On Indifference and Denial – Our Attitude toward Animals (Column 45)

Where does the validity of morality toward animals come from..
And where does the validity of morality toward a human being come from?
Morality is a subjective category, just as good and evil are subjective categories.

So you see the acts of the slaughterers as immoral..
But another person sees them as moral..
And there is no way to decide.

You are conflating two claims that are really not identical:
1. Moral claims are subjective (that is, they are neither true nor false).
2. Moral claims cannot be proven (or are disputed).
I agree with 2 (in a certain sense) but disagree with 1.
Think about the prohibition against murdering human beings. Even there, even if it cannot be proven, someone who says murder is permitted is mistaken. Even if the whole world says otherwise – I am still certain that it is forbidden to murder. True, I won’t be able to prove it, and it is still true.
Now notice that even regarding claims that can be proven, the proof is always based on axioms. But the axioms themselves cannot be proven (by virtue of being axioms). Therefore, by the criterion you proposed, based on provability, there are no true claims at all.

I’d been waiting for this post 🙂 Let’s hope animals will suffer a little less because of it.

A few comments:

1) Regarding leather products, I’ve heard opinions that leather is a byproduct of the meat industry, so consuming it does not add to animal suffering but merely makes use of byproducts that would exist anyway. The same goes for whey, which is sometimes added to protein powders. So at least regarding these two, it seems to me one can be lenient as long as there are byproducts that would otherwise be thrown away.

2) Another recommendation is to prefer fish over meat. It seems to me that the suffering in the fish-farming industry is minimal relative to the suffering caused to sheep and poultry. Beyond that, it seems to me that the experience of suffering in fish is milder than that of mammals and birds.

3) Regarding the “Chai Bari” certification, there are also restaurants that work only with Chai Bari animal products (their website has full details about points of sale and restaurants).

4) As a regular Chai Bari consumer, from a conversation I had with the butcher, he told me he can distinguish between Chai Bari meat and regular meat from the difference in color, smell, texture, etc. (which only shows how much difference there is between regular meat and Chai Bari meat).

5) From my experience with a vegan diet, someone who doesn’t make sure to eat a rich and varied diet can end up with health problems. So I recommend that the vegans among us check their blood vitamin D level every six months to a year – you have to ask the doctor specifically, because a regular blood test doesn’t include it.

1. It’s a kind of paradox – because on the one hand you argue that there is objective morality whose source is self-evident ethical axioms.. on the other hand you admit that their objectivity cannot be proven because they are axioms. The problem is that even this axiom – that there are ethical axioms – cannot be proven… and who says there are ethical axioms at all? Ethics is a product of subjective human decision, not something objective, and the term “axiom” does not belong in ethics.

2. You won’t be able to prove that murder is forbidden, and therefore it is subjective. It would be objective and true if everyone thought it was wrong to murder.

Why does the fact that the ethical axioms cannot be proven mean that they are not correct? They are correct even without the ability to prove them; that’s what every reasonable person believes, and apparently you believe such unproven things too. Of course you can always retreat into skepticism, and then indeed there is nothing to answer, only to show you that you yourself believe as well. If I’m not mistaken, that’s how I understood the rabbi’s words.

You are right. Every person should do what he can to prevent harm and suffering to animals. It is every person’s duty to correct the distortion.
Still, I don’t see a reason to compare them to the human beings murdered in the Holocaust. You emphasized the difference, but I did not see a reason to create this childish comparison.
Abuse of animals is something wrong, reprehensible, and forbidden. Entirely apart from the millions of Jews murdered in the Holocaust and the hundreds of thousands being killed in Syria.
If the difference between animals and people is so clear, where does the comparison begin?

The comparison was not made on the level of the act itself, but on the level of our ignoring atrocities. On that level, the comparison is precise. Atrocities are taking place and we are silent and even assisting.
When one wants to clarify a point, one takes as an example a case about which there is agreement and shows that this is similar to that. In my view it is completely similar.

If so, I agree.

A question out of ignorance:
Are there representatives promoting legislation to improve the storage conditions and treatment of animals in slaughterhouses, etc.? (Of course that does not detract from what each person should do on his own home turf.)

As far as I know there is such activity, but there is a strong lobby against it and it is not making much progress. Every now and then there is this or that achievement. Even when a law is passed it is not really enforced. It seems to me that the ban on force-feeding geese had a relatively significant effect (though I understand that even there there are enforcement problems).
Most of the activity is carried out by organizations (mainly of צעירים) outside the governmental system.

Neriya (next time, please enter an independent comment and not as a reply to Oren’s words),
You are again repeating the same mistakes. I already explained, and I’ll repeat it again:
A. On the conceptual level there is no paradox here. You keep conflating the question of the truth and objectivity of a claim with the question of agreement and proof for it. Objective truth may exist even if there is no agreement about it and no proof for it. If the theory of relativity is true (that is, it correctly describes the facts), then it is so even if no one agrees with it and even if we have no proof for it. And conversely, if people agree, that does not mean the claim is true, and certainly not that it is objective (at most it is intersubjective). They may agree on nonsense. The objective truth of a claim means that there is a correspondence between the content of the claim and some external standard (a fact or an ethical principle), regardless of the question of agreement about it. I suggest you read what I wrote in the fourth notebook on ethics and the meaning of moral claims.
B. Even a proof of some claim merely grounds it on other claims. There is no proof that does not rest on axioms. By your standards there is proof of nothing. Even when you see something with your own eyes, someone can claim that your eyes deceive you, and you will not be able to prove to him that he is wrong. Is what your eyes see not an objective truth in your opinion? If not, then there is no point in arguing. That is simply a skeptical position, and arguing with such a position is pointless.
In short, bring me one thing that you do accept as objective truth, and show me how you prove it to everyone who disagrees with you.

I am not a skeptic. But there is a huge difference between what has to do with a person’s decisions about reality, and the conclusions he draws from reality. The former depends on the person, on will and personality, “the private domain of consciousness,” and not on some objective thing outside the person.

For something to be objective, there has to be both an external standard and the ability of every person to recognize that external standard.
I cannot prove that I see. But I can prove that the eye receives and detects particles, just as I can prove that about a camera.
In morality there is no external standard, and no ability for another person to recognize that external standard. It is an inner decision of the person.

If the rabbi explains the concept of murder as a social concept and social convention, I understand. But if it is a feeling that exists in everyone.. then how is all of human history full of murders? How is murder treated as a trivial matter in Arab countries?

I don’t think I’m right. I would like to read the rabbi’s writings on objectivity and subjectivity.. especially in the context of ethics. If possible, a link would help

Thank you for the food for thought. Two comments:

a) It is worth noting that Maimonides explains that certain commandments, such as sending away the mother bird and “it and its offspring,” are meant to instill in us the trait of compassion, quite apart from the question of the animal’s suffering. Even if it has no consciousness and does not suffer, we still experience this as causing suffering to another, and that is wrong and corrupts one’s character.

b) This whole issue reminds me of Jews abroad who want to eat kosher and have to pay more; in short, when we want something and it matters to us, then it’s possible.

Rabbi Michi – more power to you. In my humble opinion, however, it would still have been better to avoid the comparison to the Holocaust, for various reasons.

