Canine Hara: May Animals Be Hurt for Human Benefit?

Adapted from the writings of Dayan Yitzhak Grossman

May 16, 2024

The Guardian reports:

Kristi Noem, a strong contender to be named running mate to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has…admitted to killing a dog.

“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old,” the South Dakota governor writes in a new book, adding that the dog, a female, had an “aggressive personality” and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant…

She includes her story about the ill-fated Cricket, she says, to illustrate her willingness, in politics as well as in South Dakota life, to do anything “difficult, messy and ugly” if it simply needs to be done…

On the way home after a pheasant hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, “grabbing one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another.” Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like “a trained assassin”…

“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with,” and “less than worthless…as a hunting dog.” “At that moment,” Noem says, “I realized I had to put her down.”

Noem, who also represented her state in Congress for eight years, got her gun, then led Cricket to a gravel pit. “It was not a pleasant job,” she writes, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done.”

Incredibly, Noem’s tale of slaughter is not finished. Her family, she writes, also owned a male goat that was “nasty and mean”, because it had not been castrated. Furthermore, the goat smelled “disgusting, musky, rancid” and “loved to chase” Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes.

Noem decided to kill the unnamed goat the same way she had just killed Cricket the dog. But though she “dragged him to a gravel pit,” the goat jumped as she shot and therefore survived the wound. Noem says she went back to her truck, retrieved another shell, then “hurried back to the gravel pit and put him down.”[1]

Noem has been harshly criticized for her killing of Cricket,[2] but she remains unrepentant:

This was a dangerous animal that was killing livestock and attacking people. And I had little children at the time, our operation had many kids running around and people in interaction with the public. And I made a difficult choice…Would you make a choice between your children or a dangerous animal? And I think I would ask everybody in the country to put themselves in that situation…As a mom, I made a choice between protecting my children, and protecting them from a dangerous animal that was killing livestock and attacking people…[3]

R’ Yair Hoffman agrees with Noem’s critics:

Americans were, of course, horrified. And justifiably so.

There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, the Talmud in Shabbos enjoins us to emulate the Creator. Just as He is merciful, you, too, must be merciful. Just as He is gracious, so, too, must you be gracious. Shooting your dog is neither merciful nor gracious. There are other verses as well. In Ashrei we recite three times daily, “And His mercy extends upon all His creations.” This is not reflecting Divine mercy. She could have given the dog away or she could have sent the dog for further training.

Rav Hoffman proceeds to discuss various sources in our mesorah regarding the permissibility of raising dogs in the first place, and he ultimately concludes:

A further point is that there is a mitzvah to express gratitude—hakaras hatov—to dogs, because they did not bark when we exited Mitzrayim. The gentile world should likewise express such gratitude, because of the friendship that dogs extend toward people. If former president Trump wishes to pick a candidate for VP, he should find someone else.[4]

The obvious rejoinder to the charge that killing a dog that had just killed a number of chickens apparently out of sheer bloodlust was “neither merciful nor gracious” is, neither merciful nor gracious to whom?

Indeed, R’ Shlomo Luria (the Maharshal), discussing a case quite similar to ours, unequivocally endorses the killing of a dog that is causing harm:

One who has a dog in his home that is causing him harm and ruining the food in his home, even if it does not bite, is permitted to give it poison and does not thus violate tza’ar ba’alei chaim.[5]^,[6]

In this article and a follow-up, however, we discuss two precedents in the Gemara that do seem to indicate that the Torah’s ideal of compassion toward animals extends even to animals that are nuisances or even dangerous to people, at least in certain circumstances.

From callousness to compassion

The Gemara relates:

But the sufferings of Rebbi (R’ Yehudah Hanasi) came as the result of an event and left as a result of an event.

“They came as the result of an event”—what was this event? There was once this calf that they were leading to slaughter. It went and hung its head among the folds of Rebbi’s garment and it cried. Rebbi told it, “Go; for this you were created.” They said (in Shamayim), “Since he does not show mercy, let suffering come upon him.”

“And they left as a result of an event”: One day, Rebbi’s maidservant was sweeping the house. There was a litter of baby weasels that had been cast upon the floor, and she was sweeping them up. Rebbi told her, “Leave them be. It is written, ‘And his mercy is upon all his creations.’” They said (in Shamayim), “Since he shows mercy, let us show mercy to him.”[7]

Cruelty to animals

In a seminal ruling on the topic of causing pain to animals, R’ Yisrael Isserlin (the Trumas Hadeshen) rules that although there is no prohibition of tza’ar ba’alei chaim if one acts in furtherance of his needs and purposes, it is nevertheless common custom to avoid certain practices that inflict pain upon animals for human benefit, and he suggests that this concern derives from the above account:

