- This topic has 128 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Curiosity: Reread your post. That is EXACTLY what you said. Whether it’s what you meant is a different question, but the assumption from reading your above post is that you think that it’s a slippery slope from ASPCA and what it stands for to legal bestiality.
Quote: “First it starts with prioritizing the needs of animals alongside those of people’s, then the love one has for an animal becomes on par with those shared with humans, and the final step is to cross that small threshold of turning those relationships into sexual encounters – as unpalatable as that sounds.”
It is not a BAD THING to save an animal- if you saw that your car was about to run over a squirrel, would you stop the car or just run over it (assuming you could safely avoid it- granted that many times you can’t)? Nobody is putting up a picture of a starving child and a starving cat side-by-side and saying, “don’t bother with the kid! Fluffy the Cat needs your help!” It’s marketing, and just as plenty of people market products that are utterly useless and ridiculous and make very effective commercials to convince you that they aren’t, the ASPCA is trying to sell something. Feel free not to buy it, but they’re the ones paying the advertising time.
Apparently many, but not all, sources hold that it is a mitzvah to relieve animals of their suffering, whether or not the animal belongs to you. See this passage from a book by R’ Dovid Sears:
The Chasam Sofer advances the opinion that, although causing pain to an animal is scripturally forbidden, the obligation to rescue an animal in distress applies only to one’s own animals; see Teshuvos Chasam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah, nos. 314, 318, and Choshen Mishpat, no. 185. This appears to be consistent with the view of Maharam Schick on the Taryag Mitzvos, Mitzvah 80. Authorities who do not make such a distinction include: Noda B’Yehudah, Mahadurah Kama, Yoreh De’ah, nos. 81-83; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Vol. 6, Tza’ar Baalei Chaim, 4; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, 191:1; Orach Maysharim, 15:1; et al. The Netziv in Ha’amek Davar, Deuteronomy 22, maintains that one is not obligated by Torah law but is required to intervene by rabbinic decree. In Eishel Avraham: Tinyana, Yoreh De’ah 305:20, R. Avraham of Butchatch argues that the relief of tza’ar baalei chaim directly or indirectly caused by a human being is incumbent upon any Jew capable of intervening by scriptural law. For further discussion see R. Yitzchak Nachman Eshkoli, Tza’ar Baalei Chaim (2002), chap. 11.
To add to that: if you have pets, you must feed them first, and you must relieve the burden of a donkey even if his owner is your enemy.
By the way, Curiosity, do you/would you donate to yeshivos? Why, when you could instead donate to a tzedakah that feeds starving people or one that provides medical care to dying people? Do you donate to BOTH the yeshivos AND the lifesaving tzedakahs? In that case, why shouldn’t one donate to the ASPCA as well?
Well, because donating to the ASPCA has no charitable purpose at all.
It doesn’t mean it’s a waste of money though. It isn’t a waste of money when I buy a sandwich at Carlos and Gabbys, because I like it. If you like giving money to them, then it isn’t a waste.
Curiosity, your first post was expressed in a hate-filled way, although your later posts were toned down more.
popa, if you think there is “no charitable purpose at all” in relieving the suffering of Hashem’s briyos, then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.
Well, you might convince me.
Please don’t.
Exactly what I meant when I referred to this thread as being “interminable.”
Well, then, to reference one of your earlier posts: if animals could live in their natural habitat without us bothering them or them bothering us, all would be fine and there would be no need for the ASPCA. I shed no tears for animals killed by natural predators. However, because of human intrusion into animal environments (industrialization destroying the places where they live and feed is a big example, not to mention human breeding of animals for pets causing an overrun of strays with not enough food to go around), we have made it impossible for them to live as they should, according to the biological programming you mentioned. Therefore, we have an achrayus to correct this issue by spaying/neutering our pets, rescuing animals we come across who are in obvious distress (this should go without saying but do it safely), etc. One way to help rectify the damage we have done is to donate to the ASPCA, which provides food and shelter for those strays and rehabilitates animals who have been cruelly abused by humans.