I attached your post to a response I wrote about a year ago, and this is the content of the post:

Why do we slaughter animals and eat them? – something about eating meat
*****************
The Torah did indeed permit eating meat, and I am not a vegetarian, but I must note that there really is significant tension between natural morality and the Torah’s permission.
Natural morality conveys that there is cruelty in killing animals in order to eat them. Fair enough if there were no other choice, then our lives come first, but slaughtering animals in order to enjoy their meat appears to be an imperfection in the human being.
In the Mishnah in Kiddushin (4:14) it says that “the best of the butchers (= slaughterers) is Amalek’s partner.” The Tiferet Yisrael explains there: “Since he is engaged all day in bloodshed, he becomes cruel by nature like Amalek, who fought against Israel not in order to inherit their land and not to take their money.” The very massive occupation with taking the life of animals instills cruelty in the human heart.
Abarbanel (on Parashat Re’eh), in the name of Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, writes “that there is in meat-eating hot cruelty and overflowing wrath in killing animals.” And he himself writes: “And what seems most correct to me in this exposition is that meat was forbidden to man because of his perfection, and was permitted to Noah and his sons because of the wickedness of their nature.”
That is, the entire permission to kill animals and eat them is only bedi’avad, like the beautiful captive woman in war. The permission stems from the murky nature of human beings.
And what shall we say, and how shall we justify ourselves today, when in the food industries animals are made to suffer in a shocking and wholesale manner?
In the end, I am not vegetarian (at least not yet), and I live with this dissonance, but I do not see fit to rationalize the craving for meat as something the Torah desires and to go on at length about how good it is to eat meat. The Torah does not desire it, but rather comes to terms with human nature, just as it does not desire slavery, or divorce, or wars.

Hello Yosef.

First, it is unclear to me whether your argument here is halakhic or moral. If we are talking about halakhah, it is doubtful whether one can expound the reason for the verse and expand the commandments we were commanded in this way. And if we are talking about morality – what does expounding the reason for the verse add for me? It is obvious even without that that one should not cause suffering and should try not to be cruel.

As for your argument that even if there is no suffering there is value in preserving our character traits (so that we do not become cruel), according to this view it seems to me more fitting to forbid it to the breeders, but not to the consumers. It is difficult to say that there is here aiding a transgressor (aiding a person to corrupt himself is a bit remote).

Beyond that, even if certain commandments are intended to instill compassion in us, that does not mean this is unrelated to the suffering of animals. The instilling happens by our not causing them suffering. If they had no suffering (at least when it is clear to us that they have no suffering), perhaps there would also be no corruption of our own character traits.

As for the willingness to pay, well said. Offhand it seems to me that people are willing to pay for halakhah and not for morality.

Hello Rabbi. We are a page intended to expose Facebook users to truthful information about eating meat in Judaism, in contrast to the disinformation that propaganda bodies plant in the sources in order to present Judaism as a religion that requires people to be vegan.

Despite what the page name may imply, and unlike many pages on social media, we respect those who chose to be vegan and do not try to harm others, and we are completely against smears or attempts at coercion from any side.

A. The rabbi wrote very important things, and we would be happy to receive permission to publish them on our page.

B. We would be happy to know why the rabbi sees veganism as a value, while great figures of our tradition, including prophets, Tannaim, and Amoraim, ate meat and other animal products. Assuming that the industry offends the conscience (because from the rabbi’s words it appears that it does not necessarily offend halakhah), then the rabbi should have called on people to consume meat and animal products in a humane way, without reaching total abstention from them. That is what we advise many of those who turn to us, including vegetarians/vegans who understand the problems involved in total abstention.

The problems in question are both halakhic (the obligation to eat meat on festivals and Sabbaths) and ideological (see the realization of Rav Kook’s warnings in “A Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace” in the verbal and physical violence that, unfortunately, has become the norm among animal-rights organizations, and the problematic attitude of many vegans, including religious ones, toward animal sacrifices).

Hello,

Let me begin by saying that I join in the rejection you expressed toward all propaganda and disinformation. It is especially irritating when this is done in the name of fashionable ideas (like distributive justice and concern for the weak, for women, and for peace, etc. A lot of nonsense is said and written in these contexts). But here, in my opinion, this is a marginal phenomenon. Whenever there is a social movement (and all the more so when it acts for just goals and is met with thunderous neglect and indifference – see below), there are extremists on the fringes of the camp (cf. Rabin’s murder or the Hilltop Youth). That does not invalidate the movement, and it is a mistake to see this as the whole picture. The same is true of vegetarianism and veganism. Such a view is itself extremism and propaganda that spreads improper disinformation. I am entirely in favor of bringing up the relevant arguments in all directions, but this must be done fairly on all sides.

A. As far as I’m concerned, you and anyone else may publish these things on your page or anywhere else.

B. I see veganism as a value in a situation where animal-based food is produced under conditions of abuse. The very slaughter and eating of animals is an additional virtue, but that is not what I addressed here.
Incidentally, I did not say this does not violate halakhah, only that I am not dealing with the halakhic question because it is formal and less important here. Personally, I tend to think there is a halakhic problem here as well (human use that involves such abuse is certainly reasonably forbidden. Beyond that, see my article on the categorical imperative in halakhah and below here in section 3).

As for the great figures who consumed animal products, I will answer on three levels:
1. They did so before the industrial age, when this did not involve abuse.
2. As for the additional virtue (of not eating animal products at all), in my opinion the world has advanced, and today people are at a higher level in their attitude toward animals (perhaps because of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Today we are in a more comfortable economic and nutritional situation, and therefore we can care about subtler values and interests).
3. It is doubtful to what extent in our age it is possible at all to consume animal products without abuse. For now it is somewhat possible (and no solution is probably completely humane), because the number of consumers and the quantities are small. When this becomes a general law, it will be very difficult to implement (the food will be extremely expensive, if possible at all in those quantities). According to Kant’s categorical imperative, what cannot become a universal law is immoral even now. That is another reason not to consume animal-based food at all. On the status of the imperative in halakhah – see here:
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%94%D7%A6%D7%95-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/

C. As for the halakhic and ideological problems, I do not see this as a problem.

Halakhically.
One can rejoice on a festival without meat, especially when there is no meat of peace-offerings, and when eating meat involves such a moral problem. I will remind you here that already from the Talmud onward, and later throughout the generations, sages who saw a market failure or some kind of problematic situation were prepared to infringe clear halakhic values (such as forbidding an etrog on Sukkot or matzah on Passover) in order to lower prices or solve problems of exploitation. It seems to me that the abuse taking place today certainly justifies similar action, and forbidding meat, which harms the mitzvah of festival delight, is small change compared to forbidding an etrog on Sukkot or matzah on Passover.

