- This topic has 143 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
(the plumber)”Feeling bad is one thing, but changing your lifestyle for stupidity we don’t believe in is called being an apikores.” No ,its called being stupid (according to you). Doing or believing something stupid does not an apikoires make. I hope you were being sarcastic. That said one thing I never got about those who don’t eat veal for “moral” reasons is that I don’t think the animal cares at that point. so unless there is a halachic reason for not eating it, why cant you eat it ?
I don’t know that all vegetarianism is apikorsus, but I understand why someone might think so; it’s more than mere stupidity. Rishonim say (IIRC, there’s a Rashb”a) that someone who doesn’t believe in the words of Chazal is an apikores. Now, if Chazal’s value system was such that human need takes priority over tzaar baalei chaim, and someone comes along and says no, we gave no moral right to benefit from something which causes tzaar to an animal, I think he is a kofer b’divrei Chazal.
Yes, Chazal believed in being compassionate to animals; in fact, tzaar baalei chaim is d’Oraisa according to many. It has its parameters and limitations, though, and one who thinks he has a moral standard higher than Chazal, I think, is an apikores. Some forms of vegetarianism do claim a higher moral standard than Chazal, and that’s much worse than being stupid.
DY: Your argument is faulty, 1) because people go beyond the letter of the law as established by Chazal all the time, and 2) because the abuses inherent in animal agriculture did not exist until the 20th century, and thus Chazal would know nothing about them. In fact, the worst abuses (veal, foie gras) have already been banned by major poskim. If poskim were informed in detail about many of the other practices commonplace in modern factory farms some poskim would probably ban at least some additional ones too.
There’s no blanket statement in Chazal that human need must always take priority over animal suffering. Instead, reducing or preventing animal suffering is an important value, but inflicting pain (or more pain than necessary) is often technically allowed in many cases. Yet that doesn’t mean we should do it if we don’t have a good reason.
It’s the same with returning a lost object to a gentile — it may not be technically required in many cases, but that doesn’t mean we should take advantage of that technicality unless there’s a really good reason.
Remember that Chazal repeatedly implore us to emulate Hashem’s traits, especially compassion. To say you can’t be more compassionate than the minimum Chazal requires is bizarre — acts of kindness have no measure, and are one of the foundations of the world.
Daas Yochid:
Even if it is technically permissible that does not require one to utilize the permission. One can choose to be more sensitive than the Torah requires, though obviously he can’t say that what the Torah permits is prohibited.
Goose stuffing was flagged in the Ramo and Shach in lamed gimmel, as a safek nekuvas haveshet from the scarring that is common to this practice.
No problem with the thread going halachic, but as far as the OP is concerned, octopi did say that the point is to minimize death – and its seems the consensus of all present that that is a problematic hashkafa.
Logician: Why is that problematic? Saying it’s evil to kill animals might be bad. Saying that we kill too many to satisfy our own Taivas doesn’t feel like a problematic Hashkafa. I don’t know if it’s true or not but it feels like just trying to become a person with more Rachamim and sensitivity. I don’t see how that can be a bad Hashkafa.
By your logic, any Chumra is a bad Hashkafa. That’s ridiculous. We’re Machmir not like Chazal all the time. Why should this be any different?
“and its seems the consensus of all present that that is a problematic hashkafa.”
Do I count as part of “all present”? Because I have already said several times that there is no problem with wanting to minimize death; the problem would be if you think that you are forbidden to eat meat because you have to minimize death.
Saying that we kill too many to satisfy our own Taivas doesn’t feel like a problematic Hashkafa.
I think it is.
The passuk says “b’chol avas nafshecha tochal basar.” If you think you need to work on perishus, go for it. But I think the idea that the animal’s pain is at all balanced against your desire to eat meat, is against the Torah.
Popa, I don’t assume you mean in a case of severe pain as well. See R’ma E.H. 5;19 that although the Halacha is that it’s always muttar, in a case of extreme pain, the Minhag is to keep the Chumrah to abstain.
It’s the improper balancing, and maybe the consideration of death, which is a shtus, but even for human benefit, we don’t disregard the animal’s pain entirely.
I hope this answers some other posters’ replies to me as well.
