Kaiser Change Form Package: Fill & Download for Free

This is a great question, how to address the issues of hungry people in this world that we live in. It is not just a case of hungry humans, but also hungry animals in general, and why is there not enough food, is that a good starting point? We have created an unnatural situation where there are more mouths to feed than we can keep up with and are destroying the earth to feed these additional mouths that we think we need more and more and more of, because of our greed for animal flesh, and I might hope that someone will help me with my explaining from a spiritual point of view the story of the Quail in the Portion of the Week from four following chapters taken from The Book of Numbers 8:1–12:16 if you’ve heard of it, in the Bible, where some mention is made of the greed and the graves of lust, and if you look at the factory farms, you’ll see a parallel, and if we gave up this practice and became vegan then we would have more food to feed to people instead of fattening up animals that eat the food we could eat (cattle are fed soy and corn and other plant-based produce) and huge amounts of water are used in this industry and the methane from the belching contributes to great quantities of pollution in the atmosphere even greater than the emissions from the transportation industry and many other problems from sludge (manure from the animals) that pollutes our drinking water, bacteria that causes infections, etc., and so on and so forth, not limited to deforestation (cows are being grazed on land that used to have trees on it that were cleared to create more land for them to be raised on in the Rain Forest areas which is mostly being managed by the McDonald fast food chain industry) so let’s all go vegan and save the hungry people in the word, there is great waste in the animal-agriculture industry and pain and suffering to the animals and to the humans who work in these factories who are mistreated and overworked and have very few employee rights or benefits… too much violence in the world that creates more violence and more war over land and unrest, it makes sense to stop allowing the sale of meat, and going back to a plant based diet. It’s really up to US to make a change for the better, and reading this book might make a difference in everyone’s lives as to what’s really going on and how to interpret it spiritually, Here’s what spiritual vegan Israeli Rabbi in his book translated by American vegan Rabbi Donn Gross wrote about this: In Front Of The BlindThe complete: In front of the blindThis book cites facts and sources from the Torah, Prophets, Scriptures, Mishne, Talmud, Gaonim, Rishonim & Achronim related to the killing of animals.1 | Page Lifnei IverThe book V’lifnei Iver is a collection of holy words and statements made by our Prophets and Sages all focusing on the significant issues of Tzar Baalei Chayim and worshipping God with a pure heart and a conscious mind. It will surprise many that a meat free lifestyle has deep roots in Jewish tradition and is preached and written about by many great rabbis. No less than eight prophets chastised the Jews, God does not want sacrifices! Maharal states that whenever eating of meat is mentioned in the Torah, it is integrally linked with the word “Taava”, base human desire.We cannot compare the way food was sourced in the past with more recent times and we have completely changed our relationships with animals. In the past, one’s cow or goat supplied them with nourishment and material goods or labor. Today, we seldom if ever see an animal other than a pet. Chickens had names and when they aged and were slaughtered, everyone knew WHO they were eating. In modern times, we buy packages in the store and never consider an animal’s welfare. There are over 20 laws in the Torah mandating how we treat animals, yet because today the animals are kept far away behind factory walls, their mistreatment goes unnoticed.But now we know what goes on and can see how animals are mistreated and brutalized throughout their entire lives. We can no longer claim to be ignorant of the numerous Torah commandments violated in the animal industrial production. In this book you will read the words of our rabbis who had sensitivity for animals and their welfare and they recognized the bad that can come to one who is not merciful upon God’s creations.I thank Rabbi Asa Kaiser for writing the book V’Lifnei Iver and his continuing efforts to bring light to the plight of animals in Israel. Ran Barth for wonderful editing work as well as Rabbi Daniel Geretz for his important input. Rabbi Yitchak Habanstreit who lived in Poland in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and who speaks powerfully in this book. May his memory live on in his words and thoughts quoted in this book. It is my hope and prayer that V’Lifnei Iver lead many Jews who consider themselves observant of Torah and mitzvoth, on a new and truly holy path.May we merit mercy from heaven by being merciful towards all His creations. With great love and wishes for peace upon Israel and the world,Rabbi Donn Gross Caldwell, NJ2 | Page Lifnei Iver3 | Page Lifnei IverI have not come to teach men that which they do not know, but to remind them of what they already know and is very evident to them, for you will find in most of my words only things which most people know and concerning which they have no doubts. (םירשי תליסמל המדקה)I have said in my heart, “You shall not tremble before any man, for the judgment is God's”. (זי ,א םירבד) And since my intent was only to do the will of my Creator and Helper to give me strength to gird the words of our holy Torah and the words of Our Rabbis, I have named this work based upon the main theme.The reader should not be surprised that I have chosen one specific commandment to focus upon, for it is based upon what our Torah states:“and He will give mercy to you and be merciful” - when one remains cruel natured, God acts towards them in kind, for God acts mercifully only towards the merciful”.(חי ,גי םירבד םייחה רוא )Secondly, to shed light unto blind eyes is unto itself a mitzvah as is warning others of serious transgressions, for it states, “Do not put a stumbling block before the blind and you will fear God” (די ,טי ארקיו) Our Rabbis have explained this refers to intellectual blindness.God will not prevent good from those who walk in purity.Asa Kaiser4 | Page Lifnei IverOne must also have mercy upon animals because it is forbidden to cause undue pain or anguish to an animal. Upon this the Torah says, “You will surely help him with his load”. One must feed their animal before they themselves eat. The attribute of mercy is the sign of the children of Abraham, the seed of Israel. As it is written, “He will give you mercy, be merciful and multiply you”. (םימחרה רעש ,םיקידצ תוחרוא)Table of Contents:Page 7 ....Do not place a stumbling block before the blindPage 23... Joy is only attained with meat and winePage 31...The Torah’s attitude towards eating meatPage 47...The purpose of sacrificesPage 71...The purpose of animalsPage 88...Final WordsPage 92...Questions & Answers5 | Page Lifnei IverINTRODUCTION:Recent investigations into the cruel practices used in the production of animal-based food have been made public. This issue has convinced some to no longer consume animal based products. However, others claim the information is taken out of context and leads the public astray. This movement has brought about public debate and raised the following question: how does Judaism perceive this movement?Cutting off the beaks of chicks with no anesthesia, grinding male chicks alive in steel grinders, killing chickens by electrocution, separating calves from their mothers immediately after birth, caging calves in narrow stalls to disable even minimal movement, physical abuse and other similar actions are the accepted practices and the face of modern animal food production.This industry has existed for only a few decades, but their practices lead us to commit very grave Torah based transgressions. What has come about in the public and religious circles is the debate as to the kashrut of these products. How can a food product be kosher if it is obtained by transgressing the rule not to cause undue anguish and pain to an animal?In the coming chapter we will deal with this issue.6 | Page Lifnei IverDo not place a stumbling block in front of the blindWe shall begin with the rule rendered by Rabbi Yosef Chayim written in his book Ben Ish Chai;In all cases, when an animal or bird observes another being slaughtered, its lungs will shrivel due to the fear it experiences. And the established rule states, “a lung that is fully or even partially shrunken, if caused by humans who frightened the animal, ex: another animal was slaughtered before it or the like, this animal is ruled to be Treif. Therefore, in large towns where many people congregate to have their chickens slaughtered, and the Shochet slaughters the birds before them, while they hold live birds in their arms; there is concern this will cause the chicken’s lungs to shrivel as well as cause undue to pain to animals. People should therefore stand a distance away from the Shochet so the chickens will not see others being slaughtered and be aware of their own fate. ( עירזת תשרפ היינש הנש ,יח שיא ןב וט הכלה , )Thus wrote Rabbi Ephrayim Zalman Margolis, “I have seen people who come to the Shochet holding birds while standing near and next to him, so they will be next to have their birds slaughtered and this causes undue to pain to animals and, there is no greater pain than this! It is obvious that we cannot claim that birds do not feel pain for it is stated in chapter 36, “at times the lungs shrivel due to fear of seeing the animal ahead of it being slaughtered.” (ו״כ ןמיס העד הרוי םירפא תיב ת״וש)We also see this ruling prohibiting the slaughter of one living creature before another due to causing undue pain and suffering, by the rabbi Micahel Halevi Epstein, the author of “Aruch HaShulchan”. In his words, “Thus, it is proper for Shochets to be careful not to slaughter one animal in front of another, for there is the issue of causing undue to pain to animals; it is absolutely forbidden and some of the Great Achronim have written this as well.” (ע הכלה ,ול תופירט תוכלה העד הרוי ןחלושה ךורע)7 | Page Lifnei IverIn today’s Kosher slaughter houses the slaughtering process is not carried out in accordance with Jewish Halachic law. The process is carried out in a factory-like “conveyor belt” manner, and by design each animal is slaughtered directly in front of the next: This Halacha of prohibiting the slaughtering of one animal in front of another also informs us of the severity of the prohibition. Therefore, before we continue let us point out the source of the commandment from the Torah. We will then quote Our Rabbis’ words reflecting on this mitzvah and the degree to which it must be observed. Since animals cannot speak, we will bring the words of Our Rabbis specifying precisely what causes an animal to be in anguish. After we learn the prohibition, we will inform the reader as to what occurs in today’s factories producing animal products. We will tie together all of the learning with practical and actionable halacha.Mitzvot preventing Tzar Baalei Chayim. “Six days you may do your work... in order that your ox and your donkey shall rest” (בי ,גכ תומש) “And I will give grass in your field for your livestock, and you will eat and be sated.” (וט ,אי םירבד) “If a bird's nest chances before you “(ו ,בכ םירבד) “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing.” (ד ,הכ םירבד) “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” (י ,בכ םירבד)The Torah forbids subjecting an animal to undue anguish, however the commentaries were at odds regarding their opinion if causing undue suffering to an animal is a commandment from the Torah or not. According to the opinion that it is from the Torah, here are the six possible proof texts:“When you see your enemy’s donkey crouching under its load . . . you must help him” (ה ,גכ תומש) “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing the grain” ( ,הכ םירבד ד ) "It is a law given to Moshe at Sinai (י"שר תעד לע ;ב בל אעיצמ אבב ,א"בטיר)“He is merciful on all His creations”( ט ,המק םילהת) “Why did you strike your mule?”(בל ,בכ רבדמב) “and give the congregation and their livestock to drink” (ח ,כ רבדמב)8 | Page Lifnei IverThe commandment forbidding the undue suffering and pain to an animal is a Torah commandment. (ב ,בל אעיצמ אבב)Causing undue suffering to an animal is a Torah prohibition and this is the opinion of the Rosh, Rif, Rambam as well as the majority of Rishonim and Achronim.תטישב רואמה לעב ,הנשמ ףסכבו ,םש ףסוי יקומנב ;ב ,זי אעיצמ אבב ף"ירה תכסממ חיכומו םש אעיצמ אבב ש"ארהו יריאמה ;םש אעיצמ אבב יכדרמב .ף"ירה ףסכה רואיבב חצור תוכלה ;זי ,ג םיכובנ הרומ ;וכ ,הכתבש תוכלה ם"במר ;תבש "מרה ;נ"קתךוניחה רפס ;חמש רואה ;הנשמ ט ,ב"ער ןמיס מ"וחב אIn regard to this decision, it is appropriate to mention the words of the Rama, “in acquiring items required for health\medical or other purposes there is no concern for violating the prohibition of Tzar Baalei Chayim. Therefore, it is permissible to pluck feathers from a living goose and one does not have to fear they are violating Tzar Baalei Chayim. Nonetheless, this is not done, because it is cruel.” (די ,ה ז"עהא ,ךורע ןחלוש ,א"מר)Conversely, the N’tziv from Vlozhin has written; “those who pluck feathers from birds after they are slaughtered but not yet dead, are not acting properly. For even an animal that is about to die, as long as it is alive, is subject to the rule of Tzar Baalei Chayim. Even an animal that has been slaughtered and is convulsing, is subject to the laws of Tzar Baalei Chayim.” (ז"ס ןמיס ה"ח רבד בישמ ת"וש)Is the Rama’s use of the term “other purposes”, a generalized term, literally “anything”? Such as grinding chicks in metal grinders, or electrocuting chickens to death, etc.? (see page 17) are these actions permissible for monetary gain? Certainly not!Questions and answers of Imrei Shefer, Pri Megadim, Api Zotrai, the head of the holy court Virtzburg, Rabbi Yitzchak Dov HaLevi Bamberger clarify the Rama’s intent by stating, ONLY for absolute need, such as a mildly sick person but not for monetary gain.9 | Page Lifnei IverCould Tzar Baalei Chayim be permissible for monetary gain?We must clarify the words of the Rama with the Eben HaEzer who wrote in “Iisur Vheter Haaroch”, (chapter 59) “in acquiring any item required for health\medical or other purposes, there is no concern for violating the prohibition of Tzar Baalei Chayim”. It seems his intent was to permit only when there was an urgent need such as for medical purposes and other similar urgencies. However, it is not the Rama’s intent to permit these actions for monetary gain. Since some mistakenly believe this prohibition to be completely permissible when needed by a human, I have determined it is necessary to clarify and prove from the Talmud and the Poskim that this is not so. (דל ןמיס רפש ירמא ת"וש )The Gaon and head of the holy court Virtzburg, Rabbi Yitzchak Dov HaLevi Bamberger, in his letter to Binyan Tziyon writes, “A hearty and lengthy debate not to permit that which Rama has ruled upon, that all items required for medical or other purposes are not subject to the prohibition of Tzar Baalei Chayim. From this we derive only to permit when there is a medical need, even for a mildly sick person. However, we have not permitted this for monetary gain.” ( ןמיס ןויצ ןינב ת"וש חק )Api Zotri (ה"כ ק"ס) was shocked by those who permitted and thus he writes, “even if Tzar Baalei Chayim was a rabbinic law, how can one presume it is permitted? For medical purposes we lay it aside, but to fulfill one’s personal desire, who has allowed us to subject animals to undue pain?” (ה"כ ,ה ןמיס ,ז"עהא ,ירטוז יפא)On the contrary, one is obliged to take a loss to feed one’s animal in addition to the other commandments regarding animals, for the purpose of preventing Tzar Baalei Chayim. It is forbidden to transgress any of these commandments for the sake of monetary gain. Even if we would declare this issue a unresolved contention (deoraita vs. derabbanan), The Chasam Sofer has written in Yoreh Daiah (דנר 'ת), “It is clear that we should be strict not to cause Tzar Baalei Chayim and all agree, one cannot be lenient.” ( דל ןמיס רפש ירמא ת"וש )10 | Page Lifnei IverRabbi Moshe Feinstein ZT”L has written, “One may not subject an animal to undue pain and suffering for this is forbidden even to one who wishes to profit from it....we see one is not given free reign to give it pain, even if it is to profit from this action ...it is forbidden to feed an animal things it does not wish to consume, for this is subjecting it to discomfort with regard to its food and they can suffer with disease and sickness as a result. This monetary gain comes by cheating others and is forbidden because the prohibition of Tzar Baalei Chayim is a Torah law, which forbids one from subjecting an animal to undue pain and suffering. (בצ 'יס ד"ח ,רזעה ןבא ,השמ תורגא ת"וש)Thus has Rabbi Yosef ZT”L written, “Based on what is stated, we say that the only permission given is when there is a great need such as for immediate medical purposes. (חנ ןמיס העד הרוי .י קלח רמוא עיבי ת"וש)Rabbi Issack HaLevi Hertzog ZT”L writes, “a question from the office of the Rabbanut of Israel was posed to me: in the operation of chicken coops in Israel, is it permissible to remove part of the beak of the birds to prevent it from pecking at other birds. The cutting would be performed by skilled laborers so that there would be no blood, and they would cut only the top beak, far from the nostrils....We must always be concerned with Tzar Baalei Chayim which is a Torah prohibition. It is already decided in Shulchan Aruch Eben HaEzer siman 5 sif 14, The Rama regarding ו"לס טנ 'יס ךוראה רתיהו רוסיאו ,הק 'יס י"ארהמ לע יקספ דוסי ...all items required for medical or other human needs, there is no concern for Tzar Baalei Chayim. However, Rabbi Eliyahu Klatzkin in his book, “Imrei Shefer” Siman 34 proves from the Talmud and the decisors that the Rama’s intent was not to permit Tzar Baalei Chayim for the sake of monetary profit but rather for pressing need such as medical or for the benefit of the animal itself. ( ,םיבתכו םיקספ ז ןמיס העד הרוי )In our days, we must be concerned with the possibility of Chilul Hashem\Desecration of G-d’s name. For Jews are called, “merciful ones, the children of merciful ones” and we must be a light unto the nations; and we are witnessing a growing phenomenon taking place in Israel and throughout the entire world, ethical people decrying the cruel abuse taking place in the animal based food factories.11 | Page Lifnei IverIn the factories they separate the calf from the mother immediately after it is born making it impossible for the mother to nurse its child and the young child cannot nurse from its mother. This is contrary to the spirit of Torah for Our Rabbis said about the saying, “the righteous know the soul of their animal” ( ילשימ בי , י ) For God has written in His Torah, “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain under its mother for 7 days.” (אי ,זכ הבר ארקיו)The Malbim states, “The Tzadik is one who acts with righteousness. Not only do they act righteously with human beings but also towards the animals in their possession. They know an animal’s nature to give it food at the appropriate times and in the proper amount and not to exceed its capacity to work. For these too are the laws of wisdom and righteousness. As it is written in the Torah, “I will give grass in the fields for your animals” and afterwards is it written, “and you will eat and be sated”. From this sequence we learn the prohibition of subjecting animals to undue anguish is a Torah law.But the evil person acts not with righteousness but the opposite; even if you see them act mercifully you can be assured their “mercy” emanates from a deeply ingrained cruelty. For instance, one would act “mercifully” towards whom they hold captive and would not kill them enabling the captive to serve their needs. With regard to acting mercifully towards animals, an evil person is doing so merely to increase the animal’s heavy workload. These people’s “mercy” is rooted in their self-serving nature.”These halachic and philosophical stances are of the greats of Israel in their respective generation:Rashi: A righteous person knows the nature of his animal- specifically, what their animal requires. Mtzudat David: “The righteous person pays attention even to the needs of their animal to fulfil its craving- because God greatly values mercy.” Now we will bring our rabbi’s words regarding the prohibition of separating a calf at birth.Rabbi Isaac Habinstreit (תורומח שרוד לעב) “As stated in the Talmud (ב"יק םיחספ) “Greater than the calf’s desire to suckle is the mother’s desire to nurse.” Therefore, the Torah has commanded, “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain under its mother for 7 days.” This is to be understood that for the entire seven first days, is forbidden to separate child from the mother, because doing so during the first seven days is the most extreme form of cruelty of which there is no greater. We find in the Talmud ( ו ז"ט תינעת םש ימלשוריב )12 | Page Lifnei IverWhen the people of Nineveh wanted to win God's favor, they housed animals separated from their mothers; ex: calves inside the shed and their mothers outside or colts outside and its mother inside; each one crying out for the other. And the people of Nineveh cried out loudly to God and said, “If You have no mercy upon us, we will have no mercy upon the animals, but if you show mercy to us we will have mercy upon them.” (ט"פרת .ףיש םולש 'ר תאצוה :אשיר הוואתה תורבק רפס .קחצי ,טיירטשנבה ברה)Upon the verse, “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born, it shall remain with its mother for seven days.” (אי ,זכ הבר ארקיו ) The Lubavich Rebbi expounds, “The concept of mercy is understood from childhood to mean a human may not subject an animal to undue anguish or pain. After this verse the Torah states, “Do not desecrate My holy name”, for this command stems from mercy and is understood to mean we may not subject a mother animal to pain by separating her from her child immediately after birth.” (1665 דומע ג קלח מ"דשת תויודעוותה רפס ,שטיוואבוילמ יברה)“The rationale of this commandment is because God almighty, the Father of mercy is merciful towards all of His creations, even to animals. Therefore, when He commanded that an animal remain with its mother for seven days it was intended to give pleasure to the mother so she could enjoy the fruit of her womb.