The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
11

The question of whether tza'ar ba'alei chaim (the prohibition of causing undue pain to animals) is biblical (mideoraita) or rabbinic (miderabbanan) is the subject of significant debate in Bava Metzia 32b-33a. According to those who hold that it is bibical, this article on wikiyeshiva (Hebrew), lists six possible sources: Rashi (Shabbat 128b) holds we learn ...


9

The Iggerot Moshe (Helek Bet Hoshen Mishpat 47) writes that if you have a bug, and it bothers you, you may kill, but preferably not by hand. He says there is no ISUR. Since there is no problem in killing a bug, I would assume since Saar Bale Hayim Deorayta, I would assume that you should kill him. EDIT: I asked a big Talmid Hacham, and he said according to ...


8

There are a number of opinions that state that catch and release is forbidden halachically on account of צער בעלי חיים - causing the animal pain. For example, according to the Rav Menashe Klein, Zt"l - Mishneh Halachot - Choshen Mishpat - Chelek 12, Siman 432, it is asur (forbidden) to fish for sport if the fish will not be used for food, and even if the ...


8

This is incorrect. Examples given include loading and unloading a donkey as we see in Tzaar Baalei Chayim Thus, the halacha applies to all animals In Shemot, we are told to help him unload: “If you see the ass of your enemy straining under his load, and you refrain from unloading it, go and unload with him” Shemot 23:5. This verse is one of the ...


6

Castration of an animal is forbidden to Gentiles (according to most opinions) so a Jew cannot tell him to do so. If he does he is forbidden to eat that animal. But if the gentile has already castrated the animal it is permitted for a Jew to eat that animal. The Shulchan Aruch (Rabbinic Authority) Even Haezer 5,14 says: אסור לומר לכותי לסרס בהמה שלנו. ואם ...


6

Rav Moshe Feinstein has a great responsa in which he says that if it gives you pleasure you may hunt. Fish are generally considered to be lower life forms in that we grant fish fewer halakhic protections (for example eiver min ha'hai does not apply to fish). Though Rav Moshe does say in his responsa that it is not something that he thins is great to do it ...


5

http://www.dinonline.org/2011/09/13/cruelty-to-animals-halachos-of-tzaar-baalei-chayim/ Elsewhere, however (Shabbos 128b), with regard to the laws of muktzeh on Shabbos, the Gemara states that the prohibition is a Torah law. Where an animal has fallen into a pit, and cannot be fed, one may assist it to ascend by placing cushions under it. Although ...


4

This website says (I think it's a book): אולם חיי בעלי חיים אינם יקרים כל כך, והעיקר הוא שלא לגרום להם צער. לכן אדם שיש לו חתול או כלב שסובלים ממחלה קשה, או שנפגעו על ידי מכונית, ואין להם סיכוי להבריא, וניכר עליהם שהם מתייסרים מאוד – במצב כזה עדיף להמיתם בדרך שאינה מכאיבה כדי למנוע מהם צער וסבל. If an animal is badly injured and they are in intense pain ...


4

Igros Moshe Even HaEzer IV: 92:2 The main quote is עכ"פ חזינן שלא כל דבר רשאי האדם לעשות בבבהמות שמצער אותם אף שהוא להרויח מזה אלא דבר שהוא הנאת האדם ממש כשחיטת הבהמות לאכילה ולעבוד בהם וכדומה In any case, we see that nothing is proper for a person to do to animals that causes them pain even if it causes a profit except for something that benefits the ...


4

According to Shulchan Aruch even Hoezer (very end of Siman 5), "anything that is for Refuah (healing) or for a purpose does not carry the prohibition of Tzar Ba'alei Chaim, therefore is would be permissible to pluck feathers from a living duck (I guess to use for a quill - mz) but the Minhag (custom) is to refrain from this because it is Achzoriyos (cruelty)....


4

We have a very broad and deep legal system - Halacha - that covers most cases. Temple-hair wigs -- the question isn't "we shouldn't buy it because I don't like how they made it." The question is that the Torah says to get rid of anything (in your possession) connected to idolatry, including items sacrificed to idolatry. We also have a prohibition called "...


4

As explained by Maimonides in Guide for the Perplexed 3:48, the Torah does recognize animals' physical and emotional feelings, and several commandments reflect this: The commandment concerning the killing of animals is necessary, because the natural food of man consists of vegetables and of the flesh of animals: the best meat is that of animals permitted ...


4

This answer is from Dinonline: Killing Animals to Prevent their Suffering The Chazon Ish is cited (in Dinim Ve-Hanhagos Mi-Maran Ha-Chazon Ish Vol. 2, p. 40) as having been asked by a member of the family how a dying fly should be treated. The Chazon Ish responded that the fly should be killed, so as to prevent its extended suffering. ...