From R’ Sears book:
“Otzar HaPoskim, sec. 87, cites Teshuvos Imrei Shefer and Binyan Zion to the effect that one may not cause tza’ar baalei chaim for the sake of financial gain, a position supported by Teshuvos Yad HaLevi, Vol. I, no. 196. However, other authorities permit tza’ar baalei chaim for financial reasons, seeing this as a form of tzorech adam (human benefit); see Chasam Sofer on Bava Metzia 32b, Noda B’Yehudah, Vol. II, Yoreh De’ah, no. 10; Pri Yitzchak, Vol. I, no. 24; Yad Eliyahu, Kesavim 3:5. While cautioning that one should conduct oneself beyond the letter of the law to avoid causing tza’ar baalei chaim, the late R. Yitzchak Weiss of Jerusalem’s Eidah HaChareidis agrees with these latter authorities in Minchas Yitzchak, op cit.”
But am I causing tza’ar ba’alei chaim by buying veal? the person raising the cow perhaps, but why am I chayiv not to buy it?
Popa, I don’t assume you mean in a case of severe pain as well. See R’ma E.H. 5;19 that although the Halacha is that it’s always muttar, in a case of extreme pain, the Minhag is to keep the Chumrah to abstain.
I meant the normal routine issues inherent in slitting the neck of a living animal and letting it bleed and suffocate to death.
So is it tzar Ballei Chaim to shove a pipe down an animals throat and use a plunger to force feed it?
I have no idea.
I assume you can’t use a full size plunger though, since it wouldn’t fit.
Popa, I think most frum vegetarians or near-vegetarians are not worried about the slaughtering as much as what happens before — extreme cruelty on an unprecedented scale, documented ad naseum by various kinds of evidence (including video — try watching the video “farm to fridge: the truth behind meat production”). Some are concerned with “shackle and hoist” — shechting animals upside down — but again this is right before shechita, not the pain from the shechita itself.
But it turns out that some authorities do actually consider the pain involved in shechita to qualify as tzaar baalei chaim. To quote from R’ Sears’ book again:
Yytz:
1. I don’t believe that their main objection is the treatment before.
2. Upside down is a proper and necessary part of shechita, see shulchan aruch.
3. The issue is not whether killing is tzaar baalei chaim in a vacuum. The issue is in the context of the purpose of eating. (Yum)
So now that I had a few minutes, I looked up the ????? ??? that Charlie references. As expected, Charlie butchered it inhumanely. It’s like he twisted if upside down and broke its back. Worse than any shackle and hoist.
And the answer for ZDs incessant silly question can be derived from there as well.
So ZD, why don’t you look it up and come back with an answer.
I”ll help you out, it’s ??? ??? ?? ???? ?”?. The third part of the ????.
Nishdayngesheft, thank you for the mareh makom. Yes, Charlie turned the teshuvah upside down and shechted it.
Popa:
1) read any vegetarian or animal-welfare arguments, Jewish or not, and you’ll see that the living conditions, and not the slaughter itself, is the overwhelming focus of their concerns.
2) upside down is not technically necessary — standing shechita is definitely practiced today. There are also different ways of upside-down shechita, some of which are more humane than others (shackle-and-hoist has been banned in the US since 1958 and the Rabbanut bans it and has even been trying to prevent its South American importers from using the practice.)
Yytz,
Of course, anyone writing against killing animals will focus on the most disturbing part of the process to bolster their arguments. The question is whether eliminating those parts would change the habits of frum vegetarians. I doubt it, otherwise someone would find a way to make money on them.
My point was similar to what PBA said – eating too much meat is a question of tayvah, and does not cause the act of killing to animal for food to become wrong.
Sam2 – I don’t follow, sorry – don’t see at all what this has to do with chumros. Being machmir in halacha is one thing; we are talking about having ‘more’ sensitivity than the Torah.
sorry, PAA – my bad. guess I was reading too fast, and got the impression that the various halachic concerns only were being debated.
As to the issue – you are right, we don’t generally have to eat meat. But I think that the fact that there exists a chiyuv to eat meat at all (bzman habayis for sure)- even if its only several times a year – demonstrates that there is no such sensitivity. The chiyuv as simcha, after all – so you HAVE to celebrate yom-tov by killing an animal, since it makes you happy, but other times it would very lofty of you to refrain from such an act – doesn’t make sense to me.