( ח"נמבו ה"צר הוצמ ה"מס ןייעו ) For this reason, the Torah states, “An ox or a sheep may not be slaughtered on the same day as its child” because God shows mercy to all of His creations and to sacrifice an animal and its child on the same day is a display of cruelty; and it is not fitting for any Jew to act with cruelty at any time! God has therefore commanded us establish within our souls the positive attributes of pity and mercy while inhibiting and distancing us from acting cruelly.” (טלר ןמיס ד קלח תוכלה הנשמ ת"וש)“It shall remain under its mother for 7 days.” - The rationale of this commandment is because God is the Father of mercy and has mercy on all of his creations, even animals. As the verse states, “it shall remain under its mother for 7 days” to give pleasure to the mother”. (ד"צר הוצמ קחצי טוקלי)Rabbi Avraham Saba: You may not remove the animals before then because it is cruelty. (רומא תשרפ ארקיו רפס ,רומה רורצ)Based on the complete and whole view, “kindness of God who is good to all of His creations;” a person should realize that the purpose of the milk from an animal mother’s breast is to nourish her baby and not for the individual to do as they please. Specifically, it is for nursing the young baby, the beloved kid, from her breast and the kid should take pleasure nursing from its beloved mother's breast. (םולשהו תונוחמצה ןוזח ,קוק ה"יארה)13 | Page Lifnei IverDo animals experience anguish?Maimonides states, “there is no distinction between anguish experienced by a human and anguish experienced by animals; this is because the love and yearning of a mother for its offspring is not dependent upon intelligence, rather it is the inherent nature found in most creatures as it is found in man.” (חמ ,ג םיכובנ הרומ)Nachmanides states, “Animals experience worry and there is no distinction between the worry of a human to the worry of an animal for its children, because, the love of a mother towards the children from its womb is not dependent upon intelligence or speech. Rather, it is a function of the consciousness that is found in animals and human beings. (ו ,בכ םירבד לע ן"במרה שוריפ)There is a difference of opinion between Maimonides and Nachmanides specifically regarding the reason of the commandment, not whether or not an animal can experience anguish. Maimonides’ understanding is that the commandant is straightforward; one may not cause anguish to an animal. Nachmanides is of the opinion that the purpose of the commandment is to direct us onto the straight path and to uproot cruelty from man.Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch states “as does a human, animals feel and sense being cut, being pushed, being smitten, being overworked, being in fear and panic, being hungry and being thirsty. At times, a person may forget this because of being self-absorbed or hoping to complete a plan or by being unaware or a desire to be cruel, and a person will cause anguish to the soul of his animal, they will torture and give pain to the soul of a living creature.” (א ,ה ,םיקחה תכרעמ ,ברוח רפס)Rabbi Isaac Habinstreit : I will explain the rationale of the rabbinic statement, “it is forbidden to place the eggs of a different species of bird into the nest of another species because of Tzar Baalei Chayim”. At first glance we do not understand what anguish an animal experiences; however, scientists have determined that feelings of anguish, sadness, mercy and anger found in humans, are also found in animals. (ט"פרת .ףיש םולש 'ר תאצוה :אשיר .הוואתה תורבק רפס .קחצי , ירטשנבה טי ברה)Now that we have covered that the prohibition of giving anguish to animals is a Torah law and we have seen what causes anguish to an animal, we will present various transgressions occurring during food manufacturing across the globe.14 | Page Lifnei Iver• Grinding chicks to death in egg manufacturing. In the chicken hatchery all male chicks are ground in metal teeth while they are alive because they have no economic value since they do not produce eggs. In the manufacturing of chicken meat, they grind all of the chicks that have defects, male and female together. In total, every year, 10 million chicks are ground up alive in Israel alone.• Chopping off beaks from all chickens in egg manufacturing without anesthetic. This is done by using a machine with a cutting blade heated to 700 degrees Celsius.• Electrocuting chickens to death - after chickens can no longer withstand the burden of laying eggs they are electrocuted by passing an electrical current through the water trough in each cage. The birds are scheduled for killing every two years. In Israel alone more than four million chickens are killed in this manner per year.• In milk production, all calves are separated from their mothers at birth.• Cutting off horns without anesthetic - all of the milking cows have their horns chemically removed.• Confining milk calves in very small containers disabling even minimal movement, giving them minimal amounts to eat, for the purpose of making their flesh delicate and soft.• Birds are slaughtered in assembly line fashion where they see one another, as it is with larger animals.• Genetic enhancements, multiple stories of densely packed battery cages, physical torture, sheep and cattle shipped from other countries in highly concentrated groups under brutal conditions and additional travesties; this is the face of an industry focused on maximizing profits while paying no attention to cruelty and transgressing serious Torah based violations.15 | Page Lifnei IverNote how strict Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, were to not subject animals to anguish and certainly not to subject them to extreme anguish. Thus it is written, “a wise person will listen and follow goodness.” Rabbi Judah the Chassid did not ever raise chickens fearing he was unable to be careful enough not to cause them anguish and stated, “it is not advisable for a person to raise birds, for one is responsible to feed them and the sin and punishment for not doing so, is great.” (םייח ילעב ךרע ,ופאפ רזעילא יבר ,ץעוי אלפ)Now, after we have learned about the prohibition and the processes existent in modern manufacturing, we must ask if it is permitted to consume meat, milk products and eggs resulting from Torah transgressions; violating the commandment not to subject animals to anguish?This is a very demanding and serious question and we must deal with it. Consider that at the time of the Tanach there was no manufacturing as we have today and there was no anguish given to animals. When they were milked they allowed the calf to suckle as well and it was not separated from its mother thus there was no anguish. They did not cut off chickens’ beaks, the chicken coops were not densely packed (the living space is 20 cm) chicks were not ground up, they did not electrocute chickens. In the past, animals seldom if ever experienced anguish throughout their lives.For something to be considered kosher, we know that it is not sufficient just for the item to be of a kosher substance, the means of producing it also needs to be kosher. What makes something kosher is not only the substance of what it is, but how it was produced. For example, something that is stolen, wine made by a non-Jew, bread of a non-Jew etc. these prohibitions result from how these inherently kosher items were produced. In the laws of Kashrut it is not sufficient that an item be of a kosher substance, the means by which it has come to us is no less important.Therefore, we must ask: why is Chametz that the Passover passed over (Chametz that was unknowingly in your possession during Pesach) forbidden and animal products produced by violating the law not to subject animals to undue anguish or pain permitted? How do they differ?16 | Page Lifnei IverThe prohibition of benefiting from a transgression:These are items from which the Torah or the Rabbis forbid us to derive benefit. When the Torah was given, factory manufacturing did not exist nor did it exist in the times of the Sanhedrin. As a result, today we do not have prohibitions stopping us from benefiting from factory produced animal products. However, had there been a Sanhedrin in our day they would have certainly declared these items as being forbidden to benefit from. When the Sanhedrin made a decree to forbid deriving benefit from something, it was a specific decree to prevent people from transgressing from the outset, a prohibition- thus they forbade driving benefit from an item derived from a specific transgression. However, since today we do not have a Sanhedrin to make these kinds of declarations, the responsibility falls upon the consumer.Nonetheless, we find specific incidences where scholars were unwilling to derive benefit (as an individual choice not applying to the public). What follows is from the holy Zohar; Birds came and made shade above the heads of the Tanaim as they learned Torah but they did not want to use this shade, and Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair stated, it was a great anguish for the birds to create this shade above them, “and I do not want to benefit from the exertion of animals”, for the verse states, “He is merciful towards all his creations.” (א"ר ףד ג"ח קלב תשרפ רהוז)In the above incident the exertion by the animals was initiated by them and from their own will and no human coercion was involved. Still, Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair did not want to benefit from this effort. Sensitivity of causing anguish and pain to an animal was in the soul of the great men of Israel throughout all generations. In association with this let us quote the words of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch:“Please note! God’s Torah is concerned for all and will love you, not only when you desist from unnecessarily causing pain and anguish to animals, but even if you happen to see an animal in pain or anguish, even if it was not your fault and you had nothing to do with its pain, you are obligated to assist and to save the animal and to your greatest ability, ease its pain and suffering.” (ב ,ה ,ברוח רפס ,שריה ר"שר)Despite all the above, we do not have an explicit prohibition to derive benefit from animal based products. The clear and absolute prohibition is to purchasing animal based products because purchasing is directly associated with modern factory animal production, and supports and promotes the continued violation of Tzar Baalei Chayim.17 | Page Lifnei Iver“Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind and you will fear your G-d.” ( רקיו די ,טי א )Our Rabbis explain this verse and say it refers not only to actual blindness but to intellectual blindness as well. This commandment is composed of two aspects: 1- The prohibition to give another bad advice. 2- The prohibition to cause another to commit a transgression or to assist them in committing a transgression.The root of the commandment- It is known that repairing the world and settling it is achieved by guiding people and always providing them with good advice. This commandment applies everywhere and at all times; it applies to men and women, towards Jews and non-Jews. One who transgresses by misleading their friend with advice that is not beneficial or assists them in committing a transgression, have transgressed a negative commandment and it is compared to transgressing a commandant of the king. (בלר הווצמ ךוניחה רפס)The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 6:b establishes that the commandment not to place a stumbling block before the blind is analogous to two people separated by a river. The river analogy considers a situation where a person will not be able to transgress without the help of the person on the other side.The Rishonim have written, even when it is possible for the sinner to commit a transgression without the help of another, it is still forbidden to assist the transgressor because according to the rabbis, assisting one to commit a transgression is always forbidden.;אמלשב ה"ד ב תבש ן"רה ישודח ;אבב ה"ד 'סות ג תבש אכה ושקמו ה"ד א תבש ףירה לע ן"רה ;אל יאד ה"ד ה אעיצמ אבב א"בטירה ישודיחMaimonides decrees that one who causes “the blind to stumble” by giving them faulty advice or by enabling them to commit a sin, (the sinner is referred to as being “blind” because their passions blind them from seeing the true path) transgresses a negative commandment for the verse states, “do not place a stumbling block before the blind”. ( די ,בי שפנ תרימשו חצור תוכלה )Maimonides establishes that when one helps or causes another to a sin, because they approach the sinner who is blinded by desire and assists in committing the misdeed, both the sinner and instigator have violated the law of not placing a stumbling block before the blind as each one assists the other to commit a sin, whether or not he instigator implements the sinful action. If he assists in anyway, even in a minor way, he is punished by heaven to the degree of his involvement. However, he is not liable for any18 | Page Lifnei Iverpunishment mentioned in the Torah, but he has violated God’s word, “do not place a stumbling block before the blind” if he caused that sin; additionally, if he helped the sinner to complete the act, they have transgressed on God's word; “do not place your hands with the evil”. (ו קרפ תומורת תוינשמה שורפ ם"במר)From Maimonides we see that assisting a sinner is forbidden by Jewish law not only when they're actively participating in the sinful action - for if one commits a sin in participation with others, clearly they have performed a forbidden action. The prohibition applies even when the instigator does not perform an action but they cause the sin by helping and encouraging the sinner to commit the infraction. In this situation the sinner is analogous to the blind person with regard to the sin, as they are “blinded” by desire and the instigator misleads him by enabling the sinful action. In another place Maimonides writes:“This prohibition also includes one who assists in committing a sin or causes it. The instigator bears responsibility for the sin because they approached an individual whose desire blinded them from seeing and helps to mislead them. Or, the instigator urges the “blind” with faulty rationale; this is similar to one who lends money and takes interest; we say both lender and borrower are liable for violating, “do not place a stumbling block before the blind” since each one helps and enables the other to complete the act. There are numerous similar situations where we say two actors assist each other in committing a sin and they are both liable for placing a stumbling block in front of the blind.”(ט"צר תווצמה רפס ם"במר)It is prohibited to purchase a stolen item from a thief and it is forbidden to support him to alter the item so he can buy it; for all who do things of this nature, strengthen the hand of sinners and transgresses the edict Lifnei Iver. (ה קרפ הדיבאו הליזג תוכלה ם"במר)God says, “Do not place a stumbling block before the blind”, the intent is to one whose vision is obscured by their passion and faulty ideas; one may not increase their blindness or their wayward path. Therefore, it is forbidden to assist sinners in committing misdeeds, and one may not set a path for another to commit a sin, rather, we must do the opposite. ( 'ה קרפ תיעיבש תוינשמה שורפ ם"במר ו , )All agree with regard to “two who stand on opposite sides of a river” that the prohibition is from the Torah. The difference of opinion among the Rishonim is regarding the question; is assisting another to commit a sin transgressing the law not to place a stumbling block in front of the blind, a Torah law? Or is it a rabbinic law? According to Maimonides, it is a Torah law.19 | Page Lifnei IverIn the questions and answers of the Ktav Sofer he clarifies that the prohibition to violate lifnei Iver that is linked to two on either side of the river applies only when the sinner commits the sin with minimal effort. It does not apply if the sinner must make a great effort, even if he can commit the act alone but one with a conscience should be stringent.The Rama explains and is stringent with regard to the prohibition also when the sinner can do it without help. “There are those who say that the prohibition to sell them things for Idol worship is specifically when there are no others to sell them etc. or that they cannot buy the implements anywhere else. But if they can buy them elsewhere, it is permitted to sell them everything. Some are lenient like the first opinion; however, all people of conscience should be stringent on themselves. )א ,אנק ד"וי) And, it is forbidden to feed someone who has not washed their hands as they would be transgressing Lifnei Iver, (ב ,גסק ח"וא א"מרה( and it is pointed out in Magen Avraham (ב ,גסק( even when another has access to that food, it is possible that there is a prohibition to assist.From the Ritva’s words )ב,ה מ"ב( it seems that the prohibition to assist the sinner is even before the sin takes place not necessarily at the moment of the action. So it seems from the Vilna Gaon (ח:אנק ד"וי) that's why with regard to purchasing animal products we must ask: is purchasing permitted when the ones who commit the sin are non-religious Jews and those who violate the Shabbat?In question & answers of Chelkat Yaakov )חנ ןמיס ,העד הרוי( it is asked, if one’s work roster schedules them to work on Shabbat, can one switch with a non-observant Jew because they work for themselves and the money earned will be theirs? Moreover, one who is antagonistic towards Judaism cannot be one's messenger.The answer is unequivocal and clear: one is not permitted to transgress Lifnai Iver and it is strictly forbidden because the other Jew is also forbidden to work on Shabbat and these are their words: “it is clear that he is forbidden from working on Shabbat, as a result it is forbidden for him to command the non-observant to work in his place as this is like ‘two people on either side of the river’. For if he does not order the not observant to work for him on Shabbat it's possible that the non-observant Jew would not do any work on Shabbat even though he does not keep it; it's possible he will want to relax this Shabbat which is not the case if he replaces the Sabbath observant Jew since he’ll work the entire day: this is literally a case of two people on either side of the river. If however this was the case of only one person standing at the riverbank and the prohibition would only be assisting, we could see to permit this based on the words of the Shach in Yoreh Dayah chapter 151 section 30 which states that with regard20 | Page Lifnei Iverto an apostate, the prohibition to assist in committing a sin does not apply. My response on this matter was lengthy. But in regards to our case, it is a clear application of two standing by the river there is a prohibition of Lifnei Iver and this applies even to an apostate or a non-Jew, as in Pesachim 22:b ‘From where is it derived’.”When we make the analogy one subject to the other, it is clear that it is forbidden (purchasing factory products) for if we do not purchase these products the fact is they will not produce them. And even if others purchase when we do not, their violations will be lessened; it is literally a case of two people on either sides of the river.You may claim we do not buy these products directly from the factory but from the store who bought them from the factory, this has been discussed by Baal “Pitchei Teshuva” in Choshen Mishpat Chapter 356:1 “the first claim that they did not buy the item directly from the thief but from a Jew, is not valid, since they knew they were purchasing an item that was forbidden and they should not have bought it from the first Jew for ‘the mouse is not the thief, the hole is!’ ( ןישזדיק ונ , ע"ב ). Even though he did not buy directly from the thief, theft is forbidden. And since we are dealing here with theft, there is an additional provision to not buy from first buyer who transgressed by buying from the thief; in this case the first buyer is compared to “the mouse” and the second buyer to “the hole”.In regard to the topic of not subjecting animals to undue pain or anguish we have before us a case of two people on either side of the river; if not for the purchasing of animal-based products, those who monetarily benefit would not transgress all of the Torah prohibitions we have mentioned (page 17) in that they transgress these Torah prohibitions only to provide us with the goods. It is just like something that is stolen and then sold, and certainly since the purchasing of it enables the thief to continue and steal again and again, one is dependent upon the other.The production methods in animal factories are well-known to us today and all of the violations we have mentioned are not happenstance, rather they are the primary methods employed by this industry. Moreover, we are not referring to the situation when a forbidden action is performed for its own purpose, rather these prohibitions are being done in our name thus it is literally a case of two people standing on either side of the river.One who keeps the Torah and the commandments cannot be an active partner in the transgression of Torah prohibitions and strengthening the hands of those who commit violations by giving them money. It is the purchasing of these goods that enables the continuation of these Torah infractions.21 | Page Lifnei Iver22 | Page Lifnei IverEven when there’s no benefit, if someone causes anguish to an animal, for example by placing an overweight package upon it or whipping it when it cannot move, these are actions which transgress the law by causing undue anguish to an animal. Similarly, those who pull the ears of cats to make them cry; these people are sinners and Our Rabbis explain the verse: “on that day I will amaze all horses and their riders will be struck with madness”. In the future God will exact retribution from those who mistreated their horses by whipping them while riding.