Before Yom Kippur, The Jewish Practice Of “Kapparot” Has Raised Legal Concerns
On the afternoon before Yom Kippur, some Jews engage in a practice called “Kapparot” also pronounced “Kappores.”
The tradition of Kapporot involves holding a chicken above your head and moving it in three large circular motions above you. The chicken is then slaughtered and donated to the poor.
A Hebrew prayer is also uttered: (translated) “This is my exchange, this is my substitute, this is my atonement. This rooster (hen) will go to its death, while I will enter and proceed to a good long life and to peace.”
ANIMAL CRUELTY CONCERNS
In the olden days when people had farms and churned their own butter, procuring chickens was not as much of an inconvenience as it is today. Now though, most chickens used for Kapparot are trucked in from chicken farms.
Because modern kapparot chickens are trucked into the city from long distances, often in open trucks exposed to the weather and without adequate food or water, the question of cruelty to animals has become an important issue. The birds may also suffer while they are being handled for sale or during the ceremony, because many urban Jews are unfamiliar with the proper, humane way to hold a chicken. (Which should be with a hand above and one below the bird, supporting the weight of the body, not held with the wings painfully pinned back, as is done at some kapparot centers.)
In some places in Israel and the United States, chickens are sold on street corners for this ceremony, and not every merchant takes proper care of his chickens during this period. The birds are frequently cooped up in baskets, and some merchants neglect to give them sufficient food or water. In some cases, the caged chickens have been left out in the rain or under the hot sun with no shade or shelter, or simply abandoned in warehouses and left to starve if not sold in time for the ceremony.
In 2005 a Jewish man from Brooklyn, NY was charged with animal cruelty after cramming 307 into wooden crates inside a vacant lot. About 35 were found to have drowned in a rainstorm. Many of the chickens were covered in feces and later showed evidence of parasites.
JUDAISM’S COMMITMENT TO ANIMAL WELLNESS
Despite there being some outcries for improved handling of Kapparot chickens, none of those objections address any issues that are unique to Kapparot chickens. Chickens all over America are slaughtered by the billions and face even worse treatment than Kapparot chickens.
Additionally, a key theme in Judaism is to respect animals. For this reason Judaism has been lauded for promoting humane slaughter practices. In Judaism, slaughtering an animal requires the use of a special blade that is sharp enough to penetrate a finger nail by its mere touch. The knife is then used to make a swift cut across the animals throat. Contrast this to the ubiquitous slaughter mechanisms used by non-kosher slaughter houses: electrifying, blunt force, shooting, gasing and boiling alive.
So, to argue that there is something uniquely egregious about Kapparot would be misguided in light of the billions of chickens that are tortured and killed every year.
LEGALITY OF KAPPAROT
In Connecticut and Massachusetts slaughtering mechanisms that cause insensible pain are prohibited. For religious purposes Jews are allowed to perform Kapparot and slaughter the chickens afterwards, using a qualified Jewish Slaughterer (Shochet) and a special knife that needs to be sharp enough to penetrate a finger nail by it’s mere touch (according to biblical law.) For this reason many Jewish slaughterers grow out their pinky finger nail and use it to test their blades to make sure they’re sharp enough.
The Supreme Court also protects religious animal slaughter as part of the Free Exercise Clause as decided in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993).
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal’s carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.
The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest (the standard when weighing laws against religious rights ” strict scrutiny”). The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.