“But I think that the fact that there exists a chiyuv to eat meat at all (bzman habayis for sure)- even if its only several times a year – demonstrates that there is no such sensitivity.”
Does the fact that there sometimes exists a chiyuv to kill a human being demonstrate that there is no such sensitivity?
Do the people arguing against vegetarians a: honestly think its mutar to be cruel to animals al pi hadin or otherwise or b: simply don’t believe there is truth to any “isms” outside of torah hashkafah, so even if vegetarians make good points, we cannot hold like them?
a: honestly think its mutar to be cruel to animals al pi hadin or otherwise
By using the word *cruel”, you manipulate the discussion. Why don’t you learn the sugya before deciding what is or isn’t muttar al pi din?
or b: simply don’t believe there is truth to any “isms” outside of torah hashkafah
That’s an important point. The vegetarians are not coming from a Torah perspective. They are coming from an “ism” perspective and trying to force as much of it into the Torah as they can, lo aleinu, and need to distort the sources in order to do so.
so even if vegetarians make good points, we cannot hold like them?
See my previous point; it’s academic, since their conclusions are not like the Torah.
Correct Logician: any “ism” outside the Torah is by definition wrong.
Also, your first point is ridiculous. Nobody is saying you can be cruel to animals in a vacuum. Just that where the Torah says you can do something, you obviously can.
So, do the vegetarians and their backers here: a. Believe Hashem is wrong, or b. that the Torah is not from Hashem?
When there is an intrinsic difference between the people – killing amalek, or someone chayav misah, as opposed to everyone else – then one has a sensitivity, one not. And if you feel bad about the killing, then you’re being ‘more sensitive’ than the Torah – precisely the problem by Shaul.
As opposed to our discussion, where there is no difference between the animals. The question is just WHEN. So if we have two identically blameless animals, and we kill one foe the mitzvah of being happy on Yom-tov, i have a problem seeing a sensitivity towards killing the other (for a useful purpose). Just a svara.
DY: I’ve read a lot of the frum vegetarian literature, and I can assure you they are mainly coming from a Torah perspective (concerns about the rampant and unnecessary cruelty in the living conditions of animals) rather than from a anti-Torah perspective (that we have no right to eat animals or that shechita itself is cruel or wrong). Even the most extreme (who think the whole world should stop eating meat) are making arguments that are completely consistent with those of Rav Kook, who forsaw a global return to vegetarianism (as part of the Messianic age), and thought that only the flour korbanos would be restored in the third Beis haMikdash.
It’s possible that some are really coming from an anti-Torah perspective, but here’s a way to find out: ask them if they would eat from the korbanos if moshiach came and ruled that they were required to (but wasn’t going to punish them if they did not). I bet most, perhaps nearly all, frum vegetarians would eat it.
Popa, vegetarians have a different view of the halacha than you. Many authorities hold that it is forbidden to cause additional suffering to animals for financial gain (see my sources above), and the main reason for the conditions on factory farms today is the desire to reduce costs and increase profits. So there is a good halachic argument that the meat industry today is based on violations of halacha and should not be supported.
And anyway, as noted above, it is totally normal to go beyond the letter of the law to avoid even the possibility of a transgression, or to further the purpose of the underlying law (to reducing animal suffering), as shown by the example of the charedi Rav Yitzchak Weiss cited above. From a Torah perspective that’s a lot more praiseworthy than the opposite: bending over backwards to avoid even the slight possibility that someone might think you’re a “tree hugger” or guilty of sympathizing with an “ism” other than Republicanism or conformism.
mainly coming from a Torah perspective
Do they mainly believe the Torah is right?
I haven’t seen their literature; if they’re frum, they undoubtedly put a frum spin on it. But are they honestly trying to see what the Torah says, or trying to see which Torah sources they can bring to back up an “ism”?
No, I don’t think the “proba” (litmus test) for this is what they say they will do liymos hamashiach; it’s whether they would eat from a normal shechitah according to Shulchan Aruch, today. Also, whether they are this “machmir” about things which don’t fit with liberalism.