(ד״מ ןמיס םידיסח רפס)“It happened in our generation that the great Kabbalistic rabbi, Rav Yitzchak Ashkenazi looked in the face of a great scholar and said to him, ‘the sin of Tzaar Baalei Chayim is clearly marked on your face!’ The Scholar had great anguish and reflected upon it until he found that his wife was not giving food to the chickens in the morning, instead she was placing them outside of the gate and into the street to peck. He instructed her to give them wheat bran and water each morning. After this correction was made, of which the Rav Yitzchak was unaware, he looked into the face of the scholar and said to him, ‘your sin has dissipated.’ He then told Rav Yitzchak what transpired. From this story it appears that this is following the commandment to ‘walk in His ways.’ i.e. ‘Just as He is merciful, so should you be merciful’ and it says, ‘He has compassion upon all His creations.’” )ד קרפ השע תווצמ ,םידרח רפס(Joy is only attained with meat and wineIn the coming chapter we will examine Our Rabbis’ words with regard to the subject of the joy of eating meat. We will begin with the familiar adage, despite it being mistakenly understood, which is: “joy is only attainable with meat and wine”. We will now quote the entire section and bring the entire context of this source in the Talmud where they determine what brings joy to a person on the holidays.“Our Rabbis have taught; a man is obligated to bring joy to his children and his entire household on the holiday, as it is written, ‘you will be joyous on your holiday’. What brings joy to a person? Wine! Rabbi Judah states: men are made joyous by what is suitable to them and women with what is suitable to them. What is suitable for a man? Wine! And women? Rabbi Yosef says that in Babylonia women found joy in colored garments while in the land of Israel women found joy in pressed flax garments.We learn, Rabbi Yehuda Ben Bataira says: when the temple stood, joy was only achieved with the eating of meat for the verse states, ‘you shall sacrifice peace offerings, eat there and you will be joyous before Hashem your God’. However, now that the temple does not stand, joy is only achieved through wine, for the verse states, ‘wine will make man's heart happy’.” (א"ע ט"ק םיחספ ,ילבב דומלת)“That Braita states that in our times only wine brings joy, from which we derive that wine alone is sufficient.” (טכקת ןמיס םייח חרוא ףסוי תיב) “And from this we infer that when the Temple does not stand, joy is attained only through wine” (א קרפ הגיגח תוכלה הדוהי םחל)That Braita states that in our times only wine brings joy, from which we derive that wine alone is sufficient. (טכקת ןמיס םייח חרוא ףסוי תיב) And from this we infer that when the Temple does not stand, joy is attained specifically through wine.” ( הדוהי םחל א קרפ הגיגח תוכלה )I have also seen in the Passover Haggadah the great scholar Rabbi Isaac son of Shlomo Elchadav who wrote “It is clear that in our times, joy on the holiday is attained with wine”.23 | Page Lifnei IverRambam in the laws of Yom Tov Chapter 6 Halacha 18: “Men eat meat and drink wine for joy is only achieved with meat and joy is only achieved with wine.”Look in Bet Yosef (ט"כקת 'יס ח"וא ) Who declares there is no obligation to eat meat in our days to fulfill the commandment of being joyous on the holiday for it is stated in the Talmud it is sufficient to drink wine alone and we do not require eating meat as well. The דירג declares according to Maimonides that one cannot say that the mitzvah to be joyful on the holidays in our times is dependent upon eating meat and drinking wine. Rather, it is achieved in the heart through those things which make a person happy. (ח"פק 'מע ב"ח ,ירמ אבא רכזל םירועישב ד"וה ) And it appears from Rambam (ח ,בלול 'לה ;ד"נ ע"מ צ"מהפס) that we can fulfill the commandment to be joyous in a variety of ways.“God commanded us to be joyous on the holidays as it says, ‘you will rejoice on your holidays’. What is most required is specifically the drinking of wine, since wine is unique in bringing about Joy and the terminology of the Talmud in Pesachim, ‘a man is obligated to bring joy to his children and his entire household on the holiday. What brings joy to a person? Wine.’ and it states there, Rabbi Yehuda Ben Bataira says: when the temple stood, joy was only achieved with the eating of meat for the verse states, ‘you shall sacrifice peace offerings, eat there and you will be joyous before Hashem your God’. However, now that the temple does not stand, joy is only achieved through wine, for the verse states, ‘wine will make man's heart happy’.” (דנ ע"מ ,ם"במרל תווצמה רפס)Maimonides’ intent is, at times joy is achieved through wine and at other times (when the temple stood) it is achieved with meat as Rav Elfandi who wrote Baal Mirkevet HaMishnah, (חי הכלה ו קרפ בוט םוי תוכלה)With regard to the adage “there is no joy other than with meat and there is no joy other than with wine”; the intent of, “there is no joy other than with meat” refers to the joy written about in the Torah which is the joy achieved when consuming the meat of the peace offering. Thus it is written, “you will sacrifice the peace offering and eat there and be joyous”. However, wine also makes one joyous and in our time joy is only achieved through wine; but, meat can also make one joyous. However, the primary means through which we achieve joy is with wine. Therefore they wrote. “men eat meat and drink wine”, for joy is only through meat, i.e. there is a time when joy can only be achieved through eating meat and that is when the temple stood, when they ate the flesh of the peace offering but at this time, joy is achieved through wine.24 | Page Lifnei IverIt is written in questions and answers חע ןמיס ז קלח תוכלה הנשמ: “Rav Yehuda Ben Bava states, when the Temple stood, there is no joy other than with meat but now that the Temple does not stand, there is no joy other than with wine. This does not mean that meat does not bring joy rather, that one is not required to eat meat since there is no peace offering. But certainly if one eats meat there is joy and one can fulfill the commandment with meat and wine. But, the obligation is with wine and from the words of the Talmud here there seems to be a proof to the Magen Avraham in the laws of Purim where he writes that in our time there seems to be no obligation to eat meat at all.” And look in ת"ושב ועק ןמיס ש"בשרה on the question that was asked regarding this issue:“Question: Ruben wants to move from his apartment to go to another city so to make himself more expedient he makes an oath not to buy meat, even on the eve of Shabbat and holidays; he will not buy meat until he moves. But his move is delayed or things have not worked out as he planned and he ultimately does not move and regrets his oath. Does he have permission to undue his oath since he only swore that he will not buy meat; perhaps his children can buy meat and he will eat it. Does he have permission or not? What is the ruling with regard to his regret and to the meat he has eaten until this time?Answer: This oath has validity, since even if he swore specifically not to eat meat on Shabbat and holidays this does not annul the commandant to be joyous, for the adage, ‘there is no joy other than with meat’, refers to the meat of the Kadshim. Therefore, they say in the Talmud Pesachim chapter entitled ‘the eve of Passover’, ‘when the temple stands there is no joy other than with meat.’ Even in the time of the Temple, if one swears not to eat meat on the holidays, their oath is valid and it does not annul any commandant, because the joy of the holiday is not specifically dependent upon meat, because if the first day of Yom tov falls on Shabbat, they were unable to experience the joy of meat of the Chagigah.”And the Gaon and Head of the court Rabbi Shlomo HaCohen from Vilna has written, “The primary reason is because consuming the meat of the peace offering is consumption which fulfills a mitzvah and is a holy act, and doing so brought great joy to the body and soul. However, when consuming regular meat with which there is no mitzvah associated, there is no joy; but wine gives joy to the soul as well. (זמ ןמיס ,הכוס תוכלה ,המלש ןינב ת"וש)25 | Page Lifnei IverRabbi Chayim Dovid Halevi states, “From here, all that was said with regard to the mitzvah to eat meat, for instance on Shabbat and Yom Tov, it is clear this refers to those who eat meat and do not know or are not concerned that it is not healthy. However, those Vegans who recognize that eating meat is not healthy, it is clear they are exempt from enjoying Shabbat by eating meat, and they should have pleasure with things pleasing to a wise person who is healthy. (זמ ןמיס ה קלח בר ךל השע ת"וש)In the Sulchan Aruch our Rabbi Yosef Karo states, “One should increase meat, wine and sweet delicacies according to their ability.” (נר ןמיס)The intent of the halachic decisors is not always in the literal meaning of their words, but rather from what is inferred. Thus, one can explain the above law in the following manner: since a person already eats meat during the week, to show respect for Shabbat they will “increase” their intake to honor the Shabbat and distinguish it from the week days.Not every halachic law is a mitzvah or a halachic obligation. Rather, there are laws which are merely customs and are not decreed upon the public unless most of the community can fulfill it. Clearly, most of the public consumes meat, so to honor the Shabbat they should make a distinction to the weekdays and for this reason Rav Karo employs the term, “increase”.Later on, around 20 years after this law was written in the code of law, Rabbi Joseph Karo writes in his book “Maggid Maisharim” how he was chastised by an Angel:“That which you went yesterday to find meat, you were unsuccessful, and you lost half a day and even the chickens you found did not work out. It was because of my doing and it was to inform you that meat and wine pull you towards the evil inclination and you should not run after them because a man can live without them. You have honored the Sabbath without meat and therefore you should cease your passing thoughts and be with God's Torah all day”. ( ומא תשרפ םירשימ דיגמ ןסינל ד"כ 'ז םויל רוא ,ר )“From these words we learn that our Rabbi honored the Shabbat without eating meat. We see that consuming meat on Shabbat is not an obligation and even though he wrote in the code of law Chapter 200 Subsection 2: ‘One should increase meat, wine and sweet delicacies according to their ability’, we have learned that this is not an obligation. The words of the Maggid are discussed in ץ"ק ןמיס ג"פקת רימזאב י'גלאפ ח"רל םייח בל ת"ושב ב"ח. ( רשמ דיגמ רפסבש הכלהה ינינע ,סרילק בייל הדוהי בר( נר ןמיס זי ,ב םי .26 | Page Lifnei IverFurthermore, it is written in the Maggid, “this is the reason why consuming animals flesh is a base desire, because until Israel had the peace offering they did not eat meat as is written in the Zohar: Moses was distressed when Israel requested meat and if Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, entered into the land of Israel with them, they would not have eaten meat.” (תימראמ םגרות ,בקע תשרפ ,םירשמ דיגמ)Rabbainu Yonah writes that the Tanna did not state one is “obligated to eat” because eating meat and wine on Shabbat is not an obligation, it is optional. (א ,חי תוכרב תכסמ)In אל ןמיס ג קלח תוכלה הנשמ ת"ושב: “again I have seen in the Shach, Yoreh Daiah Chapter 341 section 167, “Since one intends to fulfill a mitzvah, if they wish they may eat meat and if not, they do not have to for it is not an obligation to eat meat or to drink wine on Shabbat for they have said, for they have said, ‘make your Shabbos like a weekday and do not require others’; therefore, all things required on Shabbat one must do, but it is optional whether one chooses to eat meat.” From this we see there is no mitzvah at all to eat meat on Shabbat, rather it is an option. This is also the opinion of the Magen Avraham who distinguishes between a commandment and an obligation. And certainly even according to the Shach who has explained the rationale; if one wishes to eat meat since they are intending to do a mitzvah and they are mindful as they eat to perform a mitzvah, they fulfill the mitzvah, but there is no obligation! If so, we can also say this is the opinion of the Magen Avraham. Now we can silence any question about how the halachic decisors , the Achronim and the Magen Avraham hold on the “obligation” to eat meat.Harav Chayim Chizkiyahu Mdini: “Regarding eating meat in our days, our teacher Rav Chayim Benevisiti in the Kennest HaGdolah Yoreh Daiah Chapter 28 in the name of Rabbi Solomon Luria states, “in our times we rely upon the Ree and the Ran and one should eat with the intent to strengthen their body... And the Chida in “B’Chayim asks” chapter 43 letter vuv “it is all according to the person, if they can practice self-denial to atone for their sins”... And we, what will we answer for our orphaned generation with too many sins to count, we are too weak to suffer, the good God should atone for us thus wrote the Rav... for a number of years he abstained entirely from eating meat and heaven forbid, do not disparage him for happy is his portion! ... And we have already written in the name of The Ari “happy is one who can abstain the entire week from meat and wine .... and on Shabbat they recline and eat meat and drink wine for it is optional and not an obligation for they say, “make your Sabbath a weekday”...And in Rasheet Chachmah 4:129:2 writes at length not to eat any living creature.27 | Page Lifnei IverWe see that one who conducts themselves with discipline is praiseworthy. See in Keren Shlomo Yoreh Daiah Chapter 1 where at length he writes, “it is not an obligation to consume meat and wine, even on Shabbat and Yom Tov.”In the Sefer Shiur Komah ...With regard to reincarnation in a kosher animal’s soul, one who is disciplined will distance themselves from eating the animal, for an evil soul can attach to their soul and lead to their downfall and death...therefore, one should not eat meat unless they have the spiritual insight revealed to them that the animal from which they eat does not contain the soul of a sinner; this is the warning of the Ari.(הליכא תכרעמ םיניד תפיסא ןושאר קלח דמח ידש)The Holy Alshich: ”You consider yourself just and believe you give fulfillment to animals but you are mistaken...Perhaps you will say “what greater fulfillment can I give to an animal other than eating it and raising it to the level of a human but it is not so! Because you eat not only the flesh, “for the blood is its soul”. On the contrary, I command you to be strong not to eat the blood; you should be conscious and disciplined not to eat until the soul leaves the animal etc. for the blood is the soul.” (בי םירבד ךישלא)Rav Chayim Vital: “I have been severely warned not to slaughter anything, not to kill any living thing not even lice and fleas. My master never killed lice and fleas or any other bug.” (ח"ל המדקה םילוגלגה רעש)Harav Yitzchak Habanstreit: “One should know that with regard to eating meat, there is an opinion that by consuming meat the animal is raised to the level of speaking man and by this an animal’s soul is repaired ...The opposing view does not agree that the animal’s soul is repaired by a human eating their flesh, and they suggest one may be guilty of spilling the blood of an animal, and there is no distinction between a scholar and a simpleton as the prohibition to consume meat applies to all. Therefore, one who is spiritually wholesome and upstanding should not hold of the first opinion and claim to be a scholar, but should go in accordance with the stricter, second and more straightforward opinion and not enter into the question of spilling blood, because spilling blood is not a minor issue.28 | Page Lifnei IverEven if one agrees with the first opinion that eating the flesh of an animal repairs its soul, thus only a simpleton would be forbidden to eat meat but not a Torah scholar. One should not take this as permission to eat meat, and they should certainly not consider it a mitzvah or a benefit or a kindness to the animal. Woe to those who believe this!One should not consider themselves a Torah Scholar with regard to eating meat, rather they should consider themselves simple, and even if they are a Torah Scholar they should not consider themselves wiser than their predecessors who ate meat. As Rav Zaira states, (ב"יק תבש) “If the first ones were like angels we are like humans, and if the first ones were like humans we are like donkeys. And, if the first ones consider themselves Torah Scholars what can we answer after them? “Is it not enough for us to be like grasshoppers in our eyes relative to those giants? We must be humble and say, “There are ants in the vineyards that are like men”. And as our scholars said (ז"מ תוכרב), “Who is the simpleton? Others say even if they read and learned and did not service Torah Scholars they are a simpleton”. So we see, even if one learned and studied but they did not service Torah Scholars they are a simpleton. Even if they learnt Safra and Sifrei and the entire Talmud, they are still considered simpletons because they did not service Torah Scholars and did not learn with them the reasons and secrets of the Torah and the Talmud. Furthermore in (ט"מ הטוס), “From the day the Second Temple was destroyed, the generations have deteriorated: Scholars have begun to become like scribes that teach children, and scribes have become like ignoramuses.” If the original Torah Scholars became like ignoramuses after the destruction, what can we say about ourselves? Thus, one should not consider themselves a Torah Scholar but an ignoramus and are forbidden from eating meat.I will take it further and state that one can never accept the first opinion, that by eating meat one repairs the soul of an animal. This can be proven from an explicit Gamara, (ה"פ אעיצמ אבב) “there was a certain calf that was being led to slaughter. The calf went and hung its head on the corner of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s garment and was weeping. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to it: ‘Go, as you were created for this purpose.’ It was said in Heaven: Since he was not compassionate toward the calf, let afflictions come upon him.” If you wish to hold29 | Page Lifnei Iveraccording to the first opinion that an animal’s soul is repaired by slaughtering and eating it, why then was Rabbi Yehuda punished with afflictions? Didn't he do what was correct by not showing mercy on the calf and telling it go because ‘this is why you were created’, as in accordance with the first opinion? Moreover, wasn’t he doing the calf a favor by urging it to go to the slaughter because being slaughtered, it would attain a higher spiritual level? Why was he punished for doing the calf a favor? Does one get punished for doing a mitzvah? We must conclude from this that Rebbe did not act properly by urging the calf to slaughter and indeed it was not created for this purpose; for in general, animals were not created for the sole purpose of being slaughtered but for ploughing. And since Rebbe held according to this opinion, that an animal is improved by being digested by a human, albeit an ignoramus is forbidden from eating meat, for they are no better than animals, but a Torah Scholar is permitted. By afflicting him, Heaven informed Rabbi Yehudah this is not so. Rebbe was not healed until he reversed his opinion as is related in that gemara and through his retraction his afflictions left him. “One day, the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sweeping his house. There were young weasels lying about, and she was in the process of sweeping them out. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: Let them be, as it is written: “The Lord is good to all; and His mercies are over all His works” (Psalms 145:9). They said in Heaven: Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him, and he was relieved of his suffering.”It is a major rule (א"נק תבש), “Those who have mercy on others, Heaven acts mercifully towards them; and all who do not act mercifully towards others, Heaven does not act mercifully towards them, because it is measure for measure.I will pose my personal theory to refute the first opinion that says that an animal’s soul benefits by being consumed by a human. Why are there creatures that are forbidden to be eaten such as impure or trampled animals and bugs? Do they not require being repaired like the pure animals with split hooves who chew their cud? Why are these animals excluded? And Kosher animals, if they are ritually unfit or found to have an imperfection at the time of slaughter, since their consumption is forbidden, how will their souls be repaired? This indicates that the first opinion is not definitive. Thus, one who is spiritually aware will distance themselves from this activity and follow the stringent opinion. (ט"פרת .ףיש םולש 'ר תאצוה :אשיר הוואתה תורבק רפס .קחצי ,טיירטשנבה ברה)30 | Page Lifnei IverThe Torah’s attitude towards eating meatFrom The Book of Genesis we learn that at the beginning man was forbidden to eat flesh: “And God said, ‘behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens, and to everything that moves upon the earth, in which there is a living spirit, every green herb to eat,’ and it was so.” ( טכ ,א תישארב -ל )Rashi: “Man and his wife were not permitted to kill any living thing and eat meat, but they could eat all vegetation.”Ramban: “Meat was not permitted until the time of Noah as Our Rabbis note and this is based upon the literal meaning of the text. And the original prohibition to kill animals to eat their meat is because moving souls i.e. animals, have a bit more stature to their souls: they resemble intelligent souls i.e. man, and seek their [own] benefit and their food and run away from pain and death; and the verse states, ‘Who knows the spirit of man whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth?’” (אכ ג תלהק)Abudraham: “Regarding living creatures and the like, one should not formulate the blessing ‘Borai\ארוב’ which is based on the word ‘create’ (as one would recite המדאה ירפ ארוב) for they were not created for this purpose, and the proof is that Adam was not permitted to eat flesh... All of this is not repairing the creation; it is destroying and causing loss in the creation we therefore do not say ‘Borai\ארוב’”. ( צ ,תוכרב תוכלה ,םהרדובא)Rabbi Yosef Albo: “Aside from the intensive cruelty and anger involved in killing an animal, one accustoms themselves to the negative behavior of freely spilling blood. The consumption of flesh from living creatures gives birth to spiritual corpulence, murkiness and inflexibility of the soul...and because of this, even though the meat of some animals is considered good food and enjoyed by people, God wanted to remove\balance the little bit of good one experiences when eating meat with the bad and massive damage that can come from this, He therefore forbade Adam from eating animals.” (וט ,ג םירקיעה רפס)31 | Page Lifnei IverHarav Abarbanel: “Therefore, at the beginning of creation when man was only allowed to consume vegetation and drink water their lifespan was longer. But when Noah came and was allowed to eat meat and drink wine, lifespans shrunk until where we are today.” (ג רמת ה ןייעמ העושיה ינייעמ רפס)“This was because Adam was in the Garden of Eden, a place of the choicest trees and fruit as the verse says, ‘God brought forth from the ground all trees beautiful to see and good to eat.’ And it says, ‘From all trees of the garden you will eat.’ But when Noah and his sons exited the Ark there was no vegetation nor did they have fruit of a tree available. Even if they wanted to wait until they had seeded fields and planted groves they would have starved to death. Therefore, they were permitted to eat meat.”(א ,ט תישארבל ושוריפב לאנברבא ברה)“What seems most correct to me and the accurate interpretation is Adam was forbidden to eat meat because he was spiritually complete, and Noah and his children were permitted to eat meat because of their evil nature and this interpretation is because man's receiving nourishment from vegetation is good and very appropriate...Whereas eating meat is quite the opposite; it brings out hot, boiling, red blood, it inclines one to cruelty, anger and overcoming another with malice, making one rancid and readies them for a quick death. Aside from all that is said with regard to killing a living creature, one learns cruelty and freely spilling blood.“God's desire was to straighten the path of the first man to direct him in righteousness and have him reach fulfillment. Therefore, He commanded him to take nourishment from vegetation which are more wholesome, from fruits and vegetation, but not to eat meat... But when the human population increased and became more degraded than their fathers, all of their paths became corrupt, even though they were eating vegetation and no meat; leading to the ultimate decree of their destruction in the generation of the flood. Almighty God saw that the good behavior He instilled in Adam did not help them improve their ways; He therefore permitted Noah and his progeny to eat meat.”“As if He said: consume what you please from the vegetation or from meat, ‘as the vegetation, I have given to you all’, because now their negative qualities could not be corrected through deed, only by way of punishment.” (די םירבדל ושוריפב לאנברבא ברה)32 | Page Lifnei Iver“But your blood, of your souls, I will demand an account” (ה ,ט תישארב)“When God gave permission to Noah and his sons to eat flesh He said, ‘But for the blood of your souls I will demand’. God express concern that cruelty and wickedness would develop within them as a result of eating meat and they would eventually murder one another...Because of this, the Prophet specifies that in the days of the Messiah both the lion and sheep will eat straw.” ( והיעשיל ושוריפב לאנברבא ברה אי )The Malbim: At the time of the creation God did not give carnivorous animals permission to tear into living creatures and eat them... therefore, in the future when the world will be repaired, both the lion and cattle will eat straw; Man similarly was not permitted to eat meat. It was only after the sin that the desire for meat was implanted in carnivorous animals as well as man. However, researchers have shown that humans are not designed to eat meat, as we can see from the construction of our teeth and molars. Vegetarian animals by their nature are sustained by vegetation, and many people in India live from fruits and are of gentler nature. (טכ ,א תישארב לע ם"יבלמה)God permitted them to eat meat to prevent man from killing another, because all trees and vegetation of the field and all food was destroyed. (א ,ט תישארב לע ם"יבלמה)“Bread and water are necessary to prevent starvation and thirst but wine and meat are not suitable for the sick or for the healthy, they are simply unnecessary. The intent of the Torah in all of her stories, without a doubt, are all of the generations before the flood who lived the longest lives of any one in the Torah, they were not given meat and wine but after the flood it was given to them to experience but not to be consumed on a routine basis.” (ךרדה הז ה"ד ,חלשב ,םידימלתה דמלמ)Harav Yitzchak Habanstreit: “One should know, aside for the fact that it is inappropriate for man to eat meat with regard to tradition, ethics, religion and wisdom; it is also unnatural because man is unfit to eat meat as is proven by the analysis of a person's organs. Man was created to live from the dews of heaven and the fat of the earth, from the grains and vegetation of the land and the fruits of the tree. All a person's organs indicate that we are not meat eaters!All living things eat either vegetation or flesh and accordingly, The Master of Nature designed them to have differing digestive systems, body structures and organs.33 | Page Lifnei IverWe can also recognize that humans were not designed to eat meat because when we see a cow, sheep, goat or chickens and the like alive, there is no inner urge or desire to eat them. Likewise, raw meat does not raise within us any desire or appetite. Quite the contrary, it is disgusting and repulsive even to look at. It is only when meat is roasted or cooked with vegetables that we can consider eating it or tolerate its smell, and it is only the aroma of the vegetables and spices overpowering the odor of the meat. Only then does one's desire for meat rise, only when it's smell, appearance and taste changes, only when it is impossible to recognize that it is a piece of dead flesh. But this is not the case with the natural tendency towards vegetables and fruit of the tree and the like. These produce strong natural feelings and call to us in a loving way: ‘Wondrous to behold and good to eat’. Can something be desirous to the eyes? ( יעשי וה ח"כ ) ‘While still in his hand, it is swallowed’. See how much man desires fruits that God needed to warn him, ‘you should not stop learning because of this!’, for Rabbi Yaakov says, (ג"פ תובא) ‘If one is walking on the way and learning and interrupts their learning and says, ‘how beautiful is this tree or how pleasant is this ploughed field’, they bear guilt for their soul!’, A great desire awakens in their midst to taste the fruits and eat them fresh as they were created. Is this not enough proof that these are the natural foods for a person?And since eating meat is unnatural for humans, it follows that eating meat damages and shortens one's life. It is understood if one goes against nature it is impossible that nature will give them a pass and fill their days, for nature does not tolerate those who violate her; He does what he wants and she does what she wants; it is a silent but heavy war between them until the measure is filled then nature will vomit them out, as it says in the Torah, ‘I bring the heavens and the Earth to give witness’ that Man was not created just to die and his problems only come as a result of gluttony and over indulgence. And if you find one in a thousand people who eats meat and is healthy and lives long, this is not normal and who knows if you will find someone like this, even one in a thousand! Most medical experts state in their books that all illnesses result from a meat based diet: since they have gone against nature. Likewise, all medicines are made from various plants in an attempt to align the sickened person, back to nature as the34 | Page Lifnei Iveradage in the Talmud (מ תוכרב ) ‘one who regularly consumes lentils prevents disease from his house and mustard prevents illness from his house.’ And they say (דמ תוכרב), ‘leeks are beneficial for the intestine’ and we have seen and heard; when one eats that which is intended they will feel no digestive pain. But after eating meat one experiences digestive difficulties because their system has not been built for eating meat but for vegetation.” ( ט"פרת .ףיש םולש 'ר תאצוה :אשיר .הוואתה תורבק רפס .קחצי ,טיירטשנבה ברה)Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik: “There is a distinct reluctance, almost an unwillingness, on the part of Torah to grant man the privilege to consume meat. Man as an animal-eater is looked at askance by the Torah. There are definitive vegetarian tendencies in the Bible. This sounds, prima facie, a little absurd. Yet if we disregard conventional opinions and attempt to penetrate into the substrata of halakhic philosophy we detect such ideas.Paradoxically [mankind] overreached himself, created a new demand, a simple insistence upon something which by right does not belong to him, namely, on life that is equal to his, on flesh that is not different from his own, and he succeeded. God, as it were, gave in and compromised with man. Is the Torah very happy about this change? Somehow we intuitively feel the silent tragic note that pervades the whole chapter. The Torah was compelled to concede defeat to human nature that was corrupted by man himself and willy-nilly approved the radical change in him. Hamas, reaching out after a life, became habitual with man. At once the Torah began to regulate the “murder” of other lives, to restrict its practice by complicating its procedure. Chazal formulated this tendency in their famous maxim: The Torah only provided for human passions: it is better for Israel to eat the flesh of animals that are ritually slaughtered than the flesh of animals which have perished (ב"כ ןישודק).” (The emergence of ethical man - man as carnivorous being)35 | Page Lifnei IverBook of Vayikra: The prohibition to sacrifice outside of the Temple:“Any man of the House of Israel, who slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat inside the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp, but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer up as a sacrifice to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord, this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people;” ( ג ,זי ארקיו -ד )Eating an animal was permitted only when offering a sacrifice in the Tabernacle. If one slaughtered an animal for a sacrifice but did not offer it in the Tabernacle, “this [act] shall be counted for that man as blood he has shed blood” and they would deserve being cut off\Karet.The Torah text seems straightforward but there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. Ramban explains this verse using its literal meaning which is in accord with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael; that the punishment of Karet befalls one who slaughtered an animal to eat but not for the purpose of sacrificing it in the Tabernacle, because Israel was not granted permission to eat meat for pleasure before they entered the land. This is the understanding of Ramban, Vilan Gaon, Sporno, Ohr HaChayim and others.Book of Bamidbar Chapter 11: “But the multitude among them began to have strong cravings. Then even the children of Israel once again began to cry, and they said, ‘Who will feed us meat?’You shall eat it not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, and not twenty days. But even for a full month until it comes out your nose and nauseates you. Because you have despised the Lord Who is among you.The meat was still between their teeth; it was not yet finished, and the anger of the Lord flared against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very mighty blow. He named that place Kivroth Hata'avah [Graves of Craving].”Rabbi David Kimchi expounds: “They tested God in their hearts. Their plot was to test God by requesting meat, for the manna was good and pleasing food and they did not need the meat, but they wanted to test Him. But they did not articulate this, they said we need the meat and denigrated the manna and said, (ו ,אי רבדמב) ‘our bodies are dried out, for there is nothing at all; we have nothing but manna to look at’ and then followed this with, (ה ,אכ רבדמב) ‘we are disgusted with this rotten bread." They were asking for food for their bodies to fill their desire, as it says, ( כ ,בי םירבד) "because your soul desires to eat meat.’” (חי ,חע םילהת ,ק"דר)36 | Page Lifnei IverHarav Abarbanel explains in his commentary regarding the manna; ”God said to Moshe, meat is not required but it is being requested simply due to gluttony, to fill their stomachs and satisfy their base desires. ’Moreover, meat brings out in a person malicious and cruel blood and because of this you will find that the carnivorous animals and birds that eat meat are cruel and evil. But sheep, cattle, chickens, turtle doves and pigeons which live from vegetation, do not act in a cruel or evil manner. For this reason the prophet prophesied that in the time of the coming redemption both the lion and cattle will eat straw. And the rationale is as they say, They shall neither harm nor destroy etc’. Because of this God did not say to Moshe that He will give them meat, rather He will give them bread, for this is nourishment that is pleasant and necessary and consistent with the nature of man and thus, ‘I am going to rain down for you bread from heaven.’” (זט ,תומש)Siftei Chachamim- “Why does the text say, ‘Prepare yourselves’? It should have simply said, ‘Say unto the people, tomorrow you will eat meat.’? Additionally, what preparation do you need for eating? This refers to the negative unfolding of events written at the end, which came upon them as a result of eating the meat.“ (אי קרפ רבדמב)The Malbim: “We remember - We do not require actual meat and fish to experience palatal pleasure because whenever we want to taste fish all we need to do is remember the fish that we ate in Egypt and we can experience the sensation even now. However, our request for meat is to benefit our body’s health by eating meat. Recalling the tastes of fish in Egypt does not help us at all and is as futile as recalling the squash and watermelon. Just recalling the taste of fish and meat they had while eating manna is for naught, because actual meat would not be in their stomachs.” (אי קרפ רבדמב)“Because God acted severely with those cravers who wanted to eat meat in the desert (אי קרפ רבדמב) and those cravers were buried, since then craving for meat was forbidden. Concerning this it says, ‘when God widens your boundary... and you will say ...’ the understanding of this text is that even when you explicitly state that you wish to consume meat, echoing the words of those cravers who asked, ‘who will feed us meat?’, and the Torah says, ‘when your soul craves’ which strongly hints to the words used to by those cravers about which the verse states, they had ‘strong cravings’. Still, the Torah permits them and states, ‘You may eat meat, according to every craving of your soul.’” (בי קרפ םירבד םייחה רוא)37 | Page Lifnei IverAnd you will say, I will eat meat. “When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary, as He has spoken to you, and you say, ‘I will eat meat,’ because your soul desires to eat meat, you may eat meat, according to every desire of your soul.If the place the Lord, your God, chooses to put His Name there, will be distant from you, you may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat in your cities, according to every desire of your soul.” ( כ ,בי םירבד - בכ )These verses indicate that from the moment Israel entered the land, meat was permitted to be eaten. However, the permission granted in these verses puts the consumption of meat in a bad light and linked to a base desire. We shall bring our rabbi’s thoughts as to the nature of this permission.א ,דפ ןילוח: The Torah taught that person should only consume meat in that manner (meat that he hunted). In a similar vein, the Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: ‘When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary’ (כ ,בי םירבד). The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only to satiate his appetite. The baraita continues: One might have thought that a person may purchase meat from the marketplace and consume it. Therefore, the next verse states: ‘And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,’ indicating that one should only consume the meat of animals of his own flock. One might have thought that a person may slaughter all of his cattle, and consume the meat. Therefore, the verse states: ‘Of your cattle,’ indicating some, but not all of, your cattle.א ,דפ ןילוח Rashi explains: ”Of your cattle – one can take from their flock, but if they do not have one, one should not go to the market and buy it.”Baal Haturim: “Eat meat. The adjacent verse states, ‘If it is distant from you’, intimating that one should distance themselves from eating meat, as is stated in the chapter entitled, ‘covering the blood’.” )א ,דפ ןילוח(Siftai Cohain Al HaTorah: “The Torah taught that one may not eat meat until after loosening their belt and stating, ‘ I will eat meat’. The craving then follows as written in the text, ‘because your soul desires’. Still the Torah does not permit the consumption of meat until the craving has completely overtaken the individual, as described in the text, ‘according to every desire of your soul may you eat meat.’ You are no better than Adam who never ate meat in his life.“ (האר תשרפ הרותה לע ןהכ יתפש)38 | Page Lifnei IverRabbainu Bchayai: “The animal soul (within man) is the drive to eat and drink, copulate and express hatred and anger. It is this drive which matches man to the animal and it resides in the liver and is termed the mind and spirit. As is written: (כ ,בי םירבד) ‘according to every desire of your soul you may eat meat.’ And it is written, (ט ,ז תלהק)’Be not hasty with your spirit to become wroth. “ )ז ,ב תישארב ,ייחב וניבר(Harav Avraham Eban Ezra: “There are two energies. In the holy tongue they are generally referred to as spirit and mind. The soul is the place of wisdom and it resides in the brain... and the spirit resides in the liver and drives the desire to eat, thus it is written, ‘when your soul craves.’”( כ תומש לע ארזע ןבא הכ ,ג )Rav Yaakov son of Chananel Skilee (a student of the Rashba): “Note how the Torah warns us against cravings and that we should distance ourselves from them and not submit to them unless in great need, as is written, (כ ,בי םירבד) ‘when your soul craves to eat meat’, this is to say, when you desire meat; do not always eat it but wait for the appropriate time, specifically when God has widened your boundaries. Now, after the land has been conquered with great effort resulting in greater cravings. And when you eat meat it should be in small amounts and from that which you have and own as the verse states, ‘from your cattle and sheep’, implying that only a part of your flock, not the entirety may be consumed. All of these restrictions are to distance us from the cravings which lead to death. Take heed from the wayward son as his undoing is gluttonously consuming meat and wine and the Torah assigns him to death by stoning.” (הארת אלה ה"ד ,הנ השרד אשנ תשרפ החנמה תרות)“The ‘broken spirt’ refers to the mixed multitude who were drawn by passion and craving to the sacrifices of alien gods. The text implies that their desire was to consume meat, for the verse states, (בי םירבד) ‘when your soul craves to eat meat’, and as the verse states, ‘If sheep and cattle were slaughtered for them, would it suffice for them? If all the fish of the sea were gathered for them, would it suffice for them?’ And another similar verse, ‘But the multitude among them began to have strong cravings.’ Meditate on this!” ( רפ החנמה תרות יחבז א"ד ה"ד ,ונ השרד ךתולעהב תש )39 | Page Lifnei Iver“There is a sin committed with the mouth of consuming forbidden foods and it is caused by craving. When the craving overcomes an individual they desire that which is forbidden and when a questionable item comes to their attention they will rationalize and validate it. Therefore, one should distance themselves from cravings. Consider how the Torah warns us about eating meat, (כ ,בי םירבד) ‘when your soul craves to eat meat... according to every desire of your soul you may eat.’ Consider the punishment for one who has overeaten like the Wayward Son, and as King Solomon said in his wisdom (הכ אכ ילשמ) ‘The cravings of a lazy man will bring about his death’. And when we consider our need to eat and its purpose; it is only to provide for our physical needs. More than that is excessive and wastes money and one’s body and soul. If so, one should distance themselves and be careful of the cravings of this world and by doing so will fulfill their purpose and avoid eating forbidden foods.”(הריבע שיו ה"ד ,זע השרד הנשה שארל החנמה תרות)The Ntziv from Vlozhin: “And you will say, I will eat meat...you’ll sacrifice from your cattle... this is a negative commandment coming from a positive .i.e. to not eat without ritual slaughtering.” ( ירבד ,רבד קמעה די ,זי ם )Rabbi Menaḥem Mendel of Kotzk: “Why is a person not permitted to eat meat on the first nine days of the month of Av? Is it not the case that a person is not permitted to eat meat all year round?” (ולש תוא הנומאו תמא)Rabbi Shlomo Kluger: “They never would have been granted permission to partake of lustful meat if not for their deep desire for which there was no cure: were it not for this they would have never consumed meat. Since sacrifices were distant from them, they would not have been able to overcome their craving. As a result of their powerful craving, meat was permitted, just as the captive woman is permitted. As the verse states, ‘when God widens your boundary, as He spoke to you and you will say I will eat meat’. Meat should have most certainly been forbidden, but only because ‘when your soul craves to eat meat... according to every desire of your soul’, implying that due to the great desire for which there is no cure, only because of that craving, may you ‘eat meat’”.