Answer

It seems to me that this is not merely commendable but an outright prohibition. The suffering the animals go through is terrible, and one may not be a partner to it. Admittedly, many people do not live up to this, and it requires further consideration whether there is room to justify them after the fact. Clearly, someone who refrains from all this deserves to be called righteous.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Do you yourself refrain from eating animal products? In addition, on the one hand you said there is an absolute obligation here, and on the other hand you said, "he deserves to be called righteous" (which implies that this is an extra pious practice). So just to make sure: is this an obligation, or only a pious stringency? Also, what should a vegan do about the obligation to eat meat on a Jewish holiday? Finally, should we say that fish are also forbidden, or is the suffering of fish relatively negligible even today? And in general regarding fish, does the law of animal suffering apply to them?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I try very hard, but I do not always succeed. Sometimes there are prohibitions that are indeed valid, but since the public cannot abide by them, they lose their force (the Torah was not given to ministering angels). The more the alternatives improve, the more binding this becomes. The commandment to eat meat on a Jewish holiday does not obligate a vegan for several reasons: 1. The commandment is to rejoice, not specifically to eat meat (at least according to Maimonides). 2. One does not perform a commandment by means of a transgression. As for fish, I am inclined to think they are like other animals, although there are halakhic decisors who distinguished between different animals and creeping creatures and the like. It seems to me these are intuitions that are not really well-founded. See an email I sent to the Torah-core group bulletin board in Lod about animal suffering, and the correspondence that followed:
—
Hello everyone.
The situation in the animal-farming market is well known. The abuse and suffering the animals go through are horrific, and all of us (as consumers) share some of the blame. It is easy to say that this is hysteria from animal-welfare organizations and the like (I used to think so too), but that is an escape. It is worth checking, seeing the materials, and forming an impression. The situation is terrible. There is a moral problem here and also a halakhic one, and people ignore it because of considerations of convenience.
Even free-range eggs, although they do have some advantage relative to regular eggs, still do not differ all that much. A significant part of what is problematic in poultry farming also exists in the production of free-range eggs. By contrast, organic farming has to meet much more appropriate standards set by the Ministry of Agriculture. Notice: as has now become clear to me, "organic" has significance beyond health considerations or returning to nature. It has cardinal significance also with regard to considerations of animal suffering.
And now, in recent days, we found very close to us, in our holy city Lod (in Moshav Nir Zvi, when you drive toward Ramle and turn right after the railroad tracks), a lovely farm run by lovely people, where they raise chickens in genuinely excellent conditions (if they passed the strict inspection of my daughter, Rebecca, see below, then it is certainly "strictly kosher"). They are careful beyond the standards of the Ministry of Agriculture. Among other things there is a store there, and they sell organic eggs from those chickens, milk from organic farming (not their own), and sometimes they also have chickens for meat, along with many other organic products. It is very important to us to support them and recommend that everyone check out the place and shop there.
Their website: http://www.organishop.co.il/
Below I am attaching a post and pictures from my daughter Rebecca (the Chief Vegan Rebbetzin) regarding this farm. We would be happy to provide more details, and if there is interest, even organize group purchases. That way none of us has any convenience-based excuses left for continuing this forbidden conduct.
May it be pleasant for the listener,

Michi Abraham
—

Good evening 🙂
Last week I found an amazing farm, thanks to which I went back to eating eggs after a very long time 🙂
Our condition for permitting ourselves to eat eggs was that the hens there be given optimal laying conditions, and zero suffering (not minimal suffering, not reduced suffering, but zero suffering. I think our society can allow itself to demand that).

And then my mom (the champion!) found the "Health in Nature" store. An organic shop located in Moshav Nir Zvi, a quarter of an hour from Lod!! Next to the store is the henhouse. A huge coop, fenced, with shade, dirt, and private nesting boxes for anyone interested 😉
After thoroughly questioning the owners about how the place is run, receiving a bag of vegetables free on the house, and above all tasting an unbelievable shakshuka (!) from these truly delicious eggs, we decided that more people absolutely have to get to know this amazing place, support it, and encourage more industries to act this way!