I only said “mainly” because of all the frum vegetarian advocates who’s stuff I’ve read, there’s just one whose motives I’m not so sure about (and some people don’t even consider him Orthodox so maybe he shouldn’t count).
Your “proba” would mean vegetarianism is completely assur. In fact, the Sdei Chemed said it’s assur to criticize vegetarians. Several well-known Orthodox rabbis, including the Nazir of Jerusalem (one of Rav Kook’s main students), his son the current chief rabbi of Haifa, the former chief rabbi of Ireland David Rosen, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, and the Kamenitzer Maggid, have been vegetarian. (Rav Kook was in favor of vegetarianism but in practice ate meat on Shabbos and Yom Tov.)
The vast majority of liberals and leftists want nothing to do with vegetarianism or animal welfare activism. Browse through their magazines and they never mention the subject. And some conservatives are certainly vegetarian and vegan.
In fact, the conservative author Matthew Scully, who used to write speeches for President G.W. Bush, recently wrote a lengthy article in favor of vegetarianism for the National Review. In any case, we shouldn’t denounce someone’s stringency just because we suspect it is connected to some political ideas we don’t agree with.
Thank you for the clarification.
I don’t know what Rav Kook held (although you can hardly call someone who ate meat a vegetarian), but either way, I question the motives of the frum vegetarians. Regardless of whether it’s connected to a political movement, it’s an “ism”, and I remain skeptical that their approach was derived by delving into the sugya. I am much more inclined to believe that they decided on vegetarianism the same way Mathew Scully did, and then looked for support from Torah authorities.
Why would you question someone who became a vegatarian for health reasons or someone who just doesnt like meat?
It is much healthier to be a vegatarian (I am NOT one,I eat meat probably too much of it) and I can tell you it is no fun to eat something you dont like, I dislike Gefilte Fish and I hate Chopped Liver. While I dont have these things in my house, when I am somewhere else and its served to me, I force myself to somehow gulp it down. and then quickly drink something so I dont have to taste it especially the chopped liver YUCH
Why would you question someone who became a vegatarian for health reasons or someone who just doesnt like meat?
Did anyone?
“I am much more inclined to believe that they decided on vegetarianism the same way Mathew Scully did, and then looked for support from Torah authorities.”
I don’t know what Scully’s motivation was. But if the motivation is just a general desire to be more compassionate (as opposed to an anti-Torah view that korbanos are inherently wrong or whatever), I don’t think we should condemn that, since the Gemara repeatedly says we should emulate’s Hashem’s traits, especially compassion. On the contrary, it should be praiseworthy to go beyond the letter of the law to be more compassionate (just as it’s a kiddush Hashem to return a lost object to a non-Jew even when it’s not halachically required).
By that logic, Shaul also emulated Hashem’s trait of compassion, so why did he get punished? Because it was misplaced. Hacha nami, the feeling is not being channeled into the right actions. We should start with being compassionate to people first!
I don’t think it’s anti-Torah per se, it’s non-Torah. Compassion is wonderful, but when you put it ahead of other values (e.g. oneg Shabbos)in a way which halachah does not demand or even request, you’re just using an excuse to follow an “ism” rather than the Torah.
Your example of hashovas aveidah is backwards. Learn the sugya and you’ll see what I mean.
RationalFrummie, that’s completely different, because he was directly disobeying G-d, while vegetarians are not violating any mitzvah (though, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are certainly some hashkafic dangers).
The idea that people should never be vegetarian because they should focus on people soon is not a valid objection. First, it’s not a zero-sum game, as becoming vegetarian does not mean one cannot also increase one’s compassion toward other people. Second, once you’re used to being vegetarian it takes no extra effort. So it’s not as if they’re taking time away from acts of kindness toward people. Third, there are many stories of tzaddikim going out of their way to save animals or prevent their suffering. Exerting oneself for the benefit of animals is not forbidden — to the contrary, we learn from these stories that it is praiseworthy. Finally, many people report increased energy and health (and the evidence shows that vegetarians live longer and are far less likely to die of heart disease and many cancers as well), so they might actually be able to engage in more kindness toward people than non-vegetarians do.
DY: Meat is not required as oneg Shabbos, and many vegetarians find that can find other foods that they receive just as much, or more, pleasure from than meat. Since the Torah says we can eat meat if we desire it, then it makes sense for people not to eat it if they don’t desire it, or feel that they have some good reason not to eat it.