I think paying and neutering pets is assur, but not because of tzaar baalei chaim. It is assur in its own right.
jewishfeminist,
ASPCA provides food and shelter for strays for a week or two and then, if nobody adopts them, the ASPCA kills the dogs.
I should also point out that the Torah forbids neutering a pet (or any other animal).
You are correct. I should have said that we can make sure when we are buying/adopting pets that we choose one that is already spayed or neutered.
Curiosity, the question was hypothetical. I was not actually expecting a list of the tzedakahs you support. Please explain (in more detail than “basic daas Torah”) why you believe it is assur to donate to the ASPCA.
benignuman, 1) if more people were to support the ASPCA, they could afford to provide food and shelter for strays indefinitely, and 2) a quick and painless lethal injection provides the animal with a much more pleasant exit from this world than the ravages of starvation and disease on the streets.
Hmmm. I don’t think our actions create that achrayus. If I take a dog and lock it in a room, I hear I have an achrayus to feed it. But I do not think I have an achrayus to feed every animal that is harmed through multiple steps of causation from my perfectly normal actions.
Human beings as a whole have this achrayus, regardless of whether or not we as individuals were the abusers of animals. ?????? ??????? ????????? ???-???????, ???????????; ??????? ???????? ??????, ???????? ???????????, ???????-??????, ?????????? ???-???????.
I don’t really think that’s a very good diyuk from that passuk. It says we should rule the other creatures. And conquer the planet.
Seems more an espousal of said industrialization than anything else.
With power comes responsibility. If we have “conquered” the earth, and are in charge of all its creatures, that means we need to make responsible decisions. “Conquer” does not mean “abuse”.
I don’t really hear that as applied to non-human subjects.
“writersoul – I have no clue how you gleaned your statements from mine, much less is that ‘exactly what I said.’ I was not alluding to the slippery slope argument. I was saying that the fact that we’ve gotten to the point where these commercials are mainstream indicates that the next two steps are not so far behind.”
And… what is that if not for the slippery slope argument?
Or are you saying that the fact that there is such an organization as the ASPCA indicates that there is public sympathy for bestiality? Because if it hasn’t happened since 1866, why should it happen now?
Anyway, you’re the one who brought bestiality up, not me.
Why not? “The earth” means the earth and everything in it, no?
Yes. I meant I don’t hear the achrayus that comes with it to protect individual animals, plants, rocks, or whatever.
I would hear an argument perhaps to not wantonly destroy stuff, and perhaps to not eliminate species. But I just don’t hear that that comes with an achrayus to feed baby squirrels that are displaced by my entirely constructive urban sprawl.
I never suggested feeding baby squirrels (that’s cute, though).
Yes, urban sprawl is constructive. We are not going to go back to pre 1800 and this really is the right decision for us. But we should consider the impact it has on the environment, including both plants and animals, and take appropriate corrective action.
Sure, I agree we should consider the impact. But if I’m considering the impact, it’s going to be on the species as a whole–not on the individual animals. They don’t have any specific value.
I think we are in agreement, and arguing over semantics.
Individual animals and their stories are behind the mechanism that arouses compassion in people and leads them to donate to the ASPCA. But the mission of the ASPCA is to help animals as a whole, and its success is measured in numbers (e.g. how many animals did it rescue?) Within this framework, each individual animal is fairly insignificant.
Feeding animals in the wild is NOT a good idea. They may carry diseases and, if they were already keeping away from populated areas, now come closer to get more food- bad for us and for them.
That’s why ASPCA is a good thing, assuming that’s your thing. They’re professionals who know what they’re doing.
I don’t think it’s semantics quite yet.
I mean perhaps I’d hear an argument that we have an achrayus not to let species become extinct. Perhaps. That is certainly not a danger with housecats and dogs.
Agreed. But the other extreme of “extinct” is overpopulation, which creates a glut of animals who wander around starving and diseased in acute distress. They (as a whole) are in this state because we (as a whole) think they’re pretty and cuddly and breed them for pets. Therefore we have an achrayus to control their population numbers so as to eradicate the suffering that we caused.
