Halakhah su Levitico 19:19

Behold that there are commands and warnings that appear in the Torah that are not about a specific thing, but rather include all of the commandments. It is as if it says, "Do everything I have commanded you to do and be careful about anything from which I have prohibited you"; or "Do not transgress anything of what I have commanded you about." And there is no room to count this command on its own - as it does not command us to do a specific act, such that it should be a positive commandment; nor does it warn us from doing a specific act, such that it should be a negative commandment. And this is like its saying, "Be on guard concerning all that I have told you" (Exodus 23:13); and what is stated, "And you shall keep my statutes" (Leviticus 19:19); "And you shall keep my judgements" (Leviticus 18:4); "and you shall keep My covenant" (Exodus 19:5); "And you shall keep My charge" (Leviticus 18:30), and many like these. And [others] have already erred in this principle, such that they counted, "You shall be holy" (Leviticus 19:2), to be included among the positive commandments. And they did not know that "You shall be holy," and "you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy" (Leviticus 11:44) are commands to keep the whole Torah. It is as if it said, "Be holy by doing everything I have commanded you and being careful about anything I have prohibited to you." And the words of the Sifra (Sifra, Kedoshim, Section 1:1) are, "'You shall be holy' - you shall be separated - meaning to say, separate from all the disgraceful things that I have prohibited to you." And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 22:30:1), "Issi ben Yehudah says, 'When the Holy One, Blessed be He, originates a commandment for Israel, He adds holiness to them'" - meaning to say this command is not a command in itself, but rather follows from the commands that they have been commanded. So one who fulfills this command will be called, holy. And there is no difference between it saying, "You shall be holy," or if it had said, "Do my commandments." Would you see that that which is being said [here] is a positive commandment, in addition to the commandments that it is referring back to, that we have been commanded? Likewise should we not say that "You shall be holy," and that which is similar to it, is a commandment - for it has not commanded us to do anything besides what we [already] know. And the words of the Sifrei (Sifrei Bamidbar 115:1): "'You shall be holy' - that is the holiness of the commandments.' Hence behold what we have been working around is clear. And also based on this principle is its saying, "Cut away the thickening about your hearts" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, that one accept and obey all of the commandments already mentioned. And so too, "and stiffen your necks no more" (Deuteronomy 10:16) - meaning to say, do not harden your heart and accept that which I commanded you, and do not transgress it.

