin restraint, both in the up-right or in reverse
position, is also mandatory in order to allow the shochet to
calibrate and perform the cut corresponding to the 1
st
CV,
in this way also severing the Vagus nerve ramifcations and
reducing dramatically the incidence of arterial occlusions by
retraction and blood clots.
Veterinary Services’ rules currently in Israel oblige the use
of head/chin restraint; forbid touching the incision until loss
of consciousness has been checked, and in any case not before
30 seconds; forbid the release from the restraining pen before
loss of consciousness and in any case not before 30 seconds.
Only at that point of time can carcass preparation begin (52).
DISCUSSION
Killing a live being is never a pleasant event, and every killing
system presents imprecisions which may result in the possibly
of inducing pain to the animal, as also reminded by EU leg-
islation: “...any stunning technique presents certain drawbacks.
... pain, distress or sufering should be considered as avoidable
when business operators or any person involved in the killing of
animals breach one of the requirements of this regulation or use
permitted practices without refecting the state of the art, thereby
inducing by negligence or intention, pain, distress or sufering to
the animals” (53).
Te OIE, also, enlists main concerns and implica-
tions linked with slaughtering
with/without stunning (7).
Referring to slaughter with
prior stunning the main issues
are represented by stunning
failures, inadequately stunning,
inaccurately of shot; accurately
of shot but inadequate stunning
(54). Since the 1990s, USA data
has quantifed failures in cattle
stunning between 1% (electric)
to 1-5% (captive bolt) (55, 56),
and up to 15%; aiming towards
a 95% efcacy (5% failures) as
a goal (55). Reports from UK
Figure 8: Head restrain in course of shechita: full and clear exposure of the neck to the shochet; head/
chin-restrain remains in place until complete loss of consciousness.
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 Pozzi, P.S. 14
summarized failures of electric stunning in sheep between
12-14%; around 5% (2,6-6,6%) in cattle (captive bolt); up
to 36% in pigs (electric) (57). “Inadequate stunning” in bulls,
cows, calves, may range 5% to 19% (54). Diferences exist
between stunning-operators (81% to 95% of accurate shots)
and according to their experience (54). Te time-frame reac-
tions by operators may be several seconds, when the captive
bolt is used; stun-to-stick time may be longer (70 to 294
seconds; average 105 seconds; 116±27.4 seconds in re-shot
animals) posing serious animal-welfare concerns regarding
the correct management of this time-frame (54). Tere is
some controversy about the frequency of mis-stunning: the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reported that when
using captive bolt stunning, 4-6,6% of cattle needed a second
stun (58). Some countries dispute these fgures, and it is prob-
ably true to say that the frequency of mis-stunning “is not
accurately known” as candidly admitted at least in UK (59).
Concerning birds which was not the main focus of this
article, just recently EFSA (European Food Safety Agency)
put under discussion the efcacy of electrical baths for poul-
try stunning currently in use (60), and OIE (7) report up to
2% broken legs in shackled birds before electric-bath stun-
ning. Te UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Afairs (DEFRA) underlines risks of “pre-stun shocks”, due
to pre-contacts with electrifed water before the birds’ heads
completely enters the bath for stunning. Te pain induced
by pre-contact, resulted in the bird reacting and fapping so
vigorously that it may avoid the electrifed water bath and
even the cutting edge for beheading. In such cases the bird
is moved by the conveyor system still alive (61).
Referring to slaughter without prior stunning (shechita
and halal) the main issues are represented by adequacy of the
instrument (knife), decision, precision and position of the cut
and correct management of the animal, specially immediately
after the cut.
Te spirit of Jewish halacha and Islamic sharia appears
fully aligned with OIE recommendations aimed to avoid any
unnecessary pain to animals at the time of slaughtering. Te
operational systems put in place by the two legislative bodies
fulfll all the recommendations by OIE.
Nevertheless some techniques can defnitely be improved,
both in shechita and in halal (23) slaughter: more stringent
accuracy concerning the cut in 1st CV position; comple-
tion and improvement of head/chin restrain equipment and
restraint in general; correct wound management immediately
after the cut. All these aspects should be more accurately
scrutinized and can be implemented. Shechita and halal,
in fact, demand direct care to every single slaughtered animal
(with routine check procedures for every single operation):
in such a perspective economic and industrial implications
are expendable and put as a second priority: the shochet is
more expensive than a slaughter man; speed production is
low; costs are higher, etc. Professional negligence nullifes the
shechita and halal, therefore the staf is constantly scrutinized
and unprofessional workers are promptly removed, due to
halachic and economic implications of nullifed shechita.
