:inctfrom s. Rather, .ecially in mmunion Hierarchy, Kinship, and Responsibility The Jewish Relationship to The Animal World tHer in the ROBERTA KALECHOFSKY lslims and W03). P·59· lAnswers" ce of Ani­ liatry and Its, p. 30!. oss to Ani­ o. imals," in

Under the biblical perspective, a change took of law. Like any body of law, these decisions place in the status ofanimals from what had pre­ rest on precedent and authoritative statements, als," p. 32. vailed in Babylonian and Egyptian cultures: ani­ in this case by rabbis in the Talmud, or by rab­ ifo in Jew­ mals were demythologized-as were humans. bis throughout the centuries whose decisions are NewYork: There are no animal deities in the Bible; there called "responsa." However strong the aggadic are no human deities in the Bible. Animal life tradition might be on any issue, halachic deci­ .-Sherbok, was neither elevated nor degraded because of sions take precedent in governing the behavior {Theology the demythologizing process. Animals were no of the observant Jew, though they do not always longer worshipped, singly or collectively, but express the underlying ethos of the tradition. they were accorded an irreducible value in the As in any culture, sentiment is often stronger divine pathos, which is expressed in the cove­ than law. nantal statements, in halachic decisions or laws, The biblical and Talmudic position with re­ and in aggadic materiaL These three branches spect to animals is summarized in the statement of Jewish expression determine the tradition by Noah Cohen: known in Judaism as tsa'ar ba'alei chaim (cause no sorrow to living creatures). Aggadic mate;ial The Hebrew sages considered the wall of parti­ is made up of stories and legends, sometimes tion between man and beasts as rather thin .. , called midrashim, such as the story of how God the Jew was forever to remember that the beast led Moses to the burning bush because Moses reRects similar affections and passions as him­ ran to rescue a lamb who had strayed. Halachic self. ... Consequently he was admonished to seek material comprises a body of decisions regard­ its welfare and its comfort as an integral parr of ing specific issues that have the binding effect his daily routine and instructed that the more ROBERTA KALECHOFSKY

ings often more I he considers its well being and contentment, the with men." 3 Inexplicable as this may seem to the more would he be exalted in the eyes of his modern mind, it suggests that animals had legal ideas necessarily maker.! standing, as indeed their inclusion in the cove­ the animals inclu nantal statements would make mandatory. The but also the welll The story the prophet Nathan tells David covenantal statements point not only to the ani­ ered more impo when Nathan chastises him for his behavior in mals' legal position, determining things that are many Sabbath la, stealing Bathsheba from her husband expresses due them such as proper food and care, but also to come to the ai the kinship the biblical Jew felt for animals, to their position in the divine ethos and reflect Jesus' observal which embraced the animal as part ofthe family: the centrality of the animal in God's concern. every sparrow," e concern for the a There were two men in one city; the one rich "As for me," says the Lord, "1 will establish My fers over animal and the other poor. The rich man had many Covenant with you and with your seed after you, English clergym flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing, and with every living creature that is with you, wrote one of th< save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought the fow!, the cattle, and every beast of the earth abuse, believed t and nourished up, and it grew up together with with you; all that go out of the ark, even every trine of Revelatil him and with his children. It ate from his own beast of the earth." or station exeml food and drank from his own cup, and lay in his sibility of pain, I bosom, and was to him like a daughter. (Samuel feelings thereof II, 12: 1-4) And in that day 1 will make a covenant for them mercy to brutes with the beasts of the field and with the fowls would render eql Judaism accepts a hierarchical scheme to cre­ of the heaven, and with the creeping creatures a doctrine ofreve ation, but hierarchy did not exclude feelings of of the ground. And I will break the bow and the whose writings 0 loving kinship. With respect to animals the rule sword and the battle out of the land and 1 will otal for Jewish might be stated as kinship yes, reverence no. make them to lie down safely. advocates. Rabbi In the creation story, in the biblical termi­ (Hosiah 2: 20) nology in the