About veganism

It seems to me that this is not a matter but a complete prohibition. The suffering that the seven-eighth go through is terrible, and it is forbidden to be a part of it. Although many do not stand up to it, and I wonder if there is room to justify them in retrospect. It is clear that whoever refrains from all this will be called righteous.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
Do you yourself abstain from eating animal products? In addition, you said on the one hand that there is a complete obligation in this, and on the other hand you said "a righteous man will tell him" (which implies that it is a measure of chassidism). So just to make sure – is there an obligation here or only a measure of chassidism? Also, what should someone who is vegan do regarding the obligation to eat meat on Yom Kippur? Finally, should we say that fish are also forbidden, or is the suffering of fish relatively negligible even in our day? And in general, regarding fish, does the law of the Jewish Law apply to them?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I try very hard, but I don't always succeed. Sometimes there are prohibitions that are indeed valid, but because the public does not abide by them, they lose their validity (the order of the ministering angels was not given). The better the alternatives, the more binding it will be. The mitzvah of eating meat in the Yom Tov does not obligate a vegan for several reasons: 1. The mitzvah is to rejoice, and not necessarily in meat (at least according to the Maimonides). 2. We do not perform a mitzvah that comes with a transgression. Regarding fish, I tend to think that it is the same as other animals, although there are poskim who have divided between various animals and creatures, etc. It seems to me that these are not really well-founded intuitions. See an email I sent to the Torah Core Board in Lod about Tseva'ach and the correspondence that followed:
—
Hello everyone.
The situation in the animal breeding market is well known. The abuse and suffering they go through is terrible, and we all (as consumers) share some of the blame. It's easy to say that this is hysteria from animal cruelty organizations and the like (I thought so too), but this is an escape. It's worth checking, seeing the materials and being impressed. The situation is terrible. There is a moral and halakhic problem here, and people ignore it because of considerations of convenience.
Even free-range eggs, although they have some advantages over regular eggs, the difference is still not great. A significant part of the problems in raising poultry also exist in the production of free-range eggs. In contrast, organic farming must meet much more adequate standards of the Ministry of Agriculture. Note, as I have now learned, organicity has a meaning beyond health considerations or a return to nature. It also has a cardinal meaning in relation to animal cruelty considerations.
And now, in recent days we have found a Lod farm right near us (in Moshav Nir Zvi, when driving to Ramla and turning right after the train tracks), a charming farm run by charming people, where chickens are raised in truly excellent conditions (if they have passed the strict inspection of my daughter, Rivka, see below, then it is certainly "strictly kosher"). They are strict beyond the standards of the Ministry of Agriculture. Among other things, there is a store there and they sell organic eggs from these chickens, milk from organic farming (not theirs) and sometimes there are also poultry for meat, and many other organic products. It is very important to us to support them and recommend that everyone check out the place and buy there.
Their website: http://www.organishop.co.il/
Below I am attaching a post and photos from my daughter Rivka (the chief vegan rabbi) regarding this farm. We would be happy to provide more details, and if there is demand, even organize centralized shopping. That way, none of us will have any excuses for convenience to continue the forbidden behavior.
And it will be pleasant to hear,

Michai Avraham
—

Good evening 🙂
Last week I met a lovely farm, thanks to which I returned to eating eggs after a long time 🙂
Our condition for allowing the eating of eggs was that the hens receive optimal conditions for laying eggs, and zero suffering (not minimum suffering, not reduction of suffering, but zero suffering. I think our society can afford to demand that)

Then my mother (the cannon!) found the "Health in Nature" store. An organic store located in Moshav Nir Zvi, fifteen minutes from Lod!! Next to the store is the chicken coop. A huge, fenced coop, with shade, soil, and private laying cages for those interested 😉
After an in-depth investigation of the owner about the way the place is managed, receiving a bag of vegetables, free on-the-house, and most importantly, a final shake(!) made from these really delicious eggs, we decided that more people must get to know this amazing place, support it, and encourage other industries to do the same!

