Jews must not wear fur skinned from live animals, Israel’s chief rabbi said in a religious ruling yesterday.
“All Jews are obliged to prevent the horrible phenomenon of cruelty to animals and be a ‘light onto nations’ by refusing to use products that originate from acts which cause such suffering,” Rabbi Yona Metzger said.
Animal-rights campaigners in Israel and abroad say that animals are skinned alive at fur farms in China.
The ruling stopped short of banning the use of fur from animals skinned after they were slaughtered.
(Source: NY Post)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
34 Responses
The Rabbi does not neet any approval.The thing is that’s not what the popular groop advacates, they say you should not eat any meats or chicken cause of the same reason “CRUELTY” and that is deffinetly not the Jewish view.We know we are mesaken neshamos when we make a Beracha and so on.
Interesting…
How do they make shtreimels?
You’d think it’s no skin off my nose (ha ha)
But a Jew should not wear ANY genuine animal furs without good reason…
Animals are killed so that people can indulge in luxury…
Wear a down coat – they’re warm, too
As noted from the article, this does NOT include most furs worn and bought in America. Only China skins the animals when they are alive for their furry furs.
How can someone know if their fur is from live or dead animals? Isn’t there a Rov (majority) of fur from dead animals? How do they skin the rabbits for our black hats?
While perhaps his ruling makes sense and may be commendable, the Rabbi in his position speaks only for, and has jurisdiction only upon, the religious zionist community.
I hope someone checked into these claims of “skinning live” before they believe the Animal-rights campaigners who are notorious liars
What do they gain from skining the animals alive rather them dead?
esg ever hear of tzaur baal hachaim??make your calls and check it out since you are not sure…
Jos as predictable as predicted
Further to Joseph’s position, those who are not religious Zionists reserve the right to skin live animals, as needed.
“the Rabbi in his position speaks only for, and has jurisdiction only upon, the religious zionist community.”
Really? Many of R’ Elyashiv’s teshuvos were written when he was in the Rabbanut. Are they also only for religious Zionists? Same for R’ Tzvi Pesach Frank. Are his psakim only for religious Zionists?
You want to be choleik on the psak, fine. But if it’s true, it speaks to everyone. T’kabel Ha’Emes M’mi She’omro.
The fur trade, which I have knowledge of, is not for the faint of heart. The “skinned alive” issue is misunderstood, as animals are not skinned alive “L’Chatchila.” Obviously, this would be extremely difficult and serve no purpose. The issue relates to animals being mistakenly or recklessly skinned before they are completely dead. In some cases, they are hung from nooses and water is poured down their throats — some are still alive when skinned.
The grotesqueness stems from the fact that most methods of killing furry animals leave marks and/or damage the fur. For this reason, techniques such as gassing and poison are often used.
Watch the online hidden-camera video of a skinned animal raising its head from the pile of (presumably dead) carcasses and you’ll start checking the label on that Shtreimel.
Where’s that Conservative Hechscher when you need it…(hehe)
regarding:
Joseph Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
While perhaps his ruling makes sense and may be commendable, the Rabbi in his position speaks only for, and has jurisdiction only upon, the religious zionist community.
*************************************************************
is there a halachick problem or not..
if there is a problem what difference does it make if he wears a black knitted yarmulke or not..
the shulchan aruch does not differentiate between yarmulkes – psak is psak
why should you
Josephs PSAK re: Chief Rabbi Metzger – although makes no sense and may not be deemed commendable, Joseph in his position speaks only for, and has jurisdiction only upon, HIMSELF (spouse and kids if applicable included)
🙂
Adar is here Purim Sameach my friends!
I sense a business opportunity here – Hechsher for Furs! The only problem is none would let you stick a Plumbeh into a fur coat!
I don’t think this was meant as a psak at all as it is not being done by the buyer anyways. If so he is saying that we should be a light onto the nations by following their ideas of compassion. This is definitely not binding on everyone as we SHOULD be a light by shining the ways of the torah onto them instead of accepting the darkness they shine. Those who made techailes tried to keep the chilazon alive as long as they were able to so the dye should come out well.
Charedim, you speak for yourself, not me.
Kishke, the yeshivisha velt and heimishe yidden never accepted Rav Metzger as their poisek. Rav Eliyashev was accepted as their poisek. So there is no comparison.
As I said, what the Rabbi is opposing is common sense. Tzarbul Hachaim has always been ossur. I also doubt any yid actually uses (certainly knowingly) anything that was cruelly skinned from a live animal. Only a shaigetz could tolerate such barbarious behaviour.
