Volume 27 Number 28
Produced: Sun Nov 30 16:30:50 1997
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Basic Jewish case for vegetarianism (2)
[Tzadik and Sheva Vanderhoof, Avi Feldblum]
Death on Yom Tov (3)
[Yehuda and Rebecca Poch, Edwin Katzenstein, Richard Wolpoe]
Jewish McCaugheys?
[Hillel E. Markowitz]
Vegetarians
[Tszvi Klugerman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzadik and Sheva Vanderhoof <stvhoof@...>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:12:20 +0200
Subject: Re: Basic Jewish case for vegetarianism
>From: Richard Schwartz <SCHWARTZ@...>
> In view of Judaism's strong teachings with regard to preserving
>human health, treating animals with compassion, protecting the
>environment, conserving resources, and helping the hungry, and the very
>negative effects that the production and consumption of meat has in each
>of these areas, shouldn't Jews be vegetarians, or at least seriously
>consider moving toward vegetarianism?
How can you suggest that Jews should be vegeterians, when the Torah has
such extensive laws about the preparation of kosher meat? Isn't it
obvious that we were meant to eat meat? Also, after the time of the
flood, G-d told Noah explicitly that he was now allowed to eat meat (for
him and his descendants).
>1) While Judaism mandates that people be very careful about preserving
>their health and their lives, animal-centered diets have been
>convincingly found to be a major contributor to heart disease, stroke,
>several forms of cancer, and other chronic diseases.
True, but a healthy lifestyle can be maintained without the drastic step
of eliminating meat entirely. These diseases could be reduced
significantly simply by eating sensibly, possibly limiting meat
consumption to a certain number of meals per week.
>2) While Judaism mandates compassion for animals, most farm animals are
>raised for food today under extremely cruel conditions in small confined
>spaces, where they are denied fulfillment of their instinctual needs.
First of all, animals were created to serve people. Cruelty to animals only
applies where the cruelty serves no constructive purpose for man. Food is
considered a contructive purpose. Secondly, those who are concerned with
these conditions can obtain meat (especially poultry) that are raised in
humane conditions...it's just less convenient and more expensive. Thirdly,
why not work to improve the inhumane conditions instead of just abandoning
meat consumption altogether?
>3) While Judaism stresses that we are to share our bread with hungry
>people, over 70% of the grain grown in the United States is fed to
>animals destined for slaughter, as 15 to 20 million people worldwide die
>annually because of hunger and its effects.
Show me evidence that reducing meat consumption would have any effect on
world hunger. There are extrememly complex economic factors at work here
that you are glossing over.
>4) While Judaism teaches that "the earth is the L-rd`s" and that we are
>to be partners with G-d in preserving the world, animal -centered diets
>contribute substantially to soil erosion and depletion, extensive air
>and water pollution related to chemical fertilizer and pesticides, the
>destruction of tropical rain forests and other habitats, and global
>warming.
What about the verse: "the heavens are the L-rd's and the earth is given
to man". Also, these problems can be adressed in other ways besides
just giving up meat.
>5) While Judaism mandates bal tashchit, that we are not to waste or
>unnecessarily destroy anything of value, livestock agriculture requires
>far more food, land, water, energy, and other resources than plant-based
>agriculture.
It seems like a stretch to apply "bal tashchit" in such an indirect way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:18:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Basic Jewish case for vegetarianism
There have been a few postings that seem focused on whether Richard has
"proven" his case or not. I think that is not the most productive route
to take. In view of maintaining a dialogue/discussion, the question I
ask is Has Richard asked any questions worth discussing, and I think the
answer is yes. I have not yet seen good dialogue in response.
Let me attempt to rephrase some of his points in response to this article.
Tzadik and Sheva Vanderhoof writes:
> >From: Richard Schwartz <SCHWARTZ@...>
> > In view of Judaism's strong teachings with regard to preserving
> >human health, treating animals with compassion, protecting the
> >environment, conserving resources, and helping the hungry, and the very
> >negative effects that the production and consumption of meat has in each
> >of these areas, shouldn't Jews be vegetarians, or at least seriously
> >consider moving toward vegetarianism?
>
> How can you suggest that Jews should be vegeterians, when the Torah has
> such extensive laws about the preparation of kosher meat? Isn't it
> obvious that we were meant to eat meat? Also, after the time of the
> flood, G-d told Noah explicitly that he was now allowed to eat meat (for
> him and his descendants).
A simple reading of the text of the Torah is, in my opinion clearly in
support of a near-vegetarian diet. The language used for the eating of
non-Korban (sacrifice) based meat appears clearly to be phrased as a
concession to a person's desire/lust for meat, rather than a positive
implication that we are to eat meat. In addition, I can easily argue
that the reason for such "extensive" laws regarding meat was to make the
eating of meat a difficult task and not one that would be often done
(especially in the days before your local Kosher butcher store).
