19

Animal Experimentation
Rabbi Alfred S. Cohen

For the person immersed in Torah observance and study, it is

obvious thai Torah is much more than a book of laws; it is the
respository of divine values, ethics, and eternal truths. Thus we
have to he guided not only by the strict letter of the law, hut also
by the spirit which imbues the mitzvot.
In his daily life, a person develops modes of interaction with
those around him - family, friends, Jew, and Gentile. But it is also
necessary to consider our relationship with the animal kingdom, to
seek out the guidelines which will indicate to us proper and ethical
attitudes towards animals. Although there are few specifics in the
Torah itself concerning animals, the milzvol that we do have
unquestionably bespeak an attitude which places great importance
upon treating living creatures with kindness; the rabbinic teachings
in the Midrash and Talmud immeasurably reinforce this approach.
In this paper, we will be discussing the use of animals for
various forms of medical and scientific, experimentation or other,
non-food, use. Since the 18th century, organized efforts have been
under way in America and Europe to make people more sensitive
to animals' sufferings. Groups such as the Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Anti-
Vivisection Society have grown, their concerns ranging from the
treatment of pets to protests over scientific experiments with any
animal. There is no need to cite all the scriptural and rabbinic dicta

Rabbi, Young Israel of Canarsie

Rebbi, Yeshiva University High School
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

concerning animals; however, a few selections. from our literature

will amply demons.trate the sensitivity for the welfare of animals
which is inherent in Jewis.h thought.
Aside from the well-known regulations to slaughter an animal
in the quickest, least painful method pos.sible, the Torah also
teaches that if one sees a donkey struggling under its burden, he
must stop what he is doing and help the donkey's master unload
the animal to alleviate its suffering. ' And when one plows the field
with his ox, he is forbidden to muzzle the animal.! This mitzva
goes beyond the alleviation of physical suffering, for it teaches us
to realize the psychological pain the animal might experience
having to be surrounded by forage but unable to eat from it.
Our rabbis teach that even so great an individual as Moshe
Rabbenu was not chosen by the Almighty to lead the Jews out of
Egypt until he had proven his sens.itivity as. a shepherd guarding
the flocks of Jethro.

And Moshe, too, was not tested by G-d except by

[his treatment of] the flocks. Our Rabbis taught that
when Moshe our teacher, may peace by upon him,
was a shepherd for Jethro in the desert, a kid ran
away, and he chased after it until he reached [a
faraway place], where he chanced upon a pool of
water. The kid stopped [running] in order to take a
drink. When Moshe reached him, he said, "I didn't
realize that you were running because you were
thirsty. Now you must be tired!" Whereupon he
picked up the kid and carried it on his shoulders. At
that, the Holy One, Blessed by He, said, "You have
so much pity to lead the flocks belonging to flesh and
blood [Jethro] I swear that you will be the shepherd
for My flock, Israel.")
The great man cannot be one who is callous to the needs and
wants of those under his tutelage. Scns.itivity to the needs of the
weak is a prerequisite not only for a leader, however, but also for

\. Shemot 23:S
2. Dwarim 2.5:4
3. Midrosh Rllbbah, Shemot 2:2
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

the ordinary Jew at all times, Our rabbis taught 4 that a person
cannot sit down to eat until he has fed his animals, based on the
ven,e "And I will give grass in your fields for your animals, and
{afterward] you shall eat and be satisfied,"5
The Talmud teaches that the most revered sage, Rabbi Judah
the Prince, was severely punished by Heaven because of
callousness to an animal. b Once as he was walking in the street, a
young calf being led to the slaughter broke away from its keepers
and ran to him, hiding in his robes. Rabbi Judah pulled the
creature away and handed it over to the slaughterer, remarking to
it "Go, for you were created for this purpose." What was really
wrong with what the rabbi said? Was the animal not created in
order to bring benefit for man? But there was a certain hardness of
heart, a lack of pity, in allowing so very young an animal to be
slaughtered. 7 Therefore, Rabbi Judah suffered terribly from gastro-
intestinal ailments for years, and it was understood that his pain
was a rebuke for his attitude. Only years later was he cured, when
he demonstrated his sensitivity to an animal's feelings by not

