Be the Change You Want to See In the World

Video-Vort Va'era 5772

[See Videos for all weekly portions by choosing "Video-Torah" in the CATEGORIES section of this blog.]

 

Chosen to be Uncomfortable

[Recently posted by CIF WATCH]

Though born and raised in a proudly Jewish and Zionist home, I was not exposed to the term Pintele Yid until reaching adulthood.

Literally, the words mean 'the little point of a Jew,' though colloquially it refers to the idea of the Jewish spark inside each member of our community. Pintele Yid is a term that has been used to refer to some element of the essence in each Jew that refuses to be extinguished. Some give labels to pintele yid such as chutzpah or determination or stubbornness or soul. Unarguably, for those who accept and embrace the concept of pintele yid, it does serve to distinguish a Jew from others.

Recently, I engaged in a thoughtful conversation with a Jewish friend for whom the idea of 'Chosen People' is an anathema. Simply put, she does not believe that Jews are different from the other peoples of the world. While I certainly understand the discomfort that one may feel over the Torah's reference to our nation as 'chosen,' I believe wholeheartedly in the Jewish people's unique and unambiguous relationship with Gd and, accordingly, with the rest of the humanity. Still, does the People Israel being 'chosen' pertain to each individual or is it a collective label?

For guidance, I look to our tradition's teachings and belief that stems from the Torah's verses, You all stand here today before Adonai your Gd....that you enter into a covenant that Gd makes with you this day that you are His people... not only with you standing here today but also with those who are with us but [physically] not here this day. (Deuteronomy 29:9-14)

Begrudgingly or willfully, our people is defined as involved in an ongoing, unbreakable covenant with the universe's one and only Gd. Each one of us stood before Gd that day and committed to a relationship of great privilege and even greater responsibility. Begrudgingly or willfully, consciously or involuntarily, each member of the Jewish nation is among the chosen of Gd's people.

The existence of each individual Jew in the world is neither random nor happenstance; and each Jew's existence is the result of calculated and uncompromising decisions of the chain of generations that came before us. Through all of the persecution, all of the oppression, all of the pograms, crusades, libels and massacres – the existence of each and every Jew alive today is deliberate and purposeful; and, our survival has no doubt been assisted by our belief that we are unique, different, and essential.

Pintele Yid is the fiber in each Jew that resists the darkness of the complacent and the ordinary. Like the menorah in the time of the Maccabees, the spark of each Jewish soul refuses to be extinguished.

A Couple Minutes of Torah -- Vayera 5772

 

Conversion Reboot: "Who is a Jew?"

[At the end of this post, I propose a significant departure from normative halakhic thinking regarding conversion to Judaism] _____________________________________________________________________________

Historically, radical changes have been an essential element in the survival of Jews and Judaism.  This change does not refer to offshoots or 'reformers' from the Jewish establishment but of the mainstream establishment itself in its own recognition for necessary change. 

 

Examples:

- After the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple the sages changed the focus of Jewish worship from sacrifices to prayer and study.

- Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi broke with normative Jewish law and compiled a written record of the Oral Law – a previously forbidden composition in written form.

- The loopholed permission to conduct business with Gentiles beginning in the Middle Ages heretofore prohibited (see paragraph “Laws to Separate Jews from Idolatry”)

- Rambam's creation of a summary of Jewish Practice to simplify the ‘how to’ of observance of mitzvot without concomitant study (Opposition to Mishneh Torah)

- Codification by Shulchan Arukh to reduce variations of Jewish practice (Opposition to Shulchan Arukh)

- Ba'al Shem Tov's creation of Chassidic Movement to break monopoly/elitism over Judaism by strict Torah scholars who rejected Kabbalah.

 

Applicaton of Radical Change to “Who is a Jew?”

The definition of Jewish identity has also experienced radical change.  During the times of our forefathers/foremothers, patrilineal descent was the birthright to being Jewish.  Thus, Jacob's 12 sons were the heads of the Twelve Tribes of Israel despite two of the biological mothers (Bilhah and Zilpah) not acquiring foremother status.  (For the skeptic and/or scripturally inclined – see Leviticus 24:10 and Rashi on that verse's words “Among Bnei Yisroel”)

In antiquity, the members of a household were defined by the household's patriarch.  Women were defined by the dominant male in whose house she lived – a father, husband, brother or uncle.  Culturally, patrilineal descent made sense in the ancient world as it was the greatest way to insure continuation of the Jewish people for whomever a man married came to live with his household and became part of his clan/people.  Sons brought brides into their own clan and fathers married their daughters into other Israelite clans.  