The store offers not only free-range eggs, but also organic vegetables without pesticides and without additives. Legumes, especially healthy chocolate (and tasty too!), oils, soaps, and also dairy products, which they bring from a farm in the north that is organic as well. In short, it is recommended to do your weekly shopping there, not just buy eggs.
The price for a carton of eggs is 27 NIS for 12 eggs. Expensive compared to regular eggs, but not compared to the health and peace-of-mind benefit we get.
I highly recommend running out to the moshav to buy! It is important to support this warm and kind farm, which is meticulous about "animal suffering" and does not cut corners for itself, unlike unfortunately most industries today in this very important area. It is worth the extra 15 shekels in order to prevent abuse, without any real loss, and without having to give up eggs 🙂
If people are interested, it may be possible to look into a closer sales point (contact privately here by return email).
Health in Nature – 08-9229263
http://www.organishop.co.il/
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another one):
Full disclosure: I am vegan for health reasons, but over time I have become more and more exposed to, and halakhically troubled by, the issues of animal suffering in livestock farms.

If indeed in your opinion one should not eat from a situation that causes animal suffering, what do you do about consuming chicken, meat, and milk? As far as I understand, the animal-suffering problems in those industries are far from minor…
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
One more note. This is not a full halakhic prohibition. Meaning, someone who eats is not violating the prohibition of animal suffering itself (about which the halakhic decisors themselves dispute whether it is Torah-level or rabbinic), but rather a rabbinic prohibition of assisting transgressors. Still, that is a formal halakhic argument. On the moral plane this is very, very troubling (like murdering or stealing with one’s left hand, with an unusual variation). The halakhic problem makes me a transgressor vis-à-vis the growers or vis-à-vis the Holy One, blessed be He, but the moral problem is vis-à-vis the animals themselves. They suffer greatly, and some of that is because of me, and they do not really care whether I manage to avoid the rabbinic prohibition of assisting a transgression or not.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another):
I would be glad to add a question:
How do you see ecological considerations entering as considerations that Jewish law takes into account?
As far as veganism is concerned, there are many ecological reasons to stop using livestock and eating fish entirely, even if the food is "organic." More than 40% of the Earth’s land area is used for livestock (mainly in order to grow food for it). If it is organic livestock, the situation is even worse, because it must be fed organic food, which uses even more agricultural land. Those agricultural areas come at the expense of ecological diversity and generally involve severe ecological damage. Beyond that, the entire livestock industry produces 2.5 to 3 times more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation in the world combined, and it is also one of the central sources of groundwater pollution. In 40 years, human beings have reduced the number of marine animals by half, while 90% of what is fished from the sea ultimately ends up in the mouths of livestock in the form of powdered protein supplement.
In other areas as well, the religious public in Israel is the public that consumes the most disposable utensils. There is, for example, a prohibition against using a dishwasher on the Sabbath because of appearance to onlookers or because of the noise it makes, though there are leniencies to use it if there are many guests. Is it not fitting to permit use of a dishwasher (with a Sabbath timer) for ecological reasons? Is it not fitting in general to prohibit non-biodegradable disposable utensils? What about diapers? This is one of the most polluting products there is; should we not require reusable diapers?
Can it be that Jewish law will have no clear position on such a central issue, when it is clear to everyone today that this is part of repairing the world? How is it that such considerations are not taken into account at all?
There are even harder questions, such as childbirth: does the obligation of "be fruitful and multiply" still exist in the same way it did before man became the absolute ruler of the Earth? What about man’s role "to work it and guard it"? Ultimately, continued human reproduction at the same pace as in previous generations will lead us to ecological catastrophe… If one thinks about the size of the human population, the growth appears logarithmic, and whereas until recently this could be ignored, today the issue is urgent: in the year 1 CE the world population was about 300 million people; by 1800, about a billion; by 1930, about 2 billion; and within only 70 years, by 2000, 7 billion people. Should we not take into account that the Earth’s resources are limited, and understand that at this stage man’s role is "to work it and guard it"? Has the time not come to understand that if human beings still have not found a sustainable way of life for 7 billion people, they certainly will not close the gap if they continue reproducing at the same pace?
It is clear to me that these considerations were not relevant when the Earth’s population was a few hundred million, and that is how it was through most of the history of Jewish law. That is, the considerations I raised were not relevant, so they cannot be dismissed simply because they were not taken into account until now… If for a long period we were "the people of the book" and that was the example we showed the world, should we not lead the world in confronting ecological issues?
Hananel
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Hananel.
Indeed, very powerful points. There is certainly room to consider this, but the question of the halakhic status of these considerations is not simple. To create a halakhic prohibition you need a source and an authoritative interpretation. There are many things it seems sensible to do, and still that does not necessarily make them Jewish law (see my article on a memorial day for the Holocaust, here).