Ideologically.
1. Rav Kook himself spoke of a time that would come when this virtue would be desirable.
2. Moreover, the violence used today does not seem to me to be an ideological problem. It stems from the moral commitment of good people who see the systematic abuse of animals and nobody listens to them. With all the necessary distinctions, how would you relate to Germans who used violence against Nazis abusing Jews? Would you condemn them for violence? Is the problem here really verbal violence? People see cruel and systematic abuse with broad social backing, and it is no wonder that some of them come to verbal and even physical violence.
4. The consequentialist consideration (opposing vegetarianism because of concern about violence) is always problematic. To my mind, this is similar to the problem the Haredi and conservative establishment sees in secular education, when they point out that those who engaged in it became secular in large numbers. My argument here is twofold: A. Secularization was also created because of this very attitude, which pushed people out. B. If secular education is something right and good, then consequentialist considerations have only limited place. One is obligated to do the right thing because it is right, and to try to avoid problematic consequences. But it is unreasonable to refrain from doing it, despite its being right, because of the consequences. That is a proper policy only in extreme cases.
5. The attitude toward animal sacrifices has its basis in Rav Kook. This is not an ideological problem but progress. What will happen in the future when sacrifices become relevant? I assume there will be a debate and it will then be decided what to do. It is possible they will decide to sacrifice anyway, and it is possible that something in halakhah will change. Perhaps by then technological possibilities will arise to do this without abuse. Perhaps the values will be different. There is no way to know today. Why trouble yourself with the hidden matters of the Merciful One? We must do what seems right to us today and not worry about future decisions. The Sanhedrin of that time will decide. I do not see in this any ideological or halakhic problem. On the contrary, refraining from proper judgment and proper conduct merely because of conservative fears about the future seems to me a halakhic and ideological problem. We should trust the competent institutions that will then exist to make the right decisions, and not make the decision for them. We make decisions for ourselves, and Jephthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation.

I liked it, well done. There really is a generational gap; it will take time until we reach this vision. But my awareness has expanded toward thinking in this direction, because to tell the truth, it never interested me before..

Hello Barak.
I nevertheless suggest taking upon yourself to do something, even something small, in that direction. The masters of ethics have already taught us that an awakening that does not move into practical channels is bound to fade away, and that the heart follows the deed.

Hello Rabbi,

The rabbi wrote that in his opinion the disinformation and the violence are a marginal matter. From our attempts to assess what is happening on the ground, it emerges that this is the very heart of the movement. We hardly ever encounter people who themselves visited farms and saw what they are protesting against, sometimes while displaying verbal violence. Even the rabbi himself referred to a body in which we found disinformation and violent statements more than once. On the other hand, we have often encountered farmers pouring out their hearts about the bad name they get. They claim that they themselves would lose a great deal of money if they did not take care of the animals they raise, and from the little we know of the agricultural world, they are probably right.
Has the rabbi himself visited enough farms and met with farmers before publishing these things?

We too see raising animals under abusive conditions as something that should be reduced to a minimum, but we still haven’t understood why one has to get to the point of veganism. On the contrary, one should encourage as much as possible the farms that try to reduce suffering and purchase their produce. On the other hand, with modern farming methods, moving to veganism does not actually prevent animal suffering at all, but merely transfers it from cows and chickens to rodents and reptiles. In fact, meat from a grazing cow involves far less animal suffering than vegetables that came from a sprayed field.

As for our spiritual state compared to what existed in the period of the Sages and the prophets: indeed, one can point to a trend of rising spiritual levels and the establishment of a hierarchy of needs containing more and more spiritual needs, but the question is whether the animals’ turn has arrived while human beings still brutally trample one another’s status. How can buying a plant-based product for which children in China or Africa were exploited, or on which wages were merely withheld here in Israel, receive a stamp of morality? Are those human beings less important than animals, and are the explicit Torah prohibitions violated against them less important than the required prohibition (which may not even exist) of causing suffering to animals?

Regarding the obligation to eat meat, from Maimonides, Laws of Oaths (6:11), it emerges that someone who does not eat meat necessarily nullifies festival joy and Sabbath delight. Even if we assume that buying meat from most farms is a mitzvah that comes through a transgression, someone who seeks to fulfill mitzvot must pursue the “acceptable” meat. This is yet another reason why it is hard for us to understand how the rabbi sees a state of neglecting mitzvot as an ideal, instead of calling on people to continue fulfilling the mitzvot, only by means considered humane.

From an ideological perspective:
1. Rav Kook himself wrote: “It is obvious that we cannot at all determine times for that exaltation, and it is placed in that broad expression that includes various lofty qualities, each greater than the other: the expression ‘in the future to come,’ which also includes within it ‘the coming of the Messiah’ and ‘the resurrection of the dead.’” It is somewhat problematic to say that we have reached that time.
2. Violence toward human beings for the sake of animals is problematic, unless one starts from the premise that animals are equal in status to human beings. We often ask vegans how it is possible that they consume luxury products such as vegan ice cream and pizza when they know that their production involves the killing of animals in fields (which for some reason does not merit the term “murder,” unlike the slaughter of cows and chickens). If the condition of animals were really so deeply important to them that they are willing to resort to violence for it, they would not consume such products and certainly would not think them moral.
We see in this state of affairs an accurate analysis by Rav Kook of what he wrote to his son, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda: “And not to be taken captive after those who skip over the mountains of the animal-suffering movement, for most of them, it seems, have in the depths of their spirit a hidden mire of hatred of humanity and all the traits that branch out from and are wrapped up with it” (Igrot HaRe’iyah, letter 912).
3. בעקבות דבריו הנ"ל של הרב קוק ודברים נוספים שכתב ב"חזון הצמחונות והשלום" ובעקבות מידע רב שאנחנו נחשפים אליו אנחנו נוטים לחשוב שלא מדובר בתוצר לוואי אלא במשהו אינהרנטי ביחס בעייתי לבני אדם. לא שאנחנו חושבים חלילה שכל הטבעונים או אפילו רובם הם סוציומטים. אבל מי שנותן את הטון בתעמולה הטבעונית (ומהווה את מקור האינפורמציה הכמעט יחידי בנושא) לא בוחל בפגיעה ישירה (אלימות פיזית ומילולית) או עקיפה (שקרים) בבני אדם.
And if we pause for a moment and look through the lens of the Jewish hierarchy of values, then overall this is a tiny gain compared to the potential for much greater damage. It is not worth falling into the sins of falsehood, slander, and the like in order not to violate causing suffering to animals (and even that is not certain to apply).
4. Indeed, it is impossible to know what sacrifices in the Temple will be like, but since in our prayers we explicitly ask the Holy One, blessed be He, to return and offer animal sacrifices, we are obligated to believe with a full heart that this is what will happen, and hopefully in our own days. Quite a few religious vegans whom we have encountered told us that in their opinion there necessarily will not be animal sacrifices, which leads us to wonder how much of this comes from faith and how much from a desire to impose an alien wishful thinking on Judaism. After all, those vegans stand in prayer before the King of kings and ask Him for this to happen; how is it possible that just hours later they write before the public at large that this is not going to happen (some of them even wrote to us that if it does happen, they will take no part in it)