> >1) While Judaism mandates that people be very careful about preserving
> >their health and their lives, animal-centered diets have been
> >convincingly found to be a major contributor to heart disease, stroke,
> >several forms of cancer, and other chronic diseases.
>
> True, but a healthy lifestyle can be maintained without the drastic step
> of eliminating meat entirely. These diseases could be reduced
> significantly simply by eating sensibly, possibly limiting meat
> consumption to a certain number of meals per week.
True, but if reducing the amount of meat eaten does statistically
correlate with better health, than should U-shemartem et Nafshotachem -
And you should take care of your life/health - mean that there is a
halachically valid reason to limit one's eating of meat? While there are
other things that definitly come into play, such as getting proper
exersize, does that mean one can ignore the affect of meat on one's diet.
> >2) While Judaism mandates compassion for animals, most farm animals are
> >raised for food today under extremely cruel conditions in small confined
> >spaces, where they are denied fulfillment of their instinctual needs.
>
> First of all, animals were created to serve people. Cruelty to animals only
> applies where the cruelty serves no constructive purpose for man. Food is
> considered a contructive purpose. Secondly, those who are concerned with
> these conditions can obtain meat (especially poultry) that are raised in
> humane conditions...it's just less convenient and more expensive. Thirdly,
> why not work to improve the inhumane conditions instead of just abandoning
> meat consumption altogether?
In the secondly above, I guess the basic question I have is, is "those who
are concerned" a voluntary matter, or is it mandated by the halachot of
tzar baali chaim (cruelty to animals)? Does the condition of animals
raised for food have a halachic basis in our choice to purchase such or
not? What are the halachic sources. The third point above is totally
irrelevant to the discussion.
> >3) While Judaism stresses that we are to share our bread with hungry
> >people, over 70% of the grain grown in the United States is fed to
> >animals destined for slaughter, as 15 to 20 million people worldwide die
> >annually because of hunger and its effects.
>
> Show me evidence that reducing meat consumption would have any effect on
> world hunger. There are extrememly complex economic factors at work here
> that you are glossing over.
Here I agree that the corrolation between use of grain for different
possible purposes in the US may or may not have any clear effect on
world-wide hunger, so I would discount any halachic arguments based on this.
> >4) While Judaism teaches that "the earth is the L-rd`s" and that we are
> >to be partners with G-d in preserving the world, animal -centered diets
> >contribute substantially to soil erosion and depletion, extensive air
> >and water pollution related to chemical fertilizer and pesticides, the
> >destruction of tropical rain forests and other habitats, and global
> >warming.
>
> What about the verse: "the heavens are the L-rd's and the earth is given
> to man". Also, these problems can be adressed in other ways besides
> just giving up meat.
Just because the earth is given to us, does not mean we have the right
to destroy it. As above, just because there may be other ways to address
the problem, does not mean that IF not eating meat will also address
this problem, limiting the amount of meat eaten MAY be halachically
required.
> >5) While Judaism mandates bal tashchit, that we are not to waste or
> >unnecessarily destroy anything of value, livestock agriculture requires
> >far more food, land, water, energy, and other resources than plant-based
> >agriculture.
>
> It seems like a stretch to apply "bal tashchit" in such an indirect way.
I would say that there is a distinction between wasting/destroying
something, where I think that "bal tashchit" clearly applies, and not
doing something in the most "efficient" manner, where I would need to
see that halacha views that as falling under "bal tashchit".
In summary, I think that Richard raises some interesting points that
would merit discussion on the list. As yet, he has not convinced me, so
I'll stick with my Friday night chicken soup and Shabbat Chulent, but
I'm ready to listen to what people have to say.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yehuda and Rebecca Poch <butrfly@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 09:56:25 +0200
Subject: Death on Yom Tov
With regard to John Kraus's question regarding a death on Simcahs Torah
night:
As I understand it, the halacha outside of Israel is that a funeral may
take place on the second day of yom tov, since it was instituted as an
extra day in case there was doubt as to the actual day of yom tov. But
nowadays when there is no doubt, it is kept only out of tradition, and a
reminder that those outside of Israel are still not home. Since it is
not the real day of chag, the mitzvah of halvayat hamet (burying the
dead) overrides the prohibitions of yom tov.
(The same does NOT hold true, by the way, for the first day of yom tov.
The reason Yom Kippur cannot fall on Friday or Sunday is so that one
should never go two days in a row without being able to bury a niftar.)
I remember a case in Toronto a few years ago, where the father of one
of the community rabbis died on the first day of Sukkot. The funeral
was held on the second day (still yom tov) despite the fact that the
cemetery was a 45 minute walk from the family's home, and that none of
the family from outside Toronto could attend.
As regards saying kaddish, this is the first I have heard of it. My
understanding was that the recitation of kaddish only begins at the
funeral. However, if the LOR said to begin kaddish early, I am not one
to contest that, not knowing the situation first hand.
As regards shiva, it would begin on Sunday, in a case where the funeral
was held on simchas tora/Friday, or any time previously during the
holiday (including chol hamoed). The funeral was held Sunday, so shiva
started immediately at its conclusion.
As to the other prohibitions (eg no aliyah, no hakafa, etc.) they all
apply, even if it is not Simchas Tora. These are signs of joy, and
should be abandoned at such a time as this. Further, there is a
provision that a close relative (son, daughter, mother, father, brother,
sister, spouse) may not take part in any mitzvah until the body is
buried, in order that they devote their attention to funeral
preparations and not delay in the performance of chesed shel emes for
any reason. This includes the mitzvot of davening and wearing tefillin.
However, in this case, where the family decides for other reasons to
delay the funeral, those provisions do not apply.
\ ^ || ^ / Yehuda and Rebecca Poch \ ^ || ^ /
>--||--< Rehovot, Israel >--||--<
/ v || v \ <butrfly@...> / v || v \
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EKatzenste@...> (Edwin Katzenstein)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 14:27:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Death on Yom Tov
John Kraus inquiry re:death occurs on Yom Tov, if Kaddish is said
before the Kevuro [Burial - Mod].
The minhag in Khal Adath Jeshurun (KAJ-Washington Hts.) is that the
Ovol does say the kaddish even before the Kevuro. My interpretation for
the minhag is that this kaddish is a zechus for the Niftar and has no
connection to the actual burial. There are other instances where the
kaddish is said before the actual kevuro as for example if the niftar is
buried in Israel. If the avilim don't accompany the Niftar they start
kaddish (and shivah) as soon as the oron is given over to the
airline. The only reason they didn't say kaddish sooner is because they
had a din of an onen which does not apply on Yom Tov. I also have seen
minhag Eretz Yisroel where they say kaddish at the time of the Lavayo
before the actual kevuro.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Wolpoe <richard_wolpoe@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 17:48:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Death on Yom Tov
re: When death Occurs...etc. and saying kaddish.
I believe that a lot were to depend upon the location of the
niftar and the surviving ovel/onan. E.g. If I am davening in shul on
Sukkos and I find out that my father has died in Eretz Yisroel - and I
have absolutely no way of getting to the levayah... then, aveilus would
start following Yomtov - but I believe that kaddish could be said
following the b'suro, because after all the oveil/onan is not metapel
with the meis, etc. and b'suro could possibly jump me from an onein
directly into an oveil. I haven't researched this, but think about the
case where the niftar passed on let's say in Av, and the oveil was
notified months later, and it happened to be Sukkos (Yomtov or chol
Hamoed).
The attached story below omits the specific locations...
BTW, there are various minhogim with regard to Yom Tov sheini in
this case. I would think that KAJ is one of the very few American
Kehillos that still buries on Yom Tov Sheini....
Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel E. Markowitz <hem@...>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:22:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Jewish McCaugheys?
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Sam Saal <saal@...> wrote:
> What would (should) a Jewish couple have done when faced with the
> question of aborting a few of the fetuses? Of course, the couple must
> work with their Rav, but if standard operating (pardon the pun)
> procedure is to abort a few of the fetuses to improve the chances of the
> remaining ones' (and the mother's) survival, do we go ahead with it?
> Are these fetuses rodephim? If so, which ones?
In a shiur on the subject a few years ago (this is from memory so it is
only to bring up some points) the point was made that *technically* each
of the fetuses *can* be considered a rodeif of each of the other ones.
Thus, if it is *required* for health reasons, an abortion of one to save
the others (and/or the mother) can be done.
Please note the (deliberate) hedging as this is a very delicate subject
and must be dealt with only by both a Rav and a doctor who are experts
(and VERY experienced) in the matter. It is best if the Doctor have the
proper hashkafa from the beginning.
| Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Im ain ani li, mi li? |
| <H.E.Markowitz@...> | V'ahavta L'raiecha kamocha |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tszvi Klugerman <Klugerman@...>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:11:05 EST
Subject: Vegetarians
<rturkel@...> (Rick Turkel) responded to Richard Schwartz
<SCHWARTZ@...>
<<I'd like to make the point that there is a third option other
than meat twice a day every day and complete vegetarianism, namely, a
diet consisting of meat/poultry on shabbat and yom tov and little or
none the rest of the week. >>
I recall that Rabbi Weiss, who taught the Yoreh Deah Shiur when I was in
RIETS explained that there were some people (possibly chasidei Ashkenaz,
I don't remember) who felt that only on Shabbat was mankind worthy of
eating meat and exerting their mastery over animals. During the week man
is too busy to truly attain the level expected of him, so he is not
worthy of benefiting from the flesh of the animals. Only on Shabbat is
man capable of focusing on his potential and therefore worthy of eating
flesh, since he is now showing that he is above animals.
tszvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 27 Issue 28