The halakhic status of considerations of the type of concern for the planet is problematic for two main reasons:
1. These are remote considerations (there is no slaughtered ox before us).
2. The data are not always agreed upon scientifically, and therefore their halakhic status is problematic.

Regarding 1, for example, considerations of saving life do not take indirect and remote harms into account, even if they are highly probable. Even so, one could still argue that it is important to preserve this regardless of Jewish law.
The problem arises when the conclusions conflict with Jewish law, as in the case of procreation. There, however, one can keep the commandment (a son and a daughter) and simply not add more. If one has two children, that reduces the world population (true, in order to have a son and a daughter, on average there will be more than two children). Ultimately, it seems to me that in the Western world today the birthrate is already a little above one child per couple.
By the way, giving up on "He created it to be inhabited," meaning being satisfied with two children, is possible for two reasons: 1. The halakhic status of that commandment is not agreed upon. 2. The commandment in essence is global (settling the world), so it is only natural to interpret it according to principles of settling the world. That is the content of the commandment. Therefore there it really does seem to me reasonable to take these considerations into account within halakhic interpretation itself.

As for 2, beyond the considerations you mentioned there are also considerations of the survival of the Jewish people, and perhaps those too should be taken into account. In general, it seems to me that the situation is more complex than you describe. I think that even the quantitative facts you presented are not agreed upon, so one should be careful in using them.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another):
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I understand that from a formal halakhic standpoint, in your view there is no basis for preferring organic produce, or at least the basis does not allow one to define eating regular produce as an actual prohibition. That is why you wrote that "the moral problem is vis-à-vis the animals themselves. They suffer greatly, and some of that is because of me."
My question is whether, in your view, "the moral problem" is an extra-Torah problem and you also live within a moral system that is unrelated to the halakhic system? Or do you see it as part of the broader problem of the prohibition of animal suffering, and were it not for that prohibition you would not have had to address the issue at all?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The moral problem is not extra-Torah, but it is extra-halakhic. Therefore there is no need to see it as an extension of the prohibition of animal suffering; it has independent standing.
It seems to me that in my book Human as the Grass of the Field (and, God willing, I will elaborate in the book on theology that I am now writing) I wrote that morality cannot be an atheistic category, as Leibowitz treats it, since according to that there are two authorities to whom we are obligated: the Holy One, blessed be He, as the religious authority, and some idol that is the moral authority (in the fourth notebook I explained that there is no moral duty and obligation without some external factor underlying it). Even if that idol is not wood and stone and not something tangible, the very fact that one is obligated to two authorities is a form of idolatry in partnership.
Therefore I certainly would have had to address the topic even without the prohibition of animal suffering. On the contrary, once there is a halakhic prohibition, one might have said that we should not expand beyond what the Torah established, and therefore there is no concern for additional prohibitions (that is probably what those who identify morality with Jewish law would say). However, I personally think that despite such a prohibition, there is room for a moral dimension beyond Jewish law (because I do not identify morality with Jewish law), as above.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner (another):
I did not understand: is there no halakhic prohibition here and "only" a moral problem, or is there a halakhic prohibition here, but a rabbinic prohibition of assisting, not a Torah-level prohibition?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
At most there is a prohibition of assisting (the medieval authorities disagree whether such a prohibition exists, and there are further distinctions that could weaken it here), and not a Torah prohibition of animal suffering. Beyond that there is a moral problem.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Following our conversation at the end of the class about veganism, first of all I strongly recommend that your daughter check her vitamin D blood level (for some reason regular blood tests do not include that test). Vitamin D is a very important vitamin for bodily functioning, and a deficiency is fairly common among vegans to the best of my understanding; among religious women the problem is aggravated because of limited sun exposure. In my case my vitamin D reached very low levels, and I suspect that this is what caused my health problems.