Hello,

1. My experience is completely different. And I must say that so great a difference raises sad thoughts in me about your bias in interpreting reality and the sources (and perhaps also mine?…). See more on this below.
2. The farmers are interested parties, so a priori they are less trustworthy. Of course a person defends his livelihood. In matters of kashrut too, do you believe the seller and not the rabbi who supervises him? (Bias, as we already said?)
3. In our world, information is gathered in various ways. Not everyone visits farms, neither on the vegan side nor on the other side. Critically evaluating information is an art one needs today, and there is no escaping it. I do not know whether you have performed an experiment in a particle accelerator, and whether you nevertheless trust relativity theory and quantum field theory. Alternatively, have you visited the White House and verified that the president is Barack Obama? And yet I dare guess that you too agree to that fact. Is there no bias here?
4. Indeed, it is certainly important to consume food without abuse. I will again repeat things that you are putting in my mouth without basis. I did not write that one must reach veganism, only that it is a virtue. What must be done is to prevent abuse. I have no problem with those who consume food without abuse. But there are almost none such, and my problem with the indifferent is much greater than with the vegans (even the militant ones).
5. The argument about transferring the problem to rodents and reptiles has been discussed somewhat here on the site, and my impression is that it is inaccurate and unnecessary. Beyond that, these are lower animals. Moreover, their suffering is for a relatively short time, unlike the raising of farm animals with ongoing suffering for months and years. But yes, one should think about that as well and look for ways to improve that too.
6. The time for animals has definitely come, and that does not contradict acting to improve the condition of human beings. If this struggle itself does not prove that the time has come, then you will never reach the conclusion that it indeed has. You are simply postponing the end.
Beyond that, concern for animals does not contradict concern for human beings. And as I wrote in my remarks, those who are not careful about causing suffering to animals do not refrain because of concern for human beings. That is demagoguery. They are simply indifferent, that’s all. There is no need to wrap it in ideology. It is simply more convenient and easier to ignore. I repeat and remind you that Rav Kook did not speak about abuse but about refraining from eating. I very much doubt he would have justified abuse with this argument that human beings also suffer. And even if he did – then I disagree with him on that.
7. What you say about Maimonides, Laws of Oaths, is simply incorrect for several reasons. First, prima facie, from there it follows that the oath takes effect on this, even though an oath does not take effect on something that is already a mitzvah (for one is already sworn from Sinai. True, one could discuss the laws of adding or including, but this is not the place). Second, the arguments there are arguments intended to persuade him to annul his oath, not halakhic arguments. After all, that entire halakhah is brought there in the context of oaths a person did not regret (see there, halakhah 10). And in general, most people do not eat beef on a festival but poultry. Do you think they thereby nullify festival delight? Especially today, when there is no meat of peace-offerings.
And in general, it seems strange to me that in order to examine the force of the obligation to eat meat on a festival, you turn to the Laws of Oaths (and even there you err). Go and see the Laws of Festivals and the Book of Commandments, and for some reason you will discover other things there. So why do you ignore that? For a brief and non-exhaustive discussion, see Rabbi Slosz’s article in the Bar-Ilan weekly page 1082 (Parashat Re’eh, 5774). That is just one random source, but of course there are also detailed halakhic discussions on this.
This discussion clearly shows that you are selectively collecting sources and interpreting them tendentiously, exactly as those you accuse of bias do.
8. Ideologically.
1. Fine shades of wording from Rav Kook are ridiculous. At most one can learn a general direction from him. Are these verses, where every tiny mark obligates us to hyper-precise exegesis? Beyond the general direction, the application remains to each person’s common sense. And even if Rav Kook says otherwise – then I, the small one, disagree with him. I did not cite Rav Kook as a source of authority but as an example of the way an important rabbi and decisor thinks.
2. Incorrect. Violence toward person A, who is attacking person B, does not indicate equality of value. That is simply a logical mistake. If the greatest sage of the generation attacks a fool and pursues him to kill him, one may kill him under the law of a pursuer. And that is not because their value and status are equal. Likewise one may discuss a Jew pursuing a gentile (Rav Shach proves from Jonah, who was thrown into the sea, that the law of a pursuer applies here, unlike the Minchat Chinukh, who wrote that one may not kill him. But regarding wounding a Jew who is pursuing a gentile, Sefer Hasidim wrote that it is permitted, and that is our topic here).
I am certainly not in favor of violence, but I admit that I need fairly complex explanations to explain why. What I wrote is that I understand why there are some (a negligible minority) who come to violence, and this is partly because of attitudes that ignore the problem (like yours, with all due respect).
The conclusion in favor of Rav Kook’s description from people who eat ice cream is simply a bad joke. Permit me to ignore that demagogic nonsense.
3. I again remind you that under the law of a pursuer it is permitted to kill. I am of course not making a comparison (and again I will remind you that I oppose violence), but your argument is highly simplistic and also factually incorrect (it is not true that there is a violent majority. That is very far from the truth).
4. In our prayers we also ask for the Exilarchs who are in Babylonia. A considerable part of the prayer needs refreshing, and that generally speaking. I assume that Rav Kook too prayed for this despite holding that animal sacrifices would be abolished in the future to come.
This “alien” wishful thinking is not alien at all. To the best of my judgment, morality is not alien to Judaism. One can also learn values from groups that do not come from the study hall (lest you forget, Rav Kook spoke of that as well). Secular Zionism too is a foreign branch (part of the Springtime of Nations), and in my view its foreignness is greater than concern for animals.

The one place of my disgrace that was exposed by the article is that I don’t know how many times the phrase “Your words are exaggerated, O Companion” appears in the Kuzari.
First, the comparison between Syria and the claim about the United States is ridiculous. The claim about the U.S. is made because it is our friend, a claim of the sort: how can you say you are my friend if you did such-and-such?
What is the argument regarding Syria? That I don’t care that my enemies are slaughtering each other? That is exactly why arguments like these are seen as crazy leftism. I prefer a civil war / whatever is going on there in an enemy state, rather than that they grow stronger and wait to fight us. I have no doubt that every one of the groups there wants the destruction of Israel, and perhaps especially of the Jews. The fact that I don’t care about what happens in Syria is far from being a place of my disgrace.
The same goes for Cuba. Maybe it is not an enemy state, but it was never claimed that we are its friends. If we claimed we were its friends, there would indeed be hypocrisy there.
Regarding animals, here too you exaggerated.
I understand that you wanted to break the taboo on using the Holocaust, but to compare what is being done to animals to the Holocaust is to make a joke of it.
One might really ask how our teachers allowed us, in childhood, to commit a Holocaust against ant hills while they sat in the teachers’ room drinking coffee! The same goes for parents who educate toward genocide of cockroaches and other nasty creatures.
The reason, in my understanding, that one does not use the Holocaust to justify an argument is that it is a demagogic trick designed to arouse strong emotions, which in my opinion is what you did here.
In addition, you ignore the ultimate goal of this whole direction, for you admit that it is impossible to supply meat/eggs/milk to all these people (if all the fish of the sea were gathered for them, would it suffice them?) So what you are asking for here is worse than everyone being vegetarians/vegans, namely that the poor will be such, while the rich will obtain meat that is morally “kosher.”
So in fact the ultimate goal is indeed a vision of vegetarianism and peace, or at least a vision of vegetarianism for the poor.
In my opinion, if this is possible only by what is called abuse, then this is not abuse that is morally forbidden, just as hunting is not morally forbidden.
If it turns out that plants suffer from their growing conditions, will that sentence us to death by starvation? (At least the poor, who will not be able to obtain free-range cucumbers.)
Of course, there is also the claim that unnecessary things are being done; in that, I completely agree that it is not all right.