( ,לולא ,בקעי תלהק גצק 'מע ,כ שורד )40 | Page Lifnei IverMaharal from Prague: “The term ‘craving’ refers to the deeply physical\base want just as we find in the verse, (ד ,אי רבדמב) ‘But the multitude among them began to have strong cravings.’ (כ ,בי םירבד) ‘When your soul craves to eat meat’, (ו ,ג תישארב) ‘it was a delight\craving to the eyes’. And you will always find ‘craving’ \ הואת associated with the topic of meat consumption.”Rabbi Shlomo Ephrayim from Lontshitz (רקי ילכה לעב): “This will lead to the removal of the vail of shame (and acting in a decent manner) from your face till you clearly say ‘I shall eat meat’ – and this is not unlike one casting off the yoke of Heaven....all day you will deeply lust and you will not feel any shame for proclaiming you desire for meat. I permit this to you by means of sacrificing your cattle...as I have commanded you not to partake in it on a regular basis, but only when the craving overcomes you. Thus the verse states, ‘But as the deer and the gazelle are eaten, so may you eat them’ and like the verse, ‘who traps a quarry of a wild animal or bird’ (גי ,זי ארקיו)Our Rabbis have stated, (א ,דפ ןילוח) ‘The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation.’ This means, if one becomes habituated to eating the animals they own, a bull, sheep or goat then they will crave eating and become accustomed to eating meat all of the time. Whereas, if one must hunt in the forests and deserts for an animal that offers resistance, danger and difficulty to the hunter, then they will not experience a craving, because the pleasure of eating the animal will not be worth the effort and difficulty...therefore the Torah says, ‘But as the deer and the gazelle are eaten, so may you eat them;’The intent: it is upon this condition that you are allowed to eat meat: you should not become accustomed to eat the deer and gazelle. Naturally, one would not be accustomed to eating them because they are wild animals and need to be trapped and due to the effort one does not often eat them- so should all meat be eaten, seldomly. (כ ,בי םירבד ,רקי ילכ)41 | Page Lifnei Iver‘And hunt game for me.’ Why did Isaac request something that needed to be hunted? Didn’t he have an animal in his flock which tasted like deer? Did he need to send his son out to the forest? It seems obvious to me the Torah is teaching us the way to perceive meat- we should not see it as being easily accessible so that consuming meat does not become routine. As the verse says, (כ ,בי םירבד) ‘according to every desire of your soul you may eat. But as the deer and the gazelle are eaten, so may you eat them;’ implying that meat should be eaten at unset intervals as opposed to being consumed on a regular basis. Just as the deer and the gazelle are not found in one’s home as they are wild, undomesticated animals living in the deserts and forests, they are seldom eaten due to ability to avoid traps and capture. As a consequence of being rarely caught, they are rarely eaten by people – this helps a person not become accustomed to regularly eating meat. Consuming meat gives rise to cruel and negative tendencies in an individual. All carnivorous birds eat flesh, likewise the lion thrashes its prey and eats it, and therefore it is prophesized, ( יעשי וה ז אי ) ’A lion like cattle, will eat straw’, for there will be peace in the world between all living things. Therefore Isaac said, ‘Go hunt for me’ because he wanted to consume meat with the proper mindset and consideration.’” (ג ,זכ תישארב ,רקי ילכ)Rabbi Isaac Habinstreit: “A habit becomes one’s nature. Since it was difficult to separate and distance them from consuming dead flesh, when God saw that prohibiting the act would not help, He allowed it. The Torah speaks with regard to people who are craving as specified in the Torah’ When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary, and you say, ‘I will eat meat... because your soul desires to eat meat, you may eat meat, according to every desire of your soul.’ It is obvious the Torah speaks to the people who crave for had He not permitted it, they would eat against His will. This is akin to the law of the captive woman who is permitted to be taken in war, where our scholars say, the Torah addresses the evil inclination. For had God not permitted it, she would have been taken against His will. We see our scholars speak with denigration of the Shochet when they say, ( כ ףד ןישודיק ’ב ) ‘Even the best butcher is a partner with Amalek.’42 | Page Lifnei Iver‘This is because the guilty prey upon the guilty. This is this reason for the established halacha ( מר ’ ויב א ’ כ ןמיס ד ’ח ) that we do not make the blessing Shecheyanu when slaughtering because it harms a living being. The verse states, ‘the robber congratulates himself for having blasphemed the Lord.’ It is from the permission given to eat meat that one learns the prohibition; from the ‘yes’ we learn the ‘no’. The bread requested from God was asked for properly as it is good and fitting and impossible to survive without. Therefore, it was given to them on schedule, every day in the morning with a bright and cheery face. It is clear like the day that bread is important sustenance and they did not request it to fulfill their craving; not so for meat which comes from murder and cruelty and one can live without it. Therefore, they requested meat improperly and it was given to them improperly, with a darkened and angry face. Since eating meat has four incidents in the Torah, alternatively, twice forbidden and twice permitted. The permission to eat meat was not complete, therefore it was delivered to them in the evening, specifically at a time that is not day nor night, at the time when the light and dark are mixed, just like meat whose prohibition and the permission are interwoven. It is here the Torah teaches us ways of decency; that a person should only eat meat in the evening because truly, one should never eat meat. Only when their craving overcomes them, even then they restrict themselves to only eat in the evening, the time that is neither day nor night and this reminds them that eating meat it is not forbidden nor is it permitted. Moreover, they should be cognizant that their eating is not consistent with the will of God and it's possible that by eating with this mindset one will find a way to stop this behavior, ‘for he who confess and forsakes sin will find mercy.’” (ט"פרת .ףיש םולש 'ר תאצוה :אשיר .הוואתה תורבק רפס .קחצי ,טיירטשנבה ברה)Rabbi Chayim Dovid HaLevi: “The truth is that there is no conflict at all between Veganism and Judaism and it most certainly does not clash with halacha. Note that meat was forbidden to the first man, and it was only permitted to Noah and onward but after the giving of the Torah many animals were forbidden and only a few were permitted; but this is not the place to discuss this fundamental fact. Moreover, meat was only permitted due to the evil inclination, as it says, ‘When your soul craves to eat meat...” (א ד"פ ןילוח) see the Talmud and the Baal HaIkarim who states, meat was only permitted out of a dire necessity.“ )ו"ט קרפ ישילש רמאמ( השע ת"וש(43 | Page Lifnei IverRav Abraham Isaac Kook: “And thou shalt say: 'I will eat flesh, because thy soul desireth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, after all the desire of thy soul.’ This is a subtle ‘wise man’s rebuke’ disguised as a vague remark . . . The explicit explanation of which is that when the time comes for the human moral climate to deplore [the consumption of] animal meat because it is morally repugnant, then it will also be true that you will not have the urge to eat meat and you will not eat it. The general rule for interpreting the Torah is that positive statements can be derived from negative statements, and negative statements can be derived from positive ones.’‘The act of covering the blood of the animal or the bird is like a heavenly protest, which is confronted with the provisional authorization tied to the shameful state of man’s soul. ‘For the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.’ This is the soul that says, ‘I will eat flesh, because thy soul desireth to eat flesh.’ It is also the soul that actually eats meat whenever it feels the urge because it lacks even the concept of internal restraint which would come from an understanding of the concepts of benevolence and justice. Therefore the Torah commands: cover the blood to hide your shame and weak sense of justice, in order that you might become wiser and refine your sensibilities and realize that it is not appropriate to take the life of another living-sensing being to fulfill a physical need or an urge. Fulfillment of the heavenly directives and commandments produce a moral readiness and this potential can be realized when its time comes. . .’But my dear human, listen to the voice of God behind you calling loudly: ‘Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk’ (גכ תומש) No! the sheep’s primary purpose is not to be eaten with your sharp teeth or pluck its meat from the bone. And the milk is certainly not for your cooking purposes to fulfill your base cravings. Be aware that meat and milk are so far away from being considered food- it is disgusting to the point of being forbidden to be cooked or eaten together. Animals were not created for your consumptive pleasure and the milk was meant to be nourishment for whom nature intended, just as the milk from your mother’s breast was assured to you when you were nursed.” (םולשהו תונוחמצה ןוזח)44 | Page Lifnei IverSummarizing the Prohibition and Approval of Meat Consumption in the Torah:• Genesis 1: The first will was vegetarian consumption – Meat consumption was prohibited.• Genesis 9: In the postdiluvian world, after all living beings had transgressed and corrupted their ways on earth, meat consumption was permitted (We will examine this later on) – Meat consumption received a shameful approval.• Vayikra 17: After the exodus from Egypt, meat consumption was permitted only in the tabernacle after animal sacrifice, and was not permitted - outside the temple Meat consumption was prohibited.• Divarim 12: When the people entered the Land of Israel, meat consumption was permitted expostfacto even outside of the temple under very limited circumstances, only infrequently and irregularly, like deer and gazelle are eaten –Meat consumption received a shameful approval.Rabbi Yosef Albo understands the shameful legalization of meat consumption expostfacto, as follows: “When the Torah was given to Israel. . . what it permitted to them . . . the Torah is counteracting the evil inclination, and similarly permits them to [take a] beautiful captive woman [by force in war]. (וט ,ג םירקיעה רפס). There are those actions permitted by the Torah, but should one commit them they will be judged accordingly. For one must consider the permission granted by the Torah is solely to battle the evil inclination, as in the case of the captured woman.” )חעש ןמיס ,םידיסח רפס(Rav Yaakov son of Chananel Skilee (a student of the Rashba): “The Torah reveals to us another foundational principle; to distance ourselves from Taava\base desires which lead man to his death in this and the next world as is written, (הכ אכ ילשמ) ‘The cravings of a lazy man will bring about his death’. The Torah has warned against this numerous times as is written, (כ ,בי םירבד) ‘according to every desire of your soul you may eat.’ and many other such verses. Each verse is written with the distaste of an adulterous woman since the Torah views craving as it does an adulterous woman; for the adulterous woman eagerly walks the path of prostitutes and this is the nature of the animal soul.“ (תלעות דוע רד רומא תשרפ החנמה תרות ה"ד דומע ,טמ הש )45 | Page Lifnei Iver46 | Page Lifnei IverAbraham inquiries of Melchizedek: “based on what merit did you manage to last on the Ark during the flood?” He answered, “it was due to the righteousness that we did there.” Abraham asked, “what act of righteousness did you perform on the ark? Were there poor people? Only Noah and his children! Upon whom did you bestow righteousness?” He answered, “To the animals and the beasts and the birds. We did not sleep! We were always giving to this one and to that one, the entire night.” (זל רומזמ ,בוט רחוש םילהת שרדמ)The words of Rav Kook So long as man is filled with base instincts and low morals, focused on filling their cruel desires upon living creatures to spill their blood and to swallow their bodies within their own, there is no hope at all that the wild beast of the human will improve its way and cease spilling the blood of his friend. ברה לע תונורכז ירמאמ תצובק .ןייטשנצילג ןועמש ברה ג"לשתה .םירפסה רצוא .םילשורי .קוק ןהכה קחצי םהרבאTHE PURPOSE OF SACRIFICESThose of the opinion that eating meat and spilling animals’ blood is consistent with the will of God, often draw their proof from the commandant to bring sacrifices and indeed, the Torah heavily deals with this. In the coming chapter we will bring Our Rabbis’ commentary regarding the commandment to sacrifice.Maimonides opens chapter 32 of the Guide for the Perplexed with a biological claim: every living animal develops gradually, over time and space. Maimonides describes how the malleable nerve becomes a rigid tendon, and generalizes the principle:“For a sudden transition from one opposite to another is impossible. And therefore man, according to his nature, is not capable of abandoning suddenly all to which he was accustomed.”According to Maimonides, animal sacrifice was necessitated by the need for a gradual transition from a world of idolatry to a world governed by the true worship of God. He writes:“And at that time the way of life generally accepted and customary in the whole world and the universal service upon which we were brought up consisted in offering various species of living beings in the temples in which images were set up, in worshipping the latter, and in burning incense before them . . . His wisdom, may He be exalted, and His gracious ruse, which is manifest in regard to all His creatures, did not require that He give us a Law prescribing the rejection, abandonment, and abolition of all these kinds of worship. For one could not then conceive the acceptance of [such a Law], considering the nature of man, which always likes that to which he is accustomed. . . . Therefore He, may He be exalted, suffered the abovementioned kinds of worship to remain, but transferred them from created or imaginary and unreal things to His own name.”47 | Page Lifnei IverMeaning that animal sacrifice was intended to help the Israelites abandon idol worship. Given that at that time the entire world was accustomed to worshipping their gods with animal sacrifice, the Israelites were unwilling to accept a religion that did not require sacrifice. For this reason, God instructed the Israelites to sacrifice to Him, rather than to idols.Maimonides carries on the conversation to ask what would have happened had God commanded to be worshiped not by way of sacrifice: “At that time this would have been similar to the appearance of a prophet in these times who, calling upon the people to worship God, would say: ‘God has given you a law forbidding you to pray to Him, to fast, to call upon Him for help in misfortune. Your worship should consist solely of meditation without any action or movement.”Of course, we would not accept such words of a prophet. Similarly, says Maimonides, the People of Israel would not accept the Torah if it did not command sacrifice. According to Maimonides, the detailed laws of sacrifice are intended to differentiate it from idolatry and to limit its practice:“For one kind of worship – I mean the offering of sacrifices – even thought it was done in His name, may He be exalted, was not prescribed to us in the way it existed at first; I mean to say in such a way that sacrifices could be offered in every place and at every time. Nor could a temple be set up in any fortuitous place . . . On the contrary, He forbade all this and established one single house [as the temple]. . . so that sacrifices should not be offered elsewhere. . . Also only the offspring of one particular family can be Priest[s]. All this was intended to restrict this kind of worship, so that only the portion of it should subsist whose abolition is not required by His wisdom.”Sacrifice is merely a means to a cause, a second intention. In this sense it is very much unlike other religious obligations such as prayer, which are much closer to the first intention.48 | Page Lifnei IverAccording to Maimonides, prayer and the like, are only a means directed toward an end – namely, devekut, cleaving to the Divine, and still they are closer to the first intention. On the other hand, sacrifice, is a more distant means toward the end, and one in which there is very little of the holiness of the divine commandment. Its real purpose is to distance mankind from the sin of performing idolatrous ritual sacrifice.Some might conclude from the many details of the laws pertaining to sacrifice, its relative import and sanctity. Maimonides counters this understanding, and explains that the purpose of this excessive detail is to minimize the importance attributed to this form of worship and to regulate man in the practice and distance him from idol worship.Maimonides brings the admonishments of the prophets against Israel for narrowing their focus to worshiping in the form of sacrifice:“And Samuel said: 'Hath the Lord as great delight in burntofferings and sacrifices, as in hearkening to the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken [better] than the fat of rams.” (בכ ,וט א לאומש)“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of hegoats.” (אי ,א והיעשי)“For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burntofferings or sacrifices; But this thing I commanded them, saying: 'Hearken unto My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be My people.” (בכ ,ז והימרי)49 | Page Lifnei IverMaimonides Replies To Those Who Resist His Claims“They say: How can Jeremiah say that God has not commanded us to offer sacrifices, seeing that so many commandments focus specifically on these things?The intent is as I have explained to you, for He says: the first intention is for you to conceive Me, worship only Me and I will be your God and ye shall be My people. Those laws concerning sacrifices and bringing them to the temple were given only for the sake of the realization of this fundamental principle. It is for the sake of this principle that I transferred these modes of worship to My name, so that the trace of idolatry be effaced and the fundamental principle of My unity be established.”“One may say to you: Inasmuch as God’s first intention and His will are that we should believe in this Law and that we should perform the actions prescribed by it, why did He not procure us the capacity always to accept this intention and to act in accordance with it, instead of using a ruse with regard to us, declaring that He will procure us benefits if we obey Him and will take vengeance on us if we disobey Him. . . For this too is a ruse used by Him with regard to us in order to achieve His first intention with respect to us. What was there to prevent Him from causing the inclination to accomplish the acts of obedience willed by Him[?]”Maimonides explains that although God changes the nature of things and people and performs miracles, He does not intervene with man’s free choice:“As all miracles change the nature of some individual beings, God does not change at all the nature of human individuals by means of miracles. “Meaning, God does not restrict free will.50 | Page Lifnei IverMaharam AlShkar defends Maimonides’ position, and even opens his book with the following defense:“I zealously defended the principle of religion and faith, the root of knowledge and understanding, the pillar of wisdom and the perfect Torah, the sea of intellect and calculation, the flagship of religion, the esteemed Rabbi in Israel and Judea, the eminent and great pious Rabbi, who is a light unto the world and one of its wonders, the precious and pious dignitary, The holy Maimonides, may he rest in peace, whose name has become a target for the shafts of their wicked ignorance, and been subjected to their razor-sharp tongues and imaginations.”Maharam Alashkar quotes the sages in Leviticus Rabbah, chapter 22, as an ancient source supporting Maimonides’ opinion of the purpose of animal sacrifice.The ultimate reason for the Karbanot was to abolish faulty philosophies held by the people leading them to foolishly sacrifice to idols and constellations. Due to the difficulty of completely breaking a habit, in His wisdom, God commanded us to no longer sacrifice to images devoid of substance and instead to sacrifice to His blessed name and commanded us to build Him a temple. These are his general words in chapter 32 part 3. However, light opened my eyes to see that these are indeed the words of Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair in Vayikra Rabbah who interprets the verse ‘And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs’. Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair says, “This is analogous to a King who had a son who ate scavenged and treif animals. The King pondered, what can be done to change this behavior? Because this behavior was ingrained it seemed impossible. The King said, ‘he will eat at my table and by eating my food he will no longer eat the defiled meat’ for it is written, ‘so that the children of Israel would bring their sacrifices which they offer... and they will no longer sacrifice to the demons.’‘It is such because the Israelites were eager to follow idolatry in Egypt and offer their sacrifices to demons, as it is written: (זי ארקיו) ‘And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs.’ These are demons, as it says: (בל םירבד) ‘They sacrificed unto demons.’ They would offer their sacrifices at false temples and then tragedies would befall them. Therefore God decided that they sacrifice to Him at all times in his tabernacle so that they abandon idolatry and survive.”51 | Page Lifnei IverWe will quote from a few of the prophets and the later books which admonish Israel for worshiping idols and sacrificing their sons to the Molekh. “And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.” ( זל ,וק םילהת - חל )“And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind.” (אל ,ז והימרי)“'Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.” ( ו ,ו הכימ -ח )This verse in Psalms is consistent with Maimonides’ understanding, “You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering; You dug ears for me; a burnt offering or a sin offering You did not request” (ז ,מ םילהת)In these words, King David expresses God’s lack of desire for our sacrifices. “You dug ears for me”. You gave me ears to listen and understand that you did not ask for this. Rashi comments on this verse and is quoting Maimonides and Jeremiah: when the Torah was given it was said, “Now, if you will listen to the voice of God...” (But it does not mention sacrifices) Also, (Jeremiah 6) He says, “For neither did I speak with your forefathers nor did I command them...”52 | Page Lifnei IverThe Chida -Rabbi Chayim Yosef Dovid Azulai states, “Israel enthusiastically sacrificed to alien gods. Because they were so accustomed to these practices, inhibiting them from sacrificing all together was very difficult. Therefore, God commanded that they sacrifice to Him, as stated, “So that they offer sacrifices which they offer in the fields “implying that since the people were already offering sacrifices to alien gods, let them offer them to God instead, smoothly transitioning them away from the demons. These are the words of Aba Meiri. However, I have seen in his expositions at the beginning of Vayikra where he discusses the words of Rambam and explains differently; it appears in the holy Zohar and the Midrash Rabbah, stating explicitly and in a straight forward manner in accordance with to the words of Rambam.” (םישודק תומ ירחא תשרפ ארקיו רפס דוד ינפ)The Ritva: Rabbi Yom Tov ben Avraham Ashvili: “Distancing them from worshipping alien gods, which is inherently significant, is of major significance to the Guide to the Perplexed as he indicates in several places ( ט"כ ,ג"ח -ל ). Therefore in his opinion, even Shabbat is superseded by sacrificial offerings to God [because it is so important to distance us from idol whorship]. Furthermore, after the Torah was given, Balaam the heathen prophet sacrificed a cow and ram which he learned from his craft of dark arts.” ( ןורכיזה רפס – ן"במרה תוגשה ינפמ םיכובנ הרומ תנגהל )In Rav Albo’s Sefer Haikarim we find that a Christian scholar asks him about sacrifices and these are his words, “a Christian scholar queried me...it deals with killing an animal, burning its meat and fat and throwing and sprinkling blood, all filthy acts...Regarding the description of the acts as ‘filthy’, i.e. incinerating the meat, fat and blood; if the command was given to transition the Jews from sacrificing to alien gods as Rambam writes, it is quite understandable, because the purpose is to purify the hearts and halt the Jews from alien worship, specifically offering sacrifices to alien gods.53 | Page Lifnei IverJerimiah said, ‘For neither did I speak with your forefathers nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning a burnt offering or a sacrifice. But this thing did I command them, saying: Obey Me ...’ (הכ ,גמ םירקיעה רפס)The Rambam’s words have been criticized numerous times and most notably by Ramban This criticism has already been rebuked with good taste and wisdom.Rabbi Abarbanel’s explanation of the Ramban’s questions: “The rational of Karbanot according to Rambam is that; ‘the worldwide custom practiced by all who worshipped their gods was to bring a variety of animals to the temples where they served their idols by prostrating themselves and sacrificing to them.’The Ramban wrote that Rambam’s words are rubbish! The Torah refers to sacrifices as ‘fire-offering to God’. For when Noah exited the ark he brought forth a sacrifice and the text says, ‘God smelled the sweet smell’. At that time there were no idol worshippers from which to distance themselves! ‘And Able himself brought forth a sacrifice from the first born of his flock and from the choicest...God listened to Able’, but there were no idol worshippers yet in the world. And, Balaam said, ‘I have setup seven altars and brought forth a cow and ram upon the altar’. His intention was not to reject bad beliefs of which he was not commanded. Moreover, the terms used to describe the karbanot are, ‘My offering’, ‘My bread’, ‘My fires’, ‘My satisfying aroma’, heaven forbid that its purpose is to denounce idol worship and correct the mistaken.The above is Ramban’s argument against Rambam. In the same article Ramban brings from the Sifri and at end of M’nachot, ‘Rabbi Simon ben Azai says, come and see what is written in the section of the karbanot; the terms ‘El’ and ‘Elohim’ are not used, just the four lettered name YHWH\Hashem , the unified name of mercy. This prevents one from arguing that karbanot are for God to consume, as the verse states, ‘Will I eat the flesh of bulls?’ I did not tell you to sacrifice to Me so you can say, ‘we will do His will’. You are not sacrificing because it is My will, it is rather because of your inner desire; as the verse states, ‘according to your will, you shall sacrifice’.54 | Page Lifnei IverThe Ramban sites the beginning of this quotation and leaves out the ending because it very much agrees with Rambam. And that which Rabbi Shimon Ben Azai notes, that with regard to the Karbanot only the name YHWH is employed, is consistent with Rambam; that the karbanot were to distance the people from idol worship and bring them close to worshipping the Honorable name, thus no name other than YHWH, the one unified name is used, as if to say, ‘we are sacrificing to Him and not alien gods.‘Likewise, we find in the chapter entitled ‘the forbidden’. ‘Thus says Tuvia ben M’tanyah in the name of Rav Yoshiahu; what does it mean, ‘you shall take care to offer to Me at its appointed time.’? The implication is, sacrifice to Me and NOT to another master. Who is the other master to whom they would sacrifice? To alien gods! All of these statements seem to be very consistent with Rambam’s opinion regarding scarifices. Moreover, note in another article in Vayikra Rabbah in Achrei Mot, the section referring to one who sacrifices outside the camp; Pinchas says in the name of Rav Levi, this is analogues to a prince who has become coarse and eats scavenged and treif animals. The King says, ‘Let him always eat at this table and he will refine himself’. Similarly, Israel went with fervor after alien gods and would offer forbidden sacrifices to the demons, troubles and calamities befell them. The blessed one be He said, ‘let them offer sacrifices before Me in the Tent of Meeting and they will separate themselves from the alien gods.’ Accordingly the law is, ‘any man who slaughters outside’. This article clearly demonstrates their understanding of the sacrifices to be aligned with Rambam’s.One cannot reasonably argue that this section of the Torah refers only to the peace offering because it mentions all of the sacrifices as the verse says, (ה ז"י ארקיו) ‘in order that the children of Israel should bring their offerings which they slaughter on the open field, and bring them to the Lord...and they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after which they stray....And you should say to them: Any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers who will sojourn among them, who offers up a burnt offering or [any other] sacrifice, but does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to make it [a sacrifice] to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people.’ The command not to eat blood immediately follows this, as the verse states, ‘any man of the House of Israel ... who eats any blood’- it is clear that this section of the Torah includes discussion of the burnt offering, the sacrificial offering and all sorts of sacrifices.55 | Page Lifnei IverMoreover, the verse does not say “and they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs” with regard to the blood alone, it is said in connection with the sacrifices. I am perplexed that Nachmanides had the Talmud wide open before him, how then did he not see these words which agree with Maimonides? There is clear and strong support for Maimonides opinion from the Torah, the prophets, scriptures and from the words of Our Rabbis in many places; Maimonides words are not rubbish, they are holy words!Adam and his sons sacrificed as they considered themselves worshipping God by burning the fat and kidneys of a sacrificed animal upon the altar. It was as if they sacrificed their own innards; the kidneys in which thought originates and the legs of the animal which represent their own hands and feet. And they threw the blood of the sacrifices instead of their own blood and acknowledged before God that it would be fitting to spill their own blood and burn their own body because of the sin they committed, if not for the kindness that God was willing to receive from them; the donation and the atonement of that sacrifice in that it's blood and soul were in place of their own. Nachmanides has also mentioned this.Noah also sacrificed for the same reason as Adam. In addition he saw that the generation of the flood was undisciplined and worshipped alien gods since the time of Enosh, as the verse states, ‘the land became corrupt before Elohim’. Therefore, he brought sacrifices to spiritually grow and distance himself from idol worship. And it is true that Balaam did not erect seven altars to distance himself from idol worship. The reason is explained in Bamidbar Rabbah (כ השרפ) ‘Why did he erect seven altars? To do as the seven most righteous individuals from the time of Adam until Moshe who built altars, sacrificed to God and were accepted.These are the great individuals who had their sacrifices received by God; Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moshe. And regarding that which Nachmanides said about how sacrifices are described in the Torah: ‘a fire and sweet smell to God’ and ‘the bread of God’, there is no doubt that Maimonides would reply in accordance with his understanding and rational; that the Torah uses common terminology regarding one who sacrifices and as in the verse, ‘And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs.’ And, do not question what it said that our forefathers acted improperly and did evil in the eyes of God and closed the great hall and extinguished the candles and the incense was not offered and the burnt offering was not raised they did not raise up the God of Israel. This complaint was not that they did not bring the burnt offering for its own sake, but to say that in their rebellion and in their inappropriateness the kings of Judah sinned with their souls56 | Page Lifnei Iverby following alien gods; they closed the doors of the hall, canceled the worship, it is as if they threw off the yoke of Torah and godly mitzvoth. In Midrash Shir Hashirim it says, ‘Behold, you are fair, my beloved; ‘It is as if God said to Israel, ‘you sustain Me’ as the verse states, ‘My sacrifice, My bread’, but does God eat and drink? It comes to teach us ‘to My fire’, you are sacrificing for My fire. Why then does it list ‘My bread’? It implies, even though you are sacrificing for My fires, I consider it as if it were for a human who sustains their father. This article demonstrates that God has no physical wants or needs for sacrifices and that which it states; ‘My fire’ is as the friend of the King of the Khazars answered when he was asked about the Torah’s text, i.e. ‘My sacrifice, My bread’ in that God is not of the physical realm. The friend answered that which it states ‘My fire’ is without doubt that the sacrifice was not to become greater rather when the roaring fire and flames consumed the fully burnt sacrifice, the literal term ‘fires’ was employed. Regarding this it has been said even though you bring it to the fire; I consider it like a person who sustains their father. And I am informing you of the opinion of the Rav on this matter when he said that the sacrifices were brought based on the second intention, but he did not say that they will not be according to the first intention; this is the terminology of the guide that there are dual intentions for sacrifices. The first intent is to have a human come close to their God and to subjugate themselves before Him, believe in His essence and unity and divine providence. This is the intent Adam and Noah had when they brought their sacrifice and this is the original intent which the Rav will not deny is found in the commandant for sacrifices. In fact this was their original intention. However, for the human wholesomeness clung in his soul and he according to his true beliefs and understandings, the Rav saw that the first intention was mentioned far more in the prayers, education and true knowledge and other mitzvot with this goal than what is found in the sacrificing of fat and blood and the burning of the animal’s body. Thus, the Rav said That God commanded the bringing of sacrifices to achieve cleaving to God and truly knowing Him because all people were used to bringing sacrifices and completely breaking away from that which is customary is difficult however, He commanded that we should do this to grow greater that by doing so they would reach the original intent; achieving Godly belief and cleaving to God and distancing themselves from idolatry.57 | Page Lifnei IverIf so, we have two intentions behind the Karbanot according to Maimonides; the first, the only one in agreement with Ramban and the second. God intended both of them with this mitzvah and when you comprehend the truth of the matter no doubts will remain with regard to Ramban’s questioning the Rambam. This is what I have seen fit to suggest on this matter.” (המדקה ארקיו לאנברבא)The Holy Alshich: “There is a further proof to this, and it is that which God commanded Moses at Mount Sinai; the place of receiving the Torah from on high, for God did not command sacrifices. When the children of Israel were commanded to sacrifice their sacrifices to God they were in the Sinai desert and not at Mount Sinai. This was after the sin of the golden calf and they were not at the mountain, they were in the desert. It was there they were commanded to bring sacrifices to repair their sin but this was not when they were at their height of sanctity when they stood at Mount Sinai. If so, we must ask which is greater: that which was stated at Sinai or that which came after? This is what the Prophet Jeremiah said. (בכ ז והימרי)” (ז ארקיו ,ךישלאה)Rabbi Meir Simcha from Dvinsk: “The intent, it is known that idol worship i.e. Pagan worship aimed to give pleasure and pay homage to the influential forms (according to their resemblance) by dedicating their lives, sacrificing their sons and daughters, congregating, scratching themselves with the purpose of amplifying the cruelty and vengefulness within the human soul; as the Prophet states, ‘Those who sacrifice man may kiss the calves.’ It was not until God enlightened the world with the light of His Torah in which He commands the mitzvoth to Israel for their benefit and for the purpose of enabling them to complete their essence, not for His fulfillment! ‘If you are righteous, what do you give Him?’ God has no desire for animal sacrifice and does not desire the sacrifice, rather He wishes only for man to perform kindness and to walk in His ways. Therefore, it is for you that ‘you shall slaughter it for your acceptance.’ One should proclaim, ‘it is my desire!’ So take note my sons, I am not instructing you in acts of cruelty, I am merely asking you to keep the mitzvoth and perform them. ‘Do not desecrate My holy name’, for His good name proves that He established and sustains life in the worlds and wants them to endure and does not want the destruction of his creations.” (רומא תשרפ ארקיו רפס המכח ךשמ)58 | Page Lifnei IverRabbi Tzadok HaCohen from Lublin: “The reasoning behind sacrifices was that the entity receiving the offering benefits from it. All Pagan worship derives energy and strength from the sacrifice, as a person does from food. And since they knew what it did for idol worship, their desire was to give the same to God. And upon this it says, ‘You desire the work of your hands.’ as our rabbis have said, (ב הווצת אמוחנת) God has allowed them, to perform this act as though they are benefiting Him. It is only they who truly need this benefit gain from it, but God does not! Do not say, ‘I will fulfill His will’... because as with all mitzvoth, they are for your desire, according to your desire and so is the sacrifice.” (במ הקספ קידצה תקדצ)Harav Yitzchak Habanstreit: “Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: ‘This is the law [torah] of the burnt offering, of the meal offering...’ This teaches that anyone who engages in Torah study is considered as though he sacrificed a burnt offering, a meal offering, a sin offering and a guilt offering. Rava said an objection to this interpretation: This verse states: ‘Of the burnt offering, of the meal offering.’ If the interpretation of Reish Lakish is correct, the verse should have written: ‘Burnt offering and meal offering.’ Rather, Rava says that the correct interpretation of this verse is: Anyone who engages in Torah study does not need to bring any of the offerings. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: ‘This is the law of the sin offering’, and: ‘This is the law of the guilt offering’? These verses teach that anyone who engages in studying the law of the sin offering is ascribed credit as though he sacrificed a sin offering. (י"ק תוחנמ)This quotation cries out for explanation, its entirety is difficult to comprehend. According to Raish Lakish one who studies Torah needs never to bring a sacrifice. This is questionable because we can infer that if one studies Torah they are free from performing all mitzvoth- this cannot be so as there is time for learning Torah and time for fulfilling Mitzvot. As the adage reads, ‘A time to do for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah.’ Why are sacrifices an exception to the rule? We have not found any other mitzvah which is not necessary to fulfill because of Torah learning? In the words of Rabbi Isaac here who says all who learn the Torah of sin offering it is as if they brought the sin offering. Why can’t we apply it to other mitzvot, for all who study the Torah of Tzizit it’s as if they wrapped themselves in Tzizit and all who learn the Torah of Tefillin it is as if they put on Tefillin [and other Mitzvoth] . and a general rule is; ‘study is not the primary goal, the act is.’ And another adage states, ‘It would have been better for one who learns but does not fulfill the mitzvoth to not have been born.’ And according to the words said to Ben Azai, ‘There is a type of scholar who expounds well and fulfills his own teachings well’ Thus, Raish Lakish’s words are puzzling.59 | Page Lifnei IverRabbi Yitzḥak says: The meal offering differs from other sacrifices in that the term ‘an individual [nefesh]’ is used with regard to it. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: the poor bring a meal offering and I will ascribe to them the credit as if they offer up their soul [nafsho] before Me. (ד"ק תוחנמ)The words of Rabbi Yitzchak need deep explanation and analysis. We can ask, one is indigent and brings the Mincha since they cannot afford a large animal, does it follow that they gain an advantage over the wealthy that brought from the choicest animal? Let the poor at best be equal to the rich, as the adage goes, “one does more one less...” but certainly not better than the rich person’s sacrifice. Furthermore, why should the sacrifice of the rich be lacking as it doesn't include the term soul/Nefesh? And, did we not learn the opposite from Cain and Able? The text is the king for it states, “and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering - But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn.” We see explicitly that God turned to Able who brought from the firstborn of his flock and the fattest, thus God turned to him and received his offering but as for Cain who brought from the fruits of the ground He did not turn and did not received his Mincha; how does Rabbi Yitzchak state the opposite?One must know well that God never desired for man to bring sacrifices, and never commanded about the Olah and Zevach and all who state that God wants sacrifices is mistaken. Although we find entire chapters in the Torah containing laws of sacrifice it is because at that point in time it was necessary, and there are reasons for this. Know that the commandments for sacrifices are not like other mitzvoth that were given in perpetuity, because the majority of the prophets lifted their voice like a shofar against sacrifices, even our great scholars, the Masters of the Talmud. For each and every mitzvah they made fences and guardrails, yet regarding the commandments for sacrifices they viewed those with indifference. Not only did they not add stringencies to them, they became lenient and looked at them with antipathy, as I will explain.All of the prophets, and consider the majority as all, lifted their voices like a shofar against sacrificing, and I will bring you quotations from their words, and you will clearly see that God does not want sacrifices.Samuel the prophet said: (ו"ט 'א לאומש),"Has the Lord (as much) desire in burnt offerings and peace-offerings, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than a peace-offering; to hearken (is better) than the fat of rams.”60 | Page Lifnei IverIsaiah said: ( יעשי יעשי וה א ) “Of what use are your many sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I am sated with the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle; and the blood of bulls and sheep and hegoats I do not want.” Furthermore he says, ( והיעשי ו"ס ) “Whoever slaughters an ox has slain a man; he who slaughters a lamb is as though he beheads a dog... “ Jeremiah said: ( ימרי יעשי וה ז ) “So says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; Add your burnt offerings upon your sacrifices and eat flesh. For neither did I speak with your forefathers nor did I command them on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning a burnt offering or a sacrifice. Hoshea said: (ו עשוה) “For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Amos said: ( סומע ה ) “I hate, I reject your festivals, and I will not smell [the sacrifices of] your assemblies. For if you offer up to Me burnt- offerings and your meal- offerings, I will not accept [them], and the peace offerings of your fattened cattle I will not regard. Take away from Me the din of your songs, and the music of your lutes I will not hear.” Michah said: (ו הכימ) “With what shall I come before the Lord, bow before the Most High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” King David said :(מ םילהת) “You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering; You dug ears for me; a burnt offering or a sin offering You did not request.” (נ םילהת) “I will not reprove you concerning your sacrifices, neither are your burnt offerings before Me constantly....Will I eat the flesh of bulls or do I drink the blood of he-goats?” Again in Psalms, (א"נ םילהת) “For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering. The wise Solomon states: (א"כ ילשמ) “Performing charity and justice is preferred by God to a sacrifice.” Many more similarly explicit verses can be found our Holy books but this sampling should suffice, now go and study them!"Our great scholars, made boundaries and guardrails for every mitzvah but with regard to sacrifices they approached it with antipathy. Not only did they not make stringencies, they were lenient. In addition to the above quotations, we find many more similar statements such as, (י"ק תוחנמ) I did not say to you: Sacrifice offerings to me, so that you will say: I will do His will, i.e., fulfill His needs, and He will do my will. You are not sacrificing to fulfill My will, i.e., My needs, but you are sacrificing to fulfill your will” (י תוכמ) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A song of the ascents to David: I rejoiced when they said to me, let us go to the house of God”? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I heard people who were saying in reference to me: When will this old man die,61 | Page Lifnei Iverand Solomon his son will come and build the Temple and we will ascend there for the pilgrimage Festival. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “For better is one day in your courtyard than one thousand” meaning, I prefer one day during which you engage in the study of Torah before Me than the one thousand burnt-offerings that your son Solomon is destined to sacrifice before Me upon the altar ( םיכלמ א ד , ג ). (ג הליגמ) “The angel said to Joshua: during the afternoon, you neglected the afternoon daily offering due to the impending battle, and now, at night, you have neglected Torah study, and I have come to rebuke you. Joshua said to him: For which of these sins have you come? He said to him: I have come now, indicating that neglecting Torah study is more severe than neglecting to sacrifice the daily offering. Joshua immediately rectifies as the verses states: “And Joshua lodged that night in the midst of the valley”, and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This teaches that he spent the night in the depths of halakha. And Rav Shmuel bar Unya said: Torah study is greater than sacrificing the daily offerings, as it is stated: “I have come now” ( יד , עשוהי ה). Thus, we must descend into the depths of the matter, why is the command for sacrificing different than all other mitzvoth?Sacrifices are unlike other mitzvoth in the Torah that were commanded for perpetuity, and it was never God's desire for the people to offer sacrifices. And that which the Torah commands on sacrifices is because at that juncture it was necessary and the Torah necessitated sacrifices for two reasons.The first reason is that the fraudulent belief was widespread among the nations who believed living creatures were deities. There were those who worshipped cattle, there were those who worshipped sheep and the like and animals were so grand and sanctified in their eyes that they sacrificed their children to their gods, a human was slaughtered for the animal! They even sacrificed to a picture or statue of an animal. The Egyptians believed in sheep as the verse states, (ו"מ תישארב) “All shepherds were despised by the Egyptians” likewise, (ח תומש) “But Moses said, ‘It is improper to do that, for we will sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to God our Lord. Will we sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us?’” Now when Israel resided amongst them they learned from the Egyptian deeds and clung to their gods, as Our Rabbis restate the Angels conversation with God, “these people are Idol worshippers and these people are Idol worshippers”, and God wanted to uproot from the world and Israel in particular, this fraudulent belief. Therefore God commanded when Israel exited Egypt for them to bring the Paschal sacrifice (ב"י תומש) “Speak to the entire community of Israel, saying, "On the tenth of this month, let each one take a lamb for each parental home, a lamb for each household.” And it is stated,62 | Page Lifnei Iver"Draw forth or buy for yourselves sheep” And Our Rabbis explain this to mean draw forth your hands from Egyptian idol worship. As the adage goes, (ז"ט תומש ר"דמ) "Draw forth or buy for yourselves sheep” likewise “All worshippers of graven images will be ashamed”. When God told Moses to slaughter the Paschal Lamb Moshe said, “God how can I do this? You know that sheep are the gods of the Egyptians?” For it says, “Will we sacrifice the deity of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not stone us?” God replied, “By your life, Israel is not leaving here until they slaughter the god of the Egyptians in front of them so that I may inform them that their god is nothing.” Look and see how strong the belief in sheep was, it was due to Moshe’s tarrying to come down from Mount Sinai a few hours (according to their calculations) that Israel was corrupted and made a statue of a calf. Therefore at that time it was necessary that the commandant of sacrifices demonstrate the world in general and specifically to Israel that no Godly substance at all resides in those gods. God's name was there by sanctified in the world by bringing the sacrifices, not because of the specific act but because the moment in time necessitated it, and it was a special order given for the particular situation.Accordingly we can explain the words of Our Rabbis, Rava and Rav Yitzchak we quoted above. The primary reason for sacrifices was only to show and prove to the world that there is no Godly substance in animals. And since the world had already come to this recognition and the sweat of the golden calf had left Israel, why then would we need to continue to spill blood? They say, really we do not need sacrifices anymore because the idea of their godliness had ceased and it is sufficient to acknowledge that there is nothing of substance in these idols, therefore anyone who simply learns the Torah of a sacrifice is ascribed as having actually sacrificed, as learning the Torah reveals one’s true beliefs and this is adequate. This is similar to the Article of Faith,” I fully believe there is no substance in animals” and therefore one who learns the Torah of sacrifices is likened to one who has actually sacrificed.The second reason for the commandant of sacrifices is, at that time the idea had spread to the nations that their gods desired human sacrifice, and there are many writings that establish human sacrifice as very widespread practice in the world. It is stated numerous times in the Torah “from your seed do not give over to Molech” and “They sacrificed their sons and daughters to their gods” and you will find in the prophets many texts like this as in ( והיעשי ז"נ ) “Under every green tree, who slaughter the children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks.”63 | Page Lifnei Iver(ג"י עשוה) “And now, they continue to sin, and they have made for themselves a molten image from their silver according to their pattern, deities, all of it the work of craftsmen; to them say, "Those who sacrifice man may kiss the calves.’” and (ו"ק םילהת) “And they mingled with the nations and learned their deeds...They slaughtered their sons and daughters to the demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters whom they slaughtered to the idols of Canaan, and the land became polluted with the blood. And Yiftach the Giladi sacrificed his only daughter” (א"י םיטפוש) “and Misha the king of Moab sacrificed his first born son” (ג 'ב םיכלמ). We find in our rabbi’s writings, (ט"ל ןירדהנס) There is an opinion that Misha intended to act for the sake of Heaven; when Misha the king of Moab placed his son on the altar he said, “Creator of the world, Abraham placed his son on the altar and did not slaughter him but I will indeed slaughter my son and raise him in a completely burnt offering.” But God wanted to prevent human sacrifice, because human sacrifice even for the sake of Heaven is strictly forbidden as is written “that which is the detested by God they do for their gods.” As brought in (ק"רפ תינעת) “That which I did not command and did not speak and did not come upon my heart” ( ימרי וה מ ) “That which I did not command” refers to the sacrificing of Misha the King of Moab’s son. As the text reads, “And he took his first-born who would reign after him, and brought him up for a burnt-offering on the wall. And there was great wrath upon Israel, and they withdrew from him and returned to the land.” “That which I did not speak” refers to the daughter of Yiftach the Giladi, “that which did not come upon my heart” refers to Isaac the son of Abraham. Thus, when the Creator saw the cruel tendencies which arose from the fraudulent beliefs that spread wildly like locusts, which passed young children to Molech and those precious in His eyes were burnt to dust and became repugnant incense, they sacrificed the suckling babies with their mother’s milk still upon their lips. This one brings his only daughter and that one slaughters his first born son upon the wall. God therefore gives the law to sacrifice cattle and sheep instead of human sacrifice, because at that time it was necessary, because it was better to lose an animal than a human. And this is the how to understand The Binding of Isaac, God envisioned a world, through Abraham Our Father, with the taking of an animal instead of a human. “And he took the ram and raised it for an Olah in place of his son” it was never God's intent for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as an Olah, nor to sacrifice animals, because God does not want the free spilling of innocent blood.But it was impossible to entirely prevent sacrifices at that juncture since the populace believed that the Creator needs to eat and assumed they would satiate His hunger with the offering.64 | Page Lifnei IverThey were far from understanding that God does not desire sacrifices, therefore the first step in this education was to take an animal instead of a human, the living in place of a speaking as is written, (ו"נ הבר תישארב) Abraham Our Father was shocked by God’s quizzical words; you first said, “Isaac will be your progeny” then seeming to contradict this You said, “take your son”. God replied, I did not say “slaughter” him, I said in loving terms, “raise him up”,. ( והימרי ט"י ) “It was never my intent to slaughter Isaac.” And it is true that Abraham could have brought a flour offering instead of his son necessitating no spillage of blood. He did not bring a flour offering instead of the ram for two reasons; A- because Abraham Our Father was unaware of the flour offering, this is stated specifically (ג ארקיו ר"דמ) Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai says, “God showed Abraham all of the atonements other than 1/10 of an Aifah.” B- It was too early in human development for the concept that a flour offering could replace a human sacrifice. This understanding was distant at that time because to their way of thinking a sacrifice without spilt blood was insufficient as they believed a sacrifice had to be one soul in place of another; one’s blood replaced with another’s; whereas a flour offering involves no soul and no blood. And they specifically knew that Cain brought fruit of the land and God did not turn to his offering, therefore. “With righteousness he was sacrificed and slaughtered a Ram”.Now those times with their strong belief in human sacrifice had passed so why were there still sacrifices? We understand they originally came to replace human sacrifice; however now that human sacrifice was no longer practiced why did we continue to employ the spilling of blood? This could be considered unnecessarily spilling blood thus violating the law not to murder. And if we cannot entirely do away with sacrifices, then sacrifices of flour mixed with oil could be brought without the need for spilling blood.Therefore, Rabbi Yitzchak Is correct when he asks, “How does the Mincha sacrifice differ from other sacrifices? In that the term “soul” is associated with it.” God said, “What is the way of a poor person? To bring a Mincha! I ascribe to them as if they brought their own soul before me.” The intent is that God sees greater value in the Mincha with flour than in any other sacrifice because no spilling of blood is involved and even though there is no soul given to God; it is as if one sacrificed their soul to God.65 | Page Lifnei IverSomeone will certainly ask that from Cain and Abel we learn the opposite, because we explicitly see that God turned His face to Abel's offering that was brought from the firstborn and fattest of his flock But to Cain who brought forth from the fruit of the ground, God did not turn His face and did not accept his offering. This question has already been asked in the Sefer HaIkarim (Rabbi Yosef Albo) (ו"ט 'פ 'ג רמאמ) Cain killed Abel for the following reason; Cain believed that Able should be killed because he brought from the firstborn of his flock and spilled the blood of a living creature, therefore Cain spilled his blood, “soul for a soul”. The reason God did not turn His face to Cain's offering and that he received further punishment for killing Abel is that Cain himself did not walk the golden path since he equated the value of an animal to that of a human. He felt a human was no greater than an animal - God therefore did not turn His face to Cain's offering. The truth is we do not have permission to spill blood of an animal yet we are not supposed to equate an animal with a human. Because even though we do not have permission to slaughter, eat or to cause them pain, we do however have permission to use them as “an animal was created to plough.”From the above we see that God's desire is not to have us bring sacrifices, and that which the Torah commands to bring sacrifices is because it was necessary at that time, as we explained. Thus, “Torah commandments” and “The Creator’s desire” are not always the same, and so it is with sacrifices. This idea is explicitly expressed in Our Rabbis’ words )ב"פ תוכמ ימלשורי( “Wisdom was asked, how the sinner should be punished? It answered; let sinners be chased by evil. They asked prophecy, how should a sinner be punished? It answered, let them bring a sacrifice and they will be atoned for. God was asked, what should a sinner’s punishment be? He responded, let them repent.” We find this idea explicitly expressed that the “Torah commandment” and God’s desire” with regard to sacrifices are not in agreement for the Torah says, “bring a sacrifice” and God says, “let them repent.” The reason is as I explained that at the time it was necessary even though it was not the Creator’s desire.” (ט"פרת .ףיש םולש 'ר תאצוה :אשיר .הוואתה תורבק רפס .קחצי ,טיירטשנבה ברה)66 | Page Lifnei IverRabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Wherever sacrifices are mentioned, God's name is written YHWH and not Elokim. Our Rabbis explain, (ה ,ב אתשרפ ,ארפסב יסוי 'ר רמאמ 'יע) “So as not to present an opening for the heretic to deny” the intent being, to eradicate any hint of the similarity to the sacrifices of idol worship (ח קרפ תישארב)Rav Abraham Isaac Kook: “Since the human will cannot be perfected through this desire (to offer animal sacrifice), surely the high court possesses the power to interchange plant offerings in place of animal sacrifice. This is why the final document says: “Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord.” Take note, it says “offering” and not “burntoffering”. As our sages say: “All of the sacrifices will be abolished except for the todah offering, because it is mostly a bread offering, and that will not be abolished.” (י קרפ רודה יכובנ)Harav Chayim Hirschinzon: “It is obvious that in these enlightened times there is no thought of pleasing God with ten thousand rivers of oil...one’s heart does not want to believe that in the time to come when the world is filled with the knowledge of God, the same idea of sacrifices which the simple people held when the Temple stood would still hold ... but it was not proper for Ezekiel to speak to the nation in his day about end times, in terms they could comprehend.” ( קלח שדוקב יכלמ ת"וש י ףיעס 'א ) In the letter sent to Rav Kook Rav Chayim writes, “Knowledge and understanding do not revert to the past- for one culture to consider an unrefined concept to be refined” (םיבתכמ תופילח ,ד קלח שדוקב יכלמ ת"וש)Summary: The commandment to offer sacrifices was given as a transitional step to break free from idol worship. At that time, there was no worship without sacrifice. The purpose of Karbanot was to distance the nation of Israel from worshiping alien gods.67 | Page Lifnei IverRegarding the custom of Kaparot, Rabbi Yosef Karo writes: “This custom should be prevented!” (ה"רת 'ס ח"וא ע"וש) In the first copy of the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim, the caption of chapter ה"רת read, “The custom of Kaparot on erev Yom Kippur is a foolish custom.” In later copies, they removed the words “is a foolish custom”.Even the Rashba was against this custom; “even though I have heard from very decent people in Ashkenaz who sit with us in the study hall, that all of the rabbis of their land do this on the eve of Yom Kippur and slaughter the goose or chicken...still I have disallowed this custom in our city.” (הצש ןמיס א קלח א"בשרה ת"וש). The Ramban and Rambam do not even mention the custom and it was not done in Yemen. (ה"רת ןמיס םייח חרוא ףסוי תיבב אבומכ)Rabbi Chayim Dovid HaLevi, the composer of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch M’kor Chayim: “why do we have to act cruelly to animals specifically on the eve of this holy day when there is no need? And then to slaughter them with no mercy, at the very moment that we stand and ask for mercy for ourselves from the living God? ( כ ,ג קלח ,בר ךל השע ת"וש )The Rashbam is known as the literalist exegete, even when others interpreted the text differently and derived laws from the text. His understanding of “the goat to Azazel in the desert- is literal; this means to send the goat alive to the other goats in the desert. This is similar to bird of the Leper; “He shall then send away the live bird into the open field.” ( ז ,די ארקיו ) to purify him from his impurity. Here as well, to purify Israel from their iniquities they sent the goat to the desert where animals graze.”(י ,זט ארקיו ם"בשר) Meaning that atonement derives specifically from the freeing of the live goat to wander amongst other goats and not to kill it on a cliff.“Shchitah needs to be explained as with each act of Shchitah there is undue pain given to an animal. The Torah only permits one to slaughter and eat on condition there is no cruelty in the act of slaughtering. However, in the day of judgement when we all seek mercy all day long and it is written, “God is merciful to all of his creations”, it is fitting for us not to act cruelly and slaughter living creatures.” דאסא י"רהמל הלעי הדוהי ת"וש וטק 'יס ד"וי ח"וא ,א"ח ז"ברה ת"וש .דסק 'יס ,ח"וא ,א"ח68 | Page Lifnei Iver69 | Page Lifnei Iver“The reason to prevent this behavior is to teach us the characteristic of mercy so we should not become cruel. Because cruelty can spread in the soul of an individual, as is known with butchers who slaughter large oxen and donkeys; amongst these people are those who spill blood and who sacrifice man and are very cruel. Because of this they said, (ב"כ ףד ןישודיק) ‘Even the best butcher is a partner with Amalek.’” ( במר בכ ,םירבד ן" )Rabbi Nachman of Breslav: “Rabbi Shimon wanted to teach himself Shchitah and asked the Rebbi. Our holy Rabbi advised him to learn to be a doctor instead. Rabbi Shimon said, ‘You want me to become a murderer?’ The Rebbi responded, ‘is it not murder when they take the chicken, who is a reincarnation of and old man, and grab him by the beard and slaughter him?’ It was then that he decided not to learn to become a Shochet.” ר"ב םהרבא 'רל רוא יבכוכ רפס ןתנ 'ר די בתכמ ,ןישטלוטמ ןמחנ "ז עציוורטמ הס ןמיס ,ל70 | Page Lifnei Iver“Happy are the righteous ones whose animal is as beloved to them as their own body. As we find with Jacob who said to Joseph, ‘Go now and see to your brothers' welfare and the welfare of the flocks’ thereby actualizing the adage, ‘the righteous know the soul of their animal’”. (תקח תשרפ הרותל ינועמש טוקלי)“Therefore you parents and teachers, into whose hands has been placed the spirit of the youth and their education, watch over them closely in this matter and teach them to honor and recognize living creatures, small and large as independent beings, for they too are God’s creations. So that they know animals have feelings as do they and feel pleasure and pain. And do not forget that even a youth with a noble heart who looks with delight at an injured locust, twisting on a pole or strings or an injured creature on the precipice between life and death, seeing this often will turn their heart to stone. As a result, they will not sense or feel when seeing something bad happen to their friend, a person like himself and they will pay no mind to the intensity of their pain.” ( ,ה ,ברוח רפס ,שריה ר"שר ב )The Purpose of AnimalsI have found that there is a major gap between what people say in the street and the words we hear from of our rabbis regarding the purpose of animals. I have heard false premises many times. Therefore, I have collated some of the words of our first Gaonim and Achronim regarding the purpose of animals.It should be pointed out that a few decisors understand the issue of Tzaar Baalei Chayim based solely on “a theory of belief” that animals were only created to serve man. However, many decisors- from the “Great Eagle” Maimonides to the great men of the last generation, amongst them Rabbi Eliyahu Koltzkin The head of the court in Lublin, object to this idea and explain that animals have been created for their own purpose.The core of this assumption, that animals are created to serve man, is solely “a theory of belief”. With regard to belief and knowledge, which constitute a basis for a theory of belief, Maimonides comments in three places, specifically in the Mishnah, “when there is a difference of opinion between the Chachamim in the theory of belief, which in practice has no ramifications, we do not say that any law is like so and so” (ה ,ג הטוס ,ם"במרל הנשמה שוריפ). “We have already mentioned numerous times that with regard to a difference of opinion between the Chachamim which is not relevant to an act but to theory alone, there is no place to decide according to either of them.”