The store not only offers free-range eggs, but also organic vegetables without pesticides and additives. Legumes, extremely healthy chocolate (and delicious!), oils, soaps, and even dairy products, which they bring from a farm in the north, also organic. In short, it is recommended to do weekly shopping there, and not just buy eggs.
The price for a carton of eggs is 27 NIS for 12 eggs. Expensive compared to regular eggs, but not in relation to the health and mental benefits we receive.
I highly recommend running to the moshav to buy one! It is important to strengthen this warm and kind farm, which is meticulous about "animal cruelty" and does not compromise itself, unfortunately unlike most industries these days, on this all-important issue. It is worth the extra 15 NIS to prevent abuse, without any real loss, and without having to give up eggs 🙂
If they are interested, you can inquire about a closer point of sale (contact us for details here via return email)
Health in Nature-08-9229263
http://www.organishop.co.il/
————————————————————————————————
Asks (differently):
Full disclosure: I am vegan for health reasons, but over time I have become increasingly exposed to and halachically troubled by the problems of animal cruelty on farms.

If you really think that you shouldn't eat from a situation that causes animal suffering, what do you do with the consumption of chicken, meat, and milk? As far as I understand, the food safety problems on these farms are not easy at all…
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Another note. This is not a full halakhic prohibition. That is, whoever eats it does not violate the tseb'ach (which the poskim themselves disagreed about whether it is from the Torah or the rabbinic), but rather the rabbinic prohibition of aiding and abetting a crime. And yet this is a formal halakhic argument. On a moral level, this is very, very disturbing (like murder or stealing with the left hand, in a nutshell). The halakhic problem places me as a criminal in front of the breeders or in front of God, but the moral problem is in front of the animals themselves. They suffer a lot, and some of it is because of me, and they don't really care whether I manage to avoid the prohibition of aiding and abetting a crime or not.
————————————————————————————————
Asker (another):
I would like to add a question:
How do you see the inclusion of ecological considerations as considerations that the halakha takes into account?
When it comes to veganism, there are many ecological reasons to completely stop using livestock and eating fish, even if it is "organic" food. More than 40% of the Earth's land surface is used for livestock (mainly to grow food for them). If it is organic livestock, then the situation is even worse because it must be fed organic food that uses even more agricultural land. Those agricultural lands come at the expense of ecological diversity and, in general, serious ecological damage. Furthermore, all livestock produces 2.5 to 3 times more greenhouse gases than all the different means of transportation combined in the world, and it is also one of the main sources of groundwater pollution. In 40 years, humans have halved the number of marine animals, and this is when 90% of what fish from the sea eventually ends up in the mouths of livestock in the form of protein supplement powder.
On other issues as well, the religious public in Israel is the public that consumes the most disposable dishes. For example, there is a prohibition against using a dishwasher on Shabbat because of the appearance or the noise the dishwasher makes, there are permits to use it if there are many guests. Isn't it appropriate to allow the use of a dishwasher (with a Shabbat timer) for ecological reasons? Isn't it appropriate to generally ban non-biodegradable disposable dishes? What about diapers? This is one of the most polluting products there is, isn't it appropriate to require reusable diapers?
Is it possible that the law would not have a clear position on such a central issue in what is clear to everyone today as part of the Tikkun Olam? How is it that such considerations are not taken into account at all?
There are even more difficult questions, such as fertility, does the obligation of procreation and reproduction still exist in the same way as it did before man became the absolute ruler of the earth? What about man's role as "the creator and preserver"? After all, in the end, continuing human civilization at the same pace as in previous generations will lead us to ecological holocaust… If we think about the size of the human population, it seems that the growth is logarithmic, and if until recently this problem could be ignored, today the matter is burning: in the year 1 AD the world population was about 300 million people, in 1800 about a billion people, in 1930 about 2 billion, and in just 70 years, in 2000, 7 billion people. Isn't it appropriate to take into account that the earth's resources are limited and understand that at this stage man's role is to "the creator and preserver"? Isn't it time to understand that if humans have not yet found a sustainable lifestyle for 7 billion people, then they certainly won't be able to catch up if they continue to reproduce at the same rate?
It is clear to me that these considerations were not relevant when the Earth's population was several hundred million, and this is what has been the case throughout most of the history of halakhic law, meaning that the considerations I raised were not relevant, meaning that they cannot be ruled out simply because they have not been taken into account until now… If for a long period of time we have been "with the Book" and this was the example we set for the world, is it not fitting that we lead the world in dealing with ecological issues?
Hananel
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Hananel.
Indeed, things are like spurs. There is certainly room to consider this, but the question of what the halakhic status of these considerations is is not simple. To create a halakhic prohibition, you need a source and an authoritative interpretation. There are many things that seem logical to do, and yet it is not necessarily halakhic (see my article on Holocaust Remembrance Day, here ).