Hello Rani.
Well, even one more piece of information is an important thing.
Our enemies are not slaughtering themselves. This is indiscriminate mass killing of people. I have no problem if the Syrian army is wiped out in a war against ISIS and they destroy each other.
With regard to Cuba too, we are talking about abuse of civilians that apparently yields nothing.
The claim against the Americans is not based on their being our friends. You have a basic moral misunderstanding. The claim is that they should have done this regardless of the identity of those being slaughtered. From your words it appears that all we asked from them was one more friendly slap on the back to raise morale.
No systematic, long-term Holocausts were carried out in ant hills, and if there were abuses there, or if there are parents who educate their children to abuse cockroaches, then I indeed have claims against your teachers too and against those parents. You are doing what you accuse me of doing: trivialization. By contrast, my comparisons are entirely substantive (despite the differences I pointed out in my remarks).
The claim about what the final model is is a claim I myself raised. And still, in the current situation there is nothing to stop you, as someone who can afford it, from consuming meat and eggs that were raised properly. If a problem is created when all the people of the world want that, we will deal with it then. And if we reach the disgrace of starvation, I too will agree that there is room for abuses.
The difference between poor and rich is again demagoguery. If the rich can afford it, then let them be moral. If a problem arises for the poor, we will discuss it. By your logic, the rich should not give charity because the poor do not give charity. I must say that this is very strange logic in my eyes.
As I explained, the comparison to the Holocaust came to sharpen the absurdity. One uses a clear and agreed-upon situation to sharpen the situation in contexts that seem less clear to people. That is the nature of examples. Are you against using examples? According to your method there is no point in using them, for if the example differs from the thing illustrated then it misses the truth, and if it is similar to the thing illustrated then what is the point of using it? It adds nothing. Again, very strange logic in my eyes.
The statement that if something is done improperly then you agree it is not all right is a tautology. And of course it also commits you to nothing. You can remain entrenched in your indifference and declare that if something is not all right, then it is not all right (!?), without checking and without investing a gram of thought or energy in it. That itself is the indifference against which I came to warn. I am sure that many citizens in Germany, and certainly in other countries, said exactly the same things you are saying. They developed absurd theories whose sole purpose was to continue in their indifference and moral and practical laziness.

Therefore, in my opinion, all of this, including your absurd and tendentious words here, is indeed a place of your disgrace, and a major one.

Regarding the issue of insects and reptiles that came up, see the discussion at this link: https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%98%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA/
It appears in part of the comments.

I assume you are a bit younger than I am [I was born in 1938], because otherwise you would know that on President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi’s state visit to Cuba, he said that the State of Israel and Cuba had something in common:
What they had in common was – understanding.
In Cuba, the regime was friendly to the Jews; President Raul Castro lit a Hanukkah menorah!.

1. “The claim against the Americans is not based on their being our friends. You have a basic moral misunderstanding.”
To the best of my knowledge, the Chinese did not stop the genocide in the Holocaust either, nor the Belgians, the Italians, or anyone else you like; it seems to me that not even the Germans did. I think the claim is made first of all against our friends (at least theoretically), before anyone else.
In any case, even if I am wrong (wrong about what exactly? About what people blame the U.S. for? Most likely we are both right), it is not a moral misunderstanding. Surely one expects more from a friend than from a stranger. I am claiming that the main claim is about a higher level of commitment, not about the level of commitment of a stranger.
One can say about someone who argues as you do against the U.S. that he is hypocritical perhaps in the case of Cuba (I truly have no idea what goes on there), but certainly not in the case of Syria, which is an enemy state (no matter what is happening there).
2. “From your words it appears that all we asked from them was one more friendly slap on the back to raise morale.”
No, the demand from a friend to save my life while investing reasonable effort is more than a slap on the shoulder.
3. “If the rich can afford it, then let them be moral”
I am arguing that if that is the only way to raise animals in sufficient quantity, then there is no moral problem with it. There is no other way to raise animals for everyone to eat. Even if I were to think to say that this is moral for the poor but not for the well-off (which is far from clear; there is a migo here), in order for me to divert additional resources to prevent animal suffering there would need to be a moral reason superior to, for example, donating to the poor / hospitals / African children / any other assistance to human beings, who take precedence over animals. Therefore all one’s days one stands and donates to human beings.
4. “Are you against using examples? According to your method there is no point in using them”
I am in favor of using a representative example, not an example that is clearly different and is used to arouse emotions.
5. “The statement that if something is done improperly then you agree it is not all right is a tautology”
How is it that even when I agree with you, you attack me?
I didn’t say if something is not all right, then it is not all right. I said that if there is what is called “abuse” that is unnecessary, then it is not all right. That is definitely not a tautology, because one could argue that there is no moral problem at all in harming animals (which I am not claiming), and I revealed my opinion that I do not agree with that.
I don’t understand the point of this attack.

Bottom line, I do not put this on my agenda because I think it is marginal (the unnecessary abuse), and there are more important things to deal with.
The danger of excessive involvement in this issue, in my opinion, is that the left, as is its way, can instill “truths” (without holding a public debate) in the hearts of elected officials and legislate laws that will slowly deprive the poor of the ability to enjoy meat.
I can already imagine how people will lash out at someone who argues that it is okay for there to be abuse so that meat will be cheap.
I’m sorry, I have many places of disgrace, but none of them has been revealed here.

Rabbi, are you familiar with game theory? I agree in principle with your claims (regarding animal-based food, with the addition of a strong reason you omitted – sustainability), but I prefer to reach the desired result while others pay the price (veganism), not me..
As for killing Arabs in Syria, here the truth is that
I Couldn’t care less
Wars are part of nature and perhaps even a blessed part.
I admit that I probably wouldn’t have saved Jews in the Holocaust either..

All right, it seems we’ve exhausted this.

Thank you very much for the deep and thought-provoking article (as usual).

One thing bothered me: the statement that “…one can also rely on halakhic sources that explain that when something is done for human needs, there is no prohibition of causing suffering to animals. But all these are halakhic hairsplittings with no practical importance.” I do not understand how, for a halakhic person, the words of the decisors have no practical importance. The halakhic decisors throughout the generations obviously incorporated moral and meta-halakhic considerations into their rulings. If the decisors ruled that causing suffering to animals is permitted for human need, then certainly as halakhic people we must relate to that. And indeed, in my humble opinion, the medieval and later authorities who discussed the matter determined, in the overwhelming majority, that causing suffering to animals is permitted for human need up to a certain limit, sometimes defined as “excessive cruelty.”

You can say that you disagree with almost all the decisors who took this principled position (which is not connected to changes in reality that have occurred in the meantime!). But that is an important statement, and it ought to be explained.

Hello Tomer. I wrote that quite deliberately, because the substantive question I dealt with is not a halakhic one. The fact that something is halakhically permitted does not mean that it is moral. Therefore I have no interest in entering the halakhic question whether those decisors were right or not. The question I raised is the moral question. For my view of the relationship between halakhah and morality, see essay 15.

Okay. I think that for a halakhic person it is strange to ignore the fact that the decisors throughout the generations (until the very last generations, including Rabbi Feinstein for example) apparently thought that this was moral (for after all, “excessive cruelty” was indeed forbidden, so it seems the decisors did take the moral consideration into account). Not that one cannot disagree, but it deserves to be addressed.

