[Avodah] Tzar Ba'alei Chaim

[Chana Luntz]

Haven't had much time to spend on Avodah recently, but I do stop in
occasionally, and the below caught my eye:

RMB writes:

> The teshuvah is at https://en.tvunah.org/2018/01/07/pets-on-shabbat

> First then RAW discusses the topic I expected to hear about, tzaar ballei
>chaim. He has a fine survey, but of ideas I had encountered before (and
>therefore think it's likely you did too). See the link.


I was reading RAW's discussion of tzaar ba'alei chaim (TBC) in his Minchas
Asher on Devarim in Perek Ki Tavo, siman 51.

RAW there sees TBC as the quintessential example of "Ratzon HaShem" (which
is the heading of the siman) - that it is something that HaShem wants, and
therefore it is incumbent upon us d'orisa, despite the gemora never
mentioning a source for its statement that TBC is d'orisa.  RAW then lists
off 11 different sources as proposed in the Rshonim and Achronim for TBC -
and identifies two different paths by which the meforshim identify Ratzon
HaShem, the first by learning it out from within halachot (such as
unloading an animal or not muzzling an animal) which he brings, and the
second from the narrative text of the Torah.

What is surprising to me is the source that he does not cite: - that of
aiver min hachai!  Despite that being very much common currency as to what
that requirement is about.  Does that mean that nobody or nobody of note
actually says it?

RAW does cite the Rambam (in More Nevuchim) who makes reference to Bila'am
and learning it out from the question "why did you strike your donkey?",
and he also makes a brief reference to the Sefer Chassidim, who also quote
this pasuk.  If one goes and looks at the Sefer Chassidim, the SC does make
it clear there that therefore TBC is incumbent upon Bnei Noach (Bila'am is
both a non Jew and after Har Sinai) - but appears to fudge a bit with the
derivation by pointing out that if Adam was not even permitted to eat meat,
he certainly was not permitted to tyrannise animals, and that even though
Bnei Noach were then permitted to eat meat, they were still not permitted
to tyrannise animals.

But given that even in the machlokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on
the extent of coverage of the shiva mitzvoth Bnei Noach, both extend them
beyond the minimal scope as written (otherwise where does kidnapping
fall?).  So why does it not make sense to say that aiver min hachai is a
specific that indicates the more general obligation of TBC?

Of course, would that not mean that following RAW's logic, Ratzon HaShem is
applicable to non-Jews as well? - which would seem to bring in all sorts of
additional aspects (chinuch, for example!)  (this being true even if we
only see the source for TBC as Bila'am and his donkey).  RAW learns out the
Ratzon of HaShem of Chinuch from Avraham (another non Jew, arguably).


When I have time, I will do a hunt to see if anybody else (perhaps more
obscure) brings aiver min hachai as the source for TBC, but in the
meantime, if anybody has a source for this, I would be interested to see it.

Shabbat Shalom

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180119/4a89cab1/attachment-0001.html>