Is Hunting Kosher?

It's that time of year in Wisconsin--hunting season.  Aside from the Green Bay Packers, cheese, and beer, I can't think of anything that would excite a Wisconsinite more than hunting season.  It almost seems as if going hunting were a rite of passage of Wisconsin citizenship.  That set aside, I've had people up here ask me why I don't go hunting.  There's always that feeling of discomfort when I give them the answer that it's not morally justifiable.  Naturally, a degree of righteous indignation comes about, but at the same time, a more detailed answer is merited.

יוֹדֵעַ צַדִּיק, נֶפֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּוֹ.

                           "The righteous man considers the life of his animal." -Proverbs 12:10 

This brings up a dimension of Jewish ethics which is called tza'ar ba'lei chayim, or not being cruel to animals (Talmud, Baba Metzia 32b), comes into play.  Although there is the argument that man was to have dominion over the natural world (Genesis 1:26), it is also amazing how stewardship and compassion also play a(n) [even bigger] role in Jewish thought.  Just as a little tidbit, there are more statutes in Torah regarding treatment of animals than there are for something as holy as Shabbos.  But in any event, here's a short, but certainly not exhausted and inclusive, list of examples in Jewish law where compassion is shown to animals:

1) One cannot slaughter an animal and its young on the same day (Leviticus 22:28).  Rambam states that "[t]here is no differnce between the pain of humans and the pain of animals in this case, for the love of a mother and her compassion upon a child does not depend on the intellect, but rather upon the power of emotion, which is found with most animals, just as it is found in man" (The Guide for the Perplexed 3:48).  Rambam was not only an exceptionally learned man, but a rationalist à l'extrême.  To have such a man realize the importance of tza'ar baylei chayim in this case is phenomenal.

2) There are three occassions where the Bible forbids the cooking of an animals in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19, 34:26, and Deut. 14:21).  Nachmanides, commenting on Deut. 14:21, realized that if Jews lowered themselves by doing so, they would become a cruel nation. 

3) Even if you dislike someone, you are forbidden to take it out on their animals, which is is why when you see your enemy's donkey with a burden, you should help it out (Exodus 23:5).  There's a scenario in the Talmud (Baba Metzia 32b) which states that if your friend needs help loading up a donkey or your enemy needs help unloading his donkey, you help out the enemy simply to alleviate the suffering of the donkey.

4) In more modern law, R. Moshe Feinstein, z"tl, believed that raising veal calves in such a cruel environment is not kosher (Igrot Moshe, Even HaEzer, Vol. 4, responsa 92).

The point I try to bring here is considering the suffering of the animal and showing compassion towards an animal is one of the cornerstones of Judaism.  It's even one of the seven Noachide laws!  The question at hand is whether or not I, as a Jew, could go out for hunting season with my non-Jewish friends.  One has to keep in mind the context of the hunt--it's for sport.  Although Rambam gives an emphatically negative answer, I'll quote Sefer HaChinnuch: "To kill them [the animals] without any benefit involves wanton destruction and is called bloodshed.  And even though it is not like the bloodshed of a person, due to the superiority of a human and the inferiority of an animal, it is still called bloodshed (commandment 186)." 

A "bottom-line" ruling: I don't need a rabbinic ordination to figure this one out.  The only time in the world where hunting would be considered kosher would be for pikuah nefesh, or preservation of life, which, by the way, trumps almost every other Jewish value.  So, let's say you're in a plane and, G-d forbid, it crashes in the middle of a forest.  You're not going to get out for at least a few days.  The only way to survive is to hunt a deer or rabbit.  In this extreme life-or-death scenario, going hunting would be perfectly acceptable, given the circumstances.  Short of the necessity to live another day, hunting is forbidden under Jewish law, and any animal hunted in such a manner is deemed treif.  I have no problem saying this because it's true: When hunting is done for sport, which in most cases it is, it is an act that de-humanizes a man because, as Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kaidanover puts it, "it is certain that those who shoot arrows after birds and beasts for no purpose at all other than to learn archery, and kill animals for no reason, are destined to stand in judgement for it; for it is not the way of the compassionate to commit evil to any creature for no reason."  The Talmud (Yevamot 79a) states that the Jewish people possess three characteristics: [that they are] merciful, modest, and perform deeds of kindness.  With this in mind, it's safe to say that I'm not going hunting this weekend with my friends.

Palestine, A State? Good One!

This past weekend, Palestine declared that it's going to try to pressure the UN to recognize Palestinian statehood.  This chutzpah made me think of something significant.  Here I thought that we were already dealing with a [nation-]state.  I then had to think of what qualified one to be considered a state or nation-state.  Whether there is a homogenous people within the given borders is immaterial in this discussion.  (Side note: The Kurds are a nation, but have no state).  In terms of being considered a modern state in the 21st century, aside from having borders, one needs two things: international recognition and sovereingty.  By the Palestinians declaring that they're going to force the UN to recognize them, this already implies that their statehood is not recognized.  As for sovereignty, Yaakov Katz highlighted this very well in his recent Jerusalem Post article entitled "PA Cannot Cope as an Independent State."  Palestine does not have the infrastructure to function as a state--it wouldn't even last a day!  It doesn't have a capital, currency, heck, it doesn't even have a centralized government because it's divided between Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and Fatah-controlled West Bank.  They can try to claim East Jerusalem as its capital, but that claim is so fallacious because there is no historical backing for that.  Essentially, they're dependent on Israel, as Katz outlines.  Furthermore, if Palestine does indeed go this route, Israel will have no choice but to act.  And do you think they're going to remove the barriers between Gaza and West Bank at that point?!  I don't think so!  They're essential for Israeli security because it blocks out terrorists from blowing up innocent Jews.  It's election time in the PA, so I can understand why they feel the need to blow off some steam.  In all probability, this won't go anywhere.  But if they do, it will blow in their faces because they will end up with less land.  Historically speaking, that's an accurate statement.  They had quite a bit of land in the Peel Commission of 1937, and still had a sizable amount in the UN Resolution 181 back in 1947.  [I just want to point out that the UN internationally recognized Israel and its right to exist back in 1947, not to mention other moments where it has been internationally declared that it has the right to exist.  I guess no international body wants recognize Palestine.  C'est la vie!]  But again, Palestinians are frustrated because they still haven't made any progress on their ultimate goal of exterminating the Zionist entity, so I can see why the elections aren't helping with any of that angst.

11/16 Hodgepodge

- Contrary to popular belief, it turns out that less than 40% of American energy comes from oil.  Although it wins in terms of plurality, we should focus our efforts on other places, such as nuclear power, or stop putting limits on off-shore drilling for oil or extraction of natural gas.

- Libertarian commentator Steve Chapman wrote an article entitled "Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing."  Chapman highlights the increasingly majority-based support for civil unions, most notably using the recent victory for the gay rights movement in Washington state as proof.  Chapman concludes his article with "Many gay-rights advocates reject anything short of full access to marriage as a disgraceful revival of the old "separate but equal" policy -- which was anything but equal for African-Americans. But you don't get across a broad river in a single leap. You get there by building a bridge that allows you to travel across one step at a time.  As a destination, civil unions leave a lot to be desired. But as an avenue, they're hard to beat."  Funny how I blogged on this issue and came to the same conclusion regarding civil unions.

-How low can can a man go?  That's what I had to ask with regards to Obama and his latest trip to Japan.  Apparently, the way he bowed to the Japanese emperor caused a bit of a ruckus.  Not only did the emperor not reciprocate, but if you look at American dignitaries in the past, they haven't treated the emperor as such.  A hearty handshake has worked in the past.  This line of criticism is similar to when Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia.  Obama is head of the most powerful nation in the world.  If anything, people should be bowing to him!  Of course, this is a man with no respect for American exceptionalism, and goes around the world apologizing for America's past mistakes without having a spine with his body.  The fact that he was able to bow tells me there's still some curvature left, so I personally hope that he grows a pair, but again, I'm not exactly going to hold my breath.