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

Regarding 1, for example, considerations of protection of life do not take into account indirect and distant harms even if they are highly probable. Although it can still be argued that it is important to maintain this regardless of the halakhah.
The problem arises when the conclusions contradict the halakha, as in the case of fertility and reproduction. Although there it is possible to keep the mitzvah (a son and a daughter) and just not add more. If you have two children, it reduces the world's population (it is true that to have a son and a daughter, on average, you would have more than two children). Ultimately, I think that in the Western world today, the birth rate is already a little over one child per pair of parents.
By the way, giving up "she created a Sabbath," meaning being content with two children, is possible for two reasons: 1. The halakhic status of "Shabbat" is not agreed upon. 2. The commandment of "Shabbat" is essentially global (settlement of the world), and therefore it is only natural to interpret it according to the principles of settling the world. This is the content of the commandment. Therefore, it really seems reasonable to me to take these considerations into account in the halakhic interpretation itself.

As for 2, beyond the considerations you brought up, there are also considerations of survival among the people of Israel, and perhaps those should also be taken into account. In general, it seems to me that the situation is more complex than you describe. I think that the quantitative facts you brought up are also not agreed upon, and therefore one should be careful when using them.
————————————————————————————————
Asker (another):
Rabbi Michi Shalom
I understand that from a formal halachic perspective, you see no basis for preferring organic produce, or at least the basis does not allow you to define eating conventional produce as an actual prohibition. That is why you wrote that "but the moral problem is with the animals themselves. They suffer greatly, and some of it is because of me."
I asked whether, in your view, the "moral problem" is an extra-Torah problem and you also live in a moral system that is not related to the halakhic system? Or do you see the problem as a broader one of the prohibition of tsaba'ach, and if it were not for the prohibition of tsaba'ach, it would not have been raised at all?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The moral problem is not extra-Torah, but it is extra-halachic. Therefore, there is no need to see it as an extension of the prohibition of tsaba'ach and it has a status of its own.
I think that in the books Humanity as a Stubble (and I will expand on this in the book on theology that I am currently writing) I wrote that morality cannot be an atheistic category, as Leibowitz refers to it, since according to this there are two authorities to which we are obligated: God as the religious authority, and some idol who is the moral authority (in the fourth book I argued that there is no moral obligation and commitment without an external factor that underlies it). Even if this idol is not wood and stone and not something tangible, the very fact that we are obligated to two authorities is a test of joint idolatry.
Therefore, I would definitely be required to consider the issue without the prohibition of tseb'ah. On the contrary, since there is a halakhic prohibition, it would be appropriate to say that we should not expand beyond what the Torah has established and therefore we should not fear additional prohibitions (this is what those who identify morality with halacha would probably say). Although I personally believe that despite the existence of such a prohibition, there is room for a moral dimension beyond halacha (because I do not identify morality with halacha), and so on.
————————————————————————————————
Asker (another):
I don't understand, is there no halakhic prohibition here, but "only" a moral problem, or is there a halakhic prohibition here, but it is a rabbinical prohibition of a helper and not a Torah prohibition?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
At most, there is a helpful prohibition here (the former disagree whether there is such a prohibition, and there are other differences that could remove it here) and not a Torah prohibition of Tseb'ach. Beyond that, there is a moral problem.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
Continuing our conversation at the end of the lesson about veganism, first of all I highly recommend that your daughter check her blood vitamin D level (regular blood tests do not include this test for some reason). Vitamin D is a very important vitamin for the body's activity, and its deficiency is quite common among vegans, as far as I understand, and in religious women the problem is exacerbated by the lack of sun exposure. 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 an unnatural diet for the human body, which has been accustomed for millions of years to being a "hunter-gatherer" whose diet was largely animal-based. Anyone who tries to change such a fundamental principle of the natural human diet and replace it with a plant-based diet takes on a considerable risk of health problems that may arise in him. Sometimes when 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 the blood through health insurance companies. The problem is even more acute when it comes to pregnant women, where the baby may also suffer from defects as a result of various deficiencies in the mother.