commandment of biological fruit­ The free move fulness, and in the blessing of life given equally Animals are included in the covenant which tablish justice f to the animals and to the human race, Rabbi establishes the Sabbath: of their rights Elijah Schochet sees a "unity of man and beast: natural psychil since ruach hayyim ('spirit of life') can refer to The seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your Torah... , Just both man and beast, as can nefish hayyah ('living God; you shall not do any work, neither your reach outward creature')." He points out that in the Book of son, nor your daughter, nor your male or female and moral perf Jonah the animals are clad in mourning sack­ slave, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is ing to act just cloth, "just like their human counterparts," and within your settlements. proper time. ~ state is the COil take part in the public ritual ofmourning? Such (Exodus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 5:14) passages strike a modern reader as quaint, but cifically for thi they suggest the biblical sense of closeness be­ Cohen extrapolates from the covenantal tween animal and human. statements a doctrine of equality between hu­ Being also a n The other side of this relationship, which is mans and animals. "Does not the Bible itself in laws governin inexplicable to the modern mind, is that retribu­ treat them [animals] as humans with whom the mans and anima vides a good sUI tive justice could be extended to animals: "In­ Lord can execute treaties and covenants?" 4 Vol­ herent in 'covenant' is 'responsibility,' and Scrip­ taire, who was no friend of religion, wrote, "the with the observ~ ture does not spare animals from responsibility deity does not make a pact with trees and with concerning the for their deeds ... and at times animals would stones which have no feelings, but He makes it on the principle seem to be treated as though they were coequal with animals whom He has endowed with feel­ creation toward 93 HIERARCHY, KINSHIP, AND RESPONSIBILITY yseem to the ings often more exquisite than ours, and with Laws and other indications in the Pentateuch :lals had legal ideas necessarily attached to it." 5 Not only are make it clear not only that cruelty to animals is in the cove­ the animals included in the Sabbath covenant, forbidden but also that compassion and mercy ndatory. The but also the wellbeing of the animal is consid­ to them are demanded of man by God." 8 lly to the ani­ ered more important than the Sabbath, and These laws make the effort to balance human :lings that are many Sabbath laws could be suspended in order need against what would constitute cruelty to­ care, but also to come to the aid of a stricken animal. ward animals, and they consistently reveal the JS and reflect Jesus' observation that "God notes the fall of scope of Jewish concern regarding animals. As 1's concern. every sparrow," expresses this traditional divine James Gaffney pointed out, "the fullest and concern for the animals. God cares for and suf­ most sympathetic treatment in any comparable I establish My fers over animal life. The nineteenth-century religiously oriented encyclopedia in English is seed after you, English clergyman Humphrey Primatt, who that ofthe EncyclopediaJudaica, a reminder that at is with you, wrote one of the earliest tracts against animal the Hebrew Bible laid foundations on which it LSt of the earth abuse, believed that "Mercy to Brutes is a doc­ was possible and natural to build."9 Any dis­ lrk, even every trine of Revelation.... and Superiority of rank cussion of laws, however, inevitably involves in­ or station exempts no creature from the sen­ terpretation, which itself depends upon which enesis 9:9-10) sibility of pain, nor does inferiority render the system of hermeneutics one uses to interpret feelings thereof the less exquisite."6 Not only passages in the Bible. Interpretations oscillate enant for them mercy to brutes but also ultimate justice that between whether human beings have an abso­ with the fowls would render equity and equality to animals was lute duty to animals, or a relative duty depend­ :ping creatures a doctrine ofrevelation for Rabbi Avraham Kuk, ing upon human need, such as might be re­ ile bow and the whose writings on the subject have become piv­ quired in medical experiments or in eating 1O land and I will otal for Jewish vegetarians and animal rights meat. advocates. Rabbi Kuk said: Furthermore, in establishing the biblical and (Hosiah 2:20) later Jewish teaching on animals, we have from The free movement of the moral impulse to es­ the outset the problem of interpreting the first )venant