The general rule is that anything done for human benefit, and not out of cruelty, is permitted. Therefore, one may raise chickens and calves for meat in cramped quarters in order to reduce costs. The same applies to hens raised for eggs and cows raised for milk. Just as people sometimes accept the discomfort of cramped working or living conditions in order to save money, animals too may be raised in tighter quarters when this reduces the cost of production.
Some authorities maintain, however, that this permission does not extend to practices that cause animals severe and extreme suffering. The cases in which halakha permits such suffering — such as cutting horses’ legs above the hooves — are exceptional cases, allowed for a special need such as royal honor or uprooting idolatry. In their view, it is forbidden to impose that level of suffering on animals as a regular, systematic practice for the sake of livelihood. Others maintain that even severe suffering may be imposed on animals when livelihood is at stake. In practice, though, the disagreement usually centers less on the principle than on the facts: whether the practice in question truly causes extreme suffering. Raising and feeding animals for meat, milk, and eggs does not, by its nature, entail that level of suffering.[6]
One example is the following. Hens naturally lay eggs from about six months of age until about twenty months, at which point they are slaughtered. Farmers can extend the laying period by withholding food from the hens for about ten days during their fifteenth month. The hens then lose their feathers; once they begin eating again, their strength returns, their feathers regrow, and they can continue laying eggs until about twenty-eight months. May farmers cause hens this suffering in order to extend their productive life? Some authorities prohibit it, arguing that one may cause animals only ordinary suffering for the sake of livelihood, but not great suffering, which already falls under forbidden cruelty (Shevet ha-Levi 2:7). Many authorities, however, permit this method, since it benefits the farm and serves the very purpose for which the hens are raised. They add that, in the long run, this process improves the hens’ health, as shown by the fact that they live longer. After all, people too would be willing to go hungry for ten days if doing so would extend their lives. This was also the view of R. Goldberg, rabbi of Kfar Pines (Ha’aretz U-mitzvoteha), and Minḥat Yitzḥak 6:145 rules accordingly.
In practice, it seems proper to be lenient, both because the reasoning is sound and because rabbis of farming communities have an advantage in these matters. As the local halakhic authorities, they know from close experience how animals and fowl are raised and are therefore more suited to weigh the human benefit against the animals’ suffering. Someone unfamiliar with these methods may be shocked when first seeing them. This is like a city-dweller who arrives in a remote village, sees people living without electricity or running water as their ancestors did for generations, and concludes that their lives must be full of suffering — when in fact they may be quite content.
Still, one could argue that as moral sensitivity and economic conditions improve, the standards of tza’ar ba’alei ḥayim may change as well. Just as people today find certain conditions distressing that previous generations accepted as normal, we may come to view certain methods of raising animals the same way. Methods once seen as acceptable suffering for the sake of livelihood may come to be regarded as severe and extreme suffering and therefore may no longer be practiced systematically for commercial gain. As this awareness spreads, parts of society may stop eating meat from animals raised in ways they believe cause the animals suffering, and their stance may gradually shape public attitudes. At that stage, lawmakers will need to balance two concerns: reducing the suffering of animals and fowl raised for food, while also ensuring that food does not become prohibitively expensive, especially for the poor. It would be less desirable for laws to be passed under pressure from animal-welfare activists without sufficient regard for the poor or for the other values involved. Such laws would eventually need to be corrected and rebalanced.[7]
[6]. R. Eliyahu Klatzkin, in Imrei Shefer §34, prohibits causing animals great suffering for livelihood, and this is also written in Yad ha-Levi YD §196. Most poskim permit it, including Yam Shel Shlomo, Bava Kamma 10:37; Shevut Yaakov 3:71; Ḥatam Sofer to Bava Metzia 32b; Shulḥan Arukh ha-Rav, Tza’ar Ba’alei Ḥayim §4; and Da’at Kedoshim YD 24:12. Shevet ha-Levi 2:7 distinguishes between three levels: (1) minor suffering, which is prohibited rabbinically; (2) great suffering, which is prohibited by Torah law but permitted for livelihood needs, and this is the ordinary suffering that halakha allows; and (3) very great suffering, which is considered cruelty and is prohibited even for livelihood. In my view, the third level is also permitted, as is evident from the allowance to hamstring horses (as explained above, section 5), and there is no greater suffering than that. Still, this allowance applies only in special cases, not as a systematic practice. When the goal is cruelty, even ordinary suffering is forbidden, as explained in section 6.
[7]. One example is the debate over force-feeding geese. In the past, force-feeding was considered an accepted form of animal suffering for the sake of livelihood. This emerges incidentally from a discussion in the laws of Shabbat (Shabbat 155b): people would force-feed camels by pushing food deep enough into the throat that the camel could not expel it, enabling the animal to cross the desert for many days without eating. Similarly, people would fatten calves and chickens by pushing food deep enough into the throat that the animal could not bring it back up (Beitza 29b). Geese, too, were force-fed in order to fatten them, to the point that they could no longer eat unless food was pushed down their throats. It was therefore permitted to ask a gentile to feed them this way on Shabbat, so that the geese would not suffer from hunger (Rema, Responsa §79).
This practice raised a separate kashrut concern. Since the food was forced down the goose’s throat, the esophagus could become wounded, raising concern that the goose had become a tereifa. Some authorities permitted such geese after the esophagus was checked (Rema YD 33:9, and many others). Others prohibited them, since the goose may have become a tereifa in a way that would not be detected by checking the esophagus (Baḥ and many others).
In recent generations, the method changed. Instead of force-feeding geese by hand, farmers began using machines. They also discovered that feeding geese corn while restricting their movement could enlarge the liver to ten times its normal size. Some maintain that this method causes greater suffering, because each feeding contains a larger quantity of food; dry corn also increases the risk of injuring the esophagus and rendering the goose a tereifa. Others maintain that this method does not cause more suffering than the older practice. Later, the method was refined further: farmers began inserting moist corn porridge into the stomach through a thin tube, which makes the feeding less burdensome and also reduces the risk of tereifa. Still, many argue that causing the liver to grow to ten times its normal size causes the goose great suffering and makes it difficult for the goose to breathe and walk.
Among halakhic authorities, some were inclined to prohibit force-feeding geese because of tza’ar ba’alei ḥayim (R. Yaakov Epstein, Ḥevel Naḥalato 9:26), while others maintain that it is not prohibited (R. Itai Elitzur, Teḥumin 24; R. Pinḥas Toledano, Berit Shalom II, ḤM 7). According to R. Yaakov Ariel, the practice is not prohibited, but it is not ideal; for this reason, foie gras was certified as kosher, but not glatt.
Over time, animal-welfare organizations campaigned strongly against goose farmers, and many countries enacted laws prohibiting the force-feeding of geese. In the State of Israel, elected officials tried to work with goose farmers toward a regulated compromise that would allow force-feeding to continue under more humane conditions. Ultimately, however, the High Court ruled in favor of the animal-welfare organizations and prohibited force-feeding geese in Israel entirely.
