![[Jewish vegetarianism]](bhashem.gif){kind=small}
![[Jewish vegetarian symbol]](magen.gif)
Are Jews required to eat meat on Shabbat (Sabbath) and Yom Tov (holidays)?
There is no requirement anywhere to eat meat on Shabbat. We are supposed to experience oneg Shabbat, the pleasure of Shabbat, but that pleasure is not defined. Therefore, one does on Shabbat whatever one considers to be pleasurable.
For Yom Tov, we are supposed to experience the simcha, or joy, of the holiday. Many commentators felt that when the Beit Hamikdash (Temple) was standing, consumption of meat was considered an integral part of this simcha, although Tosafot and Rabbeinu Nisim felt that it was not required. However, following the destruction of the Temple, the Gemara (Pesachim 109a) states only that wine is an integral part of the simcha. Thus, it would appear that there is no requirement for the consumption of meat. The situation is complicated by the assertion of the Rambam (Maimonides) that on Yom Tov, men eat meat and drink wine. However, he also noted that women should receive nice clothing and jewelry, and children should be given sweets and nuts. As the Sha'agat Aryeh (Rav Aryeh Leib Ben Asher of Metz) points out, the Rambam's concept is really that each person should do whatever produces simcha in his or her own case. The Rambam only suggested meat for men because in his experience, that's what made men happy. But if something else made a man happy, that would be fine as well. Therefore, there is no requirement to eat meat on Yom Tov.
The question we must really ask is how can any person derive joy or pleasure from eating meat knowing what suffering went into the production of that meat and knowing the harmful effects of meat consumption on one's own body?
Why should meat consumption be prohibited on the basis of tsa'ar ba'alei chayim? The person who buys the meat is not directly causing the suffering. Besides, what one person does won't have any effect on the amount of meat produced.
Even if one is not directly causing the suffering, one is indirectly causing it by buying the meat and thereby supporting those who were directly responsible. Thus, one is violating the halachic principle "Ein machzikin biyedei ovrei aveira" -- one may not aid and abet a transgressor. Those who not only abstain from the end product of tsa'ar ba'alei chayim but encourage others to abstain as well stand on firm ground. One can only recall those who may have been able to save Jewish lives during the Holocaust but declined to do so; they may not have been directly responsible for the Holocaust but they share in the guilt. In modern popular terminology, those who are not part of the solution are part of the problem.
Can even one person acting alone make a difference? In analogy, one might ask whether it is worth while voting even though the effect of a single vote may seem insignificant. Every act in favor of life makes a difference. And in the words of Ben Azzai, "mitzva goreret mitzva" (Pirkei Avot, perek daled, pasuk bet) -- one mitzva leads to another. The act not only softens our own heart and makes us a better person with regard to our fellow man and the entire world, but it also leads others to follow our example. The recent ruling by the late Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Chayim David Halevy z'l forbidding people to wear fur coats on the basis of tsa'ar ba'alei chayim supports this contention, as does Reb Moshe Feinstein's responsum indicating that the manner in which most veal calves are raised constitutes tsa'ar ba'alei chayim.
How can a vegetarian diet be mandated when the Torah gave permission to eat meat?
First, we should note that although permission to eat meat on a limited basis was given, the Torah speaks about eating meat in negative terms. The permission to eat meat in Eretz Yisrael is given to those who have a ta'avah -- a lust for meat (Devarim, perek yud"bet, pasuk kaf -- Deuteronomy XII:20). In a remarkable incident recounted in Bamidbar, perek yud"aleph -- Numbers XI , a ta'avah or lust developed among the mixed multitude and spread to Bnei Yisrael (children of Israel). While in the desert, they were to eat a vegetarian food called manna, which, according to a midrash, could taste like any food one desired. When the people rebelled and demanded meat, God provided quails. The Torah related, "When the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the Lord's anger against the people was kindled, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague." That site was then named kivrot hata'avah -- Graves of Lust, because they buried there the people who had lusted. In the same vein, the Ba'al Ikkarim, Rabbi Joseph Albo, compared meat eating to the Torah doctrine of yefat to'ar (Devarim, perek kaf"aleph, pasuk yud"aleph -- Deuteronomy XXI:11), according to which a soldier in foreign territory is allowed to take a female captive of war as his concubine and have relations with her. It clearly was not desirable behavior but represented a concession to a weakness of the flesh, just as the eating of flesh is. And in Jewish practice, there is no specific blessing to be recited over meat before it is consumed as there is for fruits and vegetables.