4. BtrachQ' 4(l~
and Gilti" 62b. S~ 011':11< pc :1,10 y"o I"" :l',l :ly)l' n1:111.1
.:1,1< )I'" who debate whether this is forbidden by biblical law or rabbinic
restriction, See also I< y'm ,cn ',11.1 pp. 41 and 219, who questions whether it i~
only a meal which is forbidden or whether it might even be forbidden to taste
food before feeding the animal. Note 1]"1:l1 ;, .., 1"0 !"O\, 01:1':>11 '11<:1.
I<':>yn o','on '!lD di5Cus5f's whether the prohibition extends even to drinking
before he gives his animal, and 1 1111< ,on '1y" probe!. whether the rule applies
to the morning meal or to any time a person wanl5 to eat, J"':> n"11< 'D10 :In:l
also Wrill'S on Ihis.
In '11 y'D l1j:nY;l :I'nJ .0':>1)1 nlJ'nJ the Mahanl expands upon the
conceptual basis of the law, noting that someone who does an aCI of ehesed with
a person or with an animal actually re.:=eives a greater benefit than the recipienl
of the chesed.
He also explains why a person must feed his bn~t before him5f'lf partaking
of a meal.
5. Deoorim 11'15.
6. BaVlI Me/zia 85a.
'1. The Mahar~ha offers the explanation that although indeed a calf is mnnt to be
slaughtered eventually, this one was almost new born. and Rebbi's attitude to it
was unkind. The Gaonim fault him for lacking compassion for the animal
which had turned to him for help.
22 THE JOURNAL OF HAlACHA

allowing his maid to chase away a cal. On that occasion, he

admonished her to be gentle, for "His mercy is upon all His
creatures."
On the other hand, the Torah makes it abundantly clear that
"the Earth and all the fullness thereof" were created for man's use
and pleasure, that he is entitled to use animals for food, for work,
for play, for his benefit. Is that the extent of man's control? Are
there limits to what use man can make of animals, or does he have
carte blanche in using them to satisfy his every whim? Specifically,
are there halachic restrictions on performing experiments upon
animals for the benefit of human? Whether animals can be used
for various forms of expermentation is a question of crucial
importance, particularly in light of the tremendous expansion
recently in scientific experimentation in the medical field. Must the
hoped-for gains be of life-saving proportions, or mayan animal's
life be taken even just to improve the quality of human life? Once
we posit that an animal may be used in an experiment, are we
required to take any precautions to minimize suffering in the
course of that experiment? We will search for answers to these
questions as well as to others which arise in the course of the
following study.
Animal experimentation is a halachic issue whose resolution is
important in its own right; incidentally, the inquiry to determine
the halacha may also serve as a virtual paradigm of rabbinic
methodology in carving a halachic path out of a welter of talmudic
materiaL parts of which seem contradictory. It is fascinating to
trace the development of Jewish legal thought on this malter, and
we will observe how, over the centuries, scholars have maneuvered
through a maze of rabbinic teachings in order to arrive at halachic
rulings which are internally consistent and in accord with all the
texts.
In Chullin 8sb the following story is told:
1r.H< '~11 K'l'Ji" KnK ;''In':I~ K:I'~K' i'l" ,m
./,<')'J1 /'<n'~l:1 ,y tnnlUl /'<!IUI
K"n ':11
'i'1U i'l"

Rabbi Hiyya had a pilt' of flax which became infested

with worms. He came before Rebbi [to ask his advicel
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

and he said to him, "Take a bird and slaughter it over

a tub of water."
The purpose of this was so that the worms would smell the
blood and that would cause them to come out of the flax. The
Gemara does not tell us whether the measure was effective, but
that is not the point - dearly, Rebbi (Rabbi Judah the Prince who
compiled the Mishna) felt no hesitation in recommending slaughter
of a bird for a purpose other than food - as a matter of fact, it
seems that the bird was to be used only as a means of gaining a
financial benefit by saving the flax. Nor is this episode the only
one of its kind, for in Shabbat 77b, we learn that "Rav said,
'Whatever G-d made in his world was not made for naught: He
made a snail, which is [helpful for curing] a scab, [he made a] fly
as an antidote for a hornet's sting.''' Here, again, we find the
rabbis considering the use of living creatures for a person's use or
benefit as a perfectly acceptable. even laudable option. a
On the other hand, there are passages in the Cemara which
convey quite a different impression. Consider the following episode
in ChIll/in 7b:
1? ,}']I< '7YI< "yt1 lJ1Y' ;"r, '1'31( ;"!)I<? P!)l ':1' Y1'3'O
xnn'!) Klilil:l ?Y '1'3,n'K Knl< '::l .•. ':J, 7V 1'l ):IilY Til

