ANIMAL WELFARE
by Rabbi Hillel Avidan

• Back to Liberal Judaism

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.

• Back to Liberal Judaism