Halakhah zu Bereschit 9:3

Rav Judah stated in the name of Rav, "Adam was not permitted meat for purposes of eating as it is written, 'for you shall it be for food and to all beasts of the earth' (Genesis 1:29), but not beasts of the earth for you. But when the sons of Noah came [He] permitted them [the beasts of the earth] as it is said, 'as the green grass have I given to you everything' (Genesis 9:3)."

In point of fact, this talmudic dictum is simply a terse statement of the relevant law prior to the time of Noah but is silent with regard to any validating rationale. While the statement in question may well be compatible with a vegetarian ideal, it may quite readily be comprehended as reflecting entirely different considerations. Indeed, the classic biblical commentators found entirely different explanations for the change which occurred with regard to dietary regulations. Thus, for example, R. Jacob ben Asher, renowned as the author of the Tur Shulḥan Arukh, in his commentary on Genesis 1:29, explains that, prior to partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam lacked any desire for meat; only subsequent to eating of the forbidden fruit did man acquire a carnivorous nature. Hence the dispensation granted to Noah to eat the flesh of animals simply reflects man's transformed biological needs. R. Meir Leibush Malbim, in his commentary on Genesis 9:3, remarks that Adam was endowed with a "strong" constitution and that the produce available in the Garden of Eden was nutritionally optimal in nature. Under such circumstances, Adam's dietary needs could be satisfied without recourse to meat. Only as mankind degenerated physically as well as spiritually, became geographically dispersed and hence subject to the vagaries of climate, and as the quality of available produce became nutritionally inferior, did it become necessary for man, in his "weakened" state, to supplement his diet with animal products in order to assure the availability of the nutrients required for his biological needs.

(2) A number of medieval scholars, including R. Issac Abarbanel in his commentary on Genesis 9:3 and Isaiah 11:7, and R. Joseph Albo, Sefer ha-Ikkarim, Book III, chapter 15, regard vegetarianism as a moral ideal, not because of a concern for the welfare of animals, but because of the fact that the slaughter of animals might cause the individual who performs such acts to develop negative character traits, viz., meanness and cruelty. Their concern was with regard to possible untoward effect upon human character rather than with animal welfare.²See also R. Abraham I. Kook, Iggerot Re’iyah (Jerusalem, 5722), II, 230.

