Slaughtering animals for humans

What is the basis for your claim that animals have no rights? I would appreciate some expansion on the subject.

I would also be happy to expand on this. Do humans have the right not to suffer? If so, why don't animals that feel like humans have a similar right?

Do you have an explanation for why telephone poles or gravel have no rights? Alternatively, do you have an explanation for why humans have rights? These are basic principles and I see no possibility or need to explain them.
Humans have rights as creatures whose lives are valuable and who have moral obligations towards them. Animals have no rights because they are not free willed and valuable (in my opinion). We have an obligation not to hurt them and not to let them suffer, but this is not their right but ours.
The distinction between rights and duties may not be clear to you. See more about rights and duties In my article:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7%95 %D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%98%D7 %95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%A2
and in short More here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%94%D7%91%D7%93%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA

Mikhi, I allow myself to comment on this:
I think more or less like you, that there are no rights, except that I do not understand and/or agree with your reasoning.
On the one hand, you state that these are fundamental principles and therefore there is no need to explain them. On the other hand, you are poorly explaining why when you say that they (animals) do not have choice and value.

What I think is hidden at the base of your argument is the idea that animals do not have a “soul”, at least not a soul like humans. Someone who has a “soul” is also likely to have freedom of choice and values.

I defined, I didn't reason. I have no reason why only beings with choice and consciousness have rights.

Since you used a description of a reason (“because”) I allowed myself to interpret your words in my characteristically irresponsible manner and assumed that this was not a definition but a reasoning.
In essence, if you, as a dualist, accept the claim that man has a non-material side, and if you agree that animals do not have such a side, you will not have difficulty imagining the use of the word soul to explain the issue of rights.

Thank you very much Rabbi
How does the Rabbi define consciousness?
How do we know that animals do not have it?

I'm not sure they don't have consciousness, but it's likely not on our level. Beyond that, consciousness isn't enough to be a creature with rights. You also need free will, which I think animals don't have. Although there's some confusion about that too. On the surface, that's how it seems and that's what's accepted, and they kill and stone people for their possessions.

Why is free will a criterion for a person with rights?

I'll clarify my question:
I saw that you wrote that you have no reasoning in the answer before. So the statement is simply “empirical”? You see that you attribute rights only to those with free will and therefore generalize and state so?

Initial intuition