Although the Torah permitted meat consumption after the Flood, such permission may not necessarily apply in a different time and place. For example, Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha states in the Gemara, "Since the day of the destruction of the Temple we should by rights bind ourselves not to eat meat," although he felt that such an abstention should not be mandated because of the principle that one does not impose a "hardship" on the community which the majority cannot endure.
The Malbim, Rabbenu Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michael, gives a very interesting commentary regarding the permission to eat meat after the Flood (B'reishit, perek tet, pasuk gimel -- Genesis IX:3). This commentary is often misinterpreted as stating that the constitution of humans became weaker after the Flood and they now required meat to survive (reminiscent of beef industry propaganda today). What the Malbim actually said was that Adam was strong and the fruit in Gan Eden was as nourishing as meat. However, as a result of the Flood, the food became devitalized. Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch agrees, commenting that there was a disturbing change in the condition of the earth that may explain why permission to eat animals was given. Humans became spread across the globe and no longer had access to the plethora of vegetarian produce that was present in Gan Eden. Thus, without the full range of grains, vegetables, and fruits, humans had to supplement their diets with animal products. Vegetarian diets, as part of an ascetic lifestyle, became associated with poor health. However, baz'man hazeh, in our day and age, when we once more have all the vegetables we care to eat -- as close as the nearest supermarket -- and when it is meat consumption that is now associated with poor health, there is no reason to eat meat other than for reasons of ta'avah (lust). And lust alone is not sufficient to allow tsa'ar ba'alei chayim (unnecessary suffering of living creatures) as well as sakkana (danger) to our health. The Rambam himself felt the need to justify shechita (animal slaughter) on the basis of something more than just the lust of humans, and he did so based upon his mistaken belief that meat consumption was necessary for optimal health. Thus, his justification for eating meat has been invalidated, and it is clear that if he had today's medical knowledge he would not be able to justify the eating of meat.
Even if one does not accept the argument that Judaism in this day and age requires one to follow a vegetarian diet, those who try to go beyond the bare minimum requirements of the law (according to the principle of lifnim meshurat hadin) will want to avoid meat. One of the reasons the Gemara gives for the destruction of the Temple was that no one was willing to conduct himself according to lifnim meshurat hadin (Bava Metzia 30b). People only wanted to act according to the letter of the law and not according to its spirit. Being a vegetarian is certainly what the spirit of the law requires.
Doesn't the Talmud say we should eat every delicacy we come across?
The Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) in Kiddushin 4:12 does state that "man will have to account for everything he saw but did not eat." If we took this literally, we would have to include the flesh of pigs and who knows what else. Clearly, that is not the meaning here. To understand this statement, we need to look at the Babylonian Talmud, where we learn that after the second Temple was destroyed, a great many Jews followed ascetic practices, abstaining from meat and wine (Bava Batra 60b). This was not the vegetarianism of today, rich in a wide variety of foods and followed for ethical and medical reasons. The ascetics consumed inadequate diets, and the Sages were concerned that the Jewish nation would wither away and perish because of this. Their directive was by no means a license for gluttony, which is antithetical to Jewish teachings, nor was it an imperative to eat meat. It was simply a reaction to the widespread asceticism occurring at that time and place. Directly opposed to the interpretation that we should eat everything we see is the following statement in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch: "Therefore, we must not eat whatever is palatable just like the dog and the ass do, but we should eat only the things that are helpful to, and good for, the health of the body" (Code of Jewish Law, volume 1, chapter 31, Ganzfried-Goldin, Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, 1961). Based upon current medical knowledge, that rules out meat.
In today's gluttonous society, many people have no concept of what they would eat if they were not consuming animal flesh every day. Those who have fallen victim to this aberrant lifestyle think of a vegetarian diet as being unpalatable and monotonous. Those who have this mind-set even participate in a machloket (controversy) over whether it is permissible for a Jew to follow a weight reduction diet, as if the healthy diet Hakadosh Baruch Hu (The Holy One, Blessed be He) provided for mankind represents a burden or an unpleasantness! This is more a reflection of the mentality of the mixed multitude at Kivrot Hata'ava than it is of reality. Most vegetarians look forward to their every meal. They feel they have more variety than ever before and they love the sophisticated, subtle flavors of many vegetables that they never appreciated before. It may take a little time for some to adjust their palates, but it can easily be done, especially with Hashem's help.
Even if, for some, a vegetarian diet were not as tasty as an omnivorous diet, the fact that one is following the pathway that God recommended for man should be all the pleasure one needs. Some people observe each mitzva grudgingly and are therefore chronically unhappy. Those who carry out Hashem's will joyfully know true happiness. For a vegetarian, each bite is a joy and a mitzva. Therefore, the principle that we should not require things that would be a burden to the community certainly does not apply here.