8. There are many other talmudic sourc~ affirming this principle. See ,ui' "~IU
and :)'" l"Y as well as those cited by D "1/< ,,,.-.. Y....1< ,1<'l. In addition, Sff
1<~l;I~ 'C1~C 1.. 0 ,., "l'l!1 ,n' mD~' ,1<'" ''')I 0"'" '?Ct! and l;I-1< ~pV' "i'l;I!1 who
cites the incident in Judg~ 14 _ where Shimshon tied burning torches to the
tail5 of foxes in order to incinerate the field5 of the Philistines, However. he
rejects this incident as a proper source, for there it was a case of life and death,
and we cannot draw general principles from such a case.
Further discussion is to be found in tJ10~ ,l;I,o,1;l '01' ., ..", ~"o, D"~ 1'"
.1:~"~ O"~' 1"~0,
A unique approach to the subject is found in I<n~o" .. ~ n~1U ""OIU
., yo,n ~ n11< 1<-Yi'.
ion "IU explains the "Seh La-Auuel"' n something that was permitted becaur.e
it was being used for a mitzva.
For comments on the Jewish attitude to hunting, see :~ pl;ln .'1C1' tl"O
o,1<)~':J1<:J ...., 11"'''' '1'.
 THE JOURNAL OF HAlACHA

m':J:J nmil 1l<?t.l ,t.ll< xn,nn Xn"J'1:J il':J I'D"i' Pil'

il'? ,t.3l< il'!lX? P!lJ ':J' 1/DW 1?YX '11/0X 'lK' m ?W
KJ,pnD ?111J:JD lnn K? ,11/ 'J!I?l il'? 't.3K 1i1? KJ'J':JID
Kl'70P c"n '?1/:J '1/Y K:J'K 1i1? Kl'i'Y Ki'l'il nW!lD 1i1?
.il1i1 n'nwn ?:J K:l'K 1i1?

One lime, Rebbi heard that Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair

was coming. Going out to greet him, he asked if the
revered Rabbi Pinchas would be wil1ing to dine with
him. When R. Pinchas ben Yair agreed, Rebbi's face
"lit up" with joy. However, later, when the rabbi
entered his host's domain, he was startled as he came
through the door to see that there were white mules
on the property. He exclaimed, "The Angel of Death
is in this one's house, and I am going to eat with
him?!" [Apparently, white mules were considered by
him to be dangerous animals.] Rebbi was upset when
he heard this and immediately offered to sell them,
but R. Pinch as replied, "Do not place a stumbling
block before a blind man!" [How can you sell
someone a dangerous animal and put that person in
danged] 50 then Rebbi offered to let the mules go, to
make them hefke, [ownerless], but once again R.
Pinchas objected, saying that that would only spread
the danger further. Then Rebbi said he would remove
their hooves, so that they could not harm anyone, but
R. Pinchas objected that "this would entail pain to
the animal." Finally, Rebbi decided that the only
solution was to kill the animals, but here again R.
Pinch as would not allow it, for "it is bal tashchit [a
waste]. "
The ultimate fate of the mules is not our concern here, but
there is an important principle which we may discern: Rebbi
wanted to perform a mitzva - 10 tasim damim bevaitecha - to
remove a dangerous object from his house, yet his mentor would
not allow him to cause the animals pain, even if by doing so he
would remove a halachic violation from his house. 9

9. This text apparently is the 5<,lUTCe for the famous ruling of the Nodllh
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
"
We can begin to appreciate the dilemma which the posek, the
halachic decisor, faces. On the one hand, the Talmud teaches that
everything in this world, including living creatures, was created for
the benefit of man, and there seems to be no hesitation to kill an
animal even only in order to realize some financial gain. Yet
elsewhere in the Talmud a saintly rabbi forbids hurting an animal,
even if the pain is caused in the process of fulfilling a biblical
command. The dilemma continues to be reflected in the Shu1chan
Aruch, wherein we find two rulings which appear to be based on
opposing principles:
C11lm il'::! n'? 0',:1.' ,KIlh lK ilK)!),? ,"Yil ,:I., ?:I
nmum myu m,t.:l? ,nm 1:1?1 c"n '?V:l 'VY ,10'K
lO.n":lY C1IUlJ lUn'lJ? K:l'?1 npn