which tablish justice for animals generally and the claim document, Genesis; we are a long way from of their rights from mankind are hidden in a knowing what words such as "dominion" and natural psychic sensibility in the deeper layers of "subdue" meant two and halfmillennia ago. Yoel .the Lord your Torah.... Just as the democratic aspiration will Arbeitman, a scholar ofSemitic languages, sum­ k, neither your reach outward through the intellectual marizes halfa dozen meanings from other schol­ male or female and moral perfection ... so will the hidden yearn­ ars of rdh, the Hebrew verb for "to have do­ stranger who is ing to act justly towards animals emerge at the minion," as "to rule or shepherd in a neutral proper time. What prepares the ground for this sense," "to lead about," "lead, accompany; mas­ teronomy 5: 14) state is the commandments, those intended spe­ ter, punish ..." "to be governed/controlled" as in cifically for this area of concern? "to tame." 11 In attempting to understand with ne covenantal some confidence how the Bible viewed human 'f between hu­ Being also a nomistic religion, Judaism is rich beings vis-a.-vis animals, Arbeitman parallels his he Bible itself in laws governing the relationship between hu­ effort to retrieve a final denotation ofrdhwith an 'lith whom the mans and animals. The EncyclopediaJudaica pro­ effort to understand the Hebrew for "earth" (the 'enants?,,4 Vol­ vides a good summary of these laws, beginning substance Adam and other earth creatures are Jn, wrote, "the with the observation that "moral and legal rules made from) and for "image" (selem/salma) the trees and with concerning the treatment of animals are based term used for the Hebrew resemblance to God. on the principle that animals are part of God's With reference to Hebrew, Syrian, Aramaic, and lit He makes it lwed with feel- creation toward which man bears responsibility. Assyrian texts, and gl~anings from archeology 94 ROBERTA KALECHOFSKY

and philology, Arbeitman concludes resignedly relationship is inescapably hierarchical. (Any can understanc that the effort does not yield much. "And that other relationship for the child would be life­ However, anim is the sum ofwhat the ancient biblical texts will threatening.) understand thi tell us": that humans and land animals are said Regardless of what scholars may ultimately loneliness. The to have been created from the same substance decide rdh means, Biblical and Talmudic laws the purpose of (adamah or earth), that God breathed a special regarding human responsibility for animals are behavior that I life force (personality? soul?) into humans; that embedded in the concepts of "dominion" and Dei with respec the concept of the human being was modeled "hierarchy" which, in their turn, were modeled pends upon th on that ofa statue, being three dimensional, and on the family; in turn, the image of the "good" derives from it. that the result is "a benign ... patriarchal hege­ father was modeled on the idea of God, as ex­ ness to animals mony ofAdam." pressed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. leads some Jew Since scholarship on this subject is so un­ God has dominion, a parent has dominion, hu­ the motive for yielding, interpretation and tradition become man beings have dominion. But the dominion moral betterm( crucial. The fact that Adam names the animals granted to humans in Genesis is at once severely statements reB, in second Genesis does not suggest to Arbeit­ limited by the dietary injunction to be vegetar­ in God's concel man "dominion," but "bonding," "naming is the ian. Even when permission to eat meat is granted of fish, fowl, ; way of establishing a relationship to the other after the Rood, that permission has immediate species with its -not dominance, but a bond between them!" restraints placed on it. Dominion is always of view that anim: (emphasis Arbeitman's)P That with which we limited power, and hierarchy need not and did 0 jects in their ' bond, we call by name. This interpretatiori is not exclude feelings of loving kinship in the creations, state reinforced by the fact that in second Genesis Bible, as expressed in Nathan's admonishment majesty, "And the animals are created prior to Eve and are re­ to David. If Nathan's story did not reRect a com­ god who create garded as helpmates to Adam. God later decides mon sentiment at the time, it would have had Rabbi Kuk. that Adam needs a helpmate who resembles him no meaning for David. Other stories, such as an evolutionar -an obvious biological necessity in order to those revolving around the relationship of the which the hum carry out the commandment "to be fruitful and