Pet/s

JRJ, Summer 1988, 79-80

A BLESSING FOR PETS

Question: The local animal pound had a community celebration in which the rabbi was asked to participate along with other clergy. Is there a Jewish approach to blessing animals? (Rabbi Robert A. Raab, Wantagh, New York)

Answer: The general Jewish attitude toward pets has been dis- cussed in the responsum “ Kaddishfor a Pet” (W. Jacob, Con- temporary American Reform Responsa, #124.)

One can see from the literature that the exaggerated American feeling for pets is a contemporary phenomenon and has no basis in our Jewish past. Rabbinic literature does mention cats and dogs, but mostly for very specific tasks rather than as pets.

There is, of course, respect for animals, in general, as living beings created by God. One of the Noahide Commandments, which are incumbent upon all human beings, not just Jews, pro- hibits cruelty to animals (Gen. Rabba, Noah 34:8). In addition, the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue insists that animals rest on the Sabbath along with their masters (Ex. 20:9; Deut. 5:14). The general theme of kindness toward animals appears with some frequency in the rabbinic literature, sometimes in connection with the Noah story and sometimes in general discussion (Git. 62a; Ex. Rabba, Shemot 2:2; Mechilta, Yitro 1; Tanchuma, Noah 17a ff, etc.).

In some instances the care for animals was raised to a level akin to that of human beings. So the Bible stated that oxen should not be muzzled while treading out corn (Deut. 25:4). This line of thought is then continued in the later rabbinic literature (B.K. 54a; B.M. 87b, 88b, 90b; Yad, Hil. Zechirut 12; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 338, 339). Even when man can exercise his dominance over animals — something which Jewish tradition felt had been ordained from the very beginning of creation — he must refrain from cruelty. So, cows or sheep are not to be slaughtered with their young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), or a mother bird along with its young (Deut. 22:6). This thought is also developed further in the subsequent rabbinic literature (Ber. 33b; Chul. 78a ff, 81b, 82a, 85a, 138b, 139b, 140a, 141a; Yad, Hil. Shechita 12, 13; Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed 3:48, etc.). The medieval Chinuch felt that the prohibition against yoking an ox and a don- key together to pull a plow (Deut. 22:10) was intended to spare the animals difficulties which would arise from this (Sefer Hachi- nuch, Mitzvot #249). Sick or injured animals were to be healed if that was possible (Shab. 144a; Ker, 22a; Tosefta, M.K. 2:11).

In each of these instances the literature has dealt with animals that are useful to man rather than simply pets.

Our tradition has also dealt with the wonder of seeing an unusu- ally beautiful or exotic animal, the like of which had not been seen before. A special benediction is to be recited: “Baruch ata, Adonai Eloheinu, Melech ha’olam, shekacha lo be’olamo. Blessed are You, O Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who has such things in His world.” Such a prayer, along with an appropriate preamble, which deals with the place of animals in the Jewish tradition, would probably be appropriate on an occasion akin to the one you have mentioned.

Walter Jacob, Chair CCAR Responsa Committee

CURR 165-169

BURIAL OF A PET ANIMAL

A young husband and his pet dog were killed in an accident. His widow wanted to inter the dog with him or in a separate grave near him. Is it permissible to bury a dog in a Jewish cemetery? (From P.S.B.)

No question of this sort was ever asked in any of the traditional Jewish legal literature; and it is certain that if such a question had been asked, it would have been dismissed with derision. However, the fact that such a question is asked and perhaps will be asked frequently nowadays, indicates a widespread change of sentiment which deserves, for that reason alone, serious consideration.

In the last few centuries in the western world, there has spread through all branches of the population a great love for dogs. They are deeply beloved as comrades or as recipients for genuine affection. There are series of moving pictures in which the central hero is a dog. There are numerous novels in which the leading character is a dog. The American novelist, John Steinbeck, in his recent book of travels around America, calls his book Travels with Charley and Charley is his dog. Because of this great modern affection for dogs there are hundreds of enthusiastic breed-ing societies, a great development of medical care for dogs, special dogcaterers who bring the balanced dog food daily, and special cemeteries for their burial. I do not know what the rules are with regard to burying them in general human cemeteries, but it is absolutely certain that in states where such burial would be permitted, many people would bury dogs in their family plots.

But clearly the mere interment of a dog will not satisfy the strong modern emotion. There are ministers of certain denomination who give public blessings to hunting dogs. It is therefore to be assumed that certain ministers may well have been asked, or have even acceded to a request to officiate with a religious service at the burial of a dog. How could they logically refuse if they bless dogs at the beginning of their hunting enterprises? What, then, would we as rabbis do if we were actually asked to officiate at the burial of a dog? All this could be a possible consequence of our permitting their burial in a human cemetery.