Why did Rav Kook feel that we should not require everyone today to be vegetarian?
Four objections have been attributed to Rav Kook, and we will discuss each in turn.
First is that we risk being called hypocrites by abstaining from meat. By this, he meant that some people who follow a vegetarian diet might feel that they are perfect now, tikkun olam (repair of the broken world) is complete, and there are no problems left to tackle, such as problems of human welfare. By that logic, we could also say that we shouldn't give charity to the poor because we might then think that there are no more poor people in the world. The fact is that most vegetarians are much more concerned about the problems of their fellow man and the earth than people in general. As just one example, for most of our history there has been the concept that children do not have rights, just as many people feel that way today about animals. Yet, it was the animal welfare people who spearheaded the drive to institute child labor laws and avoid the shameful exploitation of poor children in the United States, all this at a time when many people saw nothing wrong with the way children were being treated. And if we look at the problems in the world today, no reasonable person, vegetarian or otherwise, could possibly feel that all of the problems affecting us have been solved. Those who call vegetarians "hypocrites" would do better by simply admiring the vegetarian lifestyle as representing a higher moral plane even if they themselves are unable to reach that level.
A second objection is that man has an innate desire for meat, and if animal meat could no longer be consumed, then some people might turn to cannibalism. It is difficult to take this assertion seriously in this day and age, and it is doubtful that there have ever been any cannibals who were otherwise vegetarian. Physiologically, humans are much closer to the animals that are strict herbivores, such as the gorilla, than they are to the carnivores. There is no innate desire to eat meat, only a learned desire. People who eat meat suppress, by necessity, everything that went into the production of that meat -- the suffering on factory farms, the slaughtering, etc. When one stops eating meat for whatever reason, those thoughts no longer have to be suppressed. Therefore, the heightened respect for the sanctity of all life that one experiences when one stops eating meat only leads to greater respect for the lives of humans.
The third objection is that if people were to stop eating meat, they might assume they are now no different from the other animals and fall to the level of nonhuman animals in terms of morality. If we look at the behavior of most animals and compare that with the behavior of mankind, I'm not sure that animals would fare that badly. Many years ago (and perhaps today), the Bronx Zoo had a cage labeled "the world's most dangerous animal." Looking in, all you could see was your reflection in a mirror! Nonhuman animals kill for food and for reasons of survival; humans also kill for pleasure and for power. Humans have speech, but it is often used for evil, be it slander, lashon hara (badmouthing), or just plain humiliation. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin indicates this in discussing the command in Genesis to let human beings have "dominion" over the other animals. He points out that the word for "have dominion" is "v'yirdu," which can mean to rule but which can also mean to descend. He says, "The very ability to rise above our animal instincts can also cause us to sink to levels of depravity far below an animal's capacity." And that is exactly what mankind usually does. This third objection is invalid because a vegetarian diet should only elevate one's moral standards.
Finally, the last and related objection is that if people were to focus their altruistic tendencies toward animals, they would become indifferent to human welfare and problems. Clearly, this is not the case. One does not have to ration one's compassion. Expression of compassion toward anyone or anything only increases one's compassion for all living things. This concept, which is intrinsic to Jewish thought, is expressed by the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed), where he discusses the Noachide Commandment of eiver min hachai, the prohibition of cutting off a limb from a live animal. He says it is prohibited "because such an act would produce cruelty, and develop it." In other words, lack of compassion and cruelty toward animals leads to cruelty toward humans. This is confirmed by modern studies showing that those who abuse animals as children often go on to commit violent crimes as adults.
Inevitably one hears comments that the Nazis were kind to their animals yet were cruel to humans. The implication is that those who are kind to animals lose all their compassion for humans, the reverse of the true situation, as mentioned above. Interestingly, this claim is often made by exactly the same people who say that no one should be compared to the Nazis and nothing should be compared to the Holocaust. But even if one could find some isolated cases in which a Nazi was nice to his dog or cow or whatever, it's irrelevant. Rav Kook himself said that even in the worst of people one could find some admirable traits. The claim that Hitler was a vegetarian is also spurious: his biographers have pointed out that he loved Bavarian sausages and also ate pig, liver, and the flesh of animals taken in hunting. Hitler was the antithesis of a vegetarian. But even if he did occasionally avoid meat for stomach problems or health reasons, so what? He also had a mustache. Are all people who like mustaches similar to Hitler? In fact, if we had to make an analogy, it would not be between vegetarians and the Nazis; it would be between the anti-vegetarians and the Nazis. Because just as the Nazis dehumanized the Jews in their propaganda and in the atrocities they committed, the apologists for meat consumption and the exploitation of animals have stereotyped and degraded the animal kingdom for their own purposes, declaring animals to be devoid of cognitive functioning and even of pain.
