Q&A: Putting Down the Tiger That Killed a Worker
Putting Down the Tiger That Killed a Worker
Question
Last week there was human error, and sadly a tiger killed a worker at the Biblical Zoo. According to straightforward Jewish law, would one have to kill the tiger? Maimonides emphasizes that the law applies not only to an ox but to any animal that killed, but I find that hard to accept, especially since we live in a generation that sees less value in this whole idea of vengeance, and after all the animal just did what it is meant to do and there was no change in its nature (the worker’s mother was interviewed and said, “Why on earth should they put down the tiger?”)
Answer
It has nothing to do with vengeance. This is elimination of harm (a dangerous hazard, without disgrace; see Sanhedrin 56) and protection of people. If there is a way to keep it so that it will not cause harm, I think there is room to be lenient. By the way, the victim’s mother has no standing at all in this discussion.
Discussion on Answer
The difference is that this tiger is in human society and killed a person. See Bava Kamma 15–16 regarding a domesticated lion. True, whether innocent or forewarned, an ox that killed a person is stoned. So straightforwardly here too it should be stoned, beyond the law of eliminating a dangerous hazard in Sanhedrin 56. And this law applies even to an ownerless ox and one consecrated to the Temple, meaning even if it has no defined owner (as here, where it belongs to the public). So what I wrote earlier is probably mistaken halakhically. Under the law of a dangerous hazard, perhaps one could guard it, but under the law of an ox that killed a person, it should be stoned.
I do not boycott zoos, but there are problems there.
I did not understand the Rabbi’s conclusion. Does the Rabbi think this tiger should be killed?
Halakhically, it seems so.
Is the halakhic commandment to kill it specifically by stoning as the preferred method? If so, how could one stone a tiger nowadays? In any case, either way, I would like to merit such a rare commandment, one I have never yet fulfilled.
Precisely nowadays it is easier. But if that is impossible, then it is put down in any way possible. However, today we do not have a religious court of ordained judges, and 23 ordained judges are required, so the law does not really apply in practice. Presumably nowadays protection against it is sufficient. So here is yet another change from what I wrote earlier.
What I’m asking is that there is no difference between this tiger and any other tiger in the jungle; tigers are predators.
There is no difference between a tiger that killed and one that has not yet killed; the mistake was on our side (on the zoo’s side).
This is not a tiger that is abnormal by nature, so I don’t understand the point of killing this tiger and bringing a new tiger to the zoo in its place.
(And likewise regarding whether it is possible to guard it—I assume guarding it would be the same as guarding any other tiger?)
Again, thank you for the response!
P.S. I know the Rabbi is vegetarian because of animal suffering (sadly I’m not there yet); what is the Rabbi’s general view of zoos and the crowding there? I know that many people boycott going to zoos on moral grounds.