歐巴馬这个星期会叩头吗？

Obama, just having left from Japan, is now continuing his nine-day Asian trip by visiting China.  Because China is becoming an increasingly important force in the realm of international politics, Obama needs to realize that setting a bilateral agenda with China is of much more importance than doing so with Japan.  This visit will, without a doubt, help set the stage to see the direction of Obama's foreign policy.  It might be shaky just because Obama started off his term by having his Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, accuse China of currency manipulation, not to mention the tariff on tires that Obama imposed on China a couple of months back.  These antagonistic acts set aside, Obama needs to keep a couple things in mind during his visit in China:

1) Don't bring up climate change!  China is not going to curtail its economy for some ficticious environmental problem, and I don't think you charismatic personality can convince them otherwise.  The Chinese know about charismatic leaders--Mao Zedong, remember?  Ever since this 1980s, the People's Republic of China has had an economy whose GDP has grown at least 7%, minus a couple of "bad years."  (By the way, "bad year" constitutes as 3% growth, which was American GDP growth pre-recession)  Historically speaking, China has been one to preserve internal stability.  And as of now, the only way they are able to do so is with economic growth.  It would be against their national interests to give into the global warming hype in order to see their economy crash.

2) Establish an American agenda.  Yes, I'm sure there will be a degree of kowtowing during your trip, I don't doubt that for a second, and it will most likely occur on the topic of human rights issues.  On some level, in order to have bilateral relations, you need to have some give and take.  But at the same time, Obama needs to develop a firm grasp on the sitauation.  For instance, if China brings up the Taiwan situation, Obama needs to remind Hu Jintao that Taiwan has been a sovereign nation-state for sixty years, and it is part of American foreign policy to protect Taiwan, much as it has been in the past.  Obama does also have to realize the symbiotic nature of the economic interdependence that has occurred between America and China since the Open Door Policy between Mao and Nixon.  Both have to find mutual ways to alleviate economic woes.  China has serious economic disparity, while America has serious issues with leaning towards socialism.  If anything, Obama should learn a thing or two from China after Mao's passing--free markets help market growth.  When Deng Xiaoping realized that releasing the Chinese economy from shackles of command economy translated into a higher GDP, he continued to increase the rate of privatization. China needs to raise its currency rate closer to that of the USA, while Obama has to stop hitting China with tariffs and have the Department of Commerce focus its investigations on China, whether its in garments or the PRC's dumping of steel wire garment hangers.  (The latter is no joke--you'd think our government would have something better to do than worry about steel wire garment hangers) By working together in a bilateral fashion to free up the markets, the two nations can clean house while maintaining economic interdependence and a sound alliance.

How About a REAL Right to Choose?

The latest spiel I found with regards to the abortion issue in health care was about an anti-abortion amendment that was added last minute.  Apparently, this agitated the pro-abortion constituency to no avail.  "[This amendment makes] it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women," states the NARAL.  I never understood the pro-abortion movement.  Even after Roe v. Wade, they kvetch incessantly about how there's not enough access to abortion.  NOW even says that Congress is delivering the biggest blow to abortion rights since the 1970s.  I just need to check one more time, just to make sure that I get this right.  These people are disheartened that their right to terminate another human being's life is in jeopardy.  What bothers me first and foremost is that in libertarianism, a right to abortion is not a real right at all because it deprives another individual of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

What is even more hypocritical, especially on the issue, is their mantra of "my body, my choice."  Let's think about that for a second.  "My body, my choice."  How about my choice to the best doctor my money can buy, or my choice to pay for a life-saving surgery?  Health care choices are the epitome of "my body, my choice," oh, yeah, and they're also life-affirming, non-aggressive choices. Here's the problem with those on the Left: they only care about choice when it comes to sex, drugs, and killing babies.  Short of that, they don't care about choice!  Choice is a buzzword that most feminists use to escape any sense of personal responsibility and make relativism the norm.  If they really cared about choice, they would be raising their voices in unison to stop employer-based insurance or give people the ability to create their own HSA's. But alas, all we have seen from the pro-abortion movement is another example of Leftist double standards that ultimately lead to the inconsistencies and hypocricies of the liberties that they claim to champion.  At least with an organization like PETA, I abhor their viewpoint on the value of human life, but at least you can't dock them for their consistency for animal rights.  Although I don't expect the obstinance of the pro-abortion movement to wane anytime soon, I would, at the very least, like to see them be consistent in advocay of their principles and support free-market ideas in the health care reform debate.