The most obvious exception is the slaughtering of animals for meat which is specifically permitted by Scripture to Noah and his progeny: "Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you" (Genesis 9:3). Rambam, followed by Sefer ha-Hinnukh, regards this exception as circumscribed by the provisions surrounding the requirement for ritual slaughter in order to eliminate pain.¹⁷Indeed, sheḥitah is the most humane method of slaughter known to man. The procedure involves a transverse cut in the throat of the animal with an extremely sharp and smooth knife. Due to the sharpness of the knife and the paucity of sensory cutaneous nerve endings in the skin covering the throat, the incision itself causes no pain. The incision severs the carotid arteries as well as the jugular veins. The resultant massive loss of blood causes the animal to become unconscious in a matter of seconds. There is ample clinical evidence confirming the total absence of pain to the animal as a result of sheḥitah. This has long been recognized by scientists of international repute. In view of recurring misinformed attacks upon sheḥitah it is instructive to cite at length a portion of a detailed, clarificatory statement authored by Dr. Leonard Hill, Professor of Physiology, University of London, and Director of Applied Physiology, National Institute for Medical Research, which appeared in Lancet, CCV (1923), 1382 [reprinted in Solomon David Sassoon, A Critical Study of Electrical Stunning and The Jewish Method of Slaughter (Shechita) 3rd edition, (Letchworth, 1955), pp. 4-6]. Dr. Hill writes:
See also Leonard Hill, “The Jewish Method of Slaughter: A Rejoinder to the Dutchess of Hamilton,” The English Review, June 1923, pp. 604-607, reprinted in Sassoon, pp. 36-38. Further statements confirming the painless nature of sheḥitah by Lord Horder, F.A.C.P., and Sir C. P. Lovatt Eveans, Emeritus Professor of Physiology, London University, are included in Sassoon, pp. 38-39. See also Solomon David Sassoon, Supplement to the Booklet Entitled: A Critical Study of Electrical Stunning and The Jewish Method of Slaughter (Shechita) (Letchworth, 1956).
Both the absence of pain as a result of the incision and the almost instanteous loss of consciousness subsequent to sheḥitah are confirmed in a report prepared in 1963 by L. I. Nangeroni and P. D. Kennett of the Department of Physiology, New York State Veterinary College, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, titled “An Electroencephalographic Study of the Effect of Shechita Slaughter on Cortical Function in Ruminants.” The primary significance of this study lies in the clinical investigation of changes in function which occur in the cerebral cortex following the act of sheḥitah. The investigators utilized an electroencephalograph in order to determine the precise moment at which the slaughtered animal ceases consciously to perceive pain and other environmental stimuli. Recordings were taken with sheep, calves and goats as subjects. It was determined that in the rams tested the time which elapsed subsequent to the making of the incision until the cerebral cortex lapsed into a state of complete unconsciousness ranged from 3.3 to 6.2 seconds. In calves it was found that consciousness appeared to be poor by the time that four seconds had elapsed after the cut and complete unconsciousness, in which condition the animal could not perceive stimuli of any kind, became manifest between 4.4 and 6.9 seconds after the cut. Of two goats tested, one became unconscious 5 seconds after slaughter; in the case of the second goat, the electroencephalogram was obscured and hence it was impossible to determine the exact time at which unconsciousness was reached.
Electroencephalographic evidence serves to determine the precise moment at which the animal becomes unconscious and conclusively establishes the time beyond which it is manifestly impossible for the animal to experience pain. In the animals examined this ranged between 3.3 and 6.9 seconds subsequent to slaughter. However, this does not mean that the animals experienced pain during the few seconds prior to becoming unconscious. Indeed, there is no way of interpreting an electroencephalogram to determine whether or not pain is actually being experienced by a conscious animal. The electroencephalogram can only serve to establish that the animal is, in fact, unconscious and hence no longer capable of experiencing pain. With regard to the possibility of pain in conjunction with the actual incision before the animal loses consciousness, the report, p. 17, states:
The absence of pain in association with a sharp incision is confirmed by a report of a bizarre incident recorded by H. Spörri, Schächten und Tierschutz (Report, University of Zurich, 1965), who describes the case of a man who cut his throat, including the trachea and esophagus but not the carotids. This person survived to report that the pain had not been severe.
These findings were confirmed by W. Schulze et al., Versuche zur Objektivierung von Schmerz und Bewusstsein bei der konventionellen (Bolzenschussbetäubung) sowie religionsgesetzlichen (Schächtschnitt) Schlachtung von Schaf und Kalb,” Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift, LXXXV, (February 5, 1978), 62-66. These researchers found it highly probable that in sheep a state of unconsciousness is reached within 4 to 6 seconds and in cattle within 10 seconds. A completely flat electroencephalogram was reached after no more than 13 seconds in sheep and after no more than 23 seconds in calves. During the few seconds in which consciousness might exist, a thermic pain stimulation caused no change in the EEG. The same authors conducted similar investigations upon animals subjected to electrical stunning and found that it took longer to reach a flat EEG and, moreover, that thermal pain stimulation as well as a subsequent incision produced a change in the EEG. Similar differences between sheḥitah and stunning were found by R. Gross, “Elektroencephalegraphische und elektrocardiographische Verlaufsuntersuchungen nach Bolzenschussbetäubung und nach Töten durch Entbluten in der Form des rituellen Schlachtens,” Thesis, University of Hannover, 1976.
See also I. M. Levinger, “Jewish Method of Slaughtering Animals for Food and its Influence on the Blood Supply to the Brain and on the Normal Functioning of the Nervous System,” Animal Regulation Studies, II (1979), 111—26, and the studies concerning physiological aspects of sheḥitah cited in the extensive bibliography appended to that article. According to Rambam, those provisions are designed to limit the pain insofar as possible. Thus in the Guide, Book III, chapter 26, Rambam states: