The Jewish Approach to Hunting

The root of the question is this: A certain man, who God has graced with a large estate, has villages and forests – forests in which all the beasts of the forest prowl. May he go himself to shoot with a rifle (lit. “fire stick”) to trap game, or is it forbidden for one of Israel to do this deed, whether because it causes pain to creatures (“tza’ar ba’alei hayim”), because it violates “you shall not destroy” (“bal tashhit”), or because it is customary to regard it as tza’ar ba’alei hayim? It is explained in Tosafot on Tractate Avoda Zara, that is, in Piskei Hatosafot, and in Issur Ve-hetter 59:36, which states in the name of Rosh that anything medicinal does not constitute a gentile custom, and in the name Tosafot in Avoda Zara that although tza’ar ba’alei hayim is a Torah prohibition, if it is helpful in some way, it is permitted... However, Piskei Tosafot states: “tza’ar ba’alei hayim is not forbidden except when pain is inflicted without profit.”...Indeed, there is no need for us to write at length about this, because R. Israel Isserlein has already written at length, in his Pesakim U-khetavim (Terumat Ha-deshen Vol II) §105, that anything that is for man’s needs does not constitute tza’ar ba’alei hayim, moreover, it is only applicable when one causes it pain but leaves it alive. However, to kill livestock, beasts, and all sorts of animals does not constitute tza’ar ba’alei hayim...Thus, there is no tza’ar ba’alei hayim in the subject of this question. And there is no bal tashhit because one benefits from the pelt, and further, is not acting in a destructive manner.....

Thus far, we have addressed the legal aspects. However, I am surprised by the matter itself. We find no hunters other than Nimrod and Esau, and this is not the way of the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Go and look, regarding the congratulation “let it be worn out and renewed” – R. Jacob Weil writes in his rulings, cited by Rema in Orah Hayim at the end of §223, that one does not say this on something made of animal skins, because “His mercy extends over all His creations” (Psalms 145:9). And even though Rema writes on this that it is weak reasoning, because it is not necessary for an animal to be killed on his behalf, as there are many pelts and skins that are already prepared, and many of them die of natural causes but can still be used for their pelts. Nevertheless, Rema concludes that many are careful about this. For how can a man of Israel actively kill beasts needlessly, simply to pass his leisure time by engaging in hunting?

A man who needs to do so, whose livelihood is from such trapping, is not cruel. After all, we slaughter livestock, beasts, and birds and kill fish for human consumption, and why should there be a difference between kosher animals whose meat is eaten and unkosher animals through which one earns a living and eats by the sale of their pelts? All creatures were given to man for all his needs. However, for one who does not need this for his livelihood, and whose main intent is not at all for the sake of earning a living, this is cruelty.

Thus far I have addressed the aspect of proper behavior that man ought to distance himself from this. Now I say that it is even forbidden, for anyone who engages in this must enter the forests and place themselves in great danger, in places of packs of wild animals. And the Merciful One said: “Take great care of yourselves” (Deut. 4:15). And who was a greater and more expert hunter than Esau, about who Scripture attests: “Esau was a skillful hunter…” (Genesis 25:27). Yet look at what he said about himself: “I am about to die…” (ibid. 32). And no Scripture departs from its plain meaning, which is that he endangers himself each day among packs of wild beasts. So explains Nachmanides. So then how can a Jewish man insert himself into a place of packs of wild and vicious beasts? Yet even here, if one who poor and does so for sustenance, the Torah permitted it, like any maritime trader crosses the sea—for with regard to anything that is for the needs of one’s sustenance and livelihood, there is no choice. The Torah has said [about the wages of a day laborer]: “His life depends on it” (Deuteronomy 24:15). And the sages said (Bava Metzia 112a): “Why did this person ascend a ramp, dangle from a tree, and place himself at risk of death? Is it not for his wages?” But one whose main intention is not for sustenance, rather, he does to the place of packs of wild animals due to his heart’s appetite, and endangers himself, violates “Take great care of yourselves.” This is the formulation of Maimonides in Laws of Murderers and Preservation of Life 12:6: It is also forbidden for one to pass under a collapsing wall… and so too anything akin to this and other dangers—it is forbidden to pass through their place.

Based on this, I now say that this entails a prohibition, as well as endangerment, and a third thing—that it causes his sins to be invoked—for this is no worse than [passing under] a collapsing wall [which, according to the Talmud, causes ones sins to be invoked before God]...According to our approach, we can understand this. One who walks in a dangerous place transgresses the words of the Torah, which states, “Take great care of yourselves.” It also causes his sins to be invoked, and consequently the Almighty is filled with anger at him—whereas any other transgression that one may do will not cause the Almighty to be filled with anger against him. But one who causes the invocation of all his transgressions is subject to the Almighty’s anger. Therefore, our Sages instructed one who must do so for his livelihood to recite this prayer for himself. But how can the prayers of one who does so in such an abhorrent manner be accepted? Thus, this activity includes a repugnant character trait, that is, cruelty, as well as a prohibition, endangerment, and the invocation of one’s sins. One who heeds me will therefore dwell safely, tranquilly, and contentedly at home and not waste his time with such things.

מהרי"ו בפסקיו) והנה הטעם חלוש מאוד ואינו נראה מ"מ מקפידים על זה שלא לאמרו

Rebbe said to himself: Afflictions are evidently precious. He accepted thirteen years of afflictions upon himself; six years of stones in the kidneys and seven years of scurvy [bitzfarna]. And some say it was seven years of stones in the kidneys and six years of scurvy... Those afflictions of Rebbe came upon him due to an incident and left him due to another incident. What was that incident that led to his suffering? There was a certain calf that was being led to slaughter. The calf went and hung its head on the corner of Rebbe's garment and was weeping, and Rebbe said to it: Go, as you were created for this purpose. It was said in Heaven: Since he was not compassionate toward the calf, let afflictions come upon him.

(9) He was a mighty hunter by the grace of the LORD; hence the saying, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter by the grace of the LORD.”

Another reason to say it is asur...

(32) And Esau said, “I am at the point of death, so of what use is my birthright to me?”