Whatever is needed for healing or for some other

purpose, there is no prohibition of "pain to animals"
[involved in it], and therefore it is permitted to pluck
feathers from living geese [for their down] and one
need not be concerned about "pain to animals".
[Here Ramo appends:] Nevertheless, people hold back
from doing it, since it is cruel. 1Z
Elsewhere in the Shu/chan Aruch u the law is given that one
may pull out feathers which are impeding the shochet, so that he

BiYehud"h that the principle of avoiding pain to an animal (Twar baal cl1,,;)
does not forbid the killing of an animal. However, he is virtually alone in this
view that in killing an animal there is no issue of causing it pain. 1<"']0 lll'o
discusses the principle, but the Ch"t"m Sofer (T'J '"'0) maintains that the latter
te>:t cannot serve as proof either way on this question. For further discussion of
this topic, see J'IUT.l' ?I<'W .'J J"'J mrJ'pD 1'11"W ;1<"loI )"'n Jplol' nlJlO
.(mJ?n "JJ "ur? p' "00') 1<' 1"1' :OlM :1<' 1'?'O I<"JI'" ,'-i1tI-)"n
10. T":1'1 '11'1'1 pI< 1'"'10
11. oW' ,I'('"rn
12. The Vilna Gaon finds the source for this stringency in the talmudic account of
Rebbi, whose many years of physical affliction were attributed to his callousness
towards an animal, as we have noted.
13. n nll< '"'W' :1'1'"0 ,'"J .,"'0 ]"'J .m" 1'1'" .t<'"c,
26 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

may slaughter the bird properly. There is no mention whatsoever

of cruelty or pain to the animaL
What then is the halacha - is cruelty to animals to be
avoided, 3!> the Ramo indicates, or is it of no concern, as when the
sJlOchet has to prepare animal for slaughter? And if there is indeed
a halachic principle about tza'ar baule; chaim (pain to animals),
how is it balanced against other principles or values with which it
may conflict?

Biblical or Rabbinic Halacha?

One of the first questions that has to be addressed is if tzanr
baule; chalm is an issur d'oraitha (biblical prohibition) or an issur
d'rabba'lQll (rabbinic regulation). If it is the latter. we know the
rabbis customarily included in their ordinances the proviso that in
case of distreses to the person, their rulings do not obtain; thus,
animal experimentation could more readily be condoned because of
the benefits to humanity. However, if the origin of the issur is in
the Torah, it is a far more serious limitation.
Disagreement as to the severity of tzaar baalei chaim is already
found in the Talmud, where considerable discussion is recorded on
the issue - albeit without a definitive conclusion. In Baua Metzia
32b where this sugya is explicated, the majority of Amoraim
debating the question clearly hold that tzaar baa lei chaim is
forbidden by the Torah. They challenge tht' minority opposing
view, yet each challenge is effectively rebutted by the Gemara
itself, leaving the impression that the minority position has
considerable merit.
The majority of authorities in the periods following the
talmudic age also consider tzaar baalei chaim to derive from a
biblical injunction,14 and we may take the ruling of the Rosh as
representative of that understanding:

14. mln1"l llJ "1"1' O'i101!l1"l Jl, lIJ'J01"l n"JYl .J J"y, 1n?1It/1"I 1"3>
,J" tJ"J "1,n"nn 'lU"1!lT.l 'Yll<
J y,J Y 1"IJ"1Yr.l "lon "1/1
, nll< ,Dill .mnJ mllln :1 nll< J""1lI n"'1< I'I'YM "13>1V
."C1JV? "1D1" ""D i1' nOMJM "'J1VJ pJ" "110'1< C11U fl11t1Jh "l1CI<"
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

n'Jl'Jl 1"nO~1 0"::1 K'JIJ D'l'3i'l 0t.:lK7 i'l7:mU i'lt.:li'lJ

n")Y1 p:n, lJ::I'i'lIJ '7::1 7H:1::1' DHUt.:l O::lIU::l i'l'nnn
.1J::I" 'n'l KO""K' 'OKl KO"'1K'

If an animal fell into a pool of water on the Sabbath,

he may bring pillow& and covers and place them
under it, for ... [the prohibition of using these items
in this manner] is of rabbinic origin but [the
prohibition of] causing pain to an animal is from the
Torah and overrides the rabbinic [prohibition].15
Furthermore, following the same reasoning, the Rosh permits
a Jew to instruct a Gentile to milk a cow if the excess milk is
:ausing the animal distress. 16 The Ramo also rules that the issur of
causin.'!; an animal pain derives from the Torah.!'
A qualified dissent is expre&sed by the Rambam who is,
however, the sale outstanding halachist who seems to consider the
issur as a rabbinic restriction only. He writes that "a Jew is not
obligated to get involved with the animal of a non-Jew and its load
but [should do so only] to avoid animosity [which failure to help
might arouse in the non-Jew]'''15 lJ'l< lKIUl:n ::I"lll' 71U i'lIJi'lJ 7::1K"
il::l'K DllUt.:l K71< 1:::l 7~Uil7 :::l"n."
We might deduce from this decision that Rambam considers
the causing of pain to an animal to be a rabbinic teaching, for if it
were Torah-mandated, it would make no difference whose animal

, ..:;) j:l'!l ,'In:;)"'i1:;) n:;)1U n,'olU

.(0"" '''lI:;) ,31)" "i1, DIIm DYI.1i11U i1X'l') i1:;)'Ji1 ',1<':;) ,l":;)jm 01,11:;) i1l1U1:I
n"D n":l)"" I'Il:;)"i1 :;),01 Y"IU
IS. n:;)j:l n:;)1U .!!.II'l,i1 1'10"01. However, not all rabbinic prohibitions are sel 115ide. The
Mishnah Brurah rule!; that one may not use his hands to help pull the animal
out of the pit, since it is forbidden to handle an animal on Shabbat ~ even
though the prohibition is rabbinic (mllklz.:r).
16. :;)" 1:1":;) ,!!.II'l'; in Drach Chaim 305;20. two opinions ale brought concerning the
permissibility of asking a Gentile 10 milk a cow on Shabbat. 5t"l' al5()
'!I"j IOn i11:ttl .ll)'n .0":;) "'I'lO ;lJ":l t)" ;l' t"y ':;)"1:1 ;D!!.I C":l ':l"lJ
.(I'l'1'1 I<n""llX' ,'O'I'l' 1'1D"n
17. n":l:n O,IIm DIU D"l:JlI' I'I'l ''''!l1< :I"" j:ll"'l!l" I'l""" :1) - :l"Y' 1l!llUO llUln ,X"ln
"./("""/(' '1i1
18. 1l:1' ":t" 1'I':l"n ,0:11:1,
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA
"
it is. However, there is some ambiguity here. There are two
possible scenarios which Rambam could have had in mind - (a) an
animal owned by a Gentile, struggling under the heavy burden it
has to carry, needing someone to help remove the packs or (b) the
same animal. carrying nothing, with the Gentile preparing to toad
packs onto its back. Which one does the Rambam mean when he
says "the animal of a Gentile and its load" need be of no concern
to the Jewish passerby? If it is the latter case, then Rambam is
merely saying that Jew is under no religious obligation to lend a
hand to a 000- Jew who is loading up his animal (but maybe ought
to help out in order 10 maintain friendly relations). If that be the
case, then this passage is neutral on the question of whether the
issur is biblical or rabbinic. On the other hand, if Rambam has in
mind a situation where the animal has collapsed due to its burden,
and yet he rules that the Jew need not get involved, obviously he
maintains that the issur is only rabbinic.
Understandably, Rambam's cryptic statement has aroused
further debate in its own right. The Gaon of Vilna 19 understands
Rambam as definitely regarding tzaar baalei chaim as a rabbinic
teaching, but the Kessel Mishneh zo in his commentary to
Rambam's Mishneh Torah, sees it merely as a directive that a Jew
need not put himself out to help a Gentile in the loading up of his
animal.

19. . !:I ;l1YD lun nnlJ:l :YIl11n' ']!:I :1('" J;"Y'l 1l!:l1UJ:l llUln ,1("')

The Or Sameaell notes th"t Ramb..m. in Hilcllot Shabbat 25:18 ..nd 2.6,
seems to contradict himself. for there he rules th ..t one should help an animal
which fell into .. pit on the Sabbath because "the rabbis did not rule where it
might cause pain to ..n anim.. l."
The Gaon reje<:ts any interpretation of this passage as teaching that
rabbinic bW5 of Sabbath may be waived in deference to the iss..r of causing
p..in to ..n anim..l on the supposed grounds th..t it is of biblic..l origin. Not so,
writes the C"on. Rambam consistently considers the iss"r as a r.. bbinic m..ndate,
but in this inst,mce, there is a>lothu biblical ordinance which must prevail - the
Torah specifically commands "rest" (rnenllcllll) on the Sabbath not only for us
but for our servants and anim..ls as well. R..mbam overrides rabbinic Sabbath
regulations in order to help the animal not due to the superior (biblical) origin
of the command not to pain ..n animal, but due to the specific biblical command
to assure rest for the animal on Sabbath.
2.0. )' nyn n1::1?:"l :"llWT.I 'lD::I
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

Despite the failure to reach a consensus on the crucial

question of the nature of the issur, the prevailing halachic position
has been to regard it as a biblical injunction; this has remained the
majority posture.

The Nature of the Issur

The prohibition of tzaar haalei chaim, causing pain to an
animal. is a term which requires definition. Most rabbinic
authorities reason that there is a halachic limit to the pain, i.e., that
this is not an absolute prohibition. One must differentiate between
the minor distress an animal experiences when it has to carry a
rider - a "pain" which surely does not fall within the religious
restriction of tzaar haalei chaim - and the pain it feels upon being
whipped. Thus, the Ran rules:

'YY !;,:lK !;,n) ,yy Kpn lM'l'Jl Kn""K' n":lY Clwn

.K!;, "yn

Causing pain to an animal is a biblical prohibition but

specifically only a great pain; however, minor pain is
not. l !
Despite acceptance of this distinction between kinds of pain,
there are no halachic guidelines for determining what is "great"
and what is "minor" pain. Thus, even in our own time, we do not
have specific rulings on the extent of the issur; now that animal
experimentation has become an important step in the development
of medical and pharmaceutkal innovations to help humans, there is
a great need for clarification of the issue.
The author of Shvut Yaakov was asked if one may try
medicines out on animals, to see what effect they might have. In
giving an affirmative answer 21 , even in a case where the experiment
might cause pain or death to the animal. he explains his apparent
dissent from the Ramo's caution that one ought to refrain from

21. ,';ro'71:-J '01' '"1 ,"1""1 :ll:! 1:1"':1 1""1. The same distinction i5 made by 'lUll' 'IUn"
1:1"':1 CIU to explain the apparent contradiction in the '::n"lJ:l; the same also in
'101' 't:'ll:1l.
22. KV-l :It:'V' nl:llU
30 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

plucking feathers from a live goose, since it is cruel - in that case,

he explains, one is directly causing the animal pain. but when
drugs are administered the animal will not feel the ill effects for a
while and therefore it is permissible. He maintains that the Ramo
only objected to causing direct pain to the creature but would have
found no reason to interdict a delayed-reaction pain.
However. in another responsum on this topiC,23 the Shvur
Yaakov limits his permis!'>ion in two important ways: he would not
allow animal experimentation if the benefit to scientific knowledge
is negligible, trivial. or minor, nor would he sanction it if an
alternate method of acquiring the information needed is available. 24
We cannot allow pain to an animal just because it might be easier
than using some other method to gain the same information,
Unessential animal experimentation he considers as callous
disregard for Jewish law,
The underlying issue here is the balance of desirable
alternatives - people have needs but animals have rights, too, We
cannot of course put them on an equal level, but on the other hand
we cannot be insen!>itive to the suffering of an animal which might
result in only a negligible benefit to mankind. It i!> difficult to give
broad guidelines, but in the words of enelkat YQQkov,

'''y n"::l.Y 01'1? ,nm '1<'1 ,"~y, ?"lil ?:In 11? il?1Yil
"'~y ?:l1< :'1I<Hnil nl'3~n?, n1'~'l:J n''''i'n ~~'(Z.I~ nll"tl3
15,I<D'i1 i'o~:1 '101< '1<'1 n",l:11< n,'nD ?Y3i1? nl1'on
What emerges from the above [discussion} is that
according to Jewi!>h law, it i!> certainly permi!>!>ible to
cau!>e pain to animals through tests in s.cientific
re!>earch or medical study, but as a [measure of) piety
to save oneself from [developing] the quality of
cruelty, it is certainly forbidden, in accordance with
the ruling of the Ramo. 16

23. y":l y'm

24. This theory is found in l":l '0 '110 0"',
25. ?-K'·n.
26. The only exception would be shechit<:l, since this is the only w~y one un
sl~ughter the anim~l for consumption.
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

Hi50 opinIon b; challenged by Rabbi Yechiel Weinberg,~7 who

objects to the introduction of "chassidut" - piety - into this
context. One may opt to act with extreme piety when it is only his
own welfare which is involved, argues Rabbi Weinberg, But when
the lives and health of other people are involved, the scientific
researcher is not entitled to let his personal morality hold him to a
standard higher than that set by Jewi50h law. If by Jewish law, it i50
permitted to experiment on animals, the researcher should proceed
to do 500.

,ny? ?:J" '?H< c'?lnn ,y::m ~',y n":l::n n'Tn 'Kr.n

.Dn?
It i50 a warped sense of values which permits concern for the
welfare of animal50 to take precedence over the needs of human
being50,l&
Conclusion
Ba50ed on our research, we may make certain generalization50
about the permissibility of performing scientific experiments on
animals. Despite some disagreement a50 to the status of the
prohibition of causing pain to animal50 - whether of biblical or
rabbinic origin - virtually all rabbis agree that it is permitted to
perform experiment50 on animals if the intention i50 to benefit
humans. But that is not a blanket permit: although it is permitted
In this Ca50e to caU50e pain to the animal, it is only
"1:J:1 W'J'K ?IU 1:J,," if it occur50 becau50e of "something which
people cU50tomarily do." What this limitation means in practical
terms is not clear. It i50 of course under50tood that at all times, a

1.7. I .J pl:>n l/I'I( ""IU; it al~o ~ppe"r~ a~ the next rnpoMum in :lpll' op'm.
Ul. In Iggerol Moshe, Chosr,en Mishpill II, No. 47, Rav Moshe Feinstein advises
against swalting ~ fly which is bothering a person: he prefers that one kill the
fly indirectly, In notiog that he actually has no haJachic !>Oulce for this ruling,
Rav Feinstein expre~ses his bdie£ that killing ha~ a deleterious effect on a
person's character: therefore he advises that, whenever PQSsible, it be done in an
indirect manner. See also the commentary of Or HIlChll;m to Deuteronomy
13:18 and that of N'tziu to the incident of Pinchas. S('<! 1"Tl:I'tm :-"'0
n<oJ 011( 1("" C',J,.
 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA

person must be careful to minimize the animal's pain as far as

possible.
There are other objections which may place a legillmate brake
on animal experimentation. There are scientists who claim that
some of the uses of animals in scientific studi~ are not needed,
because the same results could be achieved without involving
animals. Also, some destruction of animal life is wanton waste,
tests performed for trivial purposes. These things would not be
permitted under Jewish law. In addition, there is the fact that
experiments are duplicated or triplicated in dozens of laboratories
around the country and around the world, thus entailing massive
loss of animal liFe. Given the ready access which scientists the
world around have to each other's studies, the halacha could not
countenance many experiments which do not really serve a
worthwhile purpose but only repeat what has been done elsewhere.
Other scientific "advances" may also be barred by Jewish law
simply because the discomfort they cause animals is too great for
the negligible benefit to man. In this vein, R. Moshe Feinstein
castigates the mod:'!rn practice of penning up animals so that they
can hardly move about as well as "fattening calves [with
chemically doctored Foods] in such a way that their flesh develops
a white appearance." (White veal is considered preferable to dark
veal). He denounces these practices as reprehensible. 29
What emerges from all this is that we cannot establish a firm
ruting on the question of using animals in scientific experiments.
Although in general, halacha condones causing pain to an animal if
a person will benefit therefrom, that little "if" leaves a great deal to
be determined. Much depends on the need and the circumstances,
on the pain to the animal and the expected gain to humanity. This
is a determination which the individual experimenter cannot make
for himself but which must be adJressed on an ad-hoc basis. As
the horizons of scientific study expand, the need for further
halachic guidelines grows.