Abnormalities in birds slaughter are avoided with
shechita, with each bird presented individually to the shochet
and frmly held by the shochet (or by an assistant in case of
large birds), then left bleeding until it is dead before being
conveyed for preparation.
Shechita and halal, due to their intrinsic nature and due
to their routine controls on every single action and for every
individual animal, defnitely cannot be framed as negligent
or intentionally painful, distressing or inducing suferance to
animals. Tis may represent the moral and technical superior-
ity of shechita and halal over conventional, mass production
slaughtering systems. Mass production slaughtering systems
utilize techniques and controls on the majority of the animals
and not on every single animal, with error margins which, in
principle, are insolvable (23, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62).
Due to fnal intentions for providing cheap meat and taking
into account costs implications, these errors hardly, if not at
all, implicate or justify further eforts for their amelioration
for the non-kosher/halal meat industry. Under these circum-
stances further improvements cannot possibly be reached,
due to the limits of high mechanization in production lines
when matched with behavioral variations in biology in the
animals being slaughtered.
REFERENCES
1. Talmud, Bava’ Mezia’, 32:b; 33:a – :ב"ל ,האיצמ אבב ,ילבב דומלת
א :ג"ל ,ב.
2. Karo Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Haim, 305: 19, 1563 – ןחלוש
טי :ה"ש ,םייח ךרוא ךורע.
3. Baba’d, Y.: Minchat Hinuch, ch. 451, circa 1850 – תחנמ ,ד"באב .י
א"נת ,ךוניח.
4. Ha Levi, A.: (of Spain; of Barcelona); Sefer Ha Chinuch, ch. 451,
circa 1200 – א"נת ,ךוניחה רפס ,)ינולצרבמ ;דרפסמ( יולה .א.
5. Aidaros, H.: Drivers for animal welfare policies in the Middle
East. Publisher OIE. Scientifc and Technical Review, 33: 85-89,
2014.
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 15 Principles of Jewish and Islamic Slaughter
6. OIE, 2014, http://www.oie.int/en/about-us/.
7. OIE – Terrestrial Animal Health Code – Version 7, 2014 http://
www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfle=chapitre_aw_
slaughter.htm.
8. Mishna, Chullin, b. – ב ,ןילוח ,הנשמ.
9. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha. 1:1, 1563 – הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
א :'א ,העד.
10. Isserless, M.: Gloss on Shulchan, Aruch, Yore Deha. 1:1, circa 1570
– ׂ שילרסיא לארשי ןב השמ יבר א :'א ,העד הרוי ,ךורא ןחלוש לע ההגה
)א"מרה(.
11. Palagi (Palaci), H.: Kaf Ha Haym. 24:26, circa 1850 – ,י'גלפ .ח
וב :ד"ב ,םייחה ךכ.
12. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha. 6:4, 1563 – ךורע ןחלוש
ד :'ו ,העד הרוי.
13. Palagi (Palaci), H.: Kaf Ha Haym, 100:34, 37, circa 1850 –
זל דל :'ק ,םייחה ךכ ,י'גלפ .ח.
14. Grandin, T.: Te rules of Shechita for performing a proper cut
during kosher slaughter. http://www.grandin.com/ritual/rules.
shechita.proper.cut.html
15. Adelman, G.: “Controversy and Crisis: Studies in the History of
the Jews in Modern Britain”, Publisher: Academic Studies Press,
Brighton (MA), USA.
16. Stoppelman, J. W. F.: “De anti-shechita propaganda en haarbe-
strijding” on “De Vrijdagavond. JoodschWeekblad”. 51: 804-907,
March, 1928.
17. Hofman, Y.: “Te Shechita wars” on “Vos Iz Neias”. 2012. http://
www.vosizneias.com/98200/2012/01/04/new-york
18. Grandin, T. and Regenstein J.: “Religious slaughter and animal
welfare: a discussion for meat scientists” in “Meat Focus Interna-
tional”. 115-123, March, 1994.
19. Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P., Dalmau, A., Fuentes, C., Lloncha, P., van
Holleben, K.V., Anil, M.H., Lambooij, J.B., Pleiter, H., Yesildere, T.
and Cenci-Goga, B.T.: Religious slaughter: Evaluation of current
practices in selected countries. Meat Sci. 96: 278-287, 2014.
20. Grandin, T.: Euthanasia and slaughter of livestock. JAVMA. 204:
1354-1360, 1994.
21. Mendoza, A.: Dinim de Shechita y Bedica. London, publisher un-
known. K.K. Sahar Shamaim, A. (Spanish-Portuguese Community
of London), 1733.
22. Al-Watania Poultry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
8f8ZI--t4NQ
23. Nakyinsige, N.K., Che Man, Y.B., Aghwan, Z.A., Zulkifi, I., Goh,
Y.M., Abu Bakar, F., Al-Kahtani, H.A. and Sazili, A.Q.: Stunning
and animal welfare from Islamic and scientifc perspectives. Meat
Sci. 95: 352-361, 2013.
24. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 3:1, 1563 – הרוי ךורע ןחלוש
א :'ג ,העד.
25. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 17:1, 1563 – ךורע ןחלוש
א :ז"י ,העד הרוי.
26. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 31:1, 1563 – ךורע ןחלוש
א :א"ל ,העד הרוי.
27. Zikrullah, A.L.: Te theory of Shariah Rulings in Halal Meat
and Poultry Production. Intern. J. Manag. Sci. 3: 351-369, 2014.
28. Isserless, M.: Gloss on Shulchan, Aruch, Yore Deha, 8:1, circa
1570 – ,ךורא ןחלוש לע ההגה ,)א"מרה( ׂ שילרסיא לארשי ןב השמ יבר
א :'ח ,העד הרוי.
29. Talmud, Hullin, 17: b – ב :ז"י ,ןילוח ,ילבב דומלת.
30. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 18:3, 1563 – ךורע ןחלוש
ג :ח"י העד הרוי.
31. Ibn Sharaf An-Nawawi, Y.: “Forty Hadiths”, Hadith 17, circa
1250. http://40hadithnawawi.com
32. Talmud, Hullin, 28: a – א :ח"כ ,ןילוח ,ילבב דומלת.
33. Rabenu Hananel, glosses, Hullin, 28:b, circa 1000 – ,לאננח וניבר
ב :ח"כ ןילוח לע םינויע.
34. Ha Levi Segal, D.: Turei Zahav on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah,
22: 8, circa 1600 – ח :ב"כ ,העד הרוי ,ךורא ןחלש לע בהז ירוט ,יולה .ד.
35. Te Quran, Surat Al-Mā’idah, 5:3 (Sahih International), http://
quran.com
36. Genesis, 9:4; Leviticus, 3:17; Leviticus 17:10, 12; Deuteronomy,
12:22, 25 – :ב"י םירבד ;ב"י-י :ז"י ארקיו ;ז"י :ג ארקיו ;ד :ט תישארב
ה"כ-ב"כ.
37. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 20:1, 2, 1563 – ךורע ןחלוש
ב ,א :'כ ,העד הרוי.
38. Gregory, N.G., von Wenzlawowicz, M., Alam, R.M., Anil, H.M.,
Yesildere, T. and Silva-Fletcher, A.: False aneurysms in carotid
arteries of cattle and water bufalo during shechita and halal
slaughter. Meat Sci. 79: 285-288, 2008.
39. Grandin, T.: Cattle should be cut in the cervical (C1) position
to improve welfare during Kosher and Halal slaughter without
stunning. 2012. http://www.grandin.com/ritual/cattle.cut.jawbone.
improve.welfare.html
40. Gregory, N.G., von Wenzlawowicz, M. and von Holleben, K.:
Blood in the respiratory tract during slaughter with and without
stunning in cattle. Meat Sci., 82: 13-16, 2009.
41. Geraisy, W. and Pozzi, P.: Bleeding in slaughter without stun-
ning – at “Improved Animal Welfare Program”, OIE & Veterinary
Services – Israel”, Conference Acts, Bet Dagan, Israel, Dec. 10
th
2014, http://www.vetserv.moag.gov.il/Vet/Yechidot/TzaarBaley-
Chaim/default.htm
42. Gregory, N.G., von Wenzlawowicz, M., von Holleben, K., Field-
ing, H.R., Gibson, T.J., Mirabito, L. and Kolesar, R.: Compli-
cations during shechita and halal slaughter without stunning in
cattle. Animal Welfare 21: 81-86, 2012.