The earliest legal mention of the move to matrilineal descent is found in the Mishnah codified in 200 CE (see last line of Kiddushin 3:12/13).  Most believe the move from patrilineal to matrilineal descent occurred during a time when war waged against the Jews threw into question the paternity of babies born to Jewish women. 

Critical to this conversation is the fact that prior to the destruction of the Second Temple, a person's conversion to Judaism was defined by living amongst the society of Jewish people (as Ruth says to Naomi – “your People shall be my People, your Gd shall be my Gd” Book of Ruth 1:16), accompanied by the rituals of circumcision for males and ritual immersion for both males and females.

One result of the Destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of Jews throughout the world (70 CE) was that conversion requirements evolved to include a commitment to observance of Jewish law since no Jewish societal milieu existed.  When Jews were thrown out of the Land of Israel, lost was the sovereignty of Jewish society.  For the next 2,000 years, Jews were hosted by, and lived among, strictly gentile societies.

Fast forward to modern day:  though the proportional number of Jews in the world decreases yearly and the number of people opting out of Jewish identification is rapidly growing,  I believe the halakhic requirements for conversion to Judaism that have developed over these 2 millennia should remain unchanged in the Diaspora. 

HOWEVER, for those people who move to Israel under the law-of-return but do not have halakhic status as Jews; who choose to leave the land of their birth and to come the world’s only Hebrew speaking society; to live by the Jewish (not Gregorian) calendar; who are prepared to serve or have their children serve in the Israeli Defense Forces in order to protect the Jewish State; who take upon themselves the challenges of living in an Israel that is under constant threat because it is a Jewish State...Perhaps a return to the Jewish societal milieu model for those who are prepared to undergo circumcision and ritual immersion should be sufficient for halakhic conversion status. 

The interest, desire, and motivation to convert to Judaism for those immigrants who are non-halakhic beneficiaries of Israel’s law-of-return are waning.  Though most new immigrants to Israel have the wish to be recognized as Jewish and are willing to participate in a formal conversion process, the requirements of the ultra-conservative Israeli Rabbinate imposes such strictures on applicants that just a decimal-percentage of those wanting to convert are allowed to do so. 

The radical difference in Jewish life provided by the State of Israel – a phenomenon unknown in the world for 2,000 years – certainly qualifies for a re-imagining of “Who is a Jew?” 

For the health of Jewish identity in Israel and for the untapped potential of Jewish possibilities in the Jewish State…Amen. Selah.

"The Israeli Government Can Stop the Terrorist Threat Immediately"

In a Jerusalem park one morning in 2004, I had a conversation with a sweet, elderly Yemenite Jewish man in his late eighties. His handbag sported a white ribbon and an orange ribbon – at the time, the State of Israel was debating the withdrawal of its citizens from the Gaza Strip: White favored pullout and Orange favored staying. We spoke for a long while and his kind and loving manner toward me and my year-old son coupled with his support for both sides of the painful debate to leave/stay in Gaza showed him to be a sensitive, thoughtful person.

As over 100 suicide bombings inside Israel's borders had taken place in the previous 3 years, at some point I said, “Our poor country finds itself in such danger these days.” His response was immediate and swift, “The Israeli Government can stop the terrorist threat immediately but it doesn't want to. We could stop the terrorism tomorrow, but the leadership is afraid to do it.”

Speechless, I asked him to explain.

He told me the story of his early 20^th century childhood in the Silwan area of Jerusalem. Silwan was a tense village of Yemenite Jews on one side and Arabs on the other. One evening, shots were fired from the Arab village and Jewish children were killed. The Arab villagers denied any knowledge, participation, or responsibility for the shootings. Two days later in broad daylight his older brother and a group of others went to the two Arab houses from where the shots were fired, took out all the inhabitants of the houses and killed them. There was never another incident or threat of danger from their Arab neighbors.

Speechless.