Another point. It is proper to make an essential distinction whether we are concerned for the animals themselves (as Maimonides held) or for the good character traits of human beings (as Nahmanides held). From your words above about the duties of man and not about the rights of animals, I understood an inclination toward Nahmanides’ view. If so, the problem is essentially different from cases of mass murder of human beings, because here society assists only a small number of people – a few workers in the food industry – in committing a transgression.

The words of the decisors until our day are not relevant at all, since industrialization changed the situation from one extreme to the other. Beyond that, the decisors speak about halakhah and not about morality (“excessive cruelty” in halakhah is not necessarily “excessive cruelty” morally).

I am really not in Nahmanides’ direction (as you can see from everything I wrote. I do not understand how you managed to interpret me in that direction when all my words were the opposite). When I said that animals do not have rights, that does not mean we act for our own sake. That is a confusion of concepts. Charity is given to the poor for his sake, not for mine. And yet he has no right to receive charity (this is Yoreh De’ah, not Choshen Mishpat. He cannot sue me in court if I did not give him charity).

I think the words of the decisors are relevant. True, they are not speaking specifically about today’s meat industry, but they do mention concrete examples of suffering (trimming beaks, etc.), and say in principle that such suffering, which in many cases is not far from the suffering in the industry, is permitted for human need.
I think that when decisors speak about cruelty, the sharp distinction between halakhah and morality does not hold. Decisors certainly do mix in meta-halakhic considerations, and here it is clear that they are speaking about morality. Again, not that one cannot disagree, but it is a disagreement.

On the second issue, I accept your words regarding my misunderstanding of your position.

Why was Arik’s comment left without any response?!

With God’s help, 28 Tevet 5777

It seems to me that even from a purely utilitarian perspective, a bird or an animal living in comfortable, non-tormented conditions will yield far greater “output” – milk, eggs, and meat that are richer and healthier, greater in quantity and better in quality. Research and development should be encouraged for methods that will increase the welfare of the animals and thereby also increase their economic efficiency, and “at the end of the day” the consumer too will come out benefiting.

We are privileged that the Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel, is working energetically to improve the condition of the animals used in the food industries and to reduce their suffering. In my humble opinion, anyone who can should support him with encouragement, ideas for improvement, and relevant information.

With blessings, S.Z. Levinger

Hello and blessings!
What is the rabbi’s opinion regarding eating fish? Is it different from poultry and meat?
Do you, in practice, refrain from eating them?

Thank you very much

Yes. It became clear to me (from my daughter) that they too are abused no less. Still, I won’t deny that for me this is not too heavy a price, because I personally don’t like fish all that much. I’m sure information can be found online.

There is a moral way to consume food from animals: eating animals that died a natural death, or that were mortally wounded by other animals. This way also contributes to sustainability. Instead of the dead animal rotting away for nothing, we will make use of its flesh as food. We shall soar on wings like eagles and renew our strength!

Torah-observant Jews will have a problem with the prohibitions of carcasses and torn animals, but even for us there will remain the possibility of being nourished by fish and locusts that died at a ripe old age.

With blessings, Shelly Nuna

To the rabbi, hello and blessings

What is your opinion regarding dairy products? Is the suffering caused to cows indeed significantly greater than the suffering caused to rodents and rats during vegetable cultivation?
The suffering of poultry is certainly much greater, and I try to refrain from poultry and eggs, and the question is only about milk and its products [it is not so practical for me to obtain free-range products]

Thank you very much

I am not expert in the details, but as far as I know they suffer very greatly and continuously. This is unlike rodents and rats, whose suffering is usually not prolonged, but at most they die. Certainly there is no systematic infliction of suffering there.

Today they sent me an article by Rabbi Aviner. I was very glad to read it:
http://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D/

Hello,

There is a kind of ambiguity in the article,

A few important points need to be clarified. Regarding the difference between vegetarianism and veganism. And also what (in your view) the ideal state is supposed to be in a corrected world. It seems to me that vegetarianism is more harmonious in general.

But specifically today, because of the treatment of animals and the way they are raised, one could support veganism for a religious reason as well, seemingly.

What about the argument of some vegans that consumption of eggs and milk also reinforces the bad treatment of animals? Is there value in vegetarianism alone? In refraining from eating the animals themselves as such.

There is no doubt that this is one of the more interesting articles, though I am not vegetarian/vegan at the moment.
Without nonsense or attempts to promote the phenomenon specifically for health reasons (whether that is true or not)

I do not know what ambiguity you are talking about.
I do not know what will happen in a corrected world, or even what is supposed to happen there. I know that abusing and causing suffering to animals is bad. That is all. Therefore, whatever prevents that is good. That is my claim here, and it seems to me completely clear.

Thank you for the reply.

There are vegans (it is obvious which segment of them) who think that vegetarianism is a kind of hypocrisy. That is what my question was about.

And I was supposed to address those arguments, otherwise the article is ambiguous? What is there to say about that?
Clearly, from the standpoint of causing suffering to animals, it is preferable to be vegan, but vegetarianism too is progress. I do not see this as a great novelty or as something that requires discussion. It clearly follows from my words and from common sense.

You contradict yourself in this article.
At the beginning you wrote that the excuse that there are more important things, etc., is not correct, because we are not really constantly occupied with eradicating poverty and saving Syrian refugees.
But at the end of the article you call on people to buy animal foods from certain farms that avoid causing suffering to animals, and what is the price at those farms? Three times as much.
So yes, I would rather give that same money I would spend on expensive eggs to the poor. And that is something I actually do, and something I do think about. Granted, not eradicating poverty, but helping the city charity fund – certainly yes.

At the same time, I agree with the spirit of the article; it got me thinking about the issue, and thank you for that.

Yoav, where did you see a contradiction in my words? I wrote that it costs more, and that is completely true. I wrote that with the extra money we generally do not support the poor, and that is also completely true (did it occur to you that my words are true for every single person on the globe?!). Is there any contradiction between these two claims?
What then? You write that in your specific case the second claim is not true. Fine, good for you.

Because if you agree that the same money that could alleviate the suffering of animals could alleviate the suffering of poor human beings, only we do neither this nor that, then it would follow that you should call on people to help the poor.

Again, one can certainly argue that the issue of animal suffering is more important than giving more charity; one can argue that that is passive omission (I am not the one who made them poor), whereas this is active participation (because it assists those who cause suffering to animals). But that is not the argument in the article.

So where is the contradiction? And besides, yes, I did write in the article that with causing suffering to animals we are partners.

One thing is unclear: is the article meant to slaughter cows, or to prevent that?

By the way, regarding the issue of suffering, does anyone know whether scientific research and development are being conducted with the aim of raising the suffering threshold of animals?

True, there is a certain ugliness in such intervention in the psyche of animals, but it seems that the gain outweighs the loss, and if breeds that are not sensitive to suffering really are developed, then the problem of causing suffering to animals would be solved.
(And as for those who claim animals have rights and ownership over their own existence, let them keep what is theirs, and it is a pity to enter into deep discourse with them).

Here are some things I wrote a few years ago and published in a limited framework. Worth thinking about, in my humble opinion..