(ג ,'י ןירדהנס ,ם"במרל הנשמה שוריפ) “We have already explained that all theories which do not relate to a deed in which the Chachamim differ, we do not decide according to an individual party.” ( ,ם"במרל הנשמה שוריפ ד ,א תועובש )Therefore, when a scholar bases their decision solely on a theory of belief, their decision is weak and is clearly not binding; and when numerous decisors oppose them, the opinion is weakened even more. This is ever more so when we deal with a Torah commandment.Moreover, it is a general rule; “when in doubt over a Torah law we follow the stricter opinion.” How then can we rely upon a theory of belief? Certainly, we cannot be light headed with regard to the commandment of Tzaar Baalei Chayim which is integrally related with mercy and based upon it is how one experiences life; good or bad; as Our Rabbis say, “one who is merciful towards the living, heaven acts mercifully to them; but those who do not, heaven does not act mercifully towards them.” (ב ,אנק תבש)71 | Page Lifnei IverAnd rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beastsThe first argument heard from people is the quote from the book of Genesis, “and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts” (חכ ,א תישארב). This quotation is specious, because the text specifies that man’s nourishment is solely derived from vegetation and at the outset meat was forbidden from being eaten. How could their purpose be for consumption if meat was forbidden at the beginning of creation?Our scholars have asked and answered this question; the text is not granting permission to consume the animals rather it speaks of permitting occupational use as in the chapter entitled “Four forms of capital punishment” (ב ,טנ ןירדהנס) Our Rabbis explained, “God did not grant Adam permission to eat animals but He did allow him rule over them so they would obey him.“The Gemara raises an objection to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam, from the verse: “And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the land”. What, is it not stated with regard to consumption, i.e., doesn’t this verse mean that people may eat the meat of animals? The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to using animals for labor. The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? Yes! (ב ,טנ ןירדהנס)“and rule over the fish of the sea - you subjugate them but they do not subjugate you, likewise man is only permitted to eat vegetation and fruit from trees and is not to kill any being to eat its flesh. The verse, ‘and rule over the fish of the se and over the fowl of the sky...’ does not refer to permission to consume them but rather to perform work as stated in the chapter titled ‘Four forms of capital punishment’ (ב ,טנ ןירדהנס) This does not equate the fish of the sea with the birds in the sky; both which cannot perform work. For it is already addressed in the Gemara: in accordance with the statement of Raḥava; as Raḥava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha? And as Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma: If one threshed with geese and chickens, what is the halakha? Rashi explains: tie a wagon to a fish in the sea and a goat on the land and the two will pull it. Angels were roasting meat for Adam; we establish there we are referring to meat that descended from heaven. (א קרפ תישארב ם"אר יחרזמ)72 | Page Lifnei Iver“and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl... comes not to permit their consumption but permission to use them for labor.” (ב ,טנ ןירדהנס) (א קרפ תישארב םימכח יתפש) “That which is written, ‘rule over the fish’, refers to using animals for labor, as is written in the Talmud.” (א קרפ תישארב ינוקזח)“and rule over the fish of the sea. Rabbi Nissim wrote, since it says, ‘fish of the sea...’ one may suppose this verse permits man to consume them i.e. ‘with all of their desire they may eat meat.’ It is for this reason God had to say, even though you may rule over them, you may not consume them.”(א קרפ תישארב לאנברבא)“After the verse states, ‘and rule over the fish of the sea...’ it says, ‘God says, I have given you all of the grass of the field...’ and with these words eating the flesh of an animal was forbidden.” (א קרפ תישארב ךישלא)“Even though it is written ‘and Rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts’ - this refers to using them for work.” (א קרפ תישארב המימת הרות)“For what purpose was the first man given dominion over animals? It was not for consumption, but they were uncertain about labor and inquired about the birds’ ability to work. The Talmud answers: ‘Yes, they can!’” ( די ב ,טנ ןירדהנס תכסמ ה"מר )“With regard to Balaam the Angel asks, ‘Why did you strike your ass?’ The Angel then says ‘I have a sword in my hand and could have killed you’, therefore Balaam was ultimately killed by the sword. We have been warned; the Noachides were not given dominion over animals. Whereas Adam while not granted permission to eat meat was granted dominion over them; but Noachides who were permitted to consume meat were not granted dominion... this clearly indicates that as long as you are merciful, God will be merciful to you”. (ו"סרת ןמיס םידיסח רפס)“That which it states, ‘and rule over the fish of the sea ...’ specifically refers to the first man who was not granted permission to eat meat but was given dominion. However, Noachides who were allowed to eat meat were not given dominion, therefore Balaam was punished.” (הפ ,חנ דע תורודהו םדא שדח טוקלי)73 | Page Lifnei IverRegarding the topic of “Dominion”, Rabbi Kook writes, “there is no doubt to any intelligent and insightful person, the ‘dominion’ mentioned in the Torah is not referring to the rulership of a despot who is cruel to their nation and workers and whose sole intent is to derive their own personal gains and desires. Heaven forbid that such a revolting rule of slavery should be eternally imprinted upon God’s world! ‘He who is good to all and merciful towards all His creations’ and who said, ‘Let a world of kindness be built!’” (ג ,טפ םילהת) (םולשהו תונוחמצה ןוזח ,קוק ה"יארה)Harav Yitzchak Habanstreit: “If one is meritorious, they are granted dominion over animals. If they are not meritorious, animals have dominion over them; and this is stated in Genesis, ‘And your fear and your dread shall be upon all the beasts of the earth...’ and in tractate Shabbat 151, ‘An animal does not rule over a human until the human appears to the animal as one of its own’. The verse in Psalms states, ‘But man does not repose in his glory; he is compared to the silenced animals.’ this implies that as long as one follows the will of God, animals do not rule over them. Isaiah prophesizes about the future, ‘And an infant shall play over the hole of an old snake and over the eyeball of an adder, a weaned child shall stretch forth his hand. They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed.’ This goodness will come about from a generation that is filled with knowledge and people who do not consume meat because in this future time even carnivorous animals will no longer tear into their prey, as the lion and cattle will eat straw, as written, ‘And a wolf shall live with a lamb, and a leopard shall lie with a kid; and a calf and a lion cub and a fatling [shall lie] together, and a small child shall lead them. And a cow and a bear shall graze together, their children shall lie; and a lion, like cattle, shall eat straw.’ If there is no full proof of this there is at the very least a hint to it in the book of Daniel when he was in the lion’s den and God closed the mouths of the lions and they did not harm him. It was because Daniel did not eat the flesh of an animal, thus the animal did not eat his flesh. As specifically stated in Daniel, he tells the chief officer not to give him ‘King’s food’ which included meat. Rather, he requested seeds which is vegetation and does not involve spillage of blood. It is for a good reason that he is called, ’Daniel, the man of hidden charms’.Let us return to the previous topic, Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was a Vegetarian and did not eat meat. He ate only grains, vegetation and fruit from trees. This is stated in the Talmud (ד"כ תינעת) ‘The entire world is sustained by the merit of My son Ḥanina ben Dosa,74 | Page Lifnei Iverand yet for Ḥanina, my son, a kav of carobs, a very small amount of inferior food, is sufficient to sustain him for an entire week, from one Shabbat to the next Shabbat.‘From here we see that Rav Chanina ben Dosa did not spill innocent blood and did not satisfy himself by destroying others. He was satisfied with carob, which is but dew from heaven and fat of the land. Consistent with his philosophy, ( תובא י ,ג ) “One who is pleasing to His תוירבה\creations, is pleasing to G‐d.” The inference from the term ‘creations’ instead of ‘people’, is all beings.Now, the words of the Talmud are not difficult to understand, how did Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa endanger himself by relying upon a miracle when in great and impending danger? Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa never killed or hurt any living creature. He was certain the African wild ass would not harm him since he knew that it is not the wild ass that can kill but the sin, and even though it was possible he was guilty of some sin; ‘for there is no righteous person upon earth who has done good but not sinned’. Moreover, the Satan accuses at a time of danger and specifically against righteous people whom God judges strictly. But regarding cruelty and the spillage of blood he was certain he was free of iniquity, and he knew that punishment is meted out measure for measure; and since he reflected upon his actions with regard to Tzar Baalei Chayim and spilling their blood and found no iniquity, he did not fear the African wild ass, because it is not the wild ass that kills, it is the sin.” (ט"פרת .ףיש םולש 'ר תאצוה :אשיר .הוואתה תורבק רפס .קחצי ,טיירטשנבה ברה)Harav Moshe Chafetz ben Gershom: “It makes good sense to accept the idea that He who with kindness supervises all humans, would also supervise all of His creations; and if not, why did He create the numerous and varied animals, birds and insects? Were they all created for man’s benefit? This would be a foolish idea! Many creatures have an abhorrence for humans and are a bother and some are of no consequence to man. A wholesome individual is satisfied with a little bread and water and has no need to hunt animals for their enjoyment, which is the opposite of what was intended for our souls.” (חנ תשרפ ,תבשחמ תכאלמ)75 | Page Lifnei IverIn Jewish law not only do humans stand trial and bear punishment, animals do as well. We see in Our Rabbis’ words, a philosophy espousing that animals bear responsibility for their actions. The Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin requires having 23 judges for a court (a small Sanhedrin) to execute capital punishment upon a guilty animal.“A capital court is constituted with no less than 23 people and is termed ‘the small Sanhedrin’, whether judging a human or an animal; therefore, we do not judge an ox to be stoned or an animal that has been party to bestiality with less than 23. Even a lion, bear, leopard or cheetah that are domesticated and have owners and have killed, they are judged with 23. But a snake that has killed, one can kill it.” ( ג ,ה ןירדהנס תוכלה, ם"במר)Explicit and practical references that can be applied and used in our world are found in Rambam they are as follows:“I consider therefore the following opinion as most correct according to the teaching of the Torah, and best in accordance with the results of philosophy; namely, that the Universe does not exist for man's sake, but that each being exists for its own sake...As you study the book which leads all who want to be led to the truth, and is therefore called Torah (Law or Instruction), from the beginning of the account of the Creation to its end, and you will comprehend the opinion which we attempt to expound. For no part of the creation is described as being in existence for the sake of another part...You must not be misled by what is stated of the stars [that God put them in the firmament of the heavens] to give light upon the earth, and to rule by day and by night. You might perhaps think that here the purpose of their creation is described. This is not the case; we are only informed of the nature of the stars, which God desired to create with such properties that they should be able to give light and to rule. In a similar manner we must understand the passage, "And have dominion over the fish of the sea" (חכ, א תישארב). Here it is not meant to say that man was created for this purpose, but only that this was the nature which God gave man.76 | Page Lifnei IverThus some citizen may imagine that it was the purpose of the king to protect his house by night from thieves. To some extent this is correct: for when his house is protected, and he has derived this benefit through the king whom the country had chosen, it appears as if it were the purpose of the king to protect the house of that man.In this manner we must explain every verse, the literal meaning of which would imply that something superior was created for the sake of something inferior, viz., that it is part of the nature of the superior thing [to influence the inferior in a certain manner]. We remain firm in our belief that the whole universe was created in accordance with the will of God, and we do not inquire for any other cause or object.Just as we do not ask what is the purpose of God's existence, so we do not ask what was the object of His will, which is the cause of the existence of all things with their present properties, both those that have been created and those that will be created.This must be our belief when we have a correct knowledge of our own self, and comprehend the true nature of everything; we must be content, and not trouble our mind with seeking a certain final cause for things that have none, or have no other final cause but their own existence, which depends on the Will of God, or, if you prefer, on the Divine Wisdom.” (גי,ג םיכובנ הרומ)In a different chapter Rambam writes, “Know that the difficulties which lead to confusion in the question what is the purpose of the Universe or of any of its parts, man has an erroneous idea of himself, and believes that the whole world exists only for his sake.” (הכ ,ג םיכובנ הרומ ם"במר)77 | Page Lifnei IverThe writings of the Gaonim and Chachamim regarding the story of Rabbi Judah HaNasiRebbi’s suffering was the result of an incident which he brought upon himself and through a subsequent event his suffering went away. What was the first incident to bring on his suffering? A calf was being led to slaughter. It hung its head on the corner of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s garment and was weeping. Rebbi said to it, “Go, as you were created for this purpose.” It was said in Heaven: “Since he was not compassionate toward the calf, let afflictions come upon him.”The incident to remove the suffering is that one day, the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was sweeping his house. There were young weasels lying about, and she was in the process of sweeping them out. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: “Let them be, as it is written: ‘The Lord is good to all; and His mercies are over all His works’”. They said in Heaven: “Since he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him, and he was relieved of his suffering.” ( הפ אעיצמ , א אבב ילבב)Regarding Rebbi Yehuda the HaNasi’s suffering, the head of the Lublin Court, Harav Gaon Eliyahu Kaltzkin states: Our holy Rabbi was punished because he said “ Go, as you were created for this purpose”, as if the calf was only created for man's consumption and desire and not for its own sake.(דל ןמיס ,רפש ירמא ת"וש)The Gaonim were the heads of Yeshivot in Sura and Pumpadita in Babylonia and in Israel. They were the highest ranking law makers after the completion of the Talmud. Rav Shrira Gaon, Rav Hai Gaon and the students of the Gaonim Rav Yitzchak Alfasi wrote on this incident concerning Rebbi Yehuda the HaNasi and the suffering he endured after saying those words to the calf; “Clearly, it was not created for slaughter”. ( שת העש ןמיס ,יבכרה ,םינואגה תובו )Harav Yitzchak Habanstreit : Let us look deeply and understand the individual who suffers, difficult suffering such as sickness and afflictions causing one to shout in pain. Sometimes, those who visit the sick person ask; how can it be that the Master of the Universe who is merciful and kind does not have mercy on the screams of this poor person? How can The Healer of the sick listen to the cries of this poor person and not act mercifully to heal them? The voice of his suffering is heard in heaven! But where is the compassion and a measure of mercy?78 | Page Lifnei IverIf we look at the deeds of humans with an open eye and understand the characteristics of God it will not be difficult to see that a general rule is that good and bad do not come from God, rather man causes it all himself. All is placed in man's hand, be it bad or good. As a result of his misdeeds he brings unto himself evil. Conversely, by doing good they bring good to themselves as is written in the verse, (ג הכיא) ‘by the command of the Most High, neither good nor evil come. Why should a living man complain?’ The intent is that bad and good do not come from God but emanate from man himself. But if one would reflect on their misdeeds, they’d realize that they bring suffering upon themselves and it is incumbent upon them to consider the sin and the reason bad has befallen them. They must focus their heart to understand what brought about the difficulties as the verse states, (ה תוכרב) ‘If a person sees that suffering has befallen him, he should examine his actions.’ i.e. let one investigate and analyze to determine which sin has brought upon him this suffering. Then when one realizes which sin they committed they can then return to God in wholesome repentance. Only then can the sick heal from their illness and return to their original state, as the adage relates, (א"מ םירדנ) ‘The sick do not recover from their illness until all their sins are atoned.’But, how can a person know which sin caused bad to befall them? One should therefore note this general rule stated by our Chachamim, (צ ןירדהנס) ‘according to how one judges others, heaven judges them’. Thus, if we see that difficulties come to one without mercy or kindness, this is measure for measure; since they act with cruelty towards others who are weaker than them and have no mercy towards them nor heed their shouts and cries. One must therefore examine their misdeeds to see if there is an analogue to their misfortune.This concept will assist us in understanding the incident with Rabbi Yehudah (ה"פ אעיצמ אבב). This event brought upon him suffering and as the result of another event his suffering went away. One time a calf was being led to slaughter and tucked its head under Rebbi’s coat and cried to him as if saying, ‘Rebbi! Save me from them!’ But Rebbi pushed the calf79 | Page Lifnei Iverand said to it, ‘For this you have been created.’ Haven said, ‘Since he was not merciful to the calf, let suffering befall him.’ and Rebbi suffered for thirteen years. And because of the second incident the suffering ceased. One day his maid was cleaning the house and when sweeping she came upon weasels and wanted to throw them outside. Rebbi said, ‘Let them be’, quoting the verse, ‘God is merciful upon all of His creations.’ They said above in heaven, ‘since he was merciful on creations, let us also be merciful to him.’ Only then did Rebbi’s thirteen yearlong pain heal. Let this incident be the strong basis upon which this topic rests and open your eyes to see! Who is greater than our holy Rebbi? From the days of Moshe until Rebbi we do not find anyone who merited sitting at two tables. And if this befell a great man like our holy Rebbi, what can we expect? During those 13 years Rebbi prayed to God and poured forth requests before Him. Still, they did not help at all until he addressed that specific sin for which he was smitten. It was only when he repented and repaired the sin and that specific characteristic by reversing his actions of pushing the calf towards slaughter and not having mercy upon it and not hearing its cry and not saving it from those coming after it. Therefore, by necessity the repentance must be in kind, specifically by acting mercifully. Therefore, he was not healed until he had mercy upon creations and saved the weasels from the one chasing them and recited the verse, ‘He is merciful towards all His creations.’ Thus we see, ‘One who is merciful towards His creations, heaven is merciful towards them.’I have found a story from a wise person who personally witnessed it. When they took a young calf from its mother, the mother cried with a bitter voice as if she was asking them to bring its precious baby back and nothing calmed her. The cruel butcher, ‘the partner of Amalek’ murdered the calf, skinned it and hung its hide on the wall of the dairy barn so it would dry quickly. When the mother cow saw the skin she recognized it as the fruit of her womb and gave out a bellow that was truly ‘long and bitter’. The unfortunate mother whose hope was lost forever and had no comfort; she approached the wall and licked the hide of her child, kissed it and groaned, licked it and cried as long as the hide was hanging.80 | Page Lifnei Iver