[POSTIFICATION: I DO NOT CONDONE, ENCOURAGE, OR DESIRE FOR ISRAEL AND THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO UTIILZE THE TACTIC DESCRIBED ABOVE.  MY DESIRE IS FOR ALL PARTIES CONCERNED ABOUT ISRAEL TO EITHER: A) BE REVOLTED BY THE VULGARITY OF THE ACT, AND/OR, B) FACTOR INTO THE EQUATION THE REALITY OF MIDDLE EASTERN CULTURE EXPRESSED IN THE STORY WHEN CRITIQUING ISRAEL’S SECURITY DECISIONS – AND PROPOSING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS]

 

Women, Taboo and Liberation

Menstrual cycle, impurity, prohibitions, blood, uncleanliness, hushes…

Judaism actually celebrates menstruation as a women's ability to create life and the tradition encourages the fruitfulness possible due to this gift to women.  Still, rabbis scratch heads pondering why the family purity laws (those laws that legislate sexual relations between spouses) get such bad press and has fallen into disuse even amongst observant Jewish couples.

Here are 3 examples of how traditional Judaism misrepresents the beauty of a woman's power to be Gd's partner in the process of Creation….

1. Anyone who has ever heard that a woman is forbidden to touch a Torah scroll has also heard the following reason:  if a woman were in her menstrual state of restrictedness ('impurity') she would transfer impurity to the Torah by touching it.  The explanation – and prohibition – is a complete fabrication and untrue.  The surety of proof comes from the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer) ritual that we just read in synagogue last week.  There we learn that anyone who comes in contact with a dead body either through touch or even presence (like in a cemetery or a hospital) is ritually impure.  The only way to be rid of this impurity is through a Temple ritual using the ashes of a completely red-haired cow.  For the last 2,000 years, there has been no Temple and no such ritual.  The majority of all men, therefore, are ritually impure.  How is it we can touch the Torah scroll – because the Torah cannot receive impurity.  I've sent many traditional yeshiva students back to their teachers seeking to refute this proof.

What is the reason for this bubbe meise (old wives' tale)?  What is the resulting attitude of boys, and girls, and men, and women, toward menstruation?  Why hasn't this myth been shattered?

2. Have you ever noticed in America that Orthodox-observant couples do not hold hands? The reason for this abstinence is because for them it is forbidden for a male to touch a female who is a niddah (ritual impurity caused by her period).  After her period and her visit to a mikveh, touching is permitted again.  At least 2 weeks every month a couple is permitted to touch – so why not walk together hand-in-hand in public?  Were the couple to hold hands during the permitted days, then others would deduce that when the couple is not holding hands the woman would be experiencing her period and this knowledge would somehow be immodest or embarrassing.  But, why?  In Israel, religious couples can be seen walking hand-in-hand in every city….

3. As a rabbinical student 15 years ago, I was hosted by a fellow Conservative student and his wife for Shabbat dinner.  In a respectful way, I asked them to explain to me how they traverse the issue of Judaism's family purity laws. The response I received was the one most often delivered – and most likely to slam the door to the curious – "those are private issues for a couple and not to be discussed."    

The answer is not to abandon the family purity laws; the answer is to abandon the rabbis' adolescent discomforts….

Israel's Indignation: Understanding my Pain

I scratch my head trying to identify why American Jewry's criticism of Israel is so difficult for me.  I live in Israel and see the societal and political ills up close, so the reason is not because of a loss of my innocence or the destruction of a vision of utopia that I harbor for the Jewish State.    

I recently read an article telling of a society where most cases of reported sexual abuse and harrassmnet never go before a judge because there is a culture of tolerance for such male behavior.  It elicited an analogical awareness:

In the face of a woman's being violated by a man there is the tendency -- and even the desire -- to try to find the woman somewhat responsible for the act (a flirtatious personality, the way she dresses, she allowed herself to be alone with him, we know what happens in fraternity houses and she should have known better than to go to the party, she grew up in an abusive home so is attracted to violent men, it wasn't rape because they were on a date, she's a spurned woman making accusations out of revenge....).  By finding her at all culpable we try to bring order to the chaos/randomness of the violent act so we can reduce anxiety about our own chances for being victimized, and it helps us to deny the extant evil of the perpetrator.  Additionally, it allows for those persons who do not agree with certain expressions of femininity to be critical of that womanliness.  And, it also causes a reduction of sympathy for the victim.  In a way we do it regarding cancer, too -- lung cancer -- was he a smoker? does cancer run in the family?  (as if it reduces the horror of the cancer or the tragedy of it because it could be predicted). 
 
To even raise the issue of the female's behavior is to diminish the act of the perpetrator. 
 
