- This topic has 143 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
ZD,
You made a statement about people confusing vegetarianism and vegetarian (at least that is what I think you were trying to say) and it seems that the only one to be confused is you.
You have no idea what R Moshe says, yet there was a very specific marah mokom given. You allege that R Ovadia Yosef says something, tell me where, with an exact mareh mokom. Just because you saw someone allege that R OY said something does not mean it’s true. We saw Charlie Hall manufacture a psak of R Moshe’s right in this thread.
edited
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 ??? ???? ??????.
Which is why the gemara says that he was told “al tehi tzadik harbeh” – and then contrasts that with when he killed Nov ir hakohanim, and was told “al tirsha harbeh”.
“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.”
I was going to object by quoting the Rema but then I saw that you already ????? ??????? a few posts later by quoting the very Rema that I was going to quote. (By the way it’s 5:14 not 5:19) However, you wrote “in a case of extreme pain, the Minhag is to keep the Chumrah to abstain” which I don’t think is what the Rema says. He says that anything is muttar if it’s necessary for some purpose and therefore it is muttar to pluck feathers from live geese. I’m not sure that that falls under the category of extreme pain. Then he says that even though it’s muttar the olam is noheg not to do it because it’s achzorius. If anything this is a proof that even though the Torah allows you to do something, it doesn’t take it out of the geder of achzorius (it just means that the Torah permitted you to do achzorius) and therefore to whatever extent possible/reasonable you should avoid doing such things. This would therefore seem to support the idea of being a vegetarian because “killing/causing pain to animals is wrong” because the fact that the Torah allows you to do it doesn’t mitigate the achzorius aspect of it. Certainly it would not be apikorsus to hold oneself to such a standard. I do agree though that there is a difference between what I have just mentioned and someone who says that it is categorically wrong for anyone to eat animals. Because that the Torah permits.
One of the Taryag Mitzvos – Korbon Pesach. Try doing THAT one vegetarianistically (is this a real word???).
You’re correct about the location of the ??”?. Sorry.
I disagree with your conclusion, though. I think the reason it is achzarius to pluck the feathers is because of the extreme tzaar, which isn’t present regarding shechitah.
I don’t believe we find anywhere in Shulchan Aruch a maalah in abstaining from meat because of achzarius.
Isn’t it an explicit Rambam that if the Middos of HKBH were pure Rachamim then Sh’chitah would never be allowed? Maybe by HaOmer Al Kan Tzippor Yagiu Rachamecha Meshatkin Oso?
“You’re correct about the location of the ??”?. Sorry.”
No need to apologize.
I don’t think it’s more painful to have a feather plucked out than to have your head sliced off. I think what the Rema means is that the amount of benefit accrued by plucking a feather specifically while it is alive compared to that pain is not the same ratio as the benefit accrued by slicing off an animal’s head compared to that pain.
“I don’t believe we find anywhere in Shulchan Aruch a maalah in abstaining from meat because of achzarius”
True. But I would posit that it’s because food is a basic necessity and especially in earlier times, food options were limited. But for someone nowadays who can eat healthily and not mind not having meat, and feels compassion for animals, I can’t see how the Torah would have anything against that. Again though I reiterate that forcing vegetarianism on people as an important hashkafa might be different.
?’ ???”? ???? ???? ?’ ?’ ??’ ?”? ???? ??????
It’s one thing not to eat meat but to say I won’t wear tefilin because it comes from a shechted animal, I won’t have mezuza, I won’t have anything to do with writing a sefer Torah…that is a big problem.
Sam2: I quoted it back on page one
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/vegetarian-halacha-issue#post-522632
“?’ ???”? ???? ???? ?’ ?’ ??’ ?”? ???? ??????”
He is talking about plucking all the feathers one at a time which I guess can be pretty painful. Either which way the point that I am trying to bring out is that we see that something can be muttar yet still be considered achzorius – i.e. the fact that something is muttar doesn’t by definition make it not achzorius. Therefore I don’t see how it can be considered anti-Torah to have such sentiments. At best under certain circumstances it can be anti-Shvus Yaakov because he says that it’s not even a middas chassidus.
Either which way the point that I am trying to bring out is that we see that something can be muttar yet still be considered achzorius – i.e. the fact that something is muttar doesn’t by definition make it not achzorius.
But neither does the fact that something which is muttar is achzarius. Specifically, shechitah for the meat is not achzarius, and I believe that some one who thinks it is, and thinks he is more moral than all of the fine Yidden who have eaten meat for many generations, thinks he is more moral than the Torah whether he uses the term or not, and is in fact anti-Torah, not just anti-Shvus Yaakov (how’s that for a run-on sentence?).
Why is it such a big deal (so that people will call it apikoruses?!) to have a Chumra not to eat animals, but not nearly such a big deal for people to have multiple Chumrohs on Tznius that go well beyond what the Tohra or even talmud have prescribed?
Poor example; the Torah says lo sikrivu, and the Shulchan Aruch uses the term “m’od m’od”.
If someone truly didn’t eat meat as a chumrah in ” v’rachamav al kol maasov”, we could discuss it. The people who are apikorsim have ulterior motives.
DY: Honestly, I hate that response. “M’od M’od” doesn’t mean Ish Kol HaYashar B’einav to add whatever he wants and impose that on others. It means what the Shulchan Aruch says it means and is an additional level of practical advise to avoid a situation where you might stumble. It doesn’t mean that there’s no limit to the Chumros.
Sam, practical advise to avoid a situation where you might stumble is incredibly vague. Seems like a recipe for ish kol hayashar b’einov ya’aseh, no?
“one who thinks he has a moral standard higher than Chazal, I think, is an apikores.”
I think this is confusing being wrong with being an apikores.
DY,
The “lo sikrivu” forbids only negiah derech chiba, the additional strictures the Shulchan Aruch lists are additional gezeiros that Chazal enacted. B’pashtus the “m’od, m’od” is a introduction to/description of what Chazal did, not an additional statement on top of the list that the Shulchan Aruch is about to list.
I don’t think it is apikorsus or even wrong to have a higher moral standard for everyone. The standards codified by Chazal are the standards for the masses. Obviously these will not be the highest possible standards. An individual has every right to hold himself to a higher standard. Doing so is not saying that Chazal were wrong; it is simply acknowledging that Chazal only required you to go so far and you want to go farther. Going beyond the letter of the law is good unless it negatively impacts another area. Besides for the fact that as mentioned, the Rambam expressly says that killing animals is a lack of rachamim: ????? ??? ????
?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???. However, if the person is doing this because he thinks that Chazal were backwards uncivilized hooligans who didn’t care about animals then that might be problematic.
Ben, ironically, I understand the S.A. as Sam does, but for some reason he decided that I meant you can justify anything with it, which I didn’t.
PAA, what you think “might be problematic” certainly is, and although they’ll frame it differently, that is essentially what some of the “frum” vegetarians are saying.
Ok, so we agree that if that is what they really hold then it’s problematic. Do we also agree that if they genuinely feel the desire to be more compassionate than required then it’s not problematic.
I still think there’s something very wrong with someone who thinks he is being more compassionate than Chazal.
If Chazal say that under certain circumstances you do not have to return a lost object but lemaiseh you feel bad for the guy, is there something wrong with returning it?
1) How would have a “chumra” that is directly against certain mitzvos, specifically korbonos. It is not the same as not blowing shofar or taking the arba minim on Shabbos. There you are not saying that there is something wrong with the etzem mitzvah.
2) A chumra is to protect against being oiver an aveitah or being mevatel a mitzvah, what aveirah or mitzvah are you supposedly protecting your self from by not eating meat? There is no issur of tzar baalei chayim when you are shechting. There is no reason to even go into the reason of me’od me’od.
If the person said he is not eating meat because he is concerned about kkashrus, and therefor he is machmir not to eat any meat, that could be a legitimate application of chumra, but that was not the focus of such an alleged chumra, so it is a bogus application of the concept of chumra.
It’s not a chumra; it’s a sensitivity, and if one refuses to eat the korban pesach he will have a problem (unless as suggested earlier in this thread, korbanos will be batel). I am granting that there is no issur of tzar baalei chaim with stam shechting, however as per the Rambam that just means that the Torah permitted us to relinquish certain quantities of rachmanus when it serves a purpose. I don’t see how that could make it wrong for someone to choose to still excersize that rachmanus. Much like in my example of a lost object.
1) I was responding to “my own kind of Jew” who was calling this a “chumroh”.
2) What type of sensitivity? This does not appear to be a Torah based sensitivity. Different people have all sorts of sensitivities, that does not mean that they are normal sensitivities.
“What type of sensitivity? This does not appear to be a Torah based sensitivity. Different people have all sorts of sensitivities, that does not mean that they are normal sensitivities.”
This is I think the sixth time that the Rambam will be mentioned in this thread – ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???. Clearly it is a valid sensitivity.
I understand the Rambam to be saying that this is not rachmanus.
It is made up rachmanus.
That is clearly not what the Rambam is saying. He is saying that the reason for the mitzvah of ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? is not that H’ is being compassionate to the bird, for if that was the reason then he wouldn’t let us slaughter animal’s or birds. Hence we see that sparing animals from being slaughtered would be an act of compassion. But we are allowed to slaughter them anyway.
