Vegetarianism & Jewish philosophy
By Rabbi Eli Brackman
Vegetarianism is said to be the fastest growing trend in the developed world. It refers to the voluntary practice of following plant-based diets, with or without the inclusion of dairy products or eggs, and with the exclusion of meat. It can be dated in Europe back to the time of Pythagoras 6th century BCE but was to reemerge somewhat in Europe during the Renaissance and became a more widespread practice in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Does Judaism agree with or acknowledge this ideal of abstaining from eating meat as a way of life? This essay will discuss a Jewish view of vegetarianism, its philosophy and the intriguing compatibility of the age old wisdom of Judaism with modern health research regarding eating meat. While this essay might go counter to this popular modern trend, I will aim to lay out the ethical issues involved from a Jewish point of view.
One can safely say that Judaism is traditionally a meat eating religion. Judaism does not just permit eating meat but has teachings that emphasize the importance of eating meat on special occasions.
A principal work in Judaism that provides attitudes from a Jewish perspective on an issue is the 5th century Babylonian Talmud, in addition to the Torah itself. The Talmud states (Pesachim 109a), Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira claims that so long as the Temple is standing, there is no happiness without meat. After the destruction of the Temple there is no happiness without wine.
Based on this teaching, Maimonides (laws of Festivals 6:18) writes that the commandment to rejoice on the Jewish festivals is fulfilled by providing for everyone as per their individual nature, as well as to give to the poor and unfortunate. This includes meat and wine, as there is no happiness without meat and no happiness without wine.
Similarly, Maimonides (laws of Chagigah 1:1) states that men and women should bring an extra peace offering on the holiday, called the Chagigah, which means rejoicing. It was called a peace offering because the hosts, not just the priests, shared the eating of the meat of the cooked sacrificial animal in order to rejoice on the festival.
This permission to eat meat is also on a regular day of the week. This is indicated in the matter-of-fact advice from Maimonides (laws of Deot Ch. 4:7) suggesting that if a person wants to eat chicken or meat one should first eat the chicken and then meat. Eggs and chicken, one should first eat eggs. Always eat a lighter food first and then a heavier food.
It can be said that this teaching is merely a matter-of-fact advice but not meant to be an ethical principal.
However, Maimonides goes further and criticizes one who makes an oath to abstain from eating meat. A person should always behave in moderation, he writes (ibid. Ch. 3:1). If a person says that indulgence is a negative characteristic and will therefore stay away from meat, wine and relationships and will only wear sackcloth, it is forbidden and sinful to go in such a path.
What about the Nazarite vow to refrain from wine? Regarding a Nazarite, he explains, one is required to offer a sacrifice at the end of the Nazarite period. The reason is to atone for accepting on one self such material abstentions that the Torah permits. The sages of the Talmud urged that Judaism only desires one to abstain from what the Torah itself prohibits but not go beyond that.
Thus, from a Jewish legal perspective meat is not just permitted but is associated with joy on the festival and can be the fulfillment of a Divine positive commandment.
Some Jewish ethicists, including Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935), who was the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the British Mandate for Palestine, maintained that the true deal of Judaism is to abstain from eating meat, even though technically it is permitted. This is based on the fact that the Torah does not sanction eating meat until after the flood. At the beginning of Genesis (1:27) it says, 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.
After the flood, however, it writes (9:1-4), Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.
Why did G-d first not allow meat and then permits it after the flood? This indicates, some say, an admission to the debased nature of man after the flood to allow him to eat meat. However, when the world will be returned to a loftier state, man will revert to vegetarianism.
Whether or not this is a correct interpretation can be debated but it is not relevant to our discussion, since the main point for us is the fact that since the flood the Torah permits eating meat and, as we have shown, according to the Talmud it even considered a fulfillment of a positive Divine commandment.
If there is an aversion to eating meat, it is hard to conceive why the Torah would advocate eating it in order to rejoice on the festivals.
What about the philosophy of vegetarianism?
Even if we were to admit that the ideal of Judaism is not to indulge in eating meat supported by various stories in the Torah, it does not seem to be due to the reasons given by modern day philosophers.
Professor Peter Singer, who is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy at the University of Melbourne, will say that one should not eat meat due to the lack of distinction between the killing of a life of a human and an animal.
In a class I gave on this subject recently, a professor claimed that in her view there is a daily Holocaust going on where millions of live animals are being slaughtered and nobody is concerned.
Indeed, according to evolutionary theorists, life began with plants and fungi which colonised the land and were soon followed by arthropods, including insects, which constitutes over 90% of the animal kingdom. Then came amphibians, like frogs, followed by early amniotes, which include reptiles and birds and then mammals. This progressed further into homo sapiens or humans. According to evolutionary theory, there is no fundamental difference between mammals and humans.
In an interview between Professor Peter Singer and Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins for ‘The Genius of Charles Darwin’ program, Singer refers to human beings as human animals. He says that the fact that we share with them the capacity to suffer makes us the same.
This is the view of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), who asked: What can trace the insuperable line between humans or beings that count morally and beings that don’t? If we supposedly say that it is reason, a horse is more reasonable than a human infant. But why does that matter? It counts not whether they can talk or reason, but that they can suffer.
Singer maintains that the difference between humans and animals might be that humans can see their life in a biographical sense. He doesn’t think there are any animals that can think of those kinds of things. They can’t plan for their future. Therefore one can argue that killing a creature that does not have this biographical sense and anticipation for the future it not as bad as killing a creature that does. However, he says, when it comes to suffering, they both suffer.
The fact that animals suffer has in fact been proven by British primatologist and anthropologist Jane Goodall DBE who showed that chimpanzees feel bereavement for the loss of a loved one.
Another British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) says that if we take evolutionary theory to its logical conclusion one should not eat oysters or even lettuce, as there should indeed be no fundamental difference between them.
In truth, however, Singer argues, if we define a creature by the capacity to suffer pain, Russell’s argument breaks down, as lettuce does not suffer pain, and most likely oysters don’t feel pain either.
The argument of Dawkins, however, as a non-vegetarian, is interesting. Dawkins seems to differ from Singer and is prepared to draw a line between humans and animals. He says that if one can kill an animal without or with very little pain then it is not morally a problem. He seems to be concerned about the slippery slope theory if one does not draw a line between humans and animals.
It is interesting to note that from an atheistic evolutionary point of view Singer seems to be more consistent than Dawkins. Logically, there should not be a line drawn between humans and animals or at least not a line that is sufficient to justify killing animals for human consumption. Animals are merely earlier forms of humans from an evolutionary point of view. What right do humans then have to kill their relatively recent evolutionary ancestors for food?
From a Jewish philosophical view, it is clear that Judaism makes a categorical distinction between humans and animals. Firstly, in Genesis the creation of animals is recorded in one category and humans in its own category.
Furthermore, it states (1:27), in what is regarded one of the foundations to human rights, And God created man in His image.
Based on this categorical separation, it continues, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth.
The profound distinction between human and animals, from a Jewish point of view, even before the Biblical narrative of the flood seems to be clear.
What makes man different?
We have clarified that there is categorical distinction but what in reality is the difference? What does it mean, man is created in the image of G-d? What is it that makes man superior?
According to some commentaries it refers to intellect. Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki comments on the words, G-d created man in our likeness, ‘to understand and comprehend.’
This would however bring us back to Singer’s point that certain animals are more intelligent than children!
Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn responds to this point in his work Sefer Mamarim of 1911 (p. 113), that the main function of a human being is characterized by his emotions.
What is then the difference between humans and animals? Rabbi Schneersohn explains in this 100 year old work that the advantage of humans is that their emotions are governed by their intellect. This allows for the emotions to become integrated and meaningful, whereas without intellect they are detached.
Granted, this point alone does not make humans fundamentally different. However, both points combined, the fact that in the Jewish view they are existentially in a separate category and their emotions are far less intelligent and integrated, is certainly sufficient for the distinction between them to be made.
Despite the above Jewish philosophical view, Judaism does not sanction causing any degree of unnecessary pain to animals. One must treat animals with care and even feed them before oneself, according to Jewish ethics. Judaism forbids hunting as it causes the animal distress.
It is because of the concern of causing harm to animals that killing of the animal is done, according to Jewish law, in the most humane way possible with the least amount of pain.
Is it healthy?
In today’s society, the health benefits of eating meat are recognised. Studies show that lean red meats including beef, pork and lamb can play an important part in a healthy balanced diet, as they have high nutrient density. In addition, Meat is a major source of protein.
Meat contributes minerals and trace elements to the diet, particularly iron, a vital mineral for red blood cell formation, and zinc, which is important for the healthy functioning of the immune system, growth, wound healing and fertility.
It is also an important source of B vitamins, including B12, which is not found naturally in foods of plant origin. B12 is important for healthy red blood cells, growth and the production of energy.
A major concern about eating meat is the fat content. However, today, fully trimmed lean raw beef typically contains only 5% fat, fully trimmed lean raw pork only 4% fat and fully trimmed lean raw lamb only 8% fat. On the other hand, red meat contains small amounts of omega-3 fats, which help to keep the heart healthy.
The fact that eating meat is recognized as being healthy shows its compatibility with the attitude within Judaism towards meat that, philosophy aside, a moderate amount of meat is healthy.
A considerable danger of meat is in the processing. Bacteria have been the cause of E. Coli and the age of the animals and their state of health has been the cause of mad cow disease.
The process of preparing kosher meat is however vital in killing the bacteria and the intricate laws against eating meat of an animal that has a terminal illness or punctured arteries, lungs or even lesser ailments help prevent sick animals being consumed.
The problem with excess
If there are benefits to eating meat, why do the kosher dietary laws prohibit certain animals that don’t chew their cud or have split hooves?
It would appear that a reason might be to help constrain the person from eating excessive amount of meat. Indeed, according to medieval commentator Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz, author of the Torah commentary Kli Yakar, the complexity of these laws was intended to discourage the excessive consumption of meat.
This is consistent with modern day studies. The US National Cancer Institute found those whose diet contained the highest proportion of red or processed meat had a higher overall risk of death, and specifically a higher risk of cancer and heart disease than those who ate the least.
Whereas, Dr Mark Wahlqvist, a nutrition expert from Australia's Monash University, says eating small amounts of red meat - around 30g a day - provided a good source of key nutrients, as stated above.
This reason for the prohibition of certain meats can, then, be perhaps compared to the rationale in the Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides for forbidden relationships.
Judaism is concerned that such relationships will lead to excessive sexual activity. While Judaism in no way demands abstinence it is still concerned about excess.
In conclusion, in the Jewish view, one should lead a life of moderation to be healthy, physically and spiritually, but there is no need to abstain from that which is permitted.