43. Levinger, M.: Blood pressure in the animal after shechita and
blood fow in vertebral artery as a consequence. In “Shechita and
cruelty to animals”, pp. 62-68; Publisher Maskil le-David, Jeru-
salem, Israel, 2004.
44. S.D. Rosen, S.D.: Physiological insights into Shechita. Vet. Rec.
154: 759-765, 2004.
45. Talmud, Hullin, 30: a – א :'ל ,ןילוח ,ילבב דומלת.
46. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 27: 1, 1563 – ךורע ןחלוש
א :ז"כ ,העד הרוי.
47. Ha Levi A.: (of Spain; of Barcelona), Sefer Ha Chinuch, ch. 452,
circa 1200 – ב"נת ,ךוניחה רפס ,)ינולצרבמ ;דרפסמ( יולה .א.
48. Karo, Y.: Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 25:1, 1563 – ךורע ןחלוש
א :ה"כ ,העד הרוי.
49. Isserless, M.: Gloss on Shulchan Aruch, Yore Deha, 25: 1, 1563
– ׂ שילרסיא לארשי ןב השמ יבר א :ה"כ ,העד הרוי ,ךורא ןחלוש לע ההגה
)א"מרה(.
50. Grandin, T.: Euthanasia and slaughter of livestock. JAVMA. 204:
1354-1360, 1994 http://www.grandin.com/ritual/euthanasia.
slaughter.livestock.html
Review Articles
Israel Journal of Veterinary Medicine  Vol. 70 (3)  September 2015 Pozzi, P.S. 16
51. Candotti, P., Diegoli, G.: “Ritual slaughtering” on “La globaliz-
zazione aspetti sanitari e socio culturali derivanti” Reggio Emilia
(IT), Conference Acts, April, 2009. http://www.ausl.re.it/comu-
nicazione/congressi/1711173-venerd-3-aprile-2009-convegno-
la-globalizzazione-aspetti-sanitari-e-socio-culturali-derivanti-
la-mac.html
52. Israel Ministry of Agriculture – Te Veterinary Services – Animal
Products Control Department. Rule 3.8.1, “Prevention of Animal
Sufering in the Course of Slaughtering”. 2014. http://foodsafety.
co.il/dapeiNoal/dapeinoalUnit.aspx?ID=304
53. Council Regulation (EC) 1099: “Protection Of Animals At Te
Time Of Killing” 2009.
54. Atkinson, S., Velarde, A. and Algers, B.: Assessment of stun quality
at commercial slaughter in cattle shot with captive bolt. Animal
Welfare, 22: 473-481, 2013.
55. Grandin, T.: Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning
practices at slaughter plants. JAVMA. 212: 36-39, 1998.
56. Grandin, T.: “Surveys of Stunning and Handling in Slaughter
Plants”, 2011, http://www.grandin.com/survey/survey.html
57. K. Fowler, “An Animal Aid Investigation into UK Slaughterhous-
es”, Published by Animal Aid. ISBN: 978-1-905327-19-5, 2009.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/slaughterreport.pdf
58. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), “Welfare aspects of animal
stunning and killing methods - Scientifc Report of the Scientifc
Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Com-
mission related to welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing
methods”. AHAW/04-027; Question-2003-093; EFSA Journal
45: 90, 2004. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/45.pdf
59. Trees, L. and Jordan, H.: Animal Welfare and Non-stun
Slaughter-Key Facts. Veterinary Policy Research Founda-
tion. 2014. https://vprf.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/animal-
welfare-and-non-stun-slaughter
60. European Food Safety Agency, (EFSA) “Scientifc Opinion on
electrical requirements for poultry water bath stunning equip-
ment”, EFSA Journal. 12: 3745, 2014. http://www.efsa.europa.
eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3745.pdf
61. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Afairs Report:
“Te Welfare of Poultry at Slaughter or Killing”, Publisher:
DEFRA, London, UK, 2007. https://www.gov.uk/government/
uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fle/69473/pb13539-
welfare-poultry-slaughter.pdf
62. Zivotofsky, A. Z. and Strous, R.S.: A perspective on the electrical
stunning of animals: are there lessons to be learned from human
electro-convulsive therapy (ECT)? Meat Sci. 90: 956-961, 2012.
Review Articles