Studies conducted in recent years prove that plants too have emotions. If one speaks harshly to a plant, it is offended, and vice versa. According to this, it is fairly clear that when one plucks an apple from a tree, it suffers terrible suffering (except that one must consider whether the tree suffers, or the apple, or both..). It probably even screams cries of terror that we cannot hear (as indeed brought in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, chapter 34, regarding cutting down fruit trees).
So what is the difference? Simply this: there is a hierarchy in nature – human, animal, plant, and inanimate. The more “gifted” the creature is, the closer it is to realizing the purpose of creation (however we define that). Therefore it is permitted to make use of creatures on lower levels for its needs (in a way that somehow helps it advance toward its purpose).
In other words – in eating meat there is not really a moral difficulty, but rather an unjustified emotional difficulty. We do not need to deal with an emotional difficulty on the plane of arguments and debate. Here each person will decide for himself whether he wants to overcome that emotion (through self-persuasion, repression, or however he likes), or yield to it and be vegetarian.
So much for what I wrote.

Aside from the different line of thought about vegetarianism that emerges from this, these remarks also imply that the comparison to the Holocaust is unthinkable unless we agree with the Nazi race theory that held Jews to be an inferior race and therefore justified perpetrating atrocities against them. On the assumption – which I hope Rabbi Michi agrees with – that we do not agree with race theory, it is clear that there is no similarity at all between wreaking havoc on an entity on the same level and abusing an entity on a lower level (and we are not talking about a quantitative lowering of level. An animal is an entirely different level in creation, which has no value at all relative to human beings)

My remarks deal with industrial processes and not with the very use of animals.
The comparison to the Holocaust did not presuppose identity or rights for animals. We simply do similar things to creatures that indeed have no rights (I do not recommend treating carnivores like Nazis, nor am I comparing, of course).
And regarding the suffering of bacteria, apparently creatures so lowly do not suffer.

Agreed. There is no justification for useless abuse of animals when it is not needed in order to meet the needs of the human species.

So what is the meaning of the comparison if the object of comparison is not similar?
It seems that there was mainly demagoguery here in order to illustrate the severity of the matter and shock the readers.
And if so, then it is really not fitting for you, as someone who advocates the rule of reason and the suppression of emotion in discussions of this sort.

[And perhaps it is worth checking the level of suffering of bacteria? And what about cockroaches?]

I wanted to ask: you wrote that workers in factories do not have rights, but that there are only duties owed by the employer toward the worker.
But doesn’t it seem obvious to you that workers do have rights, such as to work under decent conditions, etc.? It is not only a benefit that the employer must provide. It is also part of his being a worker. No?

If something is fixed in the contract, then of course it is a right of the worker. But when people talk about rights, they mean things beyond the contract. There are also rights that the legislator gave workers, and once he gave them, these are their rights. But even that is only by force of contract, except that here the contract is public.

Sorry for resurrecting this thread.
It is not clear to me what basis a secular atheist like me has to refrain from causing suffering to animals (for a religious person I understand there is the commandment of causing suffering to animals). After all, animals are not moral agents (like human beings), and their status is like property. The fact that they are capable of feeling and suffering does not mean that we need to care about their suffering. The reason we do not slaughter people is not because of their capacity to suffer, but because of the categorical imperative. That does not apply to animals. So what would you answer to someone who does not accept the religious command?

I have explained in several places that in my opinion a non-believer has no possible basis for valid morality. See essays 456-7. I noted that of course atheistic people behave morally, perhaps no less than religious people, but that this behavior is inconsistent (it does not fit with their atheism). But I did not understand your question. If you think (contrary to me) that morality can be grounded even within an atheistic framework, then how do you know it applies only toward a “moral agent”? How would you propose to explain that animals do not deserve not to suffer? On the contrary, in an atheistic conception I do not see how you manage to distinguish between human beings and animals. Because humans have more intelligence? And what about the mentally disabled?
For my part, I think there certainly is a difference between human beings (moral agents) and animals, but that difference does not permit abusing animals. The difference is that human beings have rights and animals do not. But human beings have duties, and part of those duties is not to cause suffering to one who feels suffering, even if he has no rights and is not a moral agent or an agent of the institution. I have distinguished in several places between acts or omissions grounded in the other’s right and acts or omissions grounded in my duties (Hohfeld’s table exists only in the legal context. Causing suffering to animals is not a legal prohibition, but a moral or halakhic one). The prohibition against abusing animals does not stem from their right, but from my duty.

First I must thank Rabbi Michi for raising this issue, with great courage relative to the environment in which he lives, and huge hats off to his daughter Rivka.
Full disclosure: I have been an activist for animals for many years, and in the operations I managed and led I saved from certain death more than 5,000 animals.
I am vegan not for reasons of health (though it is very healthy), and not for reasons of sustainability (though that is super important, and I will address it below), but for moral reasons of preventing suffering to animals.
Animals suffer in dairy sheds, in laying-hen coops, in broiler sheds, in pig farms (yes, I also care about pigs, who are wonderful and very intelligent animals), in fish ponds, in transport to slaughter, in the hours before slaughter, and in slaughter itself. The suffering is terrible beyond description. All this suffering is caused by human beings systematically, efficiently, with horrific cruelty, all for the sake of profit. And after that you still say there is no comparison between man and animal. True, there is no comparison. The cruelty of human beings and the damage they do wherever they arrive cannot be compared to what animals do, certainly not those innocent ones – cows, chickens, sheep, goats, camels, donkeys, and horses – whom man enslaves for his needs. The human being is the most superfluous and dangerous species for the continued existence of life on planet Earth.
Wherever one group claims superiority over another, the claim comes from the “superior” side. Human beings claim superiority over animals, whites claim superiority over blacks, men claim superiority over women, Jews claim superiority over gentiles, the Nazis claimed Aryan racial superiority, and so the world goes. Blacks never claimed superiority over whites, women never claimed superiority over men, and gentiles, by and large (except perhaps evangelicals), never claimed superiority over Jews.
I know that most readers here do not believe in evolution and in a continuum of animal development, and do not see us as one point on a continuum, but rather as superior creatures created on the sixth day of creation. That is one of the disasters the Torah causes to animals.
We activists for animals, who live beside them and raise them in our homes, who know their language and their behavior, their sensitivity and intelligence, the full range of different emotions they experience and express, cannot agree with the view that man is superior only because he is more intelligent.
I highly recommend reading Yuval Noah Harari’s book – “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” – which places modern man, Homo sapiens, on the continuum.

The meat and dairy industries are interconnected. The dairy industry requires impregnating the cow every year so that she will continue to produce milk. A cow in the industry is worn out after five years of continuous pregnancies and is led to slaughter. The baby she gives birth to is taken from her within an hour or two so that it will not consume the expensive milk marketed to human beings. They also ignore the explicit verse: “A bull, a sheep, or a goat, when born, shall remain seven days with its mother.” A cow in nature can live twenty years in good health if the calf is not separated from her. In half the cases the cow gives birth to a male calf, who is kept for fattening and sent to slaughter as a one-year-old child. He too could live about twenty years in nature. Here is the inextricable link between the two industries.