4

In Kesses Hasofer (written by the author of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried)) it seems that if the animal was killed without shechita, its skin is of the lowest quality. See the end of siman 2 sif 1: וגם עור שליל מקרי עור לענין זה וכותבין עליו ם״ת תו״מ והוא המובחר ואחר כך עור העוף ואח״כ עור החיה ואח״כ עור בהמה ואחר כך עור נבלה Rough ...


3

Rabbi Yissochar Frand has a tape on inflicting pain to animals. Generally the prohibition is on inflicting pain for no good reason, and legitimate medical research is a good reason. He quotes a responsum -- I believe it's the Shvut Yaakov -- about a doctor testing a medicine on a dog or cat first, who allowed it, but said it's ideal not to do the procedure ...


3

It seems that if the only profitable way of raising the animals/chickens is by making smaller enclosures for them, while we should encourage the animal owners to try and treat the animals the best they can, they are not transgressing Tzaar Baalei Chaim as the animals were meant to serve humans (i.e we don't want humans in poorer countries to lack poultry due ...


3

The basic answer is that Rav Moshe Feinstein (among others) forbade treating animals in this way. However, if someone violates the isur of tzaar baalei chaim, the animal itself does not "become nonkosher" or asur in any way. As a practical matter, certain animals (such as veal) do tend to be treifah because of the physical results of their mistreatment. ...


3

The עיקר תוי"ט on Mishna 9:5 in Sanhedrin (the one you quoted) brings a verse to explain why he deserves to be put to death; because he doesn't care about his life. דגברא בר קטלא הוא בידי שמים, וקרובי הוא דלא מקרב קטלי'. וכיון דקא מוותר ליה לנפשיה לעבירות של כרת, מקרבים ליה לקטלה עלויה. ורמיזא בקרא דכתיב תְּמוֹתֵת רָשָׁע רָעָה (תהילים ל"ד:כ"ב). פרש''י ...


3

Gensis 1:28: וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְכִבְשֻׁהָ; וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם, וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבְכָל-חַיָּה, הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל-הָאָרֶץ.‏ And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the ...


3

it seams that the shulchan aruch harav summaries these laws like this 328.19 to relieve a human of suffering if no Gentile is available if the he is so sick that he fell because of it into laying (due to his sickness he needs to lye down) or he has an ache that is so painful that his whole body became weak (even though he is walking he is considered ...


3

When an animal or bird eats something that is not food it's considered Keren and the owner would be obligated to pay half the damages (if it's a Tahm), see Choshen Mishpat 391:2. As far as Ta'ar Ba'alei Chayim see Even Hoezer 5:14 that when there is a necessity there is no prohibition.


2

Tza'ar ba'alei chayim concerns practices that physically or (perhaps) psychologically hurt the animal. Aside from the possible case of a female animal in heat, not mating does not appear to cause distress to animals. Anecdotally, Judaism 101 reports a story of an Orthodox pet owner giving a pet birth-control pills and asserts that this would not be a ...


2

HaRav Yitzchak Yosef Shelit"a holds it is asur to fish simply for pleasure. If I remember correctly, it is because of Saar Bale Hayim


2

In Bava Metziah 84b we find Rabi Yehuda Hanasi being used by a calf as a hiding spot to escape slaughter. He told the calf to go back because 'for this you were created'. He subsequently suffered for many years until he stopped one of his household members from killing some rodents in the house and told her to just leave them be. After this compassionate act,...


2

There are no such laws specific to Tefillin though you are correct that we have laws prohibiting cruelty to animals in general.


1

I have a theory of why this method of execution is described. My theory is that the point of this Gemara is to provide an extreme example of the extent of the Sanhedrin's authority. The Gemara does not say that "this is what must be done to these people" but rather says that "this is what may be done" Below is an article detailing a gruesome method of ...


1

Tzaar Baalei Chayim is permitted for human benefit, even monetary loss. The Gemara in Shabbos allows leaving heavy bags on an animal when the alternative is to cut the rope, allowing the packages to fall and break. We also find in Avoda Zara how they used to de-hoof an animal when a king died, in some form of honor. How to weigh the significance of the ...


1

It is unquestionably cruel to destroy or relocate a nest containing eggs and/or fledglings. The problem is due to the fact that birds are relatively stupid. Whereas, if I moved your house a short distance from its current location, you would obviously look for it and quickly find it, birds don't work this way. If a mother bird is out looking for food, ...


1

I would assume that's considered not excessive infliction of pain, for a reasonable need. I don't have the source off-hand but I recall hearing that it's permitted to cut off a rooster's comb to prevent it from fertilizing hens at your egg farm. (The Torah prohibits traditional castration, but this was believed to make the rooster unattractive to females ...


1

This is addressed in a recent post on Torah Musings by Rabbi Daniel Mann. He says that tzaar baalei chayim can be necessary for experiments if it isn't needlessly insensitive. If there is a human need that is not baal tashchit then it can be fine. Animal rights are also not comparable to human needs: There are several Torah statements along the line of “...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible