Judaism and Veganism

See also the following posts:

“Vegans, Vegetarians, and Sensitivity”

“Vegan Restaurants: A Kashrus Minefield”

Society will always be judged by history by how they reacted to their own major events.

How did Germany react to the rise of Hitler?

How did Bush and America respond to 9-11?

Enter a new question for the history books that, in my judgment, will go down as marking a red-letter day when leftist culture had officially taken over the American milieu:

How did America react to the Cincinnati Zoo gorilla incident?

As we approach that day’s one-year anniversary, let me first catch the reader up to speed: In May of 2016, a mother of small children went to the zoo. Her three-year-old asked if he could get a closer look at the gorilla. Of course, the mother was heard saying ‘No!’.

Focusing for a moment on the other children in her entourage was all it took for the 3-year-old to somehow climb over the fence and fall into the gorilla enclave.

Zookeepers rushed to the now the screaming crowd and saw the 450 pound gorilla, named Harambe, holding the child.

They promptly shot the gorilla.

My reaction upon hearing this was not just of relief, but that this incident finally answered a nagging question I always had about how prepared the zoo keepers are for such an emergency. I was not just in obvious agreement with their decision, but also impressed.

To quote then candidate Donald Trump: “The way he held that child, it was almost like a mother holding a baby … It was so beautiful to watch that powerful, almost 500-pound gorilla, the way he dealt with that little boy. But it just takes one second … one little flick of his finger.”

Parenthetically, now a year later, his reaction to this incident may give more away about our president’s approach to foreign policy than simply about animal protection.

But many disagreed. Animal Rights activists and common citizens were oddly up in arms about this. Aside for the frightening death threats against this boy’s mother, the zoo also was attacked.

Their concerns were so far removed from common-sense that one wonders how quickly some, and our culture, are becoming unhinged from basic social mores.

In fact, in a time when the holder of the White House was thought by some to be potentially sympathetic to their cause, five-hundred thousand people signed the following petition on the government’s website (emphasis mine):

“The zoo made the last-resort decision to shoot Harambe because of the increased risk of aggression if a tranquilizer was used in such close proximity to a human. This heartbreaking decision was made in the best interests of keeping the child and the public safe. This beautiful gorilla lost his life because the boy’s parents did not keep a closer watch on the child. We the undersigned believe that the child would not have been able to enter the enclosure under proper parental supervision. Witnesses claim that they heard the child state that he wished to go into the enclosure and was actively trying to breach the barriers. This should have prompted the parents to immediately remove the child from the vicinity. It is believed that the situation was caused by parental negligence and the zoo is not responsible for the child’s injuries and possible trauma. We the undersigned want the parents to be held accountable for the lack of supervision and negligence that caused Harambe to lose his life. We the undersigned feel the child’s safety is paramount in this situation. We believe that this negligence may be reflective of the child’s home situation. We the undersigned actively encourage an investigation of the child’s home environment in the interests of protecting the child and his siblings from further incidents of parental negligence that may result in serious bodily harm or even death.”

Some people wished to compare this incident to the case of a three-year-old fifteen years ago outside Chicago where a gorilla held the fallen boy until helped arrived. However, that case was far different, as the child then was unconscious and there was no fear of sudden movements, yelling and confusion –all of which could have led the gorilla to change his calm demeanor.

It may of interest to note that chazal in the beginning of Bava Kama teach that there is a distinction in the punitive perspective toward the animal that harms another animal and the animal that harms a human. Rashi, in his second explanation, explains that a human is harder to harm due to its distinct mazel. I imagine many in the outside world would bristle at such a view.

I was reminded of this story, and its anniversary, when I was asked the other day what the Torah’s view is on vegetarianism. In fact, this is a question that rabbanim get with some frequency.

I was once asked by someone –a wonderful man who would identify himself as someone with strong ties to leftist academia- if he may halachikly abstain from meat consumption. I responded, “You can be a vegetarian on one condition”. He listened intently as I revealed the one rule he was to follow. “You may not tell anyone that you are a vegetarian”.

He laughed because he understood my point. Too often those that accept meta-ethics upon themselves do so, consciously or otherwise, to feel superior. For some (and, of course, we are excluding those who refrain from meat due to health reason or the like), excluding them from advertising their life-choices would be to cut their desire at its knees.

Suffice it to say that while there is possibly no halachik concern with being a vegetarian (perhaps even on yom tov when some hold one has a mitzvah to eat meat–see Chullin 11b and siman 529 with commentaries), why one chooses to do so not only makes a difference in halacha but in hashkafa as well. Should one feel he is superior to other Jews, or to halacha, or to R’l Hashem and his Torah then it would not only be likely forbidden but if allowed would risk changing the landscape of the petitioner’s entire prism of Torah-based morality.

However, we must also be careful to maintain a balance here, as well as to be cognizant of the Torah’s own ethics toward animals.

The gemara lists those from our historical past who were destined to be moshiach had we earned it, or are the exemplar of the middos of the future moshiach (based on the two explanations to this gemara found in Rashi). It also lists someone from their own generation, still alive, that either was to be moshiach should they earn it or who was an exemplar of such middos. The person in the latter category so named was none other than Rebbe Yehudah Hanassi.

Rashi explains that one of the reasons he was chosen as moshiach was because of an incident he was involved in that caused him to suffer throughout his life.

Rebbe Yehudah Hanasi was passing by a slaughter house when a cow came over to him and pleaded to be saved from death/shechitah. Rebbe Yehudah Hanasi responded to the cow, “lech! sh’lekach notzarta!” –Go! For this is why you were created!

What did he say wrong? After all, don’t we all eat meat? The mistake he made was in defining an animal’s sole existence as that of for food and slaughter. Do we not use cows for plowing, for fertilizer, etc.? Do they not serve purposes beyond human needs, adding and playing a part in the brilliant cyclical ecosystem and bionetwork that we all live in?

For this error he suffered many years.

Indeed, Sefer Chasidim is cited as having remarked that we are allowed to eat meat because they also give us the parchment necessary to write our Torah and our Teffilin!

Of course there is no doubt that the yiddeshkeit places a high value on all animal life, and even when it comes to how one treats animals we have been way ahead of the curve –having dealt with these serious issues long before the world was awoken to them. Furthermore, in a perfect world we too would abstain from meat, as was in the days before Noach.

But the anniversary of these events in Cincinnati remind us why Hashem felt it necessary to have us eat meat –so as not to compare ourselves to just another animal in the animal kingdom, a thought process that slowly led to humanity deserving of the mabul.

Now –more so than ever –we need this reminder.

The Ramban explains Yeshayahu 11:6 – “The wolf shall lie with the lamb” – as not a miracle of the days of moshiach but rather as a return to the true nature of old. However, we mustn’t act like the bnei Ephraim, forcing this future world upon a world not ready.

Let us hope for those days to come when we are worthy, and not for the chaos of brought by forcing such holy nature before its time.