shepherd to his sheep, dictated that it was the the animal w( multiply," as species naturally procreate only "unprotected" creature who merited the deep­ however benigl with themselves. est sentiment of protectiveness, as expressed by ent temptation However, the general drift of the Jewish at­ the nineteenth century rabbi, Samson Raphael cautioned, "Ifv titude in Western culture toward animals from l-Iirsch. ion; ifnot, we" biblical times through the Middle Ages to the making "domir modern era, is that they are not co-equal, There are probably no creatures who require such as the sto though animals still inherit a significant position more the protective divine word against the pre­ that the mosql from the biblical stance toward them. Moreover, sumption of man than the animals, which like kind, are intenl the paradigm shift from the concept of hier­ man have sensations and instincts, but whose Dominion can archy to the concept of equality within the last bodies and powers are nevertheless subservient Jewish piety, tI century makes it difficult for the modern mind to man. In relation to them man so easily for­ that his own p' to accept the biblical and Jewish values regard­ gets that injured animal muscle twitches just like that his life is 0 ing animal life because they are based on quasi­ human muscle, that the maltreated nerves of an moral, particul: equality, or even inequality. Biblical and Talmu­ animal sicken like human nerves, that the animal Justice for a dic laws embedded in the concept of hierarchy is just as sensitive to cuts, blows, and beatings as from these two are often seen to function as life-threatening to man. 14 other human. all but the power-elite.13 The concept ofequality economy and p has such force in modern Western thought that Jewish law commands the righteous Jew to blessing and de laws based on hierarchical systems are peremp­ feed his animal(s) before he feeds himself be­ mals through ( torily judged as unjust, though the parent-child cause, the Jewish argument is, a human being feeds all," who 1 HIERARCHY, KINSHIP, AND RESPONSIBILITY

Heal. (Any can understand hunger, but an animal cannot. he is capable ofpreserving his life. Justice for ani­ mid be Iife­ However, animals do understand hunger. They mals is built into the divine order of the world understand thirst, appetite, sexuality, feat, and from the very creation of the world. God, JUSt y ultimately loneliness. The commandment is hortatory for and merciful, did not create creatures for evil Imudic laws the purpose of encouraging responsibility and reasons or purposes, but so that "good should be animals are behavior that leads to the idea of the imitatio done to the animal." 15 These central statements ninion" and Dei with respect to animals. The imitatio Dei de­ offaith posit the place of the animal within the ere modeled pends upon the concept of hierarchy; indeed, Jewish world view and make it impossible to fthe "good" derives from it. However, the precept of kind­ subtract the theoretical and theological dignity God, a~ ex- ness to animals for the sake of the imitatio Dei of animal life from the Jewish concept of God the Mount. leads some Jewish commentators to argue that Who found them good. ,minion, hu­ the motive for concern for animals is human Two tales, the first aggadic and the second le dominion moral betterment, even though the covenantal biblical, enforce the centrality of the animal in mee severely statements reflect the centrality of the animal the unfolding ofJewish destiny: God's choice of ) be vegetar­ in God's concern. The depiction of the creation Moses to lead the Jewish people our of Egypt :at is granted of fish, fowl, and animal in Genesis, is each because Moses goes to rescue a lamb that leads s immediate species with its integrity, and substantiates the him to the burning bush; and Eliezer's choice of is always of view that animals were regarded as integral sub­ Rebecca to be the wife of Isaac because Rebecca not and did jects in their own right. God's delight in these says to Eliezer, "Drink and I will also water your lship in the creations, stated with blessing or with simple animal." Concern for the animal in both tales monishment majesty, '~nd it was good," does not reflect a is not merely a nice sentiment or only a moral eHeetaeom­ god who created animal life to be in bondage. quality; it points to historic destiny. lid have had Rabbi Kuk interpreted human dominion as The laws concerning animals have been such as an evolutionary process, a necessaty stage in summed up in many places and would be too nship of the which the human identity sortS itself out from numerous to cite here. Biblical, Talmudic, and at it was the the animal world. Nevertheless "dominion," post-Talmudic literature are replete with them, ::d the deep­ however benignly interpreted, is an omnipres­ but they indicate a consistent pattern, as Noah expressed by ent temptation to power. Rabbi Hanina Cohen points out in his analysis of them: "ex­ son Raphael cautioned, "Ifwe deserve it, we will have domin­ amination of the biblical, talmudic, and medi­ ion; ifnot, we will descend to the lowest depths," eval jurisprudence concerning the lower crea­ making "dominion" a moral issue. Aggadic tales, tures reflects a coherent system of humane who require such as the stoty of creation which points out legislation whose purpose is to defend the sub­ :ainsc the pre­ that the mosquito was created before human­ human creation and to make humans more hu­ Is, which like kind, are intended to deflect human arrogance. man." 16 As with any body oflaw, however, these :s, but whose Dominion can be a source of evil, but within laws too rest on precedent and interpretation, ,s subservient Jewish piety, the Jew was always to remember and the protection they afford animals may vary so easily for­ that his own position rests on God's grace and from time to time, not only among Jews but Itches just like that his life is only as valuable as his behavior is also among Christians. Paul allegorized the law :l nerves of an moral, particularly with respect to animals. which prohibits the muzzling of the ox when he lat the animal Justice for animals in Jewish tradition flows treads out the corn in the fields (Deuteronomy ld beatings as from these two primary sources, one divine, the 25:4), claiming that the ox was only a symbol for other human. Animals are parr of the divine the human. The law which states that "If thou economy and partake ofGod's just world, God's seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under teous Jew to blessing and delight. This justice is given to ani­ his burden, thou shalt forebear to pass by him; himself be­ mals through God "who opens His Hand and thou shalt surely release it with him," (Exodus LUman being feeds all," who has designed each creature so that 23: 5) can be interpreted to suggest that its pur­ ROBERTA KALECHOFSKY pose is not the protection of the animal, but to objects. Torah does not make this distinction. of animals, and < inculcate the practice of mercy in the human Why should we? In both cases, compassion is farming. Rabbi D being: "to make humans more human."17 On dictated by how a righteous Jew should behave mission to the m, the other hand, except for Paul, an elastic in­ (compassion is embedded in righteousness), but slaughtering of fa terpretation is never applied to the law concern­ it doesn't follow that such behavior reduces the tion of the prohi~ ing the muzzling of the ox. James Gaffney, in object of compassion. Permission to < his criticism of Paul's allegorization of this law, Though these la;vs have been variously inter­ the "dark thread' states: preted, they continue to establish protection as lennial tradition can be seen in two recent rulings, based on in­ animals. He lame The passage about the ox was as nonallegorical terpretation of halakhic laws: Rabbi David Ha­ otherwise: Jewish as everything else in the book of Deuteronomy, Levy's decree that the manufacture of fur and vegetarianism," a where it is found as part of the law of Moses. the wearing of fur violates the precept of tsaar "command veget, Like certain other passages in that same book, it baalei chaim, and Rabbi Moishe Feinstein's con­ pocentrism.22 Bu is plainly intended to be read as a piece of divine demnation of veal. In his responsa, Rabbi Fein­ either eating meal legislation in behalfof animals, despite some in­ stein does not conclude that the veal calf is is optional, thoug convenience to human greed .... It is indeed "for non-kosher because the laws regarding what is viewed darkly by oxen that God is concerned," and to at least that kosher and what isn't derive from a different eat meat was regal extent he "does not speak entirely for our sake." halachic branch from the laws regarding tsaar demanding of m The Mosaic law does envisage animal interest, baalei chaim, but he does conclude that the sume the flesh of does legislate animal rights, and to that extent raising and the eating of the veal calf is a viola­ his standard norn does represent animals as moral objects. IS tion of tsaar baaiei chaim: con trary. The cru reads: "When th, Too often the meanings and values of words, It is definitely forbidden to raise calves in such a thy border, as He concepts, and laws retreat into the political