I don't see anything in the Torah that says an animal must be slaughtered before eating it instead of strangled to death.
Acts 15:20 (KJV) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
Acts 15:20 (NIV) Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Due to the prohibition of eating an animal’s blood,1 the Torah implies that an animal must be killed via exsanguination,2 since animals which died naturally or were torn apart by other animals were absolutely prohibited.3
Lev. 17:13–14 states,
13 “Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; 14 “for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ NKJV, 1982
Since an animal’s blood does not simply pour itself out, the pouring out is accomplished by slaughtering the animal with a sharp blade, severing its carotid artery and jugular vein (among other things) in the process.
According to John Lightfoot,4
Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations. Trans. Gandell, Robert. Vol. 4. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.
1 Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:14
2 Lev. 17:13–14. Of course, in the oral Law, there is a prescribed method for exsanguination.
3 Lev. 17:15
4 p. 134
After an animal dies, the blood coagulates pretty quickly. Also, if an animal is strangled, then drained of blood, you will not get nearly as much blood out by gravity alone (even if the animal is hung upside down). Very much of it will still remain in the veins/arteries and especially the capillaries.
I would thing the worst thing about strangulation would be that it causes blood vessels to pop and deposits blood into the meat/tissues (like petechiae)... (and I also wonder if eating bruised/injured parts of an animal would be similar).
When you cut a major artery (like the carotid/jugular), the heart continues to pump until all the blood is removed and the animal is truly exsanguinated.
I don't know all of these things for a fact as pertaining to The Bible or the necessary way to slaughter animals for food. Honestly, this is the first time I ever recall hearing abut it. These are just a couple things that came to mind on why it makes sense to me that the animal be exsanguinated and especially not strangled, given that we are not to eat/drink the blood (since the life of flesh is in the blood).
Honestly (to me), this is just one of many 100s (if not 1000s) of scientific facts we find in The Bible. There are countless things in The Bible that weren't understood in ancient (or even recent) times that we understand now, because of modern science and technology.
http://www.uwmedicine.org/referrals/Documents/presentations/TC-Harruff-Strangulation-Handout.pdf
(page 6 explains petechiae and the spilling of blood into the tissues from strangulation). If I'm not mistaken there are injuries from strangulation that are worse and deposit a lot more blood into the tissues than petechiae. It shouldn't be too difficult to find information or sources if anyone's interested.
When it comes to petechiae, contusions (bruising), hemorrhages and other forms of injuries from strangulation it becomes impossible to remove all the blood from an animal. The same goes for animals that are already dead.The blood quickly starts to thicken and in short time it becomes impossible to remove all the blood (especially from capillaries and tissues). Not even modern technology (like pumps) could remove it all.
I agree that a strangled animal could be drained of blood, but it would be difficult, and it would be easily ignored if you are in haste. When I was teaching the Old Testament in Nicaragua, a rabbi who was attending my class said that there was a tradition of "putting a fence around the law." By this, he meant that, as the New Testament makes us aware of, there were a number of precautions attached to each one of the laws to avoid mistakenly or carelessly violating them. I think that the prohibition against strangulation probably was to make sure that nobody took any shortcuts in the draining of blood. This may also explain Eve's additions to God's command when she tells the snake about God's prohibition on eating the fruit of the tree. It is possible that when she got the command through Adam he added a little extra to make sure that she didn't even come close to the core of the command.
I do find it interesting that Peter first addresses the conflict of whether the newly converted Gentiles (converted to Christianity, not Judaism) should be held to the laws of Moses, such as circumcision, he states (Acts 15: 6-11) that the Holy Spirit had already chosen to cleanse their hearts by faith. He asks the Jerusalem counsel, made up of Christians and subgroups including pharisees who were also Christians, 'why are you testing God by putting a yoke on the disciples' necks that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?' He then points out that they (the Jewish Christians) are saved the same way, by grace. After he makes this point, and no one disputes it, James gets up and basically says that, since the Holy Spirit didn't make trouble for the Gentiles, neither should the Jewish believers. But then he suggests that they tell them to abstain from that short list, including the strangled food and things polluted by idols, which would later be another hot topic causing debates (food sacrificed to idols). What it appears to boil down to is that the Holy Spirit did not add these things on, but the Jews were suggesting how the Gentiles could 'do well' (verse 29). Probably the church as a whole could get along better if they could compromise on these items, in the opinion of James. Everyone present must have agreed because the letter was drafted and sent. The outcome was that the assembly at Antioch rejoiced and felt encouraged, probably because circumcision was, for the moment, off the table. Perhaps these rules seemed like easy things in comparison. This is what I see in scripture.