Reflecting on the Fall of the Berlin Wall and Health Care

Today commemorates the 20th anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall.  Although Obama is too busy to take the time to reflect on this historic event, I will take some time to do so. 

As an American during the Cold War period, I couldn't imagine how frightening it would be to wonder if the Kremlin is going to bomb America today.  It would have been even worse as someone actually living in the Eastern Bloc--deprived of economic choices and freedom to live one's life as one chooses.  I would not be able to tolerate living under the oppression of a totalitarian state.  Without going into a historical diatribe as to why Communism is inferior and inherently deprives man of life, I think it is better to see how the lessons of Communism can be applied to this century.

After the Berlin Wall fell, it became evident that classical liberalism prevailed.  A command economy combined with the deprivation of human rights leads to disaster.  Anybody who encroaches on life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, whether that be a domestic or foreign entity, is no friend of freedom.  These might sound like buzz-words that those on the Right use to invoke some sense of patriotism or some vague notion of freedom (and some do use them for incitement), but matter of fact is that a true notion of freedom is one of the essential cornerstones of libertarianism. 

On my way to work today, I was reading one of John Stossel's books, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. Stossel, being a libertarian himself, points out how Big Business is the bad guy, and how the government has to play a messianic role in mitigating the situation.  Yes, there are a few situations that shock us all--Enron and the Bernie Madoff scandal are but two of these examples of "Big Business gone bad."  But, as Stossel points out, these situations are few and far in between, not to mention that they don't get away with it for long.  That's the joy of the Invisible Hand.  Consumers find out unscrupulous business practices, they let other consumers know, and the business goes under.  There's such an empowerment with a free-market system, which is quite the contrary of what you got with the command economy of the former Soviet Union.  The domestic enemy, in this case, are those in the government who like to control the markets. 

John Stossel brings up the blatantly obvious fact of how price controls harm the economy. This is true, whether it's in rent control, where there's an artificial price ceiling that stunts the landlord's incentive to create better living quarters. It's also true for minimum wage, which creates a disincentive for employers to hire the poorer citizens of America, the very people that those left-winged statists claim they're helping.
The most recent, not to mention controversial, form of this price control is in the process of occurring to a sixth of our economy, i.e. the health care industry. Instead of having doctors making decisions for patients, you'll have bureaucrats, who happen to receive privatized health care plans, forcing you to take the public option. Although it might seem innocuous, this is how erosion of rights occurs. It's under the guise of "health care access to all," or "helping out those in need." Those one-liners are used to creep up on our inherent rights to do what we want with our own money and choose whatever health care plan we would like. Power over health care is literally power over life and death. I already previously discussed this when discussing the inevitability of rationing health care and how the elderly will receive inadequate health care, and that would be if they'd be lucky enough to receive any health care at all. What has the government done to merit this level of power? If the government cannot handle something as simple as the Post Office, Amtrak, or Cash for Clunkers, why should I trust them with my personal longevity? Talking about "my body, my choice!" You'd think the liberals would be with me on this one, but I guess that would be asking too much, like being consistent with one's principles. What needs to be done right now is to put significant amounts of pressure on the Senate to not pass this outrageous invasion of health care rights. Anything short of that will have our health care system ending up like that of Canada, if not something worse.   

Parsha Vayera: What's a Sodomite?

It's a bit late to comment, but I figured that it'd still be prudent to comment on last week's parsha of Vayera.

"ויאמר יהוה, זעקת סדם ועמרה כי-רבה; וחטאתם--כי כבדה, מאד."