Beyond the vitamin D problem, I think a vegan diet is unnatural for the human body, which for millions of years was accustomed to being a hunter-gatherer, with a significant part of its diet coming from animals. Someone who tries to change such a basic principle in the diet natural to man and replace it with a plant-based diet is taking on no small risk of health problems that may develop. Sometimes by the time he discovers the problem, it may be too late, or he may suffer quite a bit until the problem is corrected. There are dozens if not hundreds of nutritional components that cannot be tested in blood through the health funds. The problem is even more acute when it comes to pregnant women, where the baby too may suffer deformities as a result of the mother’s various deficiencies.

The scientific studies in this field are biased by two opposing factors. On the one hand there is the lobby of meat producers, which tries to pull in the direction that veganism is unhealthy. On the other hand there are extreme vegans, who try to pull in the direction that veganism is the healthiest way of life and even natural for the human body (both claims are completely mistaken in my opinion; perhaps this is a self-serving bias without awareness). Likewise, extreme vegans will try to silence or undermine any evidence that supports the claim that there are health problems with a vegan diet (apparently because they suspect such evidence is fabricated by the meat lobby, or because they are simply fundamentalists at times). For example, if I publish some post about the harms I personally experienced from a vegan diet, I assume people will automatically suspect that I am connected to the meat-producers’ lobby, or that I am simply imagining things or delusional, and that my problems stemmed from other causes unrelated to veganism. Because of these two sources of bias, it is very hard to rely on the scientific findings in this area in either direction. And in the absence of reasonable support for the scientific findings, it seems to me that passive non-action is preferable, meaning preserving the existing situation of consuming animal-based foods. Beyond that, I suspect that the studies teaching that a vegan diet is safe are conducted in a way where the subjects are very careful with their vegan diet so that it contains all the required components. In practice, when a person adopts a vegan diet and is not in a clinical study checking the effects of his veganism on his health, he will presumably be much less careful about the quality of the vegan diet, and thus will be at much greater risk. I agree that a varied vegan menu planned in a very meticulous way can be sufficient from a health standpoint. But I think it is very difficult to build such a menu, and it also requires a huge amount of time, energy, money, and planning in order to implement it. Beyond that one also needs close monitoring of various bodily indicators and regular use of artificial supplements. Most people who adopt a vegan diet in practice consume a deficient diet and thereby put themselves at no small health risk, in my opinion. Vegans often remain healthy only thanks to the stores of vitamins and minerals that they accumulated in their bodies during the period when they ate animal foods. The rate at which vitamins and minerals leak out of the body varies from person to person. One should remember that a certain vitamin deficiency does not only mean the person will feel weak; sometimes it can have very severe health consequences (like beriberi, for example, which can end in death).

As for choosing alternatives of animal-based foods that were raised humanely: at first I tried to consume meat / eggs that were raised in a more humane way, but it became a very problematic task, and it seems very impractical to live that way. For example, beef can be ordered only twice a year, and that is from one or two farms in the country. Regarding eggs, the problem of sourcing chicks from regular hatcheries exists in most if not all free-range coops. It does not seem reasonable that we are expected to live this way, just as it does not seem reasonable that we are expected to avoid relying on ordinary kosher-supervision bodies. After all, the Holy One, blessed be He, is the one who created us such that we need animal-based nutrition in order to exist. He is the one who put us in a situation in which we would need to cause some suffering to animals for the sake of our proper health. Maybe what is expected of us is to act within reasonable bounds to reduce the suffering of animals on farms, meaning perhaps through legislation, or influencing public representatives through political pressure and demonstrations, or perhaps donations to such a struggle.

I would be glad if you would pass this email on to your daughter, and in general I would like to hear both your response and hers to what is said here.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I am copying my daughter Rebecca as well. I assume she would say that we are still in doubt (perhaps there are harms), and therefore the default is still to eat vegan, since doubt does not override certainty (causing suffering). We have no right to cause such terrible suffering to animals because of unsubstantiated concerns (and in her opinion perhaps even if they are substantiated) or because it is hard for us to manage our lives that way. So we have to overcome it. In essence the question is: as long as the necessary changes have not been legislated (and it does not seem likely to happen in the near future), what should I as a private individual do?
The argument that this is how the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world is not reasonable. It does not seem to me sufficient to justify the terrible suffering we cause. At most one may raise animals in a reasonable manner and eat much less meat and fewer animal products. Think, for example, of a company that horribly abuses construction workers. Would we say that this is how the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world, or that the solution is legislation, or that in fact it is more correct not to use its services and to live in a tent or use another housing solution? My daughter always gives the example of soap made from the fat of Jews who were murdered or died in the concentration and death camps. Is lack of choice, and arguments about how the Holy One, blessed be He, runs the world, enough to justify consuming it?
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Regarding doubtful harm, to the best of my knowledge a possible danger to life overrides certain animal suffering.
Regarding causing suffering, one must remember that in many cases the suffering is caused by economic considerations that ultimately make animal-based food cheaper, thereby also enabling poor people to consume animal-based food. One must also take into account the suffering of those poor people if the price of animal-based food rises because of legislation that reduces animal suffering. In my opinion this is absolutely not luxury food or pampering, but food that is vital and necessary for human health.

The problem with the two comparisons you mentioned (construction workers and soap from Jews) is that there we are dealing with harm to human beings, whereas in our case we are dealing with harm to animals. I think there is an essential difference between the two, because the Holy One, blessed be He, withdrew the animals’ right to life / honor / liberty / autonomy / freedom from suffering in favor of human beings. Of course I would be very happy if the Holy One, blessed be He, had created the world and us in such a way that we would not need to cause suffering to any creature in order to live properly, but for some reason He decided that the wolf must prey on the sheep in order to survive, the tiger on the kid, and the human on the cow.

This whole topic reminded me of a question I wanted to ask you regarding animal rights. In the lecture series Rights and Duties in Jewish Law, you said that halakhic duties appearing in Hoshen Mishpat are duties that derive from a right. The laws of animal suffering, to the best of my knowledge, do not appear in Hoshen Mishpat. So it follows that from a halakhic standpoint, the duty to avoid causing animal suffering does not derive from any right of the animals, but as a duty of man toward the Holy One, blessed be He. The question is whether, in your opinion, animals indeed have no rights from a halakhic standpoint. The practical difference would be whether from a halakhic standpoint there is justification to coerce someone not to cause suffering to animals.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
1. Clearly animals have no rights. That is an unfortunate expression rooted in the imperialistic conception of rights that prevails today. It is our duty not to cause them suffering. Even so, one can coerce on the basis of coercion to fulfill commandments.
2. Regarding possible danger to life, I do not think you are right. There is no real doubt here, because one can see from medical tests that usually, if one maintains balance, the situation is fine. You are only raising the possibility that perhaps the tests do not reflect everything. This is a doubt without real basis (as in Rav Kook’s well-known comments in Ein Ayah on Sabbath 30, on the story of "your mother is my wife and you are my son"). Moreover, many vegans report living normal and healthy lives. True, you suspect the data, and to a certain extent justifiably, but suspicion is still not a basis for doubt. Suspicion can at most remove excuses that dispel doubts.
In sum, in my opinion a possible danger to life without real basis does not justify animal suffering.
3. Moreover, this doubt is not about danger to life but about various health concerns. Therefore the situation is far less clear-cut than you described. I am inclined to think that in such a case there is no real justification for harming animals.
4. There is of course a difference between a wolf preying on a sheep because that is its nature, and a human abusing a sheep (and not merely preying on it) and doing so by choice.