Sources from essay by Ruhama Weiss, PhD
in The Social Justice Torah Commentary
TWO ADJACENT LAWS in Parashat Emor deal with a unique aspect of kashrut. While most of the rules classify food as permitted for eating (all plant foods) and prohibited for eating (certain types of animals), these two laws enact special time limits for slaughtering sheep and cattle.
-Ruhama Weiss, PhD
What do these laws teach us about the Torah's approach to animals & animal consumption?
Neither law has an explanation in the Torah itself. We may nevertheless glean a biblical reason for these two laws. A common denominator is the description of family relationships between animals in terms typically reserved for human relationships: mother, child, father. Furthermore, the observance of the law requires those who raise the animals to locate families in their herds, since identifying the parent of each sheep is not easy.
The first law concerning cattle requires maintaining family ties for at least seven days, in contrast to what we see on most farms today. Torah laws require us to treat edible animals as families, not merely pieces of property. The language of the rules and the content of the guidelines obligate us to address the emotional world of animals, to be aware of the parent-child relationship among livestock.
-Ruhama Weiss, PhD
In the verses dealing with the commandment to send the mother from the nest, the title eim, "mother," is mentioned three times. The title banim, "children," is mentioned twice, denoting the relationships familiar to us from human language: mother and children.
Much discussion has been devoted to the text in an attempt to explain the essence of the prohibition "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." This law has become a cornerstone of kashrut, and its application in halachic culture has affected the structure of the Jewish kitchen and the relationship between the Jewish community and non-Jews. It is hard to locate another example of five Hebrew words that are more consequential for Jewish culture.
Yehuda Amichai wrote a poem suggesting a problem with the implementation of this meaningful commandment:
-Ruhama Weiss, PhD
Instead of a Love Poem
From “thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk”
they made the many laws of Kashrut
but the kid is forgotten and the milk is forgotten and
the mother is forgotten.
In this way from “I love you”
we made all our life together.
But I’ve not forgotten you
as you were then.
-Yehuda Amichai
The law of the Torah forbade only the cooking of the goat in its mother's milk, and for an obvious reason: because of the cruelty and the feeling of abomination in this combination. In this respect, this prohibition of the Torah is similar to the warning "until seven days after calving, an ox or a sheep or a goat must be with his mother, and only from the eighth day onwards is it permissible to bring it as a sacrifice" (Exodus 22:29; Leviticus 22:27). It is also similar to warnings not to slaughter an ox or a sheep or a goat and its child in one day (Leviticus 22:28) and to send away the bird when taking its chicks or eggs (Deuteronomy 22:7), and all these warnings are based on a humanitarian reason.
-Menachem Haran
The afflictions of Rabbi Y'hudah HaNasi came upon him due to an incident and left him due to another incident. What was that incident that led to his suffering? There was a certain calf that was being led to slaughter. The calf went and hung its head on the corner of Rabbi Y'hudah HaNasi's garment and was weeping. Rabbi Y'hudah HaNasi said to it: Go, as you were created for this purpose. It was said: Since he was not compassionate, let afflictions come upon him.
And suffering left him due to another incident. One day, the maidservant of Rabbi Y'hudah HaNasi was sweeping the house. There were young weasels lying about, and she was sweeping them out. Rabbi Y'hudah HaNasi said to her: Let them be. It is written: "The Eternal is good to all; and God's mercies are over all God's works" (Psalm 145:9). They said: Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate toward him.
Can we say that these sources required their ancient readers to avoid eating animals? I must admit that I do not think so. The sources ask us to face ambivalence: they allowed us to eat animals but at the same time demanded that we remember that this act is morally distorted because we and the animals belong to the same family. We have all experienced a parent-child relationship, whether biological or otherwise. Al children want protection from their parents, and all parents are supposed to take care of their children. We all want to live and are afraid to die. No one wants to find themselves on a friend's dinner plate. No living entity is meant to be food. The idea that we humans, as those in power, are allowed to take newborn animals from their parents and eat them is chilling if we are willing to put it in the simple and true way the Torah formulates.
One can explain that the Torah permits eating animals because the quantity and variety of plant foods were limited in ancient times. By
contrast, there is no escape from the determination that in our time, in places where plant foods are in great variety, we must be careful to avoid eating animals and thus walk in God's way, as "God's mercies are over all
God's works" (Psalm 145:9).
-Ruhama Weiss, PhD
Discussion Questions by Ariel Tovlev
-
What four main examples of Torah laws that provide protections for animals does Dr. Weiss offer? What do you think of these laws?
-
Why do you think the Torah uses language of “mothers” and “children” when referring to sheep, oxen, goats, and even birds?
-
Dr. Weiss suggests that the story of Rabbi Y’hudah HaNasi and the animals is meant to teach us to have compassion for other living things. How can we show compassion to animals in today’s world? Are we personally compelled to reduce meat consumption, become vegetarian, or become vegan?