On Moral Numbness: Demonstrations, Kippah-Wearers, and Animal Rights (Column 51)
With God’s help
In a previous column (45) I dealt with our indifference to the suffering of animals. Last Saturday night (Parashat Va’era) I decided (with the gracious help of my immortal daughter Rivka, bless her) to do a little something myself, and I joined (together with her, her sister Bruriah, and my wife Dafna) a demonstration/march on Rothschild Boulevard in Tel Aviv to protest the "live shipments." Here are a few of my experiences and a few reflections.
A few background facts
Over the past year, more than half a million calves (!!!) were transported to Israel under horrific conditions on ships, most of them from Australia, a journey that lasts about three weeks. They are kept on the ship in terrible overcrowding, and quite a few of them breathe their last in infernal agony during the voyage at sea. Some have limbs torn apart, and all of them suffer terribly. Their sanitary condition, and that of those involved in handling them, is shocking. A veterinarian who accompanied such shipments, and who was described there as neither vegan nor an animal-rights activist, wrote memoirs in which she describes appalling atrocities. Many of them are slaughtered while they suffer and writhe in pain, and their carcasses are dragged away and thrown into the sea (obviously contrary to seawater health standards; an enormous quantity of waste is dumped there, many tons of effluent and infected, contaminated meat). She recounted that blood from one of the sheep slaughtered beside her caused her a burn (!!!). She measured the temperature of the blood and found that it was 47 degrees Celsius (does that sound low to you? In Jewish law, the threshold of scalding heat is 45 degrees. See an interesting calculation based on the blood temperature of animals at the beginning of Shemirat Shabbat KeHilkhatah). Among the speakers there was a lecturer from the School of Veterinary Medicine at the Hebrew University, who had been responsible for the animal-welfare law at the Ministry of Agriculture, and he said that the law is fundamentally flawed, because there is simply no chance that industrial farms raising animals for food can maintain even minimal conditions.
To my delight, it turned out that quite a few people came to the march. I had expected about a hundred people (it was a wet evening, although during the march itself it did not really rain), and in practice I would estimate there were around two thousand. Guess how many were reported in the news? As far as I saw, there was no news coverage at all (I looked for a report on the demonstration and found none. There were reports beforehand that such a demonstration was going to take place. To be sure, the next day I found an esoteric item in Walla’s animal section that probably none of you read).
My attitude toward demonstrations
I must confess that I do not usually take part in demonstrations, for several reasons. First, I do not particularly like having others speak in my name and announce to the world what my views are on various issues. Second, it is a rather humiliating feeling that, as an intelligent person, you find yourself demonstrating like everyman against the collection of fools who make decisions here. Third, in such a demonstration you feel yourself to be one among a crowd, a kind of herd, and that is not a feeling I am especially fond of. And in general, demonstrations usually do not help, especially on issues that do not particularly interest the media or the public, and certainly when the issue runs contrary to very powerful economic interests (the industrialists and breeders) and human interests (the craving for meat).
As stated, this time I decided to go out of my way and participate, if only out of a sense of frustration. Against the general denial in our circles and the disgraceful indifference (they are exaggerating, they are self-interested. See that column), I felt that if I had no ability to influence things in any other way, I still had to do something. This shocking situation truly demands some kind of action.
The composition of the demonstrators
Because of my hobby as an amateur anthropologist, I looked around me during the march to see who exactly was there. You will certainly not be surprised to hear that most of the people I saw were young Tel Avivians. Needless to say, almost no one there was wearing a kippah, and the feeling was that religious people were almost entirely absent. Some people came up to me and asked whether I was marching with them (or had simply happened to end up there by chance), apparently because my religious appearance did not seem to them to fit the general atmosphere.
I wondered to myself why this was in fact the case. Why were the kippah-wearers, who are so accustomed to demonstrations, completely absent? One explanation that occurred to me was that they are occupied with other demonstrations (Amona, the territories, terrorists), and therefore do not have the emotional energy to invest in this issue. And yet the left-wing Tel Avivians are also involved in quite similar demonstrations (Amona, the territories, terrorists), and they nevertheless came. It did not seem to me that all those present were centrists (Yair Lapid voters) with time on their hands. So that is probably not an exhaustive explanation of the phenomenon. So why, after all, were there no religious people there?
On those same Rothschild Boulevards, the housing protests took place a few years ago, and there too there was no significant religious presence. But there, that apparently stemmed from the feeling that the demonstrations were against the government and were conducted with a distinctly left-wing orientation (like the various loathsome Rabin carnivals). Beyond that, one does not especially feel called upon to identify with young Tel Avivians who want to live specifically in Tel Aviv and not a meter to one side or the other (housing prices are high in the rest of the country as well, but the demonstrations were distinctly Tel Avivian). But none of this is true in the present case. So why were there no religious people here?
Moral numbness
It seems to me that there is no escaping the conclusion that within the religious public there is a certain moral numbness. Moral questions that do not concern us do not receive much attention in this community. Concern for suffering people in the wider world, victims of disasters, victims of terror and murder, or civil wars, migrants and foreign workers, does not really interest us. And concern for animals is certainly not uppermost in our minds either.
Of course, we have plenty of excuses. There are so many nearer problems that need to be addressed. Have we solved the problem of poverty, the settlement of Judea and Samaria, public corruption (which also does not really interest us, unless it is in the other political camp), the problems in the health-care system, and the like? But if we look honestly at the situation, I think we will agree that many of us, last Saturday night, were not occupied with charity and kindness toward our fellow Jews, with addressing public corruption, the health-care system, or the poor of our own city, but were sitting at home attending to our own affairs. They could have come to this demonstration, and it would not have harmed their blessed and extensive charitable activity. So why did they not come? It seems to me that there is no escaping the conclusion of numbness.
The root of the matter
One might attribute this numbness to a focus on Jewish law. People who are committed to halakhic values are already occupied on many fronts, and therefore have less emotional room for universal fronts. But it seems to me that this indifference is not the province only of the more religiously punctilious among us. It is not only the "Shulchan Arukh Jew" who develops this numbness (although it seems that in their case it is more ideological). My explanation of the matter is different.
In the columns mentioned above, I cited Rav Kook’s words expressing concern about excessive concern for animals, since it may lead to a complete equation between human beings and them, and thereby to a loss of proper moral proportions. If we care too much about animals, we will end up harming human beings. Almost everyone I speak to about the issue of cruelty to animals responds to me with Rav Kook’s words. It seems to me that Rav Kook would turn over in his grave if he heard that he had become the main factor delaying any improvement in the condition of animals and the alleviation of their suffering. He presented us with a warning sign about a slippery slope, and because of it we are sliding forcefully and vigorously to the other side.
Thus, those who are afraid of talk about animal rights and of the extremism that leads to harm to human beings refrain from activity on behalf of animals and develop indifference to their suffering. As I wrote in the above-mentioned column, in my opinion this concern is justified. Talk about animal rights really is a loss of moral proportion. But it is hard to understand how this justified concern can justify indifference. Is such indifference a loftier moral level? The slippery slope paralyzes us and leads to inaction even in places where action is certainly justified. It causes a very dangerous numbness.
It seems to me that regarding the suffering and distress of human beings from other places and other peoples there is a similar phenomenon. The concern of many in the religious public is that excessive care for every human being as such may lead to a loss of national cohesion and concern for our own people, along the lines of: one who shows compassion to Eskimos will ultimately become cruel to Jews. Someone who sees all the inhabitants of the world as equal to us will come to belittle his commitment to his own people. Again, this is a concern that has a measure of justice to it, but this slippery slope paralyzes us and morally deadens us. It causes us to slide down the slope in the opposite direction.
An Orwellian fig leaf
It seems to me that beyond the problematic consequences of these concerns (the paralysis they produce), there is also a measure of dishonesty in the concerns themselves. My feeling is that these are all excuses that cover for laziness. It is convenient for us to ignore. We do not have the strength to deal with all this. Who has the energy to worry about animals, especially when it will cost him the meat he so loves to eat? We deny and repress, and use Rav Kook’s words (which do contain a point) as a fig leaf. We have an ideology that is so convenient, because it allows us to carry on as usual and still consider ourselves righteous in our own eyes. After all, in this way our neglect and indifference stem from an excess of moral sensitivity, how good and beautiful… And how Orwellian: war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength; and indifference to morality is the pinnacle of moral commitment and sensitivity. Thus many of us explain to ourselves and to everyone else that precisely those who express such sensitivity are the ones afflicted by immorality or distorted morality. How good and how convenient.
The model of concentric circles
Universalism is indeed a proven recipe for severe moral distortions, in my opinion no less than national chauvinism. Communism brought upon the world no fewer disasters than fascism. The Sages’ instruction the poor of your city take precedence (the poor of your own city come first), and the built-in preference for our family members and our own people with respect to charity and help, is not a moral distortion. On the contrary, universalism leads to a situation in which a person has no supportive environment, since everyone is occupied with the entire world, and in that way is actually occupied with nothing (for who can care for all the suffering in the world?!). If each person worries about his surroundings (not only geographically, but also familial and national), the condition of all of us will be better. If a state cares for the entire world and does not prefer its own citizens, its citizens will be miserable. And if every state does this, then the whole world will be a collection of miserable people. The same applies to families and communities and to all groups on any scale. There is much logic in the conception of dividing attention, resources, and energy according to a model of circles of proximity. I care more about those who populate the circle nearest to me, and less about those who populate the circles farther from me.
The model I propose is a model of concentric circles around each and every one of us, in which my concern for those who inhabit them stands in inverse proportion to their distance from me. And yet one must still take proportions into account. If, in the outer circle, people are being slaughtered, and in the inner circle they do not have yellow cheese but only white cheese, it makes sense to direct resources and attention to the outer circle. If another people is undergoing a Holocaust, then with all due respect to our own unfortunate people, it makes sense to direct resources and energies there, even at the expense of our own people. This is not absolute; it is not true that as long as someone is being murdered somewhere in the world one should not invest even a penny in local suffering. But it is certainly important to maintain reasonable proportions between the circles.
These circles are constructed so that around each person there is a nuclear family, around it a wider family, then his friends, then the members of his community, the people of his city, his people, religion, and state, then all the people of the world, and finally animal life, plant life, and the inanimate world. In this way all the inhabitants of the world are located within some relevant range, though one can still preserve hierarchy and proportion and avoid the loss of direction that everyone fears. Responsibility for a narrower circle leads to active commitment, whereas universalism is a dangerous recipe for despair and inaction, and for an improper distribution of energies and resources.
The fear of fears
In terms of this model, one can say that Rav Kook points to one danger: that erasing the boundaries between the circles will blur our commitment to the nearer circles. On the other hand, here we see the opposite danger: that focusing on the near circle blurs our commitment to what happens in the distant circles. To the best of my judgment, the correct model is neither national extremism nor universal extremism, but the intermediate and proportionate model of circles. The concerns and slippery slopes, even the justified ones, should usually be set aside.
Each of the two sides, the universal and the particular, entrenches itself in its extreme model out of fear of the dangers of the opposite extreme model, and thus we all find ourselves holding an extreme and unreasonable model. These worry about the whole world, even at the expense of their own people, and those worry about no one except their relatives and their own people. But both of these are distorted models. When fears run the world, then amid so many slippery slopes the saying of the Sages is fulfilled in us: truth will be absent (truth will be absent).
In closing I will only note that this phenomenon of conducting life in light of fears accompanies us in other areas as well. People on the left will never admit that the right was correct out of fear of a slippery slope, and vice versa. Every question in the world is divided through the prism of left and right, and it is impossible to hear a more substantive and complex position, and certainly not an admission of error. Thus we all find ourselves assigned to extreme camps that we ourselves do not really believe in. These fears ruin our lives and prevent us from acting properly.
One must understand that adopting an incorrect view because of fear may perhaps be justified, but it involves mortgaging the truth because of fear of falsehood, that is, preferring the doubtful over the certain. We willingly decide to act incorrectly now only because of the fear that perhaps we may arrive at incorrect positions in the future. The doubtful overcomes the certain. Such conduct is justified only in extreme cases and sparingly. Usually it is better to act in the way we truly think is right and proper. And certainly when there are justified concerns on both sides, the more reasonable course is to act according to what is proper and not to take the fears into account.
Discussion
To Shlomi: regarding genuinely organic eggs, to the best of my knowledge there is no difference between Nir Tzvi eggs and any other free-range eggs, because the main problem with both is that they buy chicks from regular hatcheries, where the males are ground up. Therefore, the lesser evil is regular free-range eggs, which you can buy in almost any large supermarket, or in standard health-food stores, of which there are quite a few in Jerusalem.
As for eating poultry, google “Meshek Melamed”; it’s a farm that raises organic free-range poultry. For free-range beef, google “Chai Bari.”
As for fish, to the best of my knowledge their raising conditions are far more reasonable than those of their counterparts on land in every possible respect, and that is also why many vegetarians continue to eat fish (pescatarian), and probably also why no one has set up farms for raising “free-range fish” or anything similar. Beyond that, in my opinion, the further down the evolutionary ladder you go, the lower the sensitivity to pain: thus the most sensitive is the human being, then livestock and other mammals, then birds, then fish, and finally insects.
I wanted to offer a few defenses of the religious public:
1) In a secular outlook, the hierarchy between human and animal is much less sharp than in a religious outlook, and therefore it is obvious that secular people will have more sensitivity toward animals. All the more so regarding the hierarchy between Jew and gentile, which for secular people barely exists. That explains the greater sensitivity of secular people to the distress of gentiles.
2) In the religious outlook, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave human beings animals for food just as He gave the green herb, whereas in a secular outlook there is no strong justification for eating animals at all (even when they are raised without suffering).
3) The average religious person, for whom the boundary between halakhah and morality is very blurred, to the point of nonexistence, has become accustomed not to interfere in the halakhic-moral choices of others for fear of being seen as zealous/extreme/annoying/a nag, and also because he understands that he himself is not entirely pure. This leads him to an attitude of “Who am I to rebuke others for a wrongful act? First I must correct myself.”
4) Among secular people there are no moral authorities like rabbis, so each person is “his own rabbi and decisor” (each thinks independently to the best of his ability). Religious people are used to operating in a way where authorities guide them about which demonstrations to attend, if any. The individual religious person does not think independently like his secular counterpart, because he has someone to rely on, someone to think for him and make decisions for him. As for opinion leaders in the religious public, it seems to me they prefer to save their calls for demonstrations for greater emergencies (religion-and-state issues, settlement, and the like), so as not to cheapen such calls.
5) The average secular person has greater direct exposure to animals, because secular people are more likely to keep pets like dogs/cats at home (or, if not at home, then among friends/family), and so it is only natural that they would show more sensitivity toward animals. In religious society, the whole matter of pets is much less present for various reasons.
6) The common perception is that someone who demonstrates for animals ought to be vegetarian or vegan, and any middle option (such as consuming free-range meat) is seen as hypocrisy. Among religious people, meat consumption is perceived as an integral part of a religious lifestyle (“there is no rejoicing except with meat and wine”).
7) The secular side tends more toward liberalism and openness to changes in lifestyle (such as moving to vegetarianism), whereas among religious people there is more of a tendency toward conservatism and preserving the traditional way of life.
8) The lack of gender separation and the many women dressed immodestly keep a considerable portion of religious men away from such demonstrations.
9) “Torah study is greater than a commandment that can be done by others.”
10) Religious women are more occupied with raising children than secular women are (on average), and so they are less available for demonstrations.
The overwhelming majority of secular people eat animals without any restriction. Those who cry out against cruelty to animals are a negligible fringe group, whose behavior—full of hatred and violence toward human beings, see for example Gary Yourofsky—arouses distrust toward them both among the religious and among the secular.
The one acting to the best of his ability to prevent cruelty to animals in the food industry is Minister of Agriculture Uri Ariel, and his being religious probably contributes to his motivation to advance the issue. Even the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, the Rishon LeZion Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar, ruled in his day that certification should not be given to force-fed geese because of the suffering involved in the force-feeding process, and the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef agreed with his ruling.
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
This week I read an article somewhere on the web about the most productive dairy farm in Israel, the dairy at Kibbutz Sa’ad, and its manager, Udi Shoham, says that the secret of their success is concern for the cows’ welfare. When a cow has adequate living space, ventilation all year round, and devoted, immediate treatment for every problem that arises—its milk output increases.
Hello Oren and Shlomi.
As far as I know, free-range eggs are almost like regular eggs. Free-range eggs are not the same as organic eggs, also from the standpoint of the Ministry of Agriculture. It is true that organic eggs are not perfect either, because even though the hens are raised in reasonable conditions, their source is problematic (as Oren explained).
As for fish, the situation is probably better, but still very problematic. But I don’t have organized information on the matter, and it is worth checking online. I assume it depends on the type of fish, since each kind is caught in a different place and with different methods.
S. Tz. L., you are either naive or disingenuous.
Uri Ariel is responsible (not alone, of course) for quite a few problems, and he is not really dealing with this problematic reality despite his promises. But I have no interest in getting into personal matters. The fact that there are people who act wildly only means that we should have led the struggle and done it differently. To evade the issue because of that seems to me like evading saving people because others save them in improper ways, or evading giving charity because there are unworthy givers of charity (what is the pauper’s fault?).
As for the secular people, at least among them there is that minority; not so among us.
As for Sa’ad, it is interesting that the other growers have not discovered this secret of economic success and continue energetically causing themselves losses.
Oh, holy naivete…
Hello Oren.
Indeed, an impressive defense. I agree with most of the points, and still the situation requires improvement. For our discussion, it is important to distinguish between arguments that explain why there is less motivation to demonstrate and act (such as not having time) and arguments that express a lack of moral sensitivity (such as the difference between human beings and animals). Arguments of the latter type—if they are true—actually point to moral obtuseness that one should beware of. If the distinction between humans and animals leads us to moral obtuseness—this is what I am weeping over. If we were all in a state where all this bothered us greatly but we had no time or motivation to act—fine. But my feeling is that we sense the very problematic nature of it less, and that is what I referred to as moral obtuseness.
I do not assume that we are inherently more severe than secular people, meaning that structurally we are less good. Human beings are human beings. So it is clear to me that this is mainly a difference in software. Still, it is worthwhile to be aware that our software has bugs.
Hello and blessings,
But one should reflect on the supposed moral numbness that would be the key to the difference between religious and secular people: before we ask why religious people do not demonstrate about animals (and answer that they fear solidarity toward animals at the expense of solidarity toward human beings, as a pretext and cover for numbness), let us ask why those who are not religious demonstrate in significant percentages regarding the suffering of animals and not regarding the considerable suffering of human beings, both in nearby countries and in distant ones. Surely human suffering is more intense and more morally urgent. Is there such a thing as selective moral sensitivity?? And if so—and it seems there is, and one must decipher why and to what extent and in which planes—then perhaps with regard to religious people too one can act according to the principle of kindness and identify the selective moral planes they choose to engage in according to their priorities.
Good morning,
Regarding non-participation in the demonstration—
Since you testified about yourself that you are not fond of demonstrations, it seems to me that there is an acute point missing that lies at the basis of every demonstration. For better or worse, demonstrations are social events. True, they are held in the name of ideology, but for the most part they gather people of similar character/background. Beyond the correct explanations that were offered, above them all is the fact that religious people will not go to a demonstration of secular leftists, and vice versa, no matter what the subject of the demonstration is. If such a demonstration were organized by religious people, they might come. Therefore, the question that should be asked is why the religious public does not organize such demonstrations and why it is not sensitive to moral problems of this sort (and that, above, you answered here with not-bad answers). Just as the secular-left public is sensitive to certain moral problems and not to others. People turned to you not because technically no religious people showed up, but because you are a strange and conspicuous plant at an event of another society.
To me this only illustrates that morality is not objective for anyone (despite attempts to present it as such), and everyone is affected and influenced by their views and by the society to which they belong. Not for nothing will most of those sensitive to animal suffering who go out to demonstrate not demonstrate out of concern for the condition of the evacuees of Gush Katif (who were settled there following Yitzhak Rabin’s “Five Fingers Plan,” of blessed memory) and feel almost nothing toward them—and vice versa. It is interesting that we almost never find fully moral people who are sensitive to problems of every kind and sort regardless of religion, race, and political opinion. Everyone selects for himself what suits him and is comfortable for him, and even develops contempt for the other side (the right will claim that the leftists are bleeding hearts, and the left will claim that occupiers deserve no compassion).
Also from a technical standpoint, it is impossible to be sensitive to everything and to avoid everything connected with moral wrongdoing. The perfectly moral person will not buy products made in the East under substandard conditions and in forced-labor camps, and that is already the absolute majority of what we use. So everyone inclined to morality chooses for himself (according to temperament, social affiliation, and simple convenience) a few narrow areas over which he goes out to demonstrate and according to which he changes his way of life.
As for meat itself, it seems to me that we have simply grown accustomed to being coarse toward the suffering of animals, and it is convenient for us to continue this way because we are meat-eaters and always have been (to the point that some try specifically to return to prehistoric man and eat according to the “paleo” diet).
A side comment, but an important one: apparently, although there is truth in some of the claims raised at the demonstration, the truth is not necessarily quite like that. Last week a professional was interviewed on the radio opposite an animal-rights activist; the former explained that the latter was distorting things and lying. So I do not know where the truth lies, but I can assume it is not black and white. Certainly not as it appears in a dedicated and biased demonstration of people who do not eat meat at all, even meat that grew up in nature and died a natural death (and not because it was not slaughtered according to Jewish law).
Have a good day,
Yuval
Hello Gil.
First, there is a time for everything, and a season for every purpose under heaven. A time to incline toward kindness and a time to criticize. When one criticizes, there is no point in bringing an apologetic answer, because the purpose of criticism is not to judge but to bring about improvement. And in such a situation, apologetics prevent improvement (because they create satisfaction with an unworthy situation).
Second, you are mistaken or misleading with regard to secular people. They demonstrate more for human beings than for animals, and all this no less—and perhaps more—than the religious. Go and see the demonstrations for foreign workers and migrants, the mobilization for sufferers and for natural disasters. Demonstrations for the Palestinians (regardless of whether you or I agree, but that is their opinion), checkpoints, Machsom Watch, B’Tselem, and the like. It seems to me that in all these they are better than we are (and again, one may of course debate every such action, whether it is justified or not). To be sure, I have now seen among “Syrians on the Fences” the blessed activity of Rabbi Froman’s son.
Hello Yuval.
As I wrote to the one above you, there is a time for everything. When there is criticism meant to correct, there is no point—and it is not right—to offer apologetics. The religious public is not on trial but is being called to awaken. What you wrote is partly true, but it does not justify the matter itself.
For some reason, the religious public chooses to listen to the “professional,” while the secular public listens to the animal-rights activist. That is without really checking. So you understand that it is simply convenient to listen to him. After all, straightforwardly speaking, he is the interested party, since this is his occupation and his interest, whereas they act from value-based motives. Clearly there can be distortions and exaggerations in this or that report, but I have no doubt that the situation is catastrophic.
The comparison to sensitivity toward the people of Gush Katif is irrelevant, because there it is a matter of an ideological dispute. Obviously they will not be empathetic toward people who, in their view, are wicked and extort the state and cause it major losses and damages. What do you expect—that left-wing people should go out and demonstrate for the people of Gush Katif? That is disingenuous.
Yes, I absolutely would expect social sensitivity to be without distinction. I was not asking that they demonstrate against the evacuation itself, which ostensibly took place legally and even accorded with their path. Rather, that they demonstrate over the deficient and contemptuous treatment that harmed law-abiding people who lived there legally (as noted, they were sent there by Rabin) and whose livelihood was now cut off, while a solution for each settler was nowhere in sight for a long time. I only meant to illustrate that social sensitivity is influenced by ideology, which causes us to choose the injustice and its intensity according to what and whom we like to feel empathy toward and according to what is convenient for us to do (I did not see mass throwing away of “Made in China” devices), and not from pure moral motives. Because there is no such thing!
Therefore the conclusion is one: everyone has limited sensitivity, and it is channeled according to who and what he is. It is hard to come with complaints and expect perfect sensitivity, because it is rare and almost nonexistent.
There are endless injustices, and to some of them we have some connection. You and I both choose what to address and what to ignore. The overwhelming majority simply ignore most injustices without thinking, because it is comfortable not to think about what happens somewhere beyond our field of vision and just enjoy the fruits without thinking too much. People inclined to extra sensitivity or to thinking a lot about details will notice and respond to more things, but most people are not like that. Therefore it seems to me that the call is hopeless.
Froman, whom you mentioned in the response above me, is a wonderful example. Shivi represents a social-leftist current within the religious public; he is a minority, and not for nothing (along with Rabbi Benny Lau and the like). His views are perceived as bizarre in many areas. Unlike you, where it comes from a place of logical thought, it seems to me that among most people of the social left, the extra sensitivity comes from an emotional, non-logical place (this was illustrated absurdly in his wife’s bizarre response about the stabber who tried to take her life, when she tried to understand his heart). Since that is so, it can distort reality. Sensitivity does not represent truth but a subjective feeling. Thus, at the end of the scale, we get the distortion of animal lovers who would not lift a finger for a human being different from them, though his suffering supposedly ought to be closer to them. This illustrates again my claim that we have limited morality and we all choose (not necessarily consciously) where to apply it. I do not think your call will change anything in the national-religious public, which traditionally does not belong to the social left and even recoils from it, and on the other hand also does not think independently in a logical way like you. And again, the herd phenomenon that you so dislike.
Hello Rabbi Michael Abraham,
I read your post about the demonstration for animal rights in which you took part, where you expressed discomfort with participating in any demonstration.
It reminded me of a passage from Milan Kundera’s book—The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I felt it explains why I do not feel comfortable participating in demonstrations; perhaps you too will find it of interest. Here is a photo of the passage:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwJAdMjYRm7IODhfZHdpbWtZZjg
Thank you for this יפה passage. It does indeed roughly describe how I feel.
As for the description itself, I have a small reservation. I do not think that a collection of people marching and protesting is necessarily a bad thing. I feel uncomfortable participating in such a thing. It is more psychology than values. Though it is true that there is something problematic about it.
A clarification of Rabbi A. I. Kook’s view regarding eating meat nowadays:
http://www.orhaorot.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P102.jsp?arc=1604720
With God’s help, 5 Shevat 5777
To Rabbi M. D. A.—many greetings,
The horrific stories of the veterinarian who accompanied the calves’ journey raise a simple question: where was she in real time? Why did she approve the atrocity? The story about a burn at 47 degrees also sounds bizarre. And the one who was responsible for animal welfare in the Ministry of Agriculture—why did he keep silent while in office, and remember that everything was flawed דווקא after he finished his term? Don’t be naive.
In any case, Minister Ariel’s proposal to install supervisory cameras in slaughterhouses could also solve the problems of transport by ship. His proposal to rank the slaughterhouses and to give credit points to those who go beyond the standard required by law in preventing cruelty to animals also provides an incentive for improvement.
With all due respect to organic food production and free-range raising, most of the public cannot economically bear their cost and needs the regular industrial production. One should encourage those who go the extra mile in preventing cruelty to animals, but no less than that—one should work gradually to raise the standard of industrial production that serves the general public.
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
I identify with every word. I’ll explain why [and sorry for the length…]
Example 1: We are a mixed family. So at a demonstration of the religious, we have our representatives there, and at the demonstration across the street of Peace Now—we also have our representatives. So what is the difference after all? The religious are there because the rabbis told them to be, the secular came by the order of their conscience…
Example 2 is similar: my grandmother, a Holocaust survivor, lived in a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz in the north; the children were 22 hours a day in the children’s house (if you like: an orphanage), and in the two hours set aside for parents to meet their children, she would volunteer to help the elderly… My mother complained about this all her life, yet went in her footsteps: my parents spent their whole lives running to do acts of kindness for other people, and as a child I missed them at home…
Example 3—the opposite: so I tell myself, I prefer to be home more with my children, and in practice—I don’t have patience for them… Do I prefer to care for the close circle—why, then, do I not really care for it?.. My parents were empathetic to the pain of others, whereas I am mainly sensitive to myself…
Example 4: it seems to me that for some reason the first generation were more idealistic, but this did not express itself in gender affiliation to their community as much as in concern and empathy for human values and helping others, whereas we are occupied with too many outward slogans and much less sincerity. In our tribe? The secular among us invent values for themselves simply because it is important to them to have such things, whereas the religious among us suffice with observing the commandments imposed on them…
Example 5: What is a cult? The definition of a cult is a voluntary protest group that defines a new kind of stranger and applies to him the rules that existed regarding the original strangers, and that demands sacrifice of identity; and the more extreme it is, the more serious the sacrifice of identity; and it is an egalitarian group that nevertheless needs internal organization in order to preserve itself. What is that if not narrowing the close circle and denying the humanity outside it??
Example 6: By the way, I was born on a left-wing kibbutz, and part of my family underwent a process of becoming religious. My sister, who initiated the process, is ultra-religious, while my brother belongs to the radical left. And me? I followed my parents, entered the Haredi public, did everything to fit in: black-and-white clothes, beard, completion of the entire Talmud, rabbinical certification, and so on… And honestly? My parents were people of values, whereas I… honestly? All these actions do not make me such a person…
My personal opinion: as an existentialist I believe in inner sincerity and in a more universal and less dogmatic outlook; to my mind religion and faith are supposed to open one’s eyes, not be a blindfold or a fig leaf…
Example 7: Among the Haredim they say: whoever kisses dogs will end up killing people. And I say: it is much more likely that someone who is cruel to dogs will be cruel to people…
A wish: my dream is to see myself—and my religious surroundings—with more genuine empathy and not only with pleasant, sanctimonious gentleness. Caring for every human being, every animal, protecting nature. That same general dullness of feeling causes us to accept the commandments as formal facts, and we become law-abiding, instead of seeking the empathy, kindness, and love within them. And in general, a universal faith that fills the whole world and the details of life, and not only the community and the rituals and minutiae like some group with its head stuck inside itself.
Last example: but truthfully I will admit with pain… when my late father was sick and needed nursing care, the most Haredi people brought him home and took care of him (with all the many children and the crowding and lack), whereas we visited from time to time… The self-sacrifice for kindness was with them…
Last line: the deep analysis is accurate beyond words: one must find the right balance between neglecting the close circle and losing communal identity, on the one hand, and indifference and a feeling of alienation toward anyone who is not in one’s immediate surroundings, on the other.
P.S. Nietzsche already said that humanity’s gravest diseases are indifference, hypocrisy, and fear…
Hello.
I would only add that I do not think commitment to commandments makes a person more moral. Nor is it supposed to do so. The commandments have religious purposes (see essay 15). What I wanted to say is not that religious people ought to be more moral because of their religiosity, but that it is a shame that religiosity sometimes reduces moral commitment. That ought to remain regardless of commitment to commandments. In the fourth notebook I pointed out that belief in God is a philosophical condition for morality and for moral obligation, but in practice it is clear that there are moral people here and there (and I do not know where there are more).
As for the question of what a cult is, see my remarks in essay 19.
A detailed statement by Minister Ariel on the issue of importing live calves from Australia, in his remarks at the discussion in the Economics Committee on the subject of the “live shipments” (from 25.7.16), on the “Open Knesset” website.
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
Many thanks.
I do not especially like investigations into what so-and-so thinks about such-and-such a subject. It is better to present the arguments themselves irrespective of who makes them. If the arguments are good, they should be implemented even without proving that Rabbi Kook said them, and vice versa.
Hello Yuval.
Again I disagree. One should not compare the evacuation of Gush Katif to this. There they were responsible for their situation (they did not cooperate with the evacuation), and they had a finger in our democratic system that made the decision, which animals do not have. Beyond that, I do not expect a person to show empathy toward someone whom he regards as immoral and as promoting a destructive policy. On the contrary, in the place of the left-wing people I would only have been happy about what happened there. What does that have to do with the treatment of animals? There is no basis for comparison at all.
It is true that everyone has limited sensitivity, but that is not a sweeping excuse for all indifference. Such statements are excuses for indifference.
I also do not think my call is hopeless. Look, among secular people it worked (a bit), so why not among us? Indeed, what I write here is part of the struggle against herd mentality, but I am optimistic. Even if it changes things a little for a few people—we have done something. And if that does not count as an achievement in your eyes, that itself is evidence of herd mentality. Changing and influencing each individual person is important, and not only changing the course of the whole herd.
As for Shivi Froman, it seems to me that your attitude toward him is part of the failure. I do not know his views, but what do your feelings about his work for the Syrians have to do with the question of his general outlook? Why does one need to form a sweeping position about everything he does? Can you not agree with one thing and disagree with him on another? The question whether sensitivity comes from a philosophical place or an emotional one is an interesting question, and one can debate it. I too tend to think that the left is very emotional, and I wrote that here as well. But this question is not really important to me, or at least I would say it has philosophical rather than practical importance. In practice, there is sensitivity there that we do not have.
[By the way, the attempt to understand the inner world of the stabber is a wonderful example. In my opinion, such an approach is actually very non-emotional. On the contrary, it is pure rationalism that ignores the stormy emotion against the stabber. So in my view you were greatly mistaken here. That is precisely the very rational and philosophical part of left-wing thinking. What is emotional among them is the willingness to take that understanding as though it were the whole picture and to ignore the condemnation that such an act must receive in itself. Understanding the enemy’s inner world should not cover over the fact that he is an enemy, but it is indeed important to try to understand him. Here there is indeed left-wing emotionalism. From an intellectual person I would expect him to try to understand the one who stabbed him, but afterward to be able to deal with him as he deserves (perhaps with some consideration for that understanding, but only as part of the total set of considerations). Again, this is a more complex and more correct approach.]
With God’s help, 5 Shevat 5777
myanimasite writes (in the last paragraph): “When my late father was sick and needed nursing care—the most Haredi people brought him home and cared for him with all the many children and the crowding and lack… The self-sacrifice for kindness was with them.”
And this is no surprise. The Torah begins with kindness and ends with kindness. When one grows up on a heritage of generations full of kindness—kindness becomes second nature. From the days of the patriarchs until today, there is no community in Israel without institutions of charity and lovingkindness that give financial and physical aid and encouragement to every needy person.
The heritage of kindness of generations has left its imprint even on those who have grown distant from observance of the commandments. Abroad it is common that a person falls in the street and no one comes over to help him—a reality that would be unthinkable among Jews. It is enough to compare the draconian punishments handed down in courts in the USA to the relatively moderate punishment in Israel (which arouses “somber reflections” in so-and-so, who is ready to imprison a thief for life… 🙂
All the more so, Torah Jews are leaders in organizations of kindness and medical assistance, extending help to every needy person, religious and secular alike. Well known is the case of Arnan Yekutieli, a Jerusalem city council member from Meretz, when he became seriously ill—Haredi organizations took care to fund expensive medical treatment for him abroad…
On this hard day, when cruel, hard-hearted people decreed destruction upon an entire settlement, not with justice and not with law—we must pray that God help us return to the healthy Jewish nature—modest, compassionate, and doers of lovingkindness!
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
I don’t want to be seen as denying the Holocaust of animals, but the story of the shipments is not clear to me. Every head of cattle that dies before slaughter is a loss of hundreds and even thousands of shekels. I agree that the meat industrialists do not care about animals, but they certainly care about money. Ostensibly, it is in their interest not to throw animals into the sea.
Can you explain to me the economic logic of the story you wrote?
Apparently, in the bottom line and in general, it is more profitable to import millions of calves and have most of them survive (albeit with great suffering and disease), and “only” a few hundred die on the way, than to import thousands under fair conditions and have all of them survive.
Without knowledge, just common sense..
You can trust them to have done the economic calculations..
Let’s focus on the moral issue and not on economic considerations.
Hello Benny.
Bruria (my daughter) already answered you well. Transport in great crowding is very profitable economically (look at the trucks on the roads), even if the price is mortality among some of the cattle on the way. Suppose, for example, that the crowding can save you half the ships (one ship instead of two), while mortality reduces a tenth of the contents. All in all, then, it is highly profitable.
In general I would say that there are facts, and it is a shame to deny them because of a priori arguments, better or worse.
Is it known which brand transports calves this way? I know that Shufersal imports from Argentina, and there is Tnuva, which imports from Poland, and as far as I know in both cases they send slaughterers to the place where the animals are raised.
I do not know. That is why it is called “live shipments,” to distinguish it from shipments of slaughtered meat. I assume one can check online.
I have no doubt that the manner in which calves are shipped from Australia to Israel is an outrage. But I find it hard to understand people who prefer to demonstrate over wrongs done to animals rather than wrongs done to human beings. In my eyes, the supreme moral command is “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” That is where I direct my energies. I have worked for 40 years in the field of raising animals, mainly poultry. I have come to see that organizations like Anonymous have turned the subject of animal welfare, a topic certainly important in itself, into an extreme, violent religion, sometimes with no connection to the goal for which they are acting. Most of them want to impose their veganism by force and ignore humanity’s needs and hunger in the world. I admit that it pains me much more to see a hungry child than a chicken raised in a closed coop rather than in nature.
Hello Gil.
It pains me more too, but there are still a few differences:
1. The suffering that animals undergo is the result of my own actions. I am the consumer for whose sake all this is done.
2. It is easier to deal with the suffering of animals than with the economic condition of the world’s children/people.
3. It seems to me that the suffering of animals is a thousand times worse than the suffering of poor children, and I am really not belittling that (nor am I comparing human beings to animals). There we are speaking of a deliberate, orchestrated Holocaust. This is not about life in a closed coop and not in nature. If that were the situation, I would have kept quiet. You are trivializing a real and severe problem, and in my opinion this is an expression of the denial I spoke about.
4. There is no contradiction between the two. When one warns about one problem, that does not mean there are no other problems. I am fond of Rabbi Kook’s saying that it is better to fail in gratuitous love than in gratuitous hatred; to which I add: best of all is not to fail in either. There is some assumption that one must fail either in this or in that. But one can try to avoid failure in both places.
5. I have already written here that the fact that some people have turned this into a religion and behave improperly does not mean the problem should not be addressed.
With God’s help, 6 Shevat 5777
In my previous response I noted the discussion on the subject of the “live shipments” in the Knesset Economics Committee (on 25.7.16). I will note here a few things that in my humble opinion are worth mentioning, and I recommend that the reader not rely on me but inspect the source itself (on the “Open Knesset” website).
Minister of Agriculture Uri Ariel said that his ministry is acting in several directions: they are trying to get approval to import chilled meat from Europe or South America (an intermediate state between fresh and frozen) that would be slaughtered there, something that may reduce the need to transport live calves. There are also contacts with representatives of the Australian authorities demanding that they tighten supervision over shipments by ship. Another direction whose legal feasibility is being examined is suspending importers’ licenses based on compliance with the Cruelty to Animals Law. Minister Ariel also noted that a significant portion of the calves and sheep from Australia reaches the Palestinian Authority (and some of it is smuggled into Israel).
Yoav Tzur (one of the representatives of cattle growers) and MK Yitzhak Vaknin lamented the very opening of the door to shipments from Australia, which create unfair competition against local growers. Yoav Tzur described the situation before the cancellation of the customs duty on live calves from Australia (which was done by Finance Minister Yair Lapid). Since the supply of calves raised בארץ was insufficient, they used to bring very young calves by plane from Europe, and they would arrive in Israel within a few hours and be raised here. The purpose of opening to imports was to reduce consumer prices, a goal that was not achieved, and the calves are transported by sea from Australia on a long and hard journey.
The position of the Chotam organization (submitted to the ministerial committee discussing a legislative proposal on the subject) was not to rashly abolish imports from Australia altogether, out of concern that this would lead to soaring meat prices, but rather to install regulations to prevent cruelty to animals in transport, tighten supervision over the shipments, and condition import licenses on adherence to the rules. They also proposed examining possible alternatives—frozen or chilled meat, imports from nearby countries, or importing younger calves by airplane. See the article: “Chotam: Prevent Cruelty to Animals in Shipments,” on the Arutz 7 website, from Tuesday, 3 Tevet 5777.
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
Hello,
This painful problem has occupied me for years. I have dealt with it extensively also from the halakhic perspective, and I have found that from that perspective too the permission to cause animals suffering in so cruel a way is quite dubious. And according to all opinions, it is certainly an act of piety to refrain from it.
I discussed the subject in a rabbis’ forum with dozens of rabbis—but without much success. (I have extensive halakhic material, and also a bit of material from Jewish thought, for anyone interested.)
I am wondering whether the power to advance the issue depends precisely on the religious sector and the Chief Rabbinate. If an energetic person could be found to launch a “mehadrin, free of concern for cruelty to animals” production line, in which care would be taken to provide room for the birds in the coops and the like, with the recommendation of well-known rabbis, it seems to me that many people from the religious sector, and also from the general public, would consume these products, even if they cost a few percent more.
Praying for change. Yossi
As a kingdom of priests, I hereby announce to the Torah: the burnt offerings, the bulls, the rams, the female goats and the male goats, and let us not, Heaven forbid, forget the red cows—all these will be offered only by laying on of hands; slaughter and the four rites of receiving the blood, etc., will be abolished—“You save man and beast, O Lord.”
And appreciation to Michi, who for the sake of domestic peace joined his daughters, for “many daughters have done valiantly.”
The herd phenomenon has existed since time immemorial.
So what is all the fuss about—what…what (like the lowing of the cow and the bleating of the lamb)
,
See what Oren noted in the second comment on this post.
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
There has also been slow progress in government regulations. A few years ago, a regulation was issued requiring the enlargement of coops. Goose force-feeding was prohibited בעקבות a High Court ruling about ten years ago (though they did not forbid the import of goose livers from abroad). Regarding goose force-feeding, Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar instructed that certification should not be granted because of cruelty to animals, and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of blessed memory agreed with him…
Regarding “live shipments,” there was a regression in 2014 when Finance Minister Lapid canceled the customs duty on importing calves by ship from Australia on voyages lasting weeks (whereas before that they were brought from Europe by airplane within just a few hours). Today the subject of the “live shipments” is on the table of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation (above I brought the position of Minister Uri Ariel, MK Yitzhak Vaknin, and rabbis from the Chotam organization on this issue).
To our master, may he live long, shepherd of hides and grinder of them one against another, father of all cattle-herders and grass-chewers, leading his herd of bipeds as if they were quadrupeds, whose mouth was filled with wisdom and who brought straw to Ephraim; there is no counsel and no straw against the Lord.
Well, failing at reading comprehension—we have already encountered that. Well, being wicked in private and in public—we have encountered that too. But to boast of it publicly and turn it into an ideology? True, we have encountered that as well, but I will judge you favorably that this is a clear expression of the very denial I spoke of, whose purpose is apparently to evade feelings of guilt (which I hope exist even in a cattle-herder like yourself). It seems to me that the alternative interpretation is much worse.
And behold, one may discuss the three cattle-herders who were disqualified from testimony and judging (unless the litigants accepted them upon themselves): were they disqualified because of wickedness or because of ignorance? And on this depend these two interpretations with respect to you. See, however, Sanhedrin 25b–26a, that it is because of wickedness. But what can I do, for we hold that one must judge every person favorably, and this requires further study.
By the way, you have made a mistake. You sent the announcement here to the website and not to the Torah (although perhaps you meant a notice of protest, and apparently this proves the latter interpretation above, and enough said).
With God’s help, 7 Shevat 5777
To Ro’i—many greetings,
If we skip over Tractate Uktzin—there is a justified point in your words against the conception that wholly rejects the slaughter of animals, for even in the days of the Messiah sacrifices will be offered, as Maimonides taught us that the King Messiah will build the Temple and renew the sacrificial service. Even before the Flood, when the eating of animals was forbidden, Abel’s sacrifices from the firstborn of his flock were favorably accepted before the Lord.
However, regarding the slaughter of animals for food, even if we are far from such a state—there should be an aspiration that one day we return to a state in which we do not need “meat for desire.” Thus, for example, it would seem that the commandment to cover the blood expresses a feeling of discomfort that we ought to have with the “hunting of wild animals and birds.”
But what Rabbi M. D. A. is raising here are much more prosaic matters: in ancient times the shepherd was the clearest example of a loving relation to his flock. And so the King Messiah is described: “He will feed His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs in His arm and carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead the nursing ewes.”
And today, with all the improvements of the modern world that have filled the world with convenience and comfort, we would expect that our flocks too would enjoy such comfort. But sadly, the opposite is what happens. If once the poultry, sheep, and cattle lived in the open air, in adequate living space, breathing clean air and eating healthy food—today we cram them into crowding and filth. Modernity has become a curse instead of a blessing.
There are many constraints for which at this stage we have no adequate systemic answer that would enable us to give adequate living space to animals without causing a huge rise in the prices of meat, milk, and eggs and serious economic hardship for most of the population. But that does not exempt us from the duty to strive to improve the situation.
When there is a constant striving for correction and improvement, there is the Sages’ promise: “If you have labored and found, believe,” and with God’s help, “little by little,” we will also find the ways to achieve efficiency. All in all, reason suggests that an animal living in greater comfort and well-being will produce better output, both in quantity and in quality.
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
.
Do you know of products marketed in Jerusalem that are produced in a more humane way and that have strict kosher certification?
Do you mean meat products? Dairy? Eggs?
At least regarding meat, I am very doubtful that there are such things. I do not know of such places at all even without “strict certification” (I assume you mean Haredi certification). Eggs do not require certification, and dairy products seem less critical to me (even concern for gentile milk seems far-fetched to me nowadays). Just search online for products from organic farming.
Thank you.
This only reinforces the question why no one has arisen and established a high-standard farm, free of concern for cruelty to animals, even at a higher price—is the reason lack of economic viability or some other reason?
With God’s help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, “Draw out and take for yourselves sheep for your families,” 5777
To Yossi—many greetings,
Oren noted above free-range poultry from “Meshek Melamed” and free-range cattle under the supervision of “Chai Bari.” On their website, they note a plant in Katzrin for glatt meat that offers deliveries throughout the country, and the “Ima” restaurant in Jerusalem, where one can also purchase kosher le-mehadrin meat under the “Chai Bari” standard.
Or perhaps simply raise at home, as pets, a sheep and two hens; then you also have a regular supply of milk and eggs, wool for knitting and manure for the garden, as well as a fascinating and educational occupation for the children. Instead of sinking into the computer and smartphone—they can take care of the sheep and the hens. Before the holidays, you can purchase from one of the farms a tender, fine calf, take it to the slaughterer, and thus you will have meat for several months!