Who exactly gave us ownership over the lives and happiness of others? No one, really. We took ownership by force because we are strong and we can, and we do so with boundless wickedness.
It is hard not to accuse God Himself, who demands for Himself two one-year-old unblemished lambs as a burnt offering every day, or alternatively the Torah, which quotes Him and specifies explicitly what we may eat and what we may not.
When I studied Torah, they taught me that preventing suffering to animals is a commandment from the Torah. Consuming products of suffering such as meat, dairy products, eggs, and fish finances this horrifying and completely unnecessary nightmare. Financing a transgression is itself like a transgression, and I do not understand how all the rabbis are not up in arms and forbidding the public to consume all these things. I do not understand how, in religious kibbutzim, a calf is separated from its mother within an hour or two. I do not understand how, in Kibbutz Tirat Tzvi (also a religious kibbutz), they dry up fish ponds and let the fish slowly suffocate to death. (There is documentation.)
The truth is, there are rabbis who cry out and say this publicly. These are usually vegan rabbis (cf. Rabbi Asa Keisar), who nevertheless find it hard to give up leather tefillin and a Torah scroll made from animal hide.

Regarding free-range eggs. True, in free-range coops the hens are not in cages but on the ground (sometimes at a density not very different from the density in cages). At the same time, laying hens are profitable only in their first two years, and after that they are destroyed by electrocution on an assembly line (a practice also used in free-range coops), and their bodies are sent to be made into dog and cat food. I have for years raised hens rescued from battery cages, and they can easily reach seven years of life despite the horrors they went through in their youth. Cutting an animal’s life so dramatically short is also a crime, even if their lives are a bit more comfortable.

Regarding the issue of destroying rodents and reptiles by spraying in agriculture:
A. These sprays also negatively affect human health, and therefore today there is a transition to “organic” sprays that do not include harmful chemical compounds and are focused more specifically on pests alone.
B. 70% of the agricultural land in the world is designated for growing food for animals. Stopping consumption of animal products would cause an enormous drop in spraying and in the destruction of animals resulting from it.

A few more words regarding animal industries and global warming.
Today we are already feeling the warming, and perhaps also understanding how dangerous it is for the future of our grandchildren. Cattle and sheep emit methane in the process of digesting their food. Methane is a greenhouse gas thirty times more effective than carbon dioxide. If we take that factor into account, animals contribute more greenhouse gases than all fuel-powered vehicles combined (cars, ships, airplanes, trains, agricultural equipment, and more, which emit carbon dioxide). Stopping consumption of animal products is one of the greatest contributions that an individual person can make toward saving the planet.
80% of the antibiotics in the world are produced for animals in industrial agriculture. (No wonder – anyone who visits dairy sheds and chicken coops and sees the filth understands this.) Heavy antibiotic use greatly accelerates the creation of bacteria resistant to every type of antibiotic, and these in turn are a danger to the human species.
People, wake up!!! – stop consuming animal-based food – for the sake of living creatures, for the sake of your soul, for the sake of your health, and for the sake of the health of the entire planet. Tomorrow may be too late.

And one more word regarding animal rights.
The U.S. Declaration of Independence declares the three basic rights given to man by his Creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Let us begin with life – does this right also belong to animals? In my opinion, yes. Who put us in charge of their lives? Why not – because we have power, because we must eat meat, because we are the ruling species? Does our belief justify harming someone else? Maybe it is not even true?
Liberty – were a donkey or a camel meant to carry burdens all their lives, and why? Because we can? Who are we, anyway? We think ourselves the crown of creation when in fact we are the damage of creation. Were cows meant to be in a dairy shed, getting pregnant and giving birth every year and being immediately separated from their babies, lowing in abyssal sadness? Were layers meant to spend two years in a cage 30 by 40 cm, four in a cage, stepping on one another? Why? Because we can? Who are we – the damage of creation! Were sows meant to lie in gestation crates all their lives? Why – who are we? Animals have an innate right to liberty, even those animals we artificially manufacture. The right to happiness. At least the right not to suffer, if not to happiness. The right to normal lives in the environment nature intended for them, without our interference.
If I behaved toward a dog the way people behave toward farm animals, they would lynch me. So what then – what is the difference between a dog and a calf? Does a dog have rights, or is it permitted to tie him to a one-meter rope for his whole life? Obviously he has basic rights, and obviously liberty is one of them.
I do not care about Maimonides or Nahmanides or Rav Kook. Who made them authorities to determine how one should behave toward animals? If you really want to understand and know, get to the heart of the matter. Raise a pet, live beside it for a few years, and then you will be able to produce pearls of wisdom. Imagine that aliens a million years more advanced than we are took over planet Earth and decided that human flesh tastes best. We are no longer at the top of the food chain. Do we suddenly have no rights because we are only number two? The aliens think we have no rights and that we are meant for whatever purpose they want. Do you agree to that?

To the silly organization that thinks vegans are exaggerating:
I grew up on a kibbutz. I saw the dairy and the chicken coops firsthand. I saw calves less than a week old in small pens without their mother, being fed milk substitute, freezing in winter. I heard the mothers’ cries, saw the rape called artificial insemination, saw the wounds, the life in filth, the deep sadness in their eyes, the helplessness. Later I lived in a moshav full of laying-hen coops. I saw the crowding of four in a compartment the size of an A4 page for their entire short lives. I saw the daily collection of bodies of hens that couldn’t take it. I saw blood, lots of blood, horrific ammonia stench, and artificial lighting until late hours.
Vegans are not exaggerating – everything is backed by investigations from the field: from the slaughterhouse in Haifa, from the Adom Adom slaughterhouse in Beit She’an, from the pig farm in Kibbutz Lahav, from the hatchery in Kvutzat Yavne, from the fish ponds in Tirat Tzvi, from countless dairies (see “Glass Walls”), from investigations by the organization “Animals” (formerly Anonymous). You do not want to know. You want to deny it so your conscience will be more comfortable.
I am an activist. I saw everything up close. I watched films made by friends that I had to stop in the middle. My heart, my heart goes out to these intelligent and innocent and sensitive and amazing animals. Full disclosure – I am sad and depressed by this situation on a daily basis, and you are to blame for it.

There is no doubt that you are right, Yossi, and these things are painful. Humanity develops in stages. When humanity as a whole is immersed in the needs of existence and daily life, it has no emotional space to deal with others. And when human beings (as a group, not referring to isolated individuals) live in suffering and hardship, they harden their uncircumcised heart toward those they perceive as inferior to them. This moral struggle is certainly highly significant. But I fear that in practice the real turning point depends on technology and economics. A humanity that has enough can turn to thinking about others as well. And a humanity that has successful substitutes can stop repressing the moral cry. Whoever can improve the global economy or the alternatives market will make a huge contribution both to people and to animals. May it be so, may it be so.

Hello Rabbi, I did not understand your comparison between what is happening in Syria and the Holocaust. After all, the U.S. is a superpower, unlike us, for whom a conflict with countries like Russia and North Korea would endanger us.

We also do not intervene where there are no superpower threats. And the U.S., as a superpower, also pays a heavy price for its interventions.

What would count as a case where there are no superpower threats? Israel is a small country, and any intervention by it would trigger a wave of antisemitism like now in the war, and backlash, boycotts, and actions against it. And intervening in conflicts between states when you are not a superpower is often much more complicated. Do you think one can really compare the costs for the U.S. to those for Israel?
And the energy it would have to expend in order to help other countries is not comparable to what the superpowers would have expended.
And besides, as far as I understand, no reasonable justified cause can be found for the Holocaust, unlike what is happening there, for example in the Syrian conflict, where many people get the impression that the parties there are all savage human beings.