Obviously this present affection for dogs represents a drastic reversal of the sentiments of the biblical and the Jewish past. When one considers the biblical references to dogs, one realizes that they all voice an utter contempt for that animal. In Deuteronomy 23:19, in discussing disgusting things which may not be brought into the house of God, there is coupled in one sentence, “the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog.” When Goliath wanted to indicate his contempt of David, he said: “Am I, then, a dog that you come against me with sticks?” (I Samuel 17:43). Hazael says to Elijah (II Kings 8:13): “Is thy servant a dog?” How low a dog was reckoned can be seen when Ecclesiastes sought to express how utterly worthless was a dead hero (9:4): “Even a living dog is better than a dead lion.”

Why this strong anti-dog sentiment pervades Scripture deserves serious study, but whatever its real cause is, it is clear that there is not a single pet dog in all of Scripture. The dogs are looked upon, as were the wild dogs in Constantinople, as nasty, scavenging beasts.

Upon this basis, there are certain decisions in Jewish law with regard to dogs. The Mishnah (Baba Kama 7:7) says definitely that a man shall not raise a dog unless he keeps it chained. The later scholars in the Talmud and in the Shulchan Aruch modify the text and speak of “an evil dog”; I suppose we would say “a fierce dog.” So the Talmud in b. Shabbas 63a says: “He who raises an evil dog in his house, keeps mercy from his household and breaks the reverence for God.” Also in Baba Kama 80a, the subject is taken up. Rabbi Ismael suggests some types of dogs that can be raised. It is not clear from Rashi whether he means village dogs, where they can run free, or small dogs. Maimonides (Yad Hilchoth Nizke Mammon V, 9) says that dogs may not be raised unless kept chained, and adds (on the basis of Baba Kama 82a) that the rabbis said, “Cursed is the man who raises dogs, because they do damage.” So the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpot 409) codifies it as a law that it is prohibited to raise dogs unless kept chained. But Isserles (showing, perhaps, the beginning of a change of sentiment) says that the people nowadays raise dogs anyhow, and that we might as well bow to their actions. In other words, he implies that the prohibition has become passe.

Therefore, it is clear that there is a powerful clash of opposite sentiment between modern feelings towards dogs and that of the traditional past.

To the aversion for dogs in the past, we must add the sense of reverential honor given to the cemetery, which was considered bes olom, “the house of eternity,” and which was in the care of the most devoted men of the medieval community, “The Holy Society,” the Chevra Kadisha. It is, then, clear that the very suggestion of burying a dog in the sacred cemetery would bring nothing but horror. Therefore no such discussion is found in any of the literature.

We must, therefore, conclude the following: There is no explicit legal prohibition against burying a pet in the cemetery because the question did not come up. The question could not come up because the very thought would be too horrid to contemplate. To them the dogs were too contemptible and the cemetery too holy. Therefore, while modern sentiment has changed perhaps for the better with re gard to these animals, the whole mood of tradition is against such action.

NARR 127-128

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

81. A Blessing for Pets

QUESTION: The local animal pound had a community celebration in which the Rabbi was asked to participate along with other clergy. Is there a Jewish approach to blessing animals? (Rabbi Robert A. Raab, Wantagh NY)ANSWER: The general Jewish attitude toward pets has been discussed in responsum “Kaddish for a Pet” (W. Jacob Contemporary American Reform Responsa #124). One can see from the literature that the exaggerated American feeling for pets is a contemporary phenomena and has no basis in our Jewish past. Rabbinic literature does mention cats and dogs but mostly for very specific tasks rather than as pets. There is, of course, respect for animals, in general, as living beings created by God and so one of the Noahide commandments which are incumbent upon all human beings, not just Jews, prohibits cruelty to animals (Midrash Rabbah Noah 34.8). In addition the Sabbath commandment of the Decalogue insisted that animals rest on the Sabbath along with their masters (20.9; Deut 5.14). Kindness toward animals appears with some frequency in the literature, in connection with the Noah story and in general discussions (Git 62a; Midrash Rabbah Shemot 2.2; Mekhilta Yitro 1 Tanhuma Noah 17a ff etc). In some instances the care for animals was raised to a level akin to that for human beings. So the Bible stated that ox should not be muzzled while treading out corn (Deut 25.4). This line of thought is then continued in the later rabbinic literature (B K 54a; B M 87b, 88b, 90b,9a; Yad Hil Zekhirut 12; Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 338; 339). Even when man could exercise his dominance over animals, something which Jewish tradition felt had been ordained from the very beginning of creation, he must refrain from cruelty. So, cows or sheep are not to be slaughtered with their young on the same day (Lev 22.28) or a mother bird along with its young (Deut 22.6). This thought is also developed further in the subsequent rabbinic literature (Ber 33b; Hul 78a ff, 81b, 82a, 85a, 138b, 139b, 140a, 141a; Yad Hil Shehitah 12, 13; Maimonides Guide to the Perplexed 3.48, etc). The medieval work Sefer Hahinukh felt that the prohibition against yoking an ox and a donkey together to pull a plow (Deut 22.10) intended to spare the animals from difficulties (Sefer Hahinukh Mitzvah #249). Sick or injured animals were to be healed if that was possible (Shab 144a; Ker 22a; Tos M K 2.11). In each of these instances the literature has dealt with animals which are useful not pets. Our tradition has also dealt with the wonder of seeing an unusually beautiful or exotic animal, the like of which had not been before. A special benediction is to be recited “Barukh atah adonai elohenu melekh haolam shekakhah lo beolamo” – Blessed are You O Lord, our God, Sovreign of the Universe who has such things in the world”. Such a prayer, along with a preamble, which deals with the place of animals in the Jewish tradition would probably be appropriate on an occasion akin to the one you have mentioned.June 1987