It is possible that the reason is that people do not wish to behave cruelly toward any creatures, because they are afraid lest they receive punishment for doing so, as we find in the above account…that R’ Yehudah Hanasi said “Go; for this you were created,” and although it was absolutely permitted to slaughter the calf for the purpose of eating it, he was nevertheless punished and received suffering for doing so.[8]

This custom of stringency is codified by the Rama:

Anything that is necessary for medical treatment or for other purposes is not subject to tza’ar ba’alei chaim, and it is accordingly permitted to pluck feathers from live geese and there is no concern for tza’ar ba’alei chaim, but people nevertheless avoid doing so because it constitutes cruelty.[9]

Animal testing and vivisection

Various later authorities have considered the applicability of this concern—about behaving cruelly toward animals even when doing so will enhance human welfare—to medical experimentation on live animals. The issue was first raised by R’ Yaakov Reischer (the Shvus Yaakov) with regard to testing a potentially lethal medication by administering it to live animals. He allows it and maintains that the Trumas Hadeshen’s concern is limited to cases like plucking feathers from a live bird, which causes it direct and immediate severe pain, as opposed to medication, which causes no immediate suffering but may result in subsequent illness and pain. The latter is entirely permitted when done for the purpose of the development of medical treatments for people.[10]

The implication of the Shvus Yaakov’s reasoning is that animal testing that does cause immediate suffering might indeed be a problem even when developing medicine. This is indeed the position of R’ Yaakov Breisch (the Chelkas Yaakov):

As a matter of strict halacha (al pi din) it is certainly permitted to cause tza’ar ba’alei chaim with experiments for the purpose of scientific investigation and for medical science—but as a matter of chasidus, to avoid the character trait of cruelty, it is certainly prohibited…[11]

R’ Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (the Sridei Eish) disagrees, maintaining that the Trumas Hadeshen’s concern is completely inapplicable to animal testing for medical research:

In my humble opinion, there is not even a midas chasidus to refrain from such research, for midas chasidus applies only where it affects only oneself, and a person has the right to be stringent on his own account, but not where it affects others. And what did you see to make you think that tza’ar ba’alei chaim is a greater consideration than the tza’ar of the sick people that they may perhaps be able to help?…And therefore, in my humble opinion, we must permit physicians to conduct experiments without any equivocation or doubt.[12]

In a follow-up article, we shall, iy”H, consider some additional halachic perspectives on the Trumas Hadeshen’s view and its applicability to animal testing, as well as a second Gemara that seems to imply that tza’ar ba’alei chaim should be avoided even when this may put human lives at risk.

_____________

Dear Readers:

I invited R’ Yair Hoffman to respond to Dayan Grossman’s challenge. Here, for your edification, is his response, followed by a reply from the author. The exchange is unexpurgated and unedited.

Rabbi Nosson Kaiser, Editor in chief

RAV HOFFMAN RESPONDS:

Shalom uVracha Rav Grossman, thank you for your comments. I believe that it is important for a Rav to research the issues as best as possible before issuing an opinion. Let’s realize that this particular dog was bred and raised for pheasant hunting. Training is not a simple matter, and it is not unreasonable for a bird dog trained for pheasant hunting to go after chickens. This would not fit into the Maharshal’s case – because that was what was intended in his training. It was Kristi Noem’s decision to transport the dog unchained and just riding in the back of her pickup truck because she did not have room in her kennel- immediately prior to his going after the chickens.

This dog never attacked a human even according to her own words. There is also a significant difference between taking a dog to a veterinarian for a humane euthanization versus throwing the dog in a pit and shooting it in the head. If we can avoid tzaar baalei Chaim then we should. The issue of Tzaar Baalei Chaim for gentiles is more nuanced.

In Rav Binyomin Cohen’s excellent Sefer Chelkas Binyomin on Even HaEzer (section on Pru uRvu) – he cites the Otzer HaPoskim which cites the Sefer Toldos Yaakov who is unsure as to whether they are commanded in it. Rabbi Cohen suggests (page 336) that it may be subsumed under prohibition #6 – Aiver Min haChai – eating a limb of a live animal.

There is yet another possibility. The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvah #80 states that the Mitzvos of Prikah and Te’ina are subsumed under #7 – dinim. It would be logical to also extend this to include Tzaar Baalei Chaim.

The Pri Magadim in his Mishbetzes HaZahav (468:2) writes that a gentile is not commanded in this Mitzvah, however. The Orach Chaim on Bereishis 29:7 writes that Yaakov Avinu chastised the shepherds on account of their Mitzvah of Tzaar Baalei Chaim – which would indicate that the Orach Chaim did not think that the halacha was like the Pri Magadim. Also, there is a Ramban in parshas Bereishis that states that Adam was initially forbidden in eating meat because of Tzaar Baalei Chaim. This halacha was adjusted later to allow it for eating purposes according to the Ramban.

There is another possibility that this author would like to suggest. Believing in G-d (Mitzvah #1) perforce indicates that one should try and be like Him too. The verse tells us, “V’rachamav al kol Maasav – And His mercies extend to all His Creations.” It could also be subsumed under the first one as well.

It is a bizarre reality that many people are unaware that for Torah observant Jews Tzaar baalei Chaim is a real prohibition. Indeed, most Rishonim are of the opinion that Tzaar Baalei Chaim is, in fact, a biblical prohibition, as is the implication of the Talmud (Shabbos 128b). The Rambam, however, is understood by most commentators as holding that it is of Rabbinic origin. [See Vilna Gaon CM 272:11, notwithstanding the view of the Kesef Mishna who reads the Rambam as holding that the prohibition is biblical as well].

More significantly, however, all experts agree that a 14 month old dog needs more training. Kristi Noem acted irresponsibly and impetuously in throwing the dog in a pit and shooting it in the head, President Trump would be much better off with a better candidate for vice president. Many people in the know have explained that this story of her animal cruelty was spreading around long before her book, and she had “massaged the facts” to put the best spin on it. Let’s also realize that she is not above lying – exhibit A being the fact that she lied about meeting North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un. She has not admitted that she lied even though it is clear that she did. She further lied about her phone call with Nikki Haley and maintains the lie. And speaking of Nikki Haley, she is by far more capable and more qualified.

DAYAN GROSSMAN REPLIES:

I thank R. Hoffman for his characteristically erudite, interesting, and thoughtful comments. I agree with many of his points; following are responses to some of them (note that I do not necessarily agree with all the others to which I am not responding).

As an introductory disclaimer, I have no agenda of minimizing the scope or seriousness of tza’ar ba’alei chaim – on the contrary, I strongly agree with R. Hoffman that our society needs to be much more conscious of and concerned with the welfare and comfort of animals.

Indeed, I would call upon R. Hoffman to support the call for kashrus agencies to ensure that the animals that we eat are raised in accordance with the halachic standards of tza’ar ba’alei chaim. As I have previously written:[13]

It has long seemed to this author that the purchase of the products of animals that have been raised inhumanely (by halachic standards) would violate the prohibition of reinforcing and motivating a transgressor.

Spokesmen for traditional Orthodoxy such as R. Avi Shafran have long insisted that such products remain kosher:

I sought to make the point that, while there are certainly valid issues of tzaar ba’alei chaim and dina dimalchusa dina by which observant food processors and producers are bound, such concerns are independent of the halachic definition of “kosher.”

“So,” I explained, “while kosher food producers are required by halachah to act ethically in every way, any lapses on that score have no effect on the kashrus of the food they produce.”[14]

But while this may be technically true, it is not the whole truth; it is clear that a strong case can be made that insofar as a product is produced in violation of halachah (such as tza’ar ba’alei chaim),[15] its purchase is halachically prohibited since it would reinforce the transgressor and motivate him to continue his sinful behavior in the future.

Accordingly, in my articles on the killing of Cricket and this discussion, I am merely attempting to fairly represent various perspectives of our tradition on the subject (as well as the facts of the case before us and related matters).

1) R. Hoffman writes:

This dog never attacked a human even according to her own words.

As R. Hoffman himself opens his comments, “it is important for a Rav to research the issues as best as possible before issuing an opinion.” Noem has repeatedly stated that the dog did attack a human -herself. In the original book excerpt published by The Guardian, she wrote:

When Noem finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog “whipped around to bite me”.

In her Face the Nation interview, she stated:

This was a dangerous animal that was killing livestock and attacking people.

The interviewer apparently did not consider the attempting biting (in response to being grabbed) to constitute “attacking people”:

You didn’t say the dog attacked people, you said it had tried to bite you.

and perhaps this is R. Hoffman’s view as well, but it seems to me that the point is at least debatable.

Noem repeated the claim that the dog attacked her on Hannity.[16]

2) R. Hoffman writes:

There is also a significant difference between taking a dog to a veterinarian for a humane euthanization versus throwing the dog in a pit and shooting it in the head.

I am certainly personally sympathetic to the idea that one should try to minimize an animal’s suffering even when killing it is necessary – but I note that the Avodas ha-Gershuni that I cited in my original article is apparently not: In response to a correspondent who had vehemently condemned stabbing an animal to death for petty financial gain as a violation of tza’ar ba’alei chaim, he writes:

One who stabs his animal (even) where he is able to slaughter it – there is no violation of tza’ar ba’alei chaim in this. Is the animal our brother, that we should select a good death for it?![17]

3) R. Hoffman writes:

The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvah #80 states that the Mitzvos of Prikah and Te’ina are subsumed under #7 – dinim.

I have been unable to locate this statement in the Minchas Chinuch mitzvah 80. Would R. Hoffman please provide the exact wording, and / or a more specific citation?

4) R. Hoffman writes:

President Trump would be much better off with a better candidate for vice president. Many people in the know have explained that this story of her animal cruelty was spreading around long before her book, and she had “massaged the facts” to put the best spin on it. Let’s also realize that she is not above lying – exhibit A being the fact that she lied about meeting North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un. She has not admitted that she lied even though it is clear that she did. She further lied about her phone call with Nikki Haley and maintains the lie. And speaking of Nikki Haley, she is by far more capable and more qualified.

I fully agree with R. Hoffman that lying is a grave character flaw, and something that should give one pause about supporting a candidate for public office guilty of it. I hope that R. Hoffman applies this standard to Trump himself as well, and considers his serial lying as an argument against supporting his candidacy. (Of course, many politicians have been guilty of lying, e.g. Clinton regarding Monica Lewinsky; Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger (and perhaps even Reagan himself) regarding the Iran-Contra affair; and (in the view of many) Bush, Cheney, and others in their administration regarding Iraqi WMDs, but Trump’s serial lying is an order of magnitude greater than that of most other prominent politicians in U.S. history. Indeed, Trump has even lied about calling Bush a liar regarding the Iraqi WMDs.[18]

Of course, one can still reasonably support Trump on the grounds of a belief that his presidency would be better for the U.S. and / or Israel than that of his opponents – but the same logic would apply to Noem: One could conceivably support her for V.P. despite her alleged character flaws insofar as one believes that she would make a better V.P. than her opponents. (I take no position on these arguments here.)

[1]Martin Pengelly. Trump VP contender Kristi Noem writes of killing dog—and goat—in new book. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/26/trump-kristi-noem-shot-dog-and-goat-book.

[2]See, e.g., here.

[3]Transcript: South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem on “Face the Nation,” May 5, 2024. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kristi-noem-south-dakota-governor-face-the-nation-transcript-05-05-2024/. Cf. here.

[4]R’ Yair Hoffman. Cricket Didn’t Have to Die. VIN News. https://vinnews.com/2024/05/08/cricket-didnt-have-to-die/.

[5]Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama perek 10 siman 37, cited in Bach Y.D. siman 116 s.v. Mashkin shenisgalu and Taz ibid. at the end of the siman (at the end of s.k. 6). The Maharshal and the Bach offer different justifications for allowing the dog’s killing, but they both agree that it may be killed.

In general, there is discussion among the poskim as to whether the concern for tza’ar ba’alei chaim applies at all to the killing of animals (as opposed to causing them pain): see Shu”t Avodas HaGershuni siman 13; Shu”t Noda Bihudah kama Y.D. siman 83 and tinyana Y.D. siman 10; Pardeis Yosef, Toldos os 33.

[6](See Rav Hoffman’s response, and Dayan Grossman’s reply to it, below this article.—Ed.)

[7]Bava Metzia 85a.

[8]Trumas Hadeshen psakim uchsavim siman 105. Cf. Shu”t Binyan Tzion siman 108; Shu”t Sheivet Halevi cheilek 2 siman 7.

[9]Hagahos Shulchan Aruch E.H. at the very end of siman 5 (se’if 14).

[10]Shu”t Shvus Yaakov cheilek 3 siman 71.

[11]Shu”t Chelkas Yaakov C.M. siman 34 end of os 6.

[12]Ibid. at the very end of siman 35 (and also in Shu”t Sridei Eish E.H. siman 7).

[13]The following is an unpublished section of my article Awash in Cash: Money Laundering in Halacha. Bais HaVaad Halacha Journal. Feb. 17, 2022.

[14]Fake Kashrus. Cf. Blowing the New Kashrut’s Cover; Agudath Israel statement on “Magen Tzedek”; No Hekhsher, Not Tzedek; Op-Ed: Magen Tzedek seal engaging in a kashrut cover-up; Unwashed Poets and Kashrut, When Tzedek Isn’t: The Conservative Movement Finds a Cause.

[15]The question of whether modern animal husbandry typically violates the prohibition of tza’ar baalei chaim is beyond the scope of this article; we will merely note here that R. Aryeh Carmell has written that “It seems doubtful from all that has been said whether the Torah would sanction “factory farming,” which treats animals as machines, with apparent insensitivity to their natural needs and instincts. This is a matter for decision by halachic authorities.” (Masterplan: Judaism, Its Program, Meanings and Goals (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 1991), pp. 68-69.

[16]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/26/trump-kristi-noem-shot-dog-and-goat-book

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kristi-noem-south-dakota-governor-face-the-nation-transcript-05-05-2024/

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/02/kristi-noem-dog-cricket-00155700

[17]See Sanhedrin 45a.

[18]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton%E2%80%93Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges