사사기 1:6의 Halakhah

Teshuvot Shevut Ya'akov, III, no. 71,⁴⁶Shevut Ya‘akov also adduces proof that ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim is permitted, at least for medical purposes, on the basis of the statement of the Gemara, Shabbat 77b, to the effect that various insects were created so that, when crushed, they might be used as remedies for various bites and that serpents were created so that they might be boiled and used as a cure for eruptions; see above, note 33. As additional evidence, he cites the statement of the Gemara, Shabbat 109b, advising that if one is bitten by a snake “he should procure an embryo of a white ass, tear it open, and be made to sit upon it.” A further source which may be cited is the statement of the Gemara, Shabbat 110b, dealing with the treatment of jaundice, which advises, inter alia, “let him take a speckled swine, tear it open and apply it to his heart.” However, these sources fail to demonstrate that ẓa‘ar ba’alei ḥayyim is permitted for medical purposes if the killing of animals is excluded from the prohibition; see above, notes 21-25 and accompanying text. and Teshuvot Rav Pe'alim, I, Yoreh De'ah, no. 1, find support for Rema's ruling in the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 13b. It is forbidden to sell a solitary white chicken to an idolator for fear that he may intend to offer the bird as a pagan sacrifice. However, since a mutilated bird would not be used for idolatrous purposes, the Mishnah permits the seller to render the chicken unfit for sacrificial use by removing a digit from the chicken's foot prior to sale. Here, too, such a procedure necessarily entails pain to the chicken. Accordingly, argue Shevut Ya'akov and Rav Pe'alim, such a practice could be permitted only because it is prompted by legitimate commercial need. The procedure sanctioned by the Mishnah serves as a paradigm establishing the general principle that za'ar ba'alei ḥayyim is permissible when necessary to satisfy a human need.⁴⁷See, however, R. Yechiel Ya‘akov Weinberg, Seridei Esh, III, no. 7, and Ḥelkat Ya‘akov, III, no. 31, sec. 4. Rabbi Weinberg argues that this source cannot serve as a basis for Rema’s ruling since “perhaps” such practices are condoned only for the purpose of preventing idolatrous activities. Cf. Ramban, Avodah Zarah 13b. In his analysis of the Gemara’s citation of the verse “and their horses shall you hough (et suseihem te‘aker)” (Judges 1:6), Ramban equates abrogation of idolatrous practices with other human needs. See also Teshuvot Imrei Shefer, no. 34, sec. 9, who endeavors to show that ẓa‘ar ba‘alei ḥayyim was permitted in the case of the white chicken sold to an idolator only to spare the animal from even greater pain. The same authority, loc. cit., no. 34, sec. 14, also suggests that this procedure was permitted only when performed in a manner which does not entail pain; see below, note 52. A similar explanation is advanced by Ḥavalim ba-Ne‘imim, I, no. 43, sec. 3.