on
Animal Welfare
|
Judaism moved early to protect the rights of animals and to the
extent that Christianity and Islam express concern for animals, they
have usually borrowed from Jewish sources. Yet Jews have been
reluctant to proclaim this fact or to demonstrate how modern animal
welfare societies have been inspired (albeit unconsciously or
indirectly) by the teachings of our faith. Jews have cause to feel
both pride and great sadness when they consider the exacting moral
standards of Jewish animal welfare legislation and homily, and
compare those standards with the neglect and abuse of animals so
characteristic of most societies and legal systems, past and present.
Genesis 1:26 states that man may dominate all other creatures (which
would appear inevitable, given superior human intelligence) but the
dominion intended is a caring and responsible paternalism rather than
a callous exploitation. In the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59b)
"dominion" is interpreted as the privilege of using animals
for labour. The 11th century commentator Rashi understands the verse
to mean that human dominion is granted by God on condition that
animals are not abused. If, argues Rashi, we become unworthy of the
trust placed in us by the Creator, then we will sink to a level lower
than that of any animal.
Genesis 1:29 declares that man was initially meant to be vegetarian.
Only after the Flood (contends Genesis 9:3) was human consumption of
animals permitted and this was later understood as a concession, both
to human weakness and to the supposed scarcity of edible vegetation.
Horror at the slaughter of other creatures for food has, in our time,
prompted a widespread return to vegetarianism, a position deserving
of our attention and respect.
Genesis 24 relates how, when Eliezer went to Haran to find a wife for
Isaac, he looked for a girl who would show kindness both to humans
and to animals. After Rebecca had drawn water for Eliezer and his men
she immediately watered their camels. Later Jewish teaching insisted
that it should be the other way round and so the Talmud states,
"A man may not sit down to his own meal before he has fed his
animals" (Berahot 40a).
In Proverbs 12:10 we can read "A righteous man has regard for
the life of his animal", that is, he shows consideration for its
needs and feelings. Such consideration should not be restricted to
one's own animals for Exodus 23:4 teaches that stray animals must be
taken care of and returned to their owners at the earliest
opportunity. This applies even to animals belonging to one's enemy
and the very next verse in Exodus 23 urges the offering of assistance
to the fallen work animal of an enemy. Deuteronomy 22:4 demands that
any fallen animal be helped to its feet. Exodus 20:10 teaches that
animals must rest on the Sabbath Day and the need for such
consideration is repeated in Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 5:14.
In Leviticus 22:27 it is stated that a young domestic animal may not
be separated from its mother till at least seven days old and in
Leviticus 22:28 it is prohibited to kill an animal together with its
young, mainly in order to prevent the one witnessing the death of the
other. Commenting on these two verses the 12th Century philosopher
Maimonides wrote, "The pain of animals under such circumstances
is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain
of humans and the pain of other living beings, since the love and
tenderness of the mother for her young is not produced by reasoning
but by feeling and this faculty exists not only in humans but in most
living things" (Guide of the Perplexed 3:48). Deuteronomy 22:6
and 7 forbid the capture of a mother bird together with her young or
her eggs. If the young or eggs are required the mother must be absent
when they are taken. In practice young fledglings were of little use
to anyone so that this prohibition tended to protect mother and young
together. Eggs were more likely to be taken but here the bond with
the mother was much weaker.
Deuteronomy 22:10 states, "you shall not plough with an ox and
an ass together". These animals differ greatly in their nature,
size and strength and it is consequently cruel to the weaker animal
to yoke them together. The prohibition extends to the yoking together
of any animals of unequal type. Deuteronomy 25:4 reads, "you
shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn". This
prohibition was extended to include all animals employed in labour.
It is sheer cruelty to excite an animal's desire for food and then
prevent the satisfaction of that desire.
In Jewish post-biblical literature much is written about the need to
spare animals from pain or stress. The Talmud forbids gladiatorial
shows and hunting (Avodah Zarah 18b) so that bull-fighting, dog-
fighting, cock- fighting and fox or big game hunting are quite
abhorrent to the observant Jew. So too is the trapping of animals for
such luxury items as fur coats, the mowing down of elephant herds for
ivory or the merciless hunting of whales for the production of pet
foods. Those who regard themselves as morally sensitive Jews are
bound to avoid the purchase of trapped animal skins and furs, ivory
or whale meat products. None may purchase an animal till he or she
has first purchased the food for that animal to eat, declares Talmud
Yerushalmi (Ketubot 4:8). A high percentage of the exotic creatures
imported for sale as pets in Britain die of starvation before their
crates or cages are opened. The observant Jew should avoid the
purchase of imported animals, birds or reptiles.
A rabbinic parable suggests that the occupants of the Ark were saved
only because of their compassion towards the animals in their charge.
Often, the parable claims, they would deny themselves sleep at night
in order to feed their charges (Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 37:1).
Much has been written and spoken against the Jewish method of
slaughter but this method (known in Hebrew as shehitah) is
actually designed to minimise animal suffering. As stated earlier,
the consumption of animal flesh was regarded by Judaism as a
concession to human weakness. Even so, the species of animal, bird
and fish which may be consumed are severely restricted. The shehitah
method renders an animal unconscious in a matter of seconds and it
is doubtful if pain can be registered in such a short time. If it is,
it can only be momentary and is as nothing compared to the life-long
suffering endured by so many farm animals in our day. "Factory
Farming" is an abomination and as the Talmud (in a summary of
previous teachings on the subject) demands that animals be spared
pain at all costs (Baba Metsia 31a-32b), the products of intensive
animal husbandry must be considered as unsuitable for Jewish
consumption. The Jewish consumer should purchase free- range eggs
rather than battery eggs and avoid buying chicken or veal which
derives from "intensive farming". To deprive God's
creatures of sunlight, fresh air and exercise is utterly sadistic and
it is against intensive animal husbandry, rather than against
particular methods of slaughter, that the efforts of animal welfare
societies ought to be directed. shehitah is at least as humane
as any other method of slaughter but if one has serious doubts about
the morality of depriving other creatures of life then the honourable
course to pursue is that of vegetarianism.
Criticism may be levelled by Judaism against research laboratories
where millions of animals are yearly tortured supposedly to advance
the frontiers of science. In many cases laboratory animals are well
treated and there is no question of cruelty being practised, but in
other instances it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that
laboratory personnel regard themselves as licensed to indulge in
sadism. At the very least one should distinguish between experiments
intended to assist medical development and those conducted for the
benefit of commerce. "Tzaar baalei hayyim" (animal suffering) is the rabbinic term employed to embrace all Jewish law and lore concerned with animal welfare. Such concern is global and includes reference to animals in the wild, on farms, in laboratories, in zoos and circuses, in pet shops and in private homes. The earth has been given by God for the benefit of all creatures and we humans, as God's stewards, must exercise restraint and recognise the rights of non-humans, be they furred, feathered or scaled.
|