YOREH DEAH

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 391-393

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

240. Responsibility Toward Pets

QUESTION: An elderly parent died and left, along with household items, a pet cat to which she was very much attached. His children wish to know whether they are responsible for the care of this cat, or whether they can give it away, or perhaps put it to sleep. (Laura Ellman, Kansas City MO)ANSWER: The prohibition against cruelty to animals goes back to Biblical times and has been reinforced often in our tradition. It was permissible to use animals for work as long as they were not treated cruelly, to sacrifice them, but again in a manner that did not in any way prolong their suffering and, of course, to consume them if the animal was slaughtered in an appropriate way and fit into the system of kashrut. Almost nothing has been said of the pets in the Jewish tradition and so virtually all animals which were akin to our pets such as dogs were used as guard or watch animals. Dogs were traditionally considered unclean, mainly through their contact with corpses (Lev 22.4). The dog was seen primarily as a scavenger, as already shown in Exodus. Cattle which had been killed by wild animals were thrown to the dogs. Elsewhere, male pagan religious prostitutes were referred to as “dogs” (Deut 23.18). When the Talmud wished to be derogatory about Goliath, it provided him with a genealogy in which he was called the son of a loose woman who had intercourse with dogs (Sotah 42b; Rashi and commentaries). Only in the post-Biblical book, Tobit, were there some favorable references to a dog (5.16, 11.4). The Mishnaic and Talmudic literature understood the danger from certain kinds of dogs which were indistinguishable from wolves, especially in the evening (M Kil 8.6, 1.6; Ber 9b). A dog was considered among the poorest of all creatures and often had to subsist entirely on scraps and as a scavenger (Shab 155b). Dogs used in sheep herding were viewed more favorably (M Hul 1.8). On the other hand, the Talmud appreciated the atmosphere of safety created by dogs and suggested that one should not live in a town where the barking of dogs was not heard (Pes 113a; Betza 15a). The potential danger of rabies was also recognized (Hul 158b; Yoma 83b). Dogs were to be chained as they were considered dangerous (B K 79b; Yad Hil Nizqei Mamon 5.9; Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 409). It was considered sinful to maintain a dog that was known to bite people (B K 15b), but one could let a dog run loose in harbor cities, presumably as an additional safeguard against lawless seamen (B K 83a). Enmity between human beings and dogs was mentioned in at least one passage of the Jerusalem Talmud (Ber 8.8). Hunting dogs were not mentioned in the Talmud but later by Rashi in his commentary (B K 80a). Dogs were sometimes kept as pets, and the Talmud in one place mentioned that if a woman spent her time entirely with lap dogs or on games (possibly chess), this was grounds for divorce (Ket 61b). Although cats were certainly known to ancient Israelites, after all they were considered sacred animals in Egypt, there was no mention of the domesticated cat in the Bible. The single reference in the post-Biblical book of Baruch (6.22) may refer to a wild cat. The Talmud considered cats as loyal (Hor 13a) in contrast to the dog. The principle purpose of keeping cats was to rid a building of mice (B K 80a) as well as other small animals (San 105a), including snakes (Pes 112b; Shab 128b). They were, of course, dangerous to chickens and domesticated birds, as well as young lambs and goats (Hul 52b, 53a; Ket 41b). Cats also endangered babies (B K 80b). The limited intelligence of cats was blamed on their consumption of mice, which were supposed to decrease memory (Hor 13a). In nineteenth century Russia, a folk myth warned Yeshivah students from playing with cats because that might diminish their memory. Cats were, on the other hand, seen as a model of cleanliness and modesty (Er 100b). Once cats established themselves in a house, they rarely left and remained very loyal (Shab 51b). Sometimes their fur was used as it was particularly soft (B K 80b). In the halakhah there is nothing that deals with the kind of special role which various pets have played in modern Western European and American life. As we can see, the care of animals was always an important part of our tradition. We would, therefore, say that the heirs are duty bound to either care for this animal which was important to their father or to find an appropriate home for it. They may certainly not put it to sleep or abandon it.February 1991

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.