“Rav Eliyashev was accepted as their poisek.”
Please. There are yeshivaleit who reject R’ Elyashiv for the same reasons you reject Rabbi Metzger. Fact.
My prescription is: Deal with the content of the teshuvah, not the label you put on the man.
“My prescription is: Deal with the content of the teshuvah, not the label you put on the man.”
Quite a frightening suggestion. Do we “deal” with the contents by evaluating its merits, accepting those in consonance with our worldview and understanding, and rejecting those that are not? This approach is NOT normative Judaism.
This does not preclude accepting the rulings of other Rabbonim, if in line with your derech.
As Joseph suggested, receiving personal benefit from the horrific practice as noted in the original post is anathema to all. It is hopefully not anyone’s “derech” to dismiss the tzar ba’alei chayim allegations. It is also not our place to question why a Rav issued a particular ruling.
However, suggesting that halachik rulings are a smorgasbord from which we “deal with the content” rather than the Rav issuing them is inappropriate.
There’s a large group that only go by the psak of Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita, and negate most others.. So there.
That is true. Many people have a different poisek than Rav Eliyashev. And that is perfectly fine. All I said was, generally, no one in the yeshiva velt or heimishe yidden accept Rav Metzger.
As far as the psak itself, read the latter part of my last comments.
“Do we “deal” with the contents by evaluating its merits, accepting those in consonance with our worldview and understanding, and rejecting those that are not?”
No! I didn’t say anything about worldviews. I mean deal with the Torah in the teshuvah. If you’re a talmid chacham, you should be equipped to evaluate the teshuvah. If he’s saying good, you should accept it whether or not he’s in the rabbanut. If his sevaros are off-base, you shouldn’t accept it. That’s what learning is all about.
1) who cares!??,
2) this is really not no’gaya,
3) the libs and the animal rights wakkos were jumping for joy when they heard this,
4) all of the above!
5) who really cares?!
Kishke,
I hear your clarification.
One remaining issue: even accomplished talmidei chachomim seek guidance and Psak on various issues. Obviously, the questions talmidei chachomim ask are of a different nature and caliber than those who are not. Nevertheless, we still seek guidance from local and “global” Rabbonim.
Therefore: Where is the line drawn when we evaluate if a Psak is “off-base”? Are all of us qualified to determine this? Do we follow this process regarding the decisions of our local Rabbonim or “global” Gedolim?
I don’t intend this as confrontational; simply seeking your perspective on this.
kishke, you have it all wrong and Sarah has it all right. Don’t try to play ‘Talmid Cochim.’ Just follow Daas Torah. Period. Pick ONE Rav, and ALWAYS do what he says. Do not ‘evaluate’ and ‘decide’ his rulings.
In the hakdomo to Shu”t R’ Akiva Eger he writes not to follow his rulings just because he ruled them but to look through the reasoning and sources and rule for yourself based on that.
baki – that comment was said 1) in sincere humbleness 2) not meant for the general population and 3) probably widely ignored by those who knew and followed carelfully by the self-proclaimed “chochem”
Sarah: No, we’re not all competent, and someone might be competent in one area and not in another. But if you are competent, you certainly have the right to evaluate the teshuvah based on your own chochmah and understanding. [Unlike Joseph, I don’t consider this “playing the talmid chocham”; I consider it being the talmid chocham.] And even people who are not very competent can usually tell when a teshuvah is something real or just politically correct fluff.
The problem, as I see it, is not, as KISHKE says, that people are looking at the Rav as opposed to the content (although they are certainly doing that as well). The problem is that people ARE looking at the content and flagging it as a lefty liberal issue that, as such, should be ignored and attacked.
Take a look at the Torah’s own pronouncements on animal rights (or human responsibilities, if that’s more palatable for you). Not every Rav issues constant guidance on every issue, so ignoring a guideline that is not put out by one’s own Rav is simply not a viable strategy.
Charedim: It might well be true that R’ Metzger is just writing a feel-good, pc teshuvah. but it’s impossible to tell without seeing the actual teshuvah. You say people are looking at the content, but I don’t believe any of them (you included) have seen the actual teshuvah. They (and you) are reacting emotionally to the man and the subject matter, without evaluating the content.
KISHKE — I have not read the Teshuva.
I am not reacting to the Teshuva, but rather to the reactions of the people attacking it (and what they perceive it to stand for). Like you, I believe these attacks are unwarranted, and I was pointing out what I think is their motivation.
So we’re in agreement. Great.
mdlevine did you write this based upon having read what he wrote? I understood him to be saying a rule no matter who gave the psak