"And HaShem said: 'Verily, the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and, verily, their sin is exceeding grievous." -Genesis 18:20

This verse made me wonder: What did the Sodomites do to incur G-d's wrath? If they were ultimately destroyed, they must have done something to merit it, right? If you listen to a right-winged, Fundamentalist Christian, he'll opine that it was homosexuality that brought the demise of Sodom and Gommarah. I have a problem with that conclusion for two reasons. One, in order to perpetuate a given population, you need to reproduce at a birth rate of 2.1. If everybody in Sodom and Gommorah were homosexual, they wouldn't be able to survive because natural selection would have wiped them out long before G-d got to them. Plus, historically speaking, it is a constant that the percent of homosexuals in a given population is 5-6%. So, it is theoretically possible you had a case of "Bisexuals Gone Wild," but the issue with using that argument is that there is only one scant Talmudic reference to Sodom and homosexuality, and it is within the context of rape, an inherently malicious and coercive act that is done against the other person's will:

"R. Menhama in the name of R. Bibi: This is what the Sodomites had stipulated among themselves. They said, 'as to any wayfarer who comes here, we shall have sexual relations with him and take away his money.'" -Genesis Rabbah, Parshah 50:7

If the citizens of Sodom were really pining for homosexual acts, Lot was right there. But it wasn't about homosexuality; it was about humiliation and dominance over wayfarers because the citizens of Sodom didn't want anybody helping the unfortunate, as I'll show later. Plus, it cannot be possible that the sin was homosexuality because Abraham interceded an entire chapter beforehand and asked if there were at least ten people who were "righteous," that Sodom could be saved. Therefore, whatever what was so sinful had to have occurred prior to the scene in Genesis 19. With this in mind, it still begs the question of what caused the fall of Sodom and Gommorah. The first place I would look into is Biblical exegesis, i.e., an explicit verse that corroborates a given point.  I found the only Biblical verse, and it's not quite what I thought it would be:

הִנֵּה-זֶה הָיָה, עֲו‍ֹן סְדֹם אֲחוֹתֵךְ: גָּאוֹן שִׂבְעַת-לֶחֶם וְשַׁלְוַת הַשְׁקֵט, הָיָה לָהּ וְלִבְנוֹתֶיהָ, וְיַד-עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן, לֹא הֶחֱזִיקָה.

-Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

After Biblical exegisis, the next place for a Jew to look is Rabbinic commentary. Third verse I found was from Pirke Avot (5:13): "There are four types of people. [The first is] the one who says, 'what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours.' This is the average type, but some say that this is the Sodom type." Sounds a lot more like a chiding of pure, unadultured selfishness than homosexuality.

The best Talmudic evidence is Sanhedrin 109, where Chazal lists the sins of Sodom, which range from heterosexually-based sexual assault and ignoring the wayfarer all the way to inhospitality and downright avarice. The most egregious of these accounts was of one Sodomite woman who gave bread to a poor person.  She had to sneak the bread into a pitcher, and was caught.  She was subsequently punished by publicly being tied to a wall, covered with honey, and devoured by bees.  Hmmmm, I guess it wasn't that man-on-man action that got this woman into trouble.
 

Conclusion: It's great to clear up that societal misconception that Sodom was about sexual illicitness.  What all of these accounts, Biblical and Talmudic, have in common is that Sodom was the epitome of man's self-indulgence.  Here you had a city with all the material wealth and provisions that one could ask for.  Not only did Sodomites not help out others, but they also set up a legal system where people were punished for helping out the less fortunate and those who provided others with hospitality.  The important lesson taught here is to care for others.  Be like Avraham Avinu, not only in terms of being hospitable, but to do so in a positive demeanor.  As the Talmud says, "Hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine presence (Shabbat 127a)." When Abraham was receiving the Divine Presence (Genesis 18:1), he stopped receiving the Divine Revelation to help out those in need. By emulating Abraham's generosity and hospitality, we avoid both the spiritual and physical fate that Sodom had endured.