{"id":12335,"date":"2026-07-15T00:09:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-14T21:09:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/?p=12335"},"modified":"2026-08-09T08:57:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-09T05:57:22","slug":"17-15-09","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-15-09\/","title":{"rendered":"09. Methods of Raising Animals and Fowl for Food"},"content":{"rendered":"
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.<\/p>\n
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 \u2014 such as cutting horses\u2019 legs above the hooves \u2014 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]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n 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<\/em> 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\u2019 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\u2019aretz U-mitzvoteha<\/em>), and Min\u1e25at Yitz\u1e25ak<\/em> 6:145 rules accordingly.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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 \u2014 when in fact they may be quite content.<\/p>\n Still, one could argue that as moral sensitivity and economic conditions improve, the standards of tza\u2019ar ba\u2019alei \u1e25ayim<\/em> 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]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n