and manner because of the pain that is inflicted on shalt say: 'I will ea sociological mire of translation, while the prob­ them. '" a person is not permitted to do any­ eth to eat flesh; t lems of interpreting the Bible are further re­ thing he wants to his animals which would cause the desire of thy: fracted through a myriad of disciplines such them pain, even if he would profit from these perceives in this t as anthropology, archeology, and philology. A things, except for those things which are for his man's desire to ea common difference, for example, between He­ direct benefit such as slaughtering them for food he is to do so, and 20 brew and non-Hebrew texts is in the transla­ and using them in his work. notation to this h tion of "living things" (in reference to animals) What Torah ( or "living beings." As Arbeitman points out, "It Rabbi Feinstein, as had the Reverend Hum­ meat, then you IT should be stressed that the application of non­ phrey Primatt, and most animal rights advocates erly, and the laws life in the standard English renderings of 'crawl­ up to the twentieth century, regarded meat as a there was only on ing things,' 'living things,' which occur in some dietary necessity and exempted the slaughtering a Jew could sacri translations, has no basis in the Hebrew." 19 A of animals from laws pertaining to cruelty. In some scholars as : restoration of the original intention and under­ Judaism, the elaborate laws of shechitah (ritual the eating of mea standing of Torah passages concerning animals killing) evolved so that animals would be slaugh­ Jews in the DiasI would provide a necessary clarification and a tered for food in the most humane manner pos­ Roman worlds du foundation for those who are concerned with sible. Up until 1906 and the passage of federal may not have eat< what the Bible has to say about animals. The laws which required the shackling and hoisting no way for them t law concerning the muzzling of the ox appears ofanimals, shechitah was the least painful way to eriy, except on th( in the same passage of divine legislation regard­ slaughter food animals. But the laws failed the they may have m~ ing the treatment of the poor, but no interpreta­ animals (in spite ofthe prohibition against tying in Jerusalem. tion exists suggesting that concern for the poor an animal's hind legs) when the rabbis accepted As with the la deflects from the status of the poor as moral the federally mandated shackling and hoisting is a plethora of 1< 97 HIERARCHY, KINSHIP, AND RESPONSIBILITY

:his distinction. of animals, and eventually the evils of factory ish dietary laws), which indicate that the rabbis , compassion is farming. Rabbi David Rosen has called this sub­ were not comfortable with eating meat. There , should behave mission to the modern practices in rearing and are Talmudic passages critical of eating meat. lteousness), but slaughtering of farm animals, "a flagrant viola­ "Man should not eat meat, unless he has a spe­ rior reduces the tion of the prohibition" of tsaar baalei chaim.2l cial craving for it and then should eat it only Permission to eat meat is, in Eric Katz's view, occasionally and sparingly" (Chulin 84a). "A variously inter­ the "dark thread" that runs through the mil­ man should not teach his son to eat meat" :h protection as lennial tradition regarding the Jewish view of (Chulin 84a). Meat is never included in the ;s, based on in­ animals. He laments that "It could have been seven sacred foods oferetz Israel: pomegranates, lbbi David Ha­ otherwise: Jewish law could have commanded wheat, barley, olives, dates, fig honey, and ture of fur and vegetarianism," and he sees in this refusal to grapes. There is no special prayer for the eat­ trecept of tsaar "command vegetarianism," an ultimate anthro­ ing of meat, as there is with wine, bread, and Peinstein's con­ pocentrism.22 But Judaism does not command vegetables. The rabbis believed that the laws fa, Rabbi Fein­ either eating meat or vegetarianism. The choice of kashrut were intended to teach us reverence he veal calf is is optional, though eating meat was traditionally for life and to refine our appetites. Even so ar­ ;atding what is viewed darkly by the rabbis, and the desire to cane a law as the prohibition against "seeth­ om a different eat meat was regarded as "lust": is there a decree ing a kid in its mother's milk" was interpreted 'egarding tsa'ar demanding of man that he butcher and con­ by Philo of Alexandria (first century CE) to in­ dude that the sume the flesh of fauna? Should meat be part of culcate human kindness: What, he argued, is calf is a viola- his standard normal diet? Not at all. Quite the more