Settlements, roadblocks, separation walls, blockades, Operation Cast Lead, intransigence toward a Two State Solution, right wing coalition forces....these are accusations and explanations used (by Israel's detractors and others) for Israel somehow deserving to be victim to ideologies that do not condone Israel's existence and deserving to be victim to cultures that justify the perpetration of barbarism as legitimate means of protest. 
 
Though American Jews who argue for 'honest debate over Israel' do not agree with these ideologies and cultures, they do use the same terminology as Israel's true enemies and by doing so it reduces the perpetrators' evil and points an accusing finger at the victim. 
 
I understand legitimate difference of opinion regarding Israel's approach to its national security, I need not validate those whose very arguments abet and vindicate -- even unintentionally -- the pernicious enemies of Israel.

Does Torah Intend to Protect Animals? Part II

In this second session of chevrutah with Pardes Institute Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Danny Landes, I employ traditional sources to prove that Torah holds that Tsa'ar Ba'alei Chaim (the pain of living creatures) applies to emotional pain and not just physical pain.

 

Abolitionist Interview

The "Abolitionist-Online" is a website dedicated to being a "Voice for Animal Rights."  The online magazine did a RELIGION Issue and the link below shares the interview had with me as a/the Jewish Voice.

Some of the questions posed:

What are you views on comparing factory farming to the Holocaust?

Is Gd a militant?

Would Gd create something that would destroy part of His own Creation?

What was your wake up call to animal welfare issues and How to convince others?

FULL INTERVIEW FOLLOWS:

 

Rabbi Adam Frank – The Interview.

By Claudette Vaughan

 

Rabbi Adam Frank lives and works in Jerusalem with his family. He wrote an excellent article titled “What’s Jewish about a Vegan Diet?” posted at jewishveg.com

We wanted to catch up with the Rabbi and ask him a few of our own questions. Here’s that interview.

 

Abolitionist: Is God a militant in an age where so many religious people refuse to speak favorably in terms of animal rights? Would God create his own Creation to then turn around and allow them to be eaten?

Rabbi Adam Frank: We start with the premise that God created the world, God created both humans and the non-human animal kingdom, God created lions and God created lambs. Lions eat lambs so yes, God is capable of creating that which God knows will consume something else that is living. Is God a militant? Certainly not in any negative sense. I think it’s important to say why God is so critical, at least in my perspective of the world. I believe how we define what is good and bad, what is moral and immoral, what is ethical or unethical must originate from something outside of human opinion.  Different communities of people may come up with different definitions of what is moral and what is immoral and for this reason it is critical for me to turn to a source which is external of humans to be the foundation of what is good and what is bad.  Judaism turns to God and believes that God gifted to humanity the Five Books of Moses as the foundation of defining what it means to live an appropriate life. In Judaism there are numerous verses and sources that guard against the unnecessary and cruel treatment of animals. These sources speak of human potential in its ideal form. Unfortunately, human influence – the human touch -- corrupts.   While Judaism certainly has many teachings instructing that humans be sensitive and sensitized to other parts of God’s creation, I believe there has been a corruption, and sometimes even a willful ignoring, of certain precepts which allow us, all humans, to live more comfortable personal lives at the expense of others.

 

Abolitionist: Why are you vegan, Rabbi?

Rabbi Adam Frank: I am vegan because both Jewish law and my own use of logic and reasoning tell me that there is something terribly wrong with the animal food industry which places the animals in the conditions that is modern factory farming. I want to be clear, too, as this gets to your question of how do we lead a revolution of thinking to get people to stop eating meat and to make them more sensitive to their consumptions. I think the message has to be non-radical for human ears. The concept that people have no right to eat animals or that people have no right to infringe on the individual autonomy of an animal is so foreign to human thinking that it will be ignored. Judaism teaches that animals can be seen to exist in order to serve human needs but in the same breath Judaism obligates us to act as proper stewards and to act compassionately toward all that God created.  Part of Judaism is to imitate/imbue the compassion of God. As God is compassionate towards humankind, so too must humankind be compassionate towards animals. I am vegan because farming methods are abusive and cruel to animals. I don’t want my food choices to condone the suffering that occurs in the animal food industry.

Judaism takes seriously  the idea of personal responsibility.  Communal change for the better and improved societal ethical behavior starts with the individual -- I cannot expect or hope for others to be concerned about animal suffering if my own actions reflect disregard for the wellbeing of animals.

