[Avodah] Tzaar Baalei Chayim

[Liron Kopinsky]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:35 AM, <cantorwolberg at cox.net> wrote:

> Is there a point at which someone can forfeit ownership of an animal of
> theirs because they cause it too much pain? Or do we say "azov taazov
> *imo*" shows that even if the animal is being afflicted, there is no
> responsibility on anyone else to remove that suffering unless the owner is
> involved as well?
>
> In common law, it is a criminal act when someone causes an animal
> unnecessary pain.
> People are arrested for this and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
> Why would Torah law be more lenient?


The Torah obviously prohibits Tzaar Baalei Chayim, and someone who violates
it should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. My question is "What
is "the full extent" of the law?" Would the person receive malkot, but
still maintain ownership of the animal? Or would the animal be confiscated
as well, as this owner has proven he is unfit to have it? Or would he even
forfeit the right to own any subsequent animals?

To me it seems, (from the fact that the pasuk says "imo" implying that the
animal that is being afflicted still belongs to its owner), that there is
no legislation that someone would have to give up their right to ownership.
The deterrent would be in the malkot, and presumably the person would learn
their lesson and refrain from harming animals again.

In common law, it seems that the people enforcing the law seem to take it
for granted that if someone abuses their property, that property can be
removed from them. But in Torah law, it seems that the rights of the owners
on the property are stronger, and can't necessarily be removed for harming
their property.

To take this even further, does "imo" imply that if Reuven sees the
struggling animal of his enemy, and that enemy is *not* helping that
animal, that Reuven is not allowed to help the animal, since that would be
violating the property of the owner? In this case, Reuven's only recourse
to help the animal, (and presumably this would be morally incumbent on him
to do so), would be to go to Beit Din and get them involved. (Which would
go back to my original question of what power BD have in this situation.) I
find this hard to believe, misvara, but then what does "imo" come to teach?

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120808/4a4288ad/attachment-0002.htm>