In short: bring the goat into the house and throw out the smartphone 🙂
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
Some of the certifications at Chai Bari farms are strict. I suggest you check with “Atliz Rofe” on 3 D’Ohaye Street, Jerusalem, and with “Ima Restaurant” on 55 Shmuel Barukh Street, Jerusalem. Beyond that, there is an additional stringency in meat from “Chai Bari,” because it is meat that is usually slaughtered in private slaughter (not on a production line) and in very small groups (just a few). The problems with production-line slaughter are well known: the slaughterers work many hours, which leads to fatigue and hand tremors during slaughter; they do not inspect the knife between one slaughter and the next (because they have to keep up with the rapid pace of the production line); and if a defect is discovered in the knife after a group has been slaughtered, according to halakhah the entire group back to the last inspection should be disqualified. But the slaughterers are afraid to disqualify a large group because then the owner will fire them and bring in a slaughterer who does not disqualify whole groups (this means an enormous loss for the owner). See Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, Laws of Slaughter, siman 18 סעיף 3:
“One must inspect the knife before slaughter, and if he did not inspect it, he should not slaughter; and if he transgressed and did not inspect it first, and afterward inspected it and found it sound, his slaughter is valid.” (That is, slaughter without inspection beforehand is valid only after the fact.)
See also Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, Laws of Slaughter, siman 18, סעיף 11:
“If one slaughters many animals or many birds, one must inspect between each and every one; for if he did not do so, and inspected only at the end and the knife was found defective, all are of doubtful status as carcasses, even the first.”
This issue exists even in the strictest certifications, not only in Rabbinate certification. There are many videos on YouTube about this well-known problem. See, for example, this video (especially from minute 29:45):
Thank you, S. Tz. Levinger and Oren. The smartphone never came in. But apparently the goat won’t either.
Interesting: I contacted “Chai Bari” last night following the article published here, and they told me they do not have mehadrin certifications. But that does not matter all that much to me. I hardly eat beef anyway.
Do you have any ideas how to instill awareness of the importance of these matters in the religious and Haredi public?
“Chai Bari” is the organization that supervises animal-welfare conditions on farms; it is less connected to the kashrut of the slaughter itself. In my opinion, it is better for you to inquire directly with the farms and sales points themselves (they appear there on the website). As for raising awareness, it seems to me that if you could approach one of the Chai Bari farms and ask them to obtain a certification accepted by the Haredi public (Landau, for example), that could help advance the matter. This field is still relatively in its infancy, so it may be necessary to connect the relevant kashrut bodies with the farms.
Hello Rabbi Michael Abraham,
I suggest that you write these things in a somewhat different tone. I stopped reading your previous essay, which compared the subject to the Holocaust, halfway through. I am not prepared to accept comparisons to the Holocaust, whether they are comparisons to genocide in other places or to acts of injustice done to other peoples that some attribute (in my view mistakenly) to me and my people, and certainly when it is a comparison to animals. I will not now go into all the differences that I think exist; from my perspective the events are not comparable.
I am defending the memory of my close family (my grandfather and my grandmothers, and almost all my family members and other Jews who are in the close circle around me in your model in this article), and using special language for acts of injustice that are hard to comprehend. Any comparison will humanize the acts that occurred in the Holocaust, and there are events that must not be humanized.
I am not expert in vegan/vegetarian discourse, but from a light and cursory acquaintance on social media I get the impression that provocative comparisons, graphic descriptions, and much exaggeration are used. I assume the intention is to shock and to arouse greater compassion for the animals and the way they are consumed. But to paraphrase what Rabbi Judah Halevi said in the Kuzari: “Your intention is desirable, but your actions are not desirable.” In my opinion, the exaggeration and the emphasis on horrors are not persuasive. There is a small group of people who feed themselves on horror descriptions of what is done to animals, and from sheer extremism they fail to penetrate the hearts and minds of the target audience.
Most people become sealed off when one reflects back to them one-sided horror descriptions, and they quickly move on and do not connect themselves with these events. In my opinion, a less missionary, less inflammatory writing style, one that emphasizes more the effect of the activity of the individual person on this industry, could be more helpful.
As a rabbi and a public figure—it will be harder for you to persuade people on other matters if you have “spent” all the invective and extreme language on the treatment of animals.
With appreciation,
Moshe
P.S. I personally stopped consuming meat after your daughter Bruria ate with us and persuaded me without using horror stories and extreme language. I assume that if she had used a Holocaust comparison or a comparison between animals and human beings, she would not have managed to penetrate the natural defense screen that exists in me.
I agree so much; the comparison to the Holocaust was so outrageous that I literally shut the computer (my late grandfather is really turning over in his grave), and that is a shame.
Precisely because I value Rabbi Michi so much as a Torah scholar, it was very hard for me to read. A less inflammatory discourse also persuaded me easily to try veganism for a certain period.
With God’s help, 9 Shevat 5777
The very need to import calves and lambs from distant Australia to the Middle East (to Israel, Jordan, and the Gulf states) is a result of the tragic state of wars sowing bereavement and destruction in the region. After all, the land of Bashan in Syria was known in the Bible as the place where the choice cows of Bashan were raised. “The flocks of Kedar” and “the rams of Nebaioth” are the clearest example of fine flock that in the future (as Isaiah 60:7 says) will glorify the Temple of God. When the people of our region merit peace and security—well-being will come even to the animals, who will delight in rich pasture! “You save man and beast, O Lord.”
Regards, S. Tz. Levinger
Hello Nadav and Moshe.
Thank you for the comments. I will, God willing, take them into consideration. I must say that as to the matter itself, in my view the expressions are entirely fitting and not inflammatory. In my remarks I discussed the differences between human beings and animals, and explained the justification for using “Holocaust”-type terminology.
But the question of effectiveness and impact is of course subjective and belongs to the psychological plane rather than the essential one. I certainly accept your testimony that for some people such formulations may disturb them, and then my gain comes out as my loss.
Hello,
I recently read the rabbi’s articles on veganism and wondered why not work on this in cooperation with the Haredi public—that is, if the data are correct and widespread, then necessarily there are halakhic problems here regarding treifot, and therefore perhaps it would be appropriate to update Haredi kashrut bodies or something of that sort. It is known that the Haredi public has a lot of power (politically, as a united public, etc.), so I wondered why this path is not being pursued. After all, it may have a huge effect… (or perhaps it is, and I just don’t know..)
Thanks,
The facts are known, but apparently the economic interests are stronger. As far as I know, there are rabbis who are active in this matter (such as Rabbi Rapoport), but so far without much success. This is not necessarily corruption (ignoring treifot). It may be that they prefer to ignore and rely on presumptions and the like (a kind of evasion). Of course, corruption is also possible, and there is certainly a lack of integrity here (for on a doubtful rabbinic prohibition like the heter mechirah everyone rises up on their hind legs).
Is there any economic interest in avoiding a more high-standard production line?
Today someone sent me an article by Rabbi Aviner. I was very happy 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/
Could you please write, or refer to your daughter, two questions:
A. Where in Jerusalem can one find Nir Tzvi eggs or genuinely organic eggs?
B. If I want to continue eating poultry in Jerusalem, how can I do so in the least cruel way?
And one more question: you didn’t mention fish. What about the way they make it to our table?