revolting than that an animal should be contrary. The crucial passage in Deuteronomy cooked in the substance that was given to its reads: "When the Lord thy God shall enlarge mother for the animal's life? Central to Jewish calves in such a thy border, as He hath promised thee, and thou mysticism is the role that vegetarianism plays t is inflicted on shalt say: 'I will eat flesh,' because thy soul desir­ in messianic expectations: here vegetarianism tted to do any­ eth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, after all functions in the concept ofJewish mystical time ich would cause the desire of thy soul!" Now rabbinic tradition which chronicles human development from the -alit from these perceives in this text a clear indication that it is vegetarian state in the Garden of Eden to the ,hich are for his man's desire to eat flesh, not God's decree that Messianic age when it is believed we will be vege­ gthem for food he is to do so, and attributes an unflattering con­ tarian~ again. Rabbi Kuk regarded the Edenic notation to this lust for flesh. 23 commandment to "eat nuts, herbs and green What Torah commands is that if you eat things," as symbolic of Torah's intention of ul­ :verend Hum­ meat, then you must sacrifice the animal prop­ timate justice for the animal. In his inaugu­ ghts advocates erly, and the laws ofshechitah built on this. That ral speech as president of the Reconstructionist [ded meat as a there was only one designated temple in which College, Rabbi Arthur Green prophesied that e slaughtering a Jew could sacrifice an animal is regarded by vegetarianism will be the next kashrutof the Jew­ to cruelty. In some scholars as an effort to limit sacrifice and ish people, and Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg has de­ echitah (ritual the eating of meat. Other scholars believe that clared that a slow but certain movement toward tuld be slaugh­ Jews in the Diaspora, living in the Greek and vegetarianism for Jews is taking place: ~ manner pos­ Roman worlds during the late biblical centuries, age of federal may not have eaten meat at all, since there was Judaism as a religion offers the option of eat­ ; and hoisting no way for them to sacrifice their animals prop­ ing animal flesh, and most Jews do, but in our Jainful way to erly, except on the three festival occasions when own century there has been a movement to­ lWS failed the they may have made a pilgrimage to the temple wards vegetarianism among very pious Jews. A l against tying in Jerusalem. whole galaxy of central rabbinic and spiritual bbis accepted As with the laws concerning ani~als, there teachers including several past and present Chief and hoisting is a plethora of laws concerning kashrut (Jew­ Rabbis of the Holy Land have been affirming ROBERTA KALECHOFSKY

vegetarianism as the ultimate meaning of Jew­ ation ofanimal life (as well as ofearth) in Gene­ 1+ Samsor ish moral lbey have been proclaiming sis, and the covenantal statements in the Bible, section 415 (N the autonomy of all living creatures as the value because in Judaism the laws governing responsi­ I5. An exar which our tradition must now teach to bility to animals derive from the animal's place mal issue can I all of its believers .... Jews will move increas~ in the divine economy, assured by the covenan­ century letter

ingly to vegetarianism out of their own deep­ tal statements, by the Jewish view of creation, the Rights of j ening knowledge of what their tradition com­ and the Jewish view of a just and compassion­ ofJews Throug mands as they understand it in this age.24 ate Creator. The stress ofthese laws with respect ish Publicatiol to the Jew is summed up in the question: How 16. Cohen, For Rav Kuk this development is the meaning should the righteous (just) Jew behave toward 17. For vat of the Edenic diet and of that justice for animals animals, and the answer lies in the concept of "Judaism and which he lovingly and perceptively found buried the "imitatio Dei." The just and merciful human Regan, ed., A in the deeper layers of Torah. behaves toward animals as a just and merciful on the Use ofA A theological/nomistic, relationship flows be­ Creator behaves toward humans. pIe University tween the laws (hatakhah), the magisterial cre­ 18. Gaffnej mentation, p. 19. Arbeitn NOTES J. R. Hyland, Biblical Basis j 1. Noah J. Cohen, Tsanr Ba'alei Hayim: The Pre­ 9. James Gaffney, 'The Relevance ofAnimal Ex­ (Florida: Viat( vention of Cruelty to Animals-Its Bases, Develop­ perimentation to Roman Catholic Ethical Method­ ment, and Legislation in Hebrew Literature (Nanuet, ology," in Tom Regan, ed., Animal 5acrijices: Re­