Yytz,
Vegetarians are not people who happen to not like the taste of meat, they’re people who have a moral opposition to it.
If someone doesn’t like meat, there’s no oneg Shabbos for him to eat it, but that’s got absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
I don’t think it’s anti-Torah per se, it’s non-Torah. Compassion is wonderful, but when you put it ahead of other values (e.g. oneg Shabbos)in a way which halachah does not demand or even request, you’re just using an excuse to follow an “ism” rather than the Torah.
I think it runs much deeper than that. When somebody sees themselves as more compassionate than the Torah, they are declaring that the Torah is not the ultimate moral truth, since they are more moral than it (chalilah). It is a complete apikorsus in itself.
Rationalfrummie also is completely correct, in analogizing to Shaul. To take it a step further, I always understood the maiseh with shaul in a similar vein with what I wrote in this post. When a person doesn’t act according to the Torah, it is bad even if currently it is a “chumrah”, because once you’re out of the Torah’s morality, you’re on your own morality, and it is ??? ???? ??????.
Popa:
Do you believe that it is forbidden to act stricter than the Torah?
When somebody sees themselves as more compassionate than the Torah…
Well, sure, if they were saying that, but they’re not necessarily saying that. I haven’t read their literature, but I’m assuming that they are claiming that their compassion, and abstinence from animal products, is sanctioned and even applauded by the Torah.
I think they are distorting the Torah’s views, but by claiming that they are in consonance with them, and not directly contradicting the words of Chazal, they might be saving themselves from being considered apikorsim.
At the very least, though, they are r”l headed in that direction, l”a.
Well, sure, if they were saying that, but they’re not necessarily saying that. I haven’t read their literature, but I’m assuming that they are claiming that their compassion, and abstinence from animal products, is sanctioned and even applauded by the Torah.
I think they are distorting the Torah’s views, but by claiming that they are in consonance with them, and not directly contradicting the words of Chazal, they might be saving themselves from being considered apikorsim.
But it’s impossible for them to really believe that, unless they don’t believe in the Torah the same way we do.
Much like a liberal who thinks they are in line with the constitution. They know they’re changing it to their whims, it just sounds better when you phrase it constitutionally.
But while that’s a valid shittah in politics, it isn’t in Torah.
It’s not a valid shittah, of course. There’s a crazy amount of gaavah there to think they’re more “compassionate” than all of the gedolim from all generations who had no qualms about eating meat, and the whole thing is a huge distortion.
I’m quibbling about the term “apikorsus”.
I refer to the “shittah” that allows one to “evolve” the Torah to fit today’s cultural norms. Similar to that which is done to the constitution.
If someone thinks he can change the Torah to his whims he’s an apikores. If he thinks he’s right and therefore the Torah must mean like him, he’s a baal gaavah and krum and misguided, but maybe not an apikores.
I think people here are mixing up Vegaerian and Vegatarism.
Vegatarian means you dont eat meat, although the reason is not stated, it could be health or it could be because you dont belive in killing animals or you just dislike meat. There is no majority reason, although health usually is the #1 reason.
Vegatarianism means you are not eating meat because of some moral reason
ZD,
No one is mixing anything up. Which is obvious if you would read the comments.
In addition, you were the one harping all along how you don’t eat veal because you do not like how they treat the animals.
You were the one going on and on about foie gras. (You never responded to the Igros Moshe, we were hoping for your input)
If anyone is confused, it would seem to be you.
I eat meat I am not a vegatrarian, I have never seen kosher Fois Gras although Ive heard it exists but I would not eat it anyway. You are correct I do not eat Veal because of the way the animals are treated.
There is no Mitzvah to eat Fois Gras or Veal and If Rav Moshe Permits it that is fine, He permits it not requires it. As stated Rav Ovadiah Yosef does not allow it. I am sure there are others who also do not permit it or at least discourage it.
I had said I hated chopped live , but if served as a guest in someones house I would eat it even though i hate it.
If I was a guest in someones house and they served me veal, I would eat it and not give the host a lecture it is my choice, not the hosts. I doubt I would ever get fois gras served to me
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.