 

Abolitionist: None of the holy books declare anywhere that humans have to eat meat. Do you think that factory farming itself is an abomination against God?

Rabbi Adam Frank: You’re right. I can’t speak for other holy books. I can only speak for Jewish sources. At the biblical level, Jewish sources do not require us to eat meat, though animal sacrifice was required in the times of the ancients.  Built into the Jewish religion is the concept that we would use and even kill animals for some purpose. In Hebrew, the word for sacrifice – korban – literally means to draw closer or to “draw near”. Whether pagans or Jews, why would people sacrifice animals? Sacrifices were a vehicle to give up something of great value as a way of service to something greater.

 

Abolitionist: Couldn’t sacrifice also mean to sacrifice the human condition as now stands to submit to God?

Rabbi Adam Frank: The ideal in certain Christian beliefs is abstinence. Judaism embraces moderation not abstinence.  In Judaism, the ideal is to have a sexual relationship that occurs in the realm of the holy partnership of monogamous commitment. No action should go unchecked. The idea that we humans make sacrifices in our own personal lives for the greater good is certainly part of Jewish practice. In fact, that which distinguishes humans from other animals is our ability to make choices based on our reason, knowledge, sensitivities, and beliefs.

 

Abolitionist: In ‘Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals and the Call to Mercy” Matthew Scully is troubled about, “Kosher meats require the anaesthetized killing and blood-draining, with the kill pace exceeding hundreds of animals per hour, in plants mostly unsupervised by non-Jews”.  We asked Australian Jewish groups also about ‘kosher’ and they said it wasn’t happening. That they had done their own inspections and it just wasn’t happening due to stress and other things on the kill floor and they reported it was a dreadful way to be killed. By your education you have been impacted by the thought that the treatment of animals to fulfill human food desires is an appalling violation of Jewish law prohibiting the unnecessary infliction of pain on an animal. Can you further outline your thoughts here please?

Rabbi Adam Frank: Are you talking about AgriProcessors at the plant in Iowa? In late 2004, there was a video expose filming the operations in a kosher slaughterhouse in North America. In Australia, secular law requires that the animal remains upright during the killing process. The abuse that occurs in kosher slaughter has to do with the animal handling systems but not the actual killing method. E.g., how do you position the animal prior to the kill and how soon after the cut is the animal moved. As I said earlier, anything that humans touch is going to be corrupt, and for various reasons the system of shackling and hoisting an animal – of raising it upside down off the killing floor while still conscious – became a practice in kosher and non-kosher slaughter in the early 1900’s in America as a result of secular federal sanitary laws. In order to process the amount of kosher meat that is currently in demand there are animal handling systems similar to those described above  in use that fulfill the letter of Jewish slaughter laws but transgress the Jewish laws of animal welfare. Also, like any industry the bottom line is profits and this influences the systems by which meat is produced. So the idea is to produce the product as inexpensively as possible and that means an individual animal’s welfare is surrendered. This mentality occurs in kosher slaughter as it occurs in secular slaughter as it occurs in any industry where humans have contact with animals. I think it’s upon Jewish leadership to make a change.

 

Abolitionist: The late Henry Spira was an effective and gracious animal activist who was also Jewish. He said the animals live in “a universe of pain and suffering”. As we wake up every morning, day in and day out, how should we as vegans relieve some of that pain and suffering for animals day in and day out?

Rabbi Adam Frank: We need to get people to the stage where they recognize that there is terrible cruelty occurring and it’s unnecessary and that the industry norm is one which provides for that cruelty. I find the following example helpful:   While children, we believed the police were all good but as adults we realise that police can be corrupt and that the citizens best interests are not always at hand. We also have to realise with regard to the food industry that just because governments have anti-animal-cruelty laws, the laws and their lack of enforcement allow for an industry norm that is nothing short of torturous for animals. Every time we sit down to eat we have a choice. Judaism teaches that the one who gives charity is transformed more than the person who receives that charity – similarly, the decision I make to eat a non-dairy sherbet instead of ice cream is as much as about me as it is any animal that I’m trying to not cause pain to.

 

Abolitionist: As a Jewish Rabbi I would value your views on comparing the Holocaust to factory farming? Is this a shameful comparison to you and/or should this comparison best be left to the Jewish people to discuss?

