The Torah and animal rights — in context

Animals are not our equals.”

Media pundits and missionaries are famous for taking quotations out of context. Before judging any statement you read or hear, it is important to know in what context it was expressed. Was the writer being sarcastic, rhetorical or straightforward? Was the speaker quoting someone else, or was he being dramatic or provocative to make a point?

Vayikra 17:3-4 has a statement that would make animal rights activists become born-again Bible-thumping religious folks.

“If any member of the family of Israel slaughters an ox, sheep or goat, whether in the camp or outside the camp, and does not bring it to the Communion Tent to be offered as a sacrifice to G-d before His sanctuary, that person is considered a murderer. That person has committed an act of murder, and he shall be cut off [spiritually] from among his people.”

There is no question that the Torah advocates animals being brought as korbanot and that such behavior is warranted in the context of a religious culture centered on the Temple as described in the Torah.

But the implication of this verse is that any animal that is killed outside of the sacrificial realm is a murder victim.

This quote must be understood in its context, and the context of the Torah is one in which humans and animals are not equal, and the killing of an animal is not equal to that of killing a human being.

To be sure, as we know, the Torah absolutely advocates the ethical treatment of animals when they are alive — tzaar baalei chayim (causing pain to animals) is prohibited. But we believe animals were put on this earth for, among other things, our use.

The Sefer HaChinukh puts it this way: “G-d only allowed humans to use animal flesh/meat for atonement or for human needs such as food, health, or other uses that advance the human condition. But to murder them for no reason is wanton destruction and is considered murder.”

He continues, “And even though it is not comparable to the murder of a human [a human is a more advanced creation], it is nonetheless considered senseless spilling of blood, a.k.a. murder, because the Torah does not permit taking the lives of animals for no purpose.”

In the context of sacrificial offerings, an animal slaughtered outside of the Temple is a wasted sacrifice because it cannot be brought as a korban. If offered to G-d in the wrong place, it is viewed as idolatry or an improper form of serving G-d.

According to Torah sources, humans and animals were never to be viewed as equals. As such, animal advocacy that calls the killing of chickens for human consumption “a holocaust,” is an insult to all of humanity, particularly those who experienced a Holocaust themselves.

Humans are in the right when they demand that animals be treated ethically and fed properly and placed in quarters appropriate for their needs as living creatures, even if they are being raised to be sold as meat. But they are not in the right when they physically attack human beings or destroy property in order to advance their cause.

The Torah leaves no room for useless killing of animals. This is why the hunters in the Torah, Esav and Nimrod, are frowned upon, while shepherds who lovingly cared for their sheep and cattle (though they surely used some of them for their needs, or sold them to be consumed by humans) are the fathers of our people. Think Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov and his sons, Moshe, David, etc.

One who reads the Torah verse out of context might advocate that humans are murderers for killing animals in any context. But a Torah and a halakhic system that requires the use of animal skins for Torahs, tefillin and mezuzot, which also declares that a celebratory meal is one which includes meat, is certainly not saying that killing animals, even not for sacrifices, is prohibited.

We should not be wasteful and we are not allowed to be cruel to living animals in any way. When they are killed to be used, the action is meant to be swift to avoid any suffering. But animals are here for our purposes, and they are not our equals.

Originally published in 2010.