Scientific studies in the field are biased by two opposing factors: on the one hand, the meat lobby, which tries to pull in the direction that veganism is unhealthy. On the other hand, there are the extreme vegans, who try to pull in the direction that veganism is the healthiest and most natural lifestyle for the human body (both claims are completely wrong in my opinion; it is possible that this is an unwitting slander). Also, the extreme vegans will try to silence or undermine any evidence that supports the idea that there are health problems with a vegan diet (probably because they suspect that this evidence is fabricated evidence by the meat lobby, or that they are just fundamentalists sometimes). For example, if I publish a post about the harms that I personally experienced from a vegan diet, I assume that they will automatically suspect me of being connected to the meat lobby, or that I am just imagining or hallucinating and that my problems were due to other reasons unrelated to veganism. Because of these two biases, it is very difficult to rely on scientific findings in both directions. And in the absence of reasonable support for scientific findings, it seems to me that doing nothing is better (i.e. maintaining the existing state of animal-based food consumption). Furthermore, I suspect that the studies that teach that a vegan diet is safe are conducted in a way that the people being tested are very careful about their vegan diet so that it contains all the necessary ingredients. In practice, when a person adopts a vegan diet and is not in a clinical study that examines the effects of their veganism on their health, they will probably be much less careful about the quality of their vegan diet, and thus they will be much more at risk. I agree that a varied and very carefully planned vegan diet can be satisfactory from a health perspective. But I think it is very difficult to formulate such a menu, especially since it requires a lot of time, energy, money, and planning to implement it. Beyond that, you also need to closely monitor various body indicators and take artificial supplements regularly. Most people who actually adopt a vegan diet actually consume a poor diet, thereby putting themselves at considerable health risk, in my opinion. Vegans often remain healthy only thanks to the vitamin and mineral reserves they accumulated in their bodies during the period they ate animal-based foods. The rate at which vitamins and minerals leak from the body varies from person to person. It should be remembered that a certain deficiency in a particular vitamin does not only mean that the person will feel weak, sometimes it can have very serious health consequences (such as beriberi, for example, which can end in death).

Regarding choosing alternatives to animal food that is raised humanely. I initially tried to consume meat/eggs that were raised more humanely, but it became a very problematic task, and it seemed very impractical to live like that. For example, beef can only be ordered twice a year, and that is one or two times in Israel. Regarding eggs, the problem of purchasing from regular hatcheries exists in most if not all free-range chicken coops. It seems unreasonable that we are expected to live like this, just as it seems unreasonable that we are expected to avoid relying on regular kosher bodies. After all, God is the one who created us so that we need animal nutrition in order to exist. He is the one who put us in a situation where we will have to cause some suffering to animals for the sake of our proper health. Perhaps what is expected of us is to act within reasonable limits to minimize the suffering of animals on breeding farms, meaning to act perhaps through legislation, or influence public representatives through political pressure and demonstrations, or perhaps donations to such a struggle.

I would be happy for you to forward this email to your daughter and to hear your and her response to what is said here.
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I also wrote to my daughter Rebecca. I assume she would say that we are still in doubt (maybe there are harms), and therefore the default is still to eat vegan since there is no doubt (harm) that outweighs the certainty (causing suffering). We do not have permission to cause such terrible suffering to animals because of unfounded fears (and in her opinion, maybe even if they are well-founded) or the difficulty we have in managing our lives this way. So we need to overcome it. Basically, the question is, as long as the necessary changes are not enacted (and it does not seem that this will happen in the near future), what should I as an individual do?
The argument that this is how God created His world is implausible. I don't think it is enough to justify the terrible suffering we cause. At most, we can raise animals in a reasonable manner and eat much less meat and animal products. Consider as an example a society that mistreats construction workers in a terrible way. Should we say that this is how God created His world or is the solution legislation, or is it actually more correct not to use its services and live in a tent or some other housing solution. My daughter always brings up the example of soap made from the fat of Jews who were killed or died in concentration and death camps. Are the lack of choice and arguments about God's conduct enough to consume it?
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
Regarding the damage issue, to the best of my knowledge, the decisive issue is certainly the IDF.
Regarding the infliction of suffering, it should be remembered that suffering is caused in many cases due to economic considerations that ultimately allow for the reduction of animal food, thereby also allowing people with limited means to consume animal food. The grief of those with limited means should the prices of animal food rise as a result of legislation that reduces the cost of living must also be taken into account. In my opinion, this is not a matter of luxury or indulgence, but rather of food that is essential and necessary for human health.

The problem with the two comparisons you mentioned (construction workers and soap from Jews) is that there it is about harming humans, while in our case it is about harming animals. I think there is a fundamental difference between the two things because God has taken away the animals' right to life/dignity/freedom/independence/freedom from suffering, for the benefit of humans. I would of course be very happy if God had created the world and us so that we would not have to cause suffering to any creature in order to lead a normal life, but for some reason, He decided that the wolf would have to devour the lamb in order to survive, the tiger the goat, and the man the cow.

This whole topic reminded me of a question I wanted to ask you about the rights of animals. In the series of lessons on Rights and Obligations in Halacha, you mentioned that halachic obligations that appear in the Choshen Mishpat are obligations that arise by virtue of merit. To the best of my knowledge, the laws of the Jewish People do not appear in the Choshen Mishpat. Therefore, it follows that from a halachic perspective, the obligation to refrain from harming animals does not arise by virtue of the animals' merit, but as a duty of man towards God. The question is whether, in your opinion, animals do not have rights from a halachic perspective. The question is whether, from a halachic perspective, there is justification for forcing someone not to harm animals.
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
1. It is clear that animals have no rights. This is an unfortunate statement that is rooted in the imperialist perception of rights that prevails today. It is our duty not to cause them pain. And yet, it is possible to impose coercive law on the commandments.
2. Regarding doubting souls, I don't think you're right. There is no real doubt here, since it can be seen in medical tests that, in general, if the balance is maintained, the situation is benign. You are only raising the possibility that the tests may not reflect everything. This is a doubt without any real basis (as the well-known Rabbi in Ein Aya said on Shabbat 30, about the story of "Your mother is my wife and you are my son"). Furthermore, many vegans report normal and healthy lives. Although you doubt the data, and to a certain extent rightly so, suspicion is still not a basis for doubt. Suspicion can at most eliminate excuses that dispel inadequacies.
In conclusion, in my opinion, a question of a PICO without any real basis does not justify a ZEB.
3. Furthermore, this doubt does not deal with the PICO but with various health concerns. Therefore, the situation is much less clear-cut than described. I tend to think that in such a situation there is no real justification for harming an animal.
4. There is of course a difference between a wolf that preys on the sheep because it is its nature and a person who mistreats the sheep (and not just preys) and does so by choice.