1) How would have a “chumra” that is directly against certain mitzvos, specifically korbonos. It is not the same as not blowing shofar or taking the arba minim on Shabbos. There you are not saying that there is something wrong with the etzem mitzvah.
2) A chumra is to protect against being oiver an aveitah or being mevatel a mitzvah, what aveirah or mitzvah are you supposedly protecting your self from by not eating meat? There is no issur of tzar baalei chayim when you are shechting. There is no reason to even go into the reason of me’od me’od.
If the person said he is not eating meat because he is concerned about kkashrus, and therefor he is machmir not to eat any meat, that could be a legitimate application of chumra, but that was not the focus of such an alleged chumra, so it is a bogus application of the concept of chumra
I was thinking about the general notion throughout the Torah of kindness to other living beings. I did not mean Chumrah in a specifically halachic sense.
///////////////////////////////////////
I understand the Rambam to be saying that this is not rachmanus.
It is made up rachmanus.
Made up rachmunus?!
So someone feels bad about killing, even animals. That’s “made up” how, exactly?
One of the ???? of ????? is ????. And that is the ultimate definition of ???? and yet it is a ???? to Shecht and to eat meat. Thus it is clear that shechting and eating meat is not a conflict with ????.
Thus for someone to say that avoiding meat is because of a ??? of ???? they are using an incorrect definition of ????.
“Thus it is clear that shechting and eating meat is not a conflict with ????”
The fact that something is not a conflict with rachum just means that it does not reach the level of (lack of) rachum which would make it an issue. That doesn’t mean that there is no rachum at play. Again see the Rambam.
One of the ???? of ????? is ????. And that is the ultimate definition of ???? and yet it is a ???? to Shecht and to eat meat. Thus it is clear that shechting and eating meat is not a conflict with ????.
Thus for someone to say that avoiding meat is because of a ??? of ???? they are using an incorrect definition of ????.
///////
Except that ????? is not human. And doesn’t actually have emotions and feelings the same way we do. We use those “middot” as ways of describing acts that we would find nonsensical otherwise.
And no where in the Tohra does ????? say anything about “Thou Shalt not be more compassionate then me.”
Or does it?
????? ??????
The fact that ???”? isn’t human doesn’t change the equation, since we are told ?? ??? ???? ??? ????, we are bidden to emulate His middos as if they were human middos.
“Thus for someone to say that avoiding meat is because of a ??? of ???? they are using an incorrect definition of ????.”
No, they are using a correct definition of ???? and applying it even beyond what is required of them.
DasYochid, if that is the case,and I saw a human being being kind to animals, preaching kindness to animals,preaching kindness to living things in general, and I looked up to and highly respected this person tot he point of attempting to emulate him, I would imagine going vegetarian a good thing that s/he would agree with and appreciate.
And no where in the Tohra does ????? say anything about “Thou Shalt not be more compassionate then me.”
Or does it?
It says it by Shaul.
PBA: Not a fair Dimyon. Shaul had an explicit order which he violated. That would be similar to saying, “Killing animals is bad so I won’t bring a Korban.” That would be too merciful because it goes against Hashem’s command. Saying, “I won’t kill animals except for when absolutely necessary because I feel bad about killing them” seems like a great example of being Mekadesh Atzmo B’muttar Lo.
Sam, I think that’s taking a very simplistic reading of shaul. You think Shaul, the Mshiach Hashem, the nechba b’keilim, just blatantly disregarded a tzivui?
Presumably he thought he was following the tzivui, after filtering it through what he thought Hashem wanted.
So where did he go wrong?
Chazal tell us: he was rachman bmkom achzar.
This is also printed in the book “Q&A – Thursday Nights with R’ Avigdor Miller” (slightly different phrasing).
“Presumably he thought he was following the tzivui, after filtering it through what he thought Hashem wanted”
When Chizkiyahu didn’t do peru urevu I would presume that he didn’t think that H’ wanted him to do peru urevu but he didn’t do it anyway beacause he didn’t want to have bad kids. Presumably he thought that since he would have bad kids, H’ would want him to not have kids. Yet Yeshayahu told him ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????
PAA: Yes, correct, agreed. That apparently was the message that Chizkiyahu needed. And chazal tell us a different message that Shaul needed.
The point is that Man does not have the right to use his reasoning against an explicit command of H’.
PBA: Right. We’re agreeing. Shaul thought he was within the bounds of Ratzon Hashem. He was wrong because nothing within the bounds of Ratzon Hashem goes against a direct Tzivui from Hashem. So not killing animals even when required is being “too much of a Rachman” and evil. Finding a sensitivity to not want to kill animals outside of that, though, feels like a potentially very nice thing (except when you try and push it on others).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.