In this scenario, your enemy's animal is struggling under a burden too heavy, why might the Torah instruct us to help?
What does this indicate about relieving suffering even of animals that are not your own?
The passage begins with "when you see" where in the world do we not see animal suffering?
(4) You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.
Muzzling an ox while it stomps on wheat to separate the grain would prevent the animal from snacking on the harvest while it works, why would the Torah command against this practice?
We are commanded to let our animals rest on Shabbat just as we rest, the Torah commentators argues about the best way to let an animal rest. This shows a great deal of thought and consideration going to animal welfare.
(1) To not slaughter a beast and its child on one day:
this is to fix in our souls the trait of compassion and to distance us from the trait of cruelty - which is a bad trait. And therefore even though God permitted us [to eat] species of animals for our sustenance, He [also] commanded us that we not kill it and its child on one day to fix the trait of compassion in our souls.
Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed (3, 48)
"People should be restrained and prevented from killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain in the sight of the mother, for the pain of the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but in most living beings."
Even at the time of slaughter, much consideration is given to the animals in terms of compassion and preventing unnecessary suffering.
What did the Torah and its commentators understand about animal's consciousness / ability to care for one another?
גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בהמה שנפלה לאמת המים מביא כרים וכסתות ומניח תחתיה ואם עלתה עלתה מיתיבי בהמה שנפלה לאמת המים עושה לה פרנסה במקומה בשביל שלא תמות פרנסה אין כרים וכסתות לא לא קשיא הא דאפשר בפרנסה הא דאי אפשר בפרנסה אפשר בפרנסה אין ואי לא מביא כרים וכסתות ומניח תחתיה והא קא מבטל כלי מהיכנו סבר מבטל כלי מהיכנו דרבנן צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא ואתי דאורייתא ודחי דרבנן:
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to an animal that fell into an aqueduct, one brings cushions and blankets, and throws them into the water ditch, and places them beneath the animal in the aqueduct. And if the animal thereby emerges, it emerges.
The Gemara raises an objection from a Tosefta: With regard to an animal that fell into an aqueduct on Shabbat, one provides it with sustenance in its place so that it will not die. This implies that providing it with sustenance, yes, that is permitted, providing it with cushions and blankets, no, that it is prohibited.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is room to distinguish between the cases. This, the Tosefta in which it was taught that one provides the animal with sustenance, is referring to a case where it is possible to provide it with sustenance. That, the mishna in which Rav said that one brings cushions and blankets, is referring to a case where it is impossible to provide it with sustenance. Where it is possible to provide it with sustenance, yes, he does so. And if it is not possible to provide it with sustenance, he brings cushions and blankets and places them beneath the animal.
The Gemara asks: Does he not, by placing the cushions and blankets, negate a vessel’s preparedness? The cushions and blankets are no longer fit for their designated use on Shabbat, and this negation of their designated use is similar to the prohibited labor of dismantling.
The Gemara answers: Rav holds that negating a vessel’s preparedness is prohibited by rabbinic law. Causing a living creature to suffer is a Torah prohibition. And a matter prohibited by Torah law comes and overrides a matter prohibited by rabbinic law.
This text is an argument about how to help an animal you see suffering if it is Shabbat, and certain actions are prohibited.
1. What conclusion does the Gemara come to in terms of violating Shabbat in order to help an animal? What takes precedent?
From the Introduction by Dr. Joe M. Regenstein, Ph.D. (Professor of Food Science, Cornell University) to the section on the Prohibition of Meat from a Living Animal, in “The Divine Code”, Part IV:
Many of the modern public issues being discussed in the realm of animal welfare with respect to slaughter, pre-slaughter handling, and post-slaughter waiting for the animal to die, are covered by the Divine Noahide Code. It is therefore a source for providing guidance to all consumers, along with the regulators and overseers of the modern meat industry, and it challenges us all to be concerned with improving the handling of animals – both on the farm and in our communities, and most importantly in the arena of the compassionate use of animals for human food. The study of the Noahide Laws can help one approach the above concerns in keeping with modern industry guidelines for animal welfare, while also meeting the ancient but continuously relevant ruleEnglish