As pointed out before, animal welfare advocates were the ones who led the fight to grant children rights and to end exploitative child labor at a time when most thought children should have no rights. This and numerous other examples show that kindness toward animals only increases one's respect for the rights and welfare of one's fellow human beings.
Isn't there a chassidic view that there is merit in eating animals?
Many of the chassidim have adopted a somewhat mystical approach, based upon kabbalah, to the eating of meat. Reb Tzadok of Lublin discussed a Gemara (Pesachim 49b) that prohibited an am ha-aretz (an unlearned person who does not study Torah) from eating meat. He pointed out that meat or other food must be used for its intended purpose, namely, to make ourselves stronger and healthier so that we can properly devote ourselves to serving God. In that way, consuming the food leads to kedusha (holiness). However, he said that since there is no specific bracha (blessing which says that Hashem kideshanu -- sanctified us) to recite before eating meat and no mitzva to eat meat, it cannot be used as readily as other types of food for the purpose of kedusha (holiness). This, he explains, is why someone who doesn't engage in Torah study should not eat meat.
The Baal HaTanya (Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Ladi, founder of the Lubavitch movement), also felt that eating meat could be thought about in a positive way. He based this upon the doctrine of maaleh nitzotzos, the raising of sparks, found in the Kabbalah. This means that there are potential sparks of holiness in everything, and that these things can, therefore, be used for holy purposes. This doctrine would encourage us to utilize these sparks of holiness as much as possible, and eating meat would be one way of accomplishing this.
There are several problems with these doctrines. The first is that they assume that eating meat is the way to greater strength and better health and happiness. We now know that meat is not necessary for strength and nutritional adequacy. In fact, meat consumption leads to poorer health as compared with a vegetarian diet, thereby violating the injunction in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, cited above, to eat only the things that are helpful to, and good for, the health of the body. Some studies indicate that consumption of animal products decreases mental alertness as compared with complex carbohydrate-rich vegetable products. In addition, eating meat tends to raise testosterone levels in men, and higher testosterone levels have been associated with increased aggression. In short, the evidence is that eating meat would only impair one's ability to study Torah and lead a life of kedusha. Thus, Reb Tzadok's premise, that meat makes us stronger and healthier, is untrue, and that invalidates his whole argument.
Second, the interpretation of maaleh nitzotzos that implies that the more living things we kill and use the better is antithetical to Jewish teachings. The reason there is no specific blessing for eating meat and why we do not say the shehecheyanu blessing upon purchasing a new garment made of leather is that using products derived from animals is not considered a desirable thing (because of the suffering that went into the production of those products). The doctrine of tsa'ar ba'alei chayim indicates that we are to avoid causing animal suffering as much as possible. A wonderful Gemara that supports the latter concept is found in Bava Metzia 85a . We are told that a calf that was being led to slaughter sought protection from Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi. He then dismissed the calf, saying, "Go, this is what you were created for!" The word came from Heaven that since he doesn't have mercy, he himself will be afflicted. And he suffered for thirteen years until he intervened in an act of animal cruelty perpetrated by the maid in his house. He cited the verse in the Ashrei, "verachamav al kol maasav" (and His mercy is over all His creations). Hakadosh Baruch Hu has mercy over even the lowliest creatures. Since he learned his lesson, he was forgiven and his afflictions resolved.
Are you saying that many of our sages were wrong in eating meat?
No one is deprecating our sages. They did what they felt was right based upon the state of knowledge and the conditions of the times and places in which they lived. The Torah regulates slavery, but no one feels that we should have slaves today. Some of our forefathers had more than one wife, but no one feels that we should have polygamy today. In times past, people felt that meat was necessary for good health. Now, living as we do among a Gan Eden-like abundance of grains and produce, we know that meat is not only unnecessary but is actually harmful to our health. Therefore, bazman hazeh, in this day and age, we should be acting on the basis of current scientific knowledge and our agricultural abundance by regarding vegetarianism as the norm.
Return to Jewish Vegetarianism -- Theological Perspectives
Go to Questions and Answers on Vegetarian Nutrition
Go to The Thirteen Principles of Jewish Medical Ethics of Harofei Yaakov Ben Ben-Tzion Halevi