EXOD886 Dr. Bernard Rollin, a secular Jew who spent twelve years in yeshivah (Orthodox religious school) [and "father of veterinary medical ethics"] has argued throughout his career of more than thirty yeas that the major problems of farmed animal welfare today are the result of a failure to update our ethics to take into account our contemporary situation. In today's factory farms unnecessary animal suffering is at least as likely to occur on the farm as it is during slaughter, and responding to this new situation is arguably the most important aim of contemporary animal ethics, including Jewish animal ethics. Ninety-eight percent of the interactions that U.S. citizens have with animals are with those raised for food, and ninety-nine percent of these animals are raised on factory farms. Nonetheless, no movement of Judaism in the United States or Israel has attempted to develop policy on the systematic suffering inflicted upon animals on factory farms during their lives. This situation is likely to change in the near future, and already a committee of the Rabbinic Assembly, the organization of Conservative rabbis, is at work on just such a document as part of its Magen Tzedek program to certify foods as meeting ethical as well as ritual standards. An important resource in formulating a response is the broad legal principle expressed by the rabbis of the Talmud as a command not to cause tza'ar--literally "suffering" and understood to mean the suffering that does not advance some legitimate human good--to ba'alei hayyim-- to "living beings." The Rishonim (leading rabbinic authorities of the eleventh to sixteenth century) associate a variety of laws with this principle. Frequently cited examples include the prohibition against plowing with two animals of unequal strength (paradigmatically an ox and donkey), which causes the weaker animals to suffer (Deut. 22:10), and the already mentioned prohibition on muzzling an ox as it laborers (Deut 25:4)--rabbinically expanded to include all animals. Arguably the most prominent such law, found in both versions of the Decalogue, dictates that animals too are to be included in Sabbath rest [Exodus 20:10, Deut. 5:14]. All of these laws are expanded by rabbinic traditions, creating a massive body of legal material regarding Jewish and human responsibilities to animals. Thus, for example, the participation of animals in the rest of the Sabbath has led both ancient and contemporary rabbis to be lenient in permitting activities that are otherwise prohibited on Shabbat if they function to relieve animal pain (tza'ar ba'alei hayyim). And Rashi, commenting on [this verse], interprets the command to include not simply freedom from labor, but a positive state of contentment, and he thus rules that animals normally must have access to pasture on the Sabbath. Such laws demonstrate a concern for animal lives that takes into account diverse forms of harm such as that caused by the behavior of other animals, by emotional factors, or by constant exertion without respite. While forged largely in relation to laboring animals, the basic thrust of these laws--concern for the physical, social, and emotional lives of animals--would today be most applicable to the systematic forms of abuse inflicted upon find animals being raised for meat, milk, and eggs. (By Aaron S. Gross, "Jewish Animal Ethics")
SHOW FULL EXCERPT