A friend once said to me, regarding overpopulated deer that the city had tagged for observation, “they’d be doing them a greater kindness to just put a bullet through their heads”. That was hard for me to hear, but I have to admit that he was probably right.
Curiosity, you are not making any sense. I literally just read your post three times and have no idea what you are trying to say.
JF: I accept!
Next time you are in my area, look me up and we’ll go crossbow hunting strays together.
Curiosity: Why do you think their methods are new?
Check out the ASPCA website. They have a nice long blurb about their history.
I’m not old enough to know how long they’ve had these commercials, but it looks like they’ve been guilt-tripping New Yorkers for years.
btw,
If i remember my learning correctly,
popa_bar_abba is right about Neutering animals. NOT ALLOWED!!
I’m wondering if you’re even allowed to help s/o neuter,even only with your money.
Curiosity, that’s what I said. I have no idea since when they’ve been doing these commercials. For all I know, it could have been since the invention of the television, but as I’ve only been around for a bit less than seventeen years, I wouldn’t know. But the commercials ONLY aren’t the point- the fact is that they’ve been fundraising for nearly 150 years and this isn’t really a big divergence from their usual derech.
Right, that’s why I said to make sure you are getting a pet that is ALREADY neutered.
im getting mixed rememberings about a goys issur to be misaress.
Popa, some poskim (I believe R’ Ovadia Yosef is among them) permit spaying and neutering, though you’re correct that it’s generally prohibited.
I think the basic assumption behind Curiosity’s posts — that it is somehow wrong and against the Torah to promote gemilus chasadim against animals — is wrong. We may or may not be actually required to go out of our way to be kind to animals and help relieve them from suffering, but I think there’s no question that it’s a praiseworthy act. I don’t think you can find a single major rabbinical statement saying that it is wrong to rescue abused or neglected dogs and cats and take them in as pets.
On the contrary, the rabbis have always acknowledged that compassion for animals is an admirable trait. There are many stories of great tzaddikim assisting animals in various ways.
As the Ramak said in Tomer Devorah, one’s “mercy should extend to all creatures, neither destroying nor despising any of them. For the Supernal Wisdom is extended to all created things- minerals, plants, animals and humans. This is the reason why we were warned against despising food. In this way man’s pity should be extended to all the works of the Blessed One just as the Supernal Wisdom despises no created thing for they are all created from that source…”
Of course, it would be absurd to spend all of one’s time helping animals and neglect to help any people, as if only animals were worth helping. But there’s nothing wrong with specialized organizations dealing with particular issues like animal welfare. Your assumption that this has something to do with animal rights is incorrect — a concern for animal welfare is different than animal rights.
Actually, Orthodox Jews in Israel, among them a well-regarded rabbi who was responsible for a lot of Israel’s privatization, recently started an organization dedicated to promoting compassion for animals in Orthodox communities. I think this is a great thing, despite all the other important things people should be working on, because whenever there’s a neglected mitzvah or area of concern, people need to be paying attention to it and working on it. We are supposed to follow the whole Torah, not just the parts that happen to be most fashionable to focus on in any particular generation.
What does bother me about many of these organizations is that they actually kills thousands of animals. If the cats or dogs aren’t adopted within a few weeks, they are often killed (“euthanized.”) It’s like holding the animals hostage — adopt this puppy now or it’s dead [cue throat-cutting hand-motion]!
A growing movement, however, of “no kill” shelters has emerged, which only kill the animals in very unusual circumstances, such as when the animal is extremely aggressive or is about to die anyway.
jewishfeminist02 -“You only explained why we don’t eat dog. You didn’t explain why we do eat chicken.”
When I get tired of HOT DOGS, burgers, steak – I eat chicken.
I like chicken and other meats. Why do you eat veggies?
As long as you eat meat in moderation -so not to eat too much cholesterol.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.