New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1976), p. 1. ligious Perspectives on the Use ofAnimals in Science 2. Elijah Judah Schochet, Animal Lift in Jewish (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986), Tradition: Attitudes and Relatio1lShips (New Jersey: p. 160. For an example of such various Inr,ern,ret~­ Ktav, 1984), pp. 53-54. dons, see in the same publications, Rabbi J. David 3· Ibid., p. 54· Bleich, "Judaism and Animal Experimentation," 4. Cohen, Tsaar Banlei Hayim, p. 1­ p.6I. 5. Voltaire, Treatise on Tolerance, ch. I2, ed. ro. Yael Arbeitman, "In All Adam's Domain," Simon Harvey York: Cambridge University in Roberta Kalechofsky, ed., Juddism and Animal Press 2000). Rights: Classical and Contemporary Responses (Mar­ 6. Reverend Humphrey Primatt, The Duty of blehead: MA: Micah Publications, 1992), pp. 34-35. Mercy and the Sin ofCruelty to Animals (Edinburgh, II. Ibid., p. 34. For further discussion of "domin­ 1834), pp. viii, 14-15. ion," see Schwartz, Juddisrn and Vegetarianism, pp. 7. Rabbi Kuk's major work on this subject, A 1-39· Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace, still awaits a de­ 12. Arbeitman,}uddism andAnimal Rights, p. 34. finitive translation from Hebrew to English. To date, 13. Steven Wise, Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal the best translation and interpretation is in an un­ Rights For Animals (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books published thesis by Rabbi Jonathan Rubenstein. 2000) suggests, in the mode of modern argumenta­ 8. Zvi Kaplan, "Animals, Cruelty To," Encyclo­ tion, that "dominion" invariably reduces the domi­ pediaJudaica 16 vols. (Jerusalem: Ketcr, 1971), 3: 6. nated creature to a "non-thing." The author defines Pages a usefully succinct summaryof these "dominion" and "hierarchy" as responsible for the laws and a description of the biblical human/animal "legal vacuum" in which animals now exist, though relationship. Also see Richard Schwartz, Judaism animals in the past have occupied various combina­ and Vegetarianism (New York: Lantern Books, 2001) tions of status (legal/divine, semi-divine and legaV pp.I9-2 9· non-divine) in hierarchical cultures. 99 HIERARCHY, KINSHIP, AND RESPONSIBILITY

~arth) in Gene­ 14. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb, chap. 60, analysis of misinterpreted (and mistranslated) pas­ ts in the Bible, section 415 (New York: Soncino Press, 1962), p. 292. sages regarding animals. rning responsi­ 15. An example of moral wrestling with the ani­ 20. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, "Igros Moshe," Even ~ animal's place mal issue can be seen in Rabbi Sherira Gaon's tenth­ Ha-Ezer, vol. 4, responsum 92 (New York: Moriah, ,y the coven an­ century letter on this issue, "Sherira Gaon Defends 1963), pp. 164-65. ew of creation, the Rights ofAnimals," in Franz Kobler, ed., Letters 21. Rabbi David Rosen, "Vegetarianism: An Or­ ld compassion­ ofJews Through the Ages, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jew­ thodox Jewish Perspective," in Roberta Kalechofsky, ws with respect ish Publication Society, 1952) I: 121. ed., Rabbis and Vegetarianism: An Evolving Tradi­ question: How 16. Cohen, Tsaar Baalei Hayim, p. 105. tion, (Marblehead, MA: Micah Publications, 1995) behave toward 17. For variation in interpretation, see Bleich, p. 53· the concept of "Judaism and Animal Experimentation," In Tom 22. Eric Katz, "Sounds of Silence," Judaism and nerciful human Regan, ed., Animal Sacrifices: Religious Perspectives Animal Rights, pp. 56-59. it and merciful on the Use ofAnimals in Science (Philadelphia: Tem­ 23. Schochet, Animal Lift in Jewish Tradition,

ple University Press, 1986), p. 65. p·50 . 18. Gaffney, "The Relevance of Animal Experi­ 24. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, "The Jewish Dec­ mentation, p. 151. laration on Nature," Address on the 25th Anniver­ 19. Arbeitman,fudaism and Animal Rights, p. 41. sary of World Wildlife Fund. Reprint: Ro­ J. R. Hyland, The Slaughter of Terrified Beasts: A berta Kalechofsky, VegetarianJudaism-A Guide for Biblical Basis for the Humane Treatment ofAnimals Everyone (Massachusetts: Micah Publications, 1998) ce ofAnimal Ex­ (Florida: Viatoris Ministries, 1988), has a detailed P· 189· Ethical Method­ ,al Sacrifices: Re­ nimals in Science y Press, 1986), rious interpreta­

I, Rabbi J. David ~perimentation," dam's Domain," zism and Animal , Responses (Mar­ 1992), pp. 34-35· .5sion of "domin­ egetarianism, pp. imal Rights, p. 34. ~ge: Toward Legal A: Perseus Books dern argumenta­ :duces the domi­ he author defines sponsible for the lOW exist, though rarious comb ina­ divine and legal/ 'so