Rabbi Adam Frank: I, as much as any other Jewish leader I know, have a sensitivity and a commitment to the well-being of animals. I am very offended by the comparison and there are several reasons why. I think humans should make a distinction between human life and animal life. The offensive part of the comparison is not that it elevates the value of an animal life but that it reduces the horror of what happened during the Holocaust.  The Holocaust was the attempted genocide of a people, a way of life, of a value system whose massacre had no benefit other than the extinction of the Jewish ‘other.’  The comparison discounts the psychological torture of daughters raped in front of parents, of newborns beheaded while in the hands of their mothers, of parents murdered in the presence of their children; it discounts the torment of losing all worldly possessions, security of being and the loss of faith in humankind. 

 

The truth is I don’t think it helps the cause. It draws a picture that animal rights people and animal welfare people are equating human life and animal life – a message so radical and foreign to normative human thinking that it allows the audience to dismiss the message which is the non-radical message of compassion to animals. 

 

Abolitionist: There’s also a movement happening in the world that denies the Holocaust, that wants to make the Holocaust an entertainment and what’s, through time and memory loss, to water down it’s significance in the 20^th century up until now – so there’s that danger as well.

Rabbi Adam Frank: I think the term “genocide” should be applied to humans and not animals.  Of the people who kill animals in the billions, the goal is not to extinguish the animals – to wipe them off the face of the earth – it’s not to de-animalise an animal as was the goal during the Holocaust to dehumanize the Jewish people. The goal is to provide meat and “comfort” to humans. The goal in genocide, specifically during the Holocaust during WWII was the elimination of Judaism and anybody connected to Judaism. The goal was to seek to get humanity to see Jews as animals, as vermin. Once the Nazis convinced people to think it was okay to treat Jews like animals then there was no reason not to put them into the conditions which the pictures from out of the Holocaust show. I don’t think the word ‘genocide’ is an appropriate word regarding animals unless it’s the genocide of trying to exterminate or extinguish one of the species.

 

Abolitionist: Three and a half years ago you attended your first animal rights conference and you have said this event was a wake-up call to you. What happened?

Rabbi Adam Frank: I learned the reality of the animal food industry of which I was previously unaware, and I interacted with people who were sensitive, caring, thoughtful humans who weren’t anti-establishment folks but who, like me, had simply seen the evidence and thought to themselves “we have got to try and stop this”. I could hear the message better at this animal rights conference because it wasn’t coming to me from out of anger or militism but from a sense of there are atrocities occurring here and let’s do something to repair it. I identified with the messenger which allowed me to hear the message which I might add was a non-radical message.

 

Abolitionist: How will the movement turn this thing around?

Rabbi Adam Frank: This is how we will do it. We’ll appeal to people’s reasoning. When I teach here in Jerusalem I start by saying “There are 6 million people here in Israel. Let’s say everyone here in Israel eats half a chicken a week. That’s 3 million chickens a week. That’s 150-160 million chickens a year. I ask is it possible to raise, to give veterinary care, to transport, to slaughter this sheer number of animals in any way we can ensure that we are being compassionate and appropriate?” This appeals to peoples’ reasoning. In America, 25 million animals are being killed each day – is logical to believe that the well-being of the animals are being cared for in an honest way? I teach:  “If you take a knife and stick it in the side of a cow, the cow is going to move away from the knife. The cow is going to yell, to bleed and to run away. If you cut into a cow’s leg or if you cut a tendon she’ll do the very same thing as what a human would do. Empirical evidence shows us that a cow can suffer. So we keep building the argument based on logic.

Abolitionist  So animals, while not having the same status as humans, have the right to be treated with compassion and dignity.  However, according to your religious views animal life is not equivalent to human life?

Rabbi Adam Frank: Correct.  I think it is important that we who are fighting for animal welfare and animal rights have an integrity that recognizes that we also live a life that benefits from earlier exploitation/use of animals.  Before the invention of fuel-driven machines, animals were absolutely necessary as partners in our work to produce and build essential elements for a society. And we should keep in mind that there is no such thing as living a no-impact life – rather, our goal is to lead a low-impact life regarding the suffering of animals and the destruction of the earth’s resources

 

Does Torah Intend to Protect Animals?

Part of a project of the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem -- video of me having chevrutah (paired learning) with Pardes Rosh Yeshiva Rav Daniel Landes.

In this learning session, I use traditional sources to show that Torah intends to protect animals.

[However, the Torah does not teach animal rights -- click here for more.]