These sources, however, serve only to demonstrate that animal-directed conduct which is compassionate in nature constitutes a "good deed" but do not serve to establish a system of normative duties or responsibilities. Particularly in light of the strong nomistic element present in Judaism, the absence of normative regulations might well be regarded as indicative of the absence of serious ethical concern for the welfare of members of the animal kingdom. But this is demonstrably not the case, for, in Jewish teaching, there is no dearth of nomoi designed to protect and promote animal welfare. The most obvious example of a regulation having such an effect, and one which is clearly biblical in origin, is contained in the verse "If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forebear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him" (Exodus 23:5). The selfsame concern is manifest in the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it threshes in order that the animal be free to eat of the produce while working (Deuteronomy 25:4). Similarly, Scripture provides that both domestic animals and wild beasts must be permitted to share in produce of the land which grows without cultivation during the sabbatical year.⁴See Me’iri, Baba Meẓi‘a 33a, and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 596. The purpose of other biblical laws pertaining to animals in less clear-cut. The prohibition against plowing with animals of different species, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:10, is understood by Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 550, as well as by Da‘at Zekenim mi-Ba’alei ha-Tosafot and Ba’al ha-Turim in their respective commentaries on Deuteronomy 22:10, as rooted in considerations of prevention of cruelty to animals, but is understood in an entirely different manner by Rambam, Guide of the Perplexed, Book III, chapter 49, as well as by Ramban in his commentary on Deuteronomy 22:10. However, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48, regards the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day, recorded in Leviticus 22:28, as a precautionary measure designed to prevent the slaughter of the offspring in the presence of its parent. The underlying concern is to spare the mother the anguish of seeing her young killed before her eyes “for in these cases animals feel very great pain, there being no difference regarding this pain between man and the other animals. For the love and the tenderness of a mother for her child is not consequent upon reason, but upon the activity of the imaginative faculty, which is found in most animals just as it is found in man.” Here, Rambam speaks of concern for the welfare of the animal rather than for the moral character of the human agent; see below, notes 14-15 and accompanying text. This interpretation is reflected in the comments of R. Baḥya ben Asher, Leviticus 22:28, and, in part, in Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 294. Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh regards the commandment prohibiting the slaughter of an animal and its young on the same day as designed both to spare the parent from anguish and as a conservation measure as well. See also Abarbanel’s Commentary on the Bible, ad locum. Rambam’s analysis of the rationale underlying this precept is rejected by Ramban in his Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6. According to Ramban, the concern is not to avoid pain to the animal but to purge man of callousness, cruelty and savagery.
Although the Gemara, Baba Meẓi‘a 32a, declares that assistance in unloading a burden from an animal is mandated by reason of ẓa’ar ba’alei ḥayyim but that the obligation to assist in loading the burden upon the animal is not independently mandated by reason of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim, Ritva, cited by Shitah Mekubeẓet, Baba Meẓi‘a 31a, s.v. aval te’inah, asserts that the commandment requiring a person to render assistance to another who is engaged in loading an animal is predicated upon considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Ritva, a single person engaged in this task is likely to cause additional discomfort to the animal by applying the full force of his body weight whereas, when he is assisted by another, there is no need to apply similar pressure.
Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 186, is of the opinion that the prohibition against the slaughter of sanctified animals outside the Temple precincts is rooted in considerations of ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. According to Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, such slaughter is forbidden because no purpose is served thereby and hence constitutes ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim. See below, note 29.
Neither the prohibition against mating animals of different species, Leviticus 19:19, nor the prohibition against emasculation of animals, Leviticus 22:24, is understood by classical rabbinic scholars as rooted in considerations of animal welfare. For a discussion of animal welfare as a possible rationale associated with other commandments, see R. Joel Schwartz, Ve-Raḥamav al Kol Ma’asav (Jerusalem, 5744), pp. 11-16. Although the literal meaning of the biblical text may be somewhat obscure, talmudic exegesis understands Genesis 9:4 and Deuteronomy 12:23 as forbidding the eating of a limb severed from a living animal. Jewish law teaches that this prohibition, unlike most other commandments, is universally binding upon all peoples as one of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Sabbath laws contained in both formulations of the Decalogue reflect a concern which goes beyond the mere elimination of pain and discomfort and serve to promote the welfare of animals in a positive manner by providing for their rest on the Sabbath day: "But the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord thy God, on it thou shalt not do any manner of work … nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle …" (Deuteronomy 5:14). Even more explicit in expressing concern for the welfare of animals is the verse "… but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest" (Exodus 23:12).⁵The requirement that the parent bird be released before the young are taken and the concomitant prohibition against taking both the parent and the young, recorded in Deuteronomy 22:6-7, quite obviously have the effect of sparing the parent from anguish. The Mishnah, Berakhot 33b, however, does not view this desideratum, laudable as it may be, as the underlying purpose of the commandment. Cf., however, Rambam, Guide, Book III, chapter 48; Ramban, Commentary on the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:6; and Sefer ha-Ḥinnukh, no. 545.

He prohibited us from planting grain - as well as other vegetables - in a vineyard. And this type of forbidden mixture is called forbidden mixtures of the vineyard. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "Do not plant your vineyard with mingled seed" (Deuteronomy 22:9). And the language of the [Sifrei] (Sifrei Devarim 230:1) is, "'Do not plant your vineyard' - why do I need it? And is it not already stated (Leviticus 19:19), 'you shall not sow your field?'" And this would without a doubt include a vineyard and seeds. [In answer,] they said, "It teaches that one who has a forbidden mixture in a vineyard transgresses two negative commandments." And know that a forbidden mixture of the vineyard is only forbidden by Torah law in the Land [of Israel] - [and] on condition that he sows wheat, barley and grape seeds with a single hand motion. However one is lashed for the [forbidden] grafting of trees everywhere. And its prohibition comes under His saying, "you shall not sow your field with mingled seed." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Kilayim. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Diverse Species 1.)