Moral Imperative or Halachic Responsibilty?

Rabbi David Blech, Judaism and Animal Experimentation, Tradition 22(2)

(Torah) sources serve only to demonstrate that animal directed conduct which is compassionate in nature constitutes a "good deed" but do not serve to establish a system of responsibilities. Particularly in light of the strong (halachic) element present in Judaism, the absence of (every-day) regulations might well be regarded as indicative of the absence of serious ethical concern for the welfare of members of the animal kingdom.

But this is demonstrably not the case, for, in Jewish teaching, there is no lack of laws designed to protect and promote animal welfare. The most obvious example of a regulation having such an effect, and one which is clearly biblical in origin, is contained in the verse "If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forebear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him" (Exodus 23:5). The selfsame concern is manifest in the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it threshes in order that the animal be free to eat of the produce while working (Deuteronomy 25:4). Similarly Scripture provides that both domestic animals and wild beasts must be permitted to share in produce of the land which grows without cultivation during the sabbatical year...

Sabbath laws contained in both formulations of the (ten commandments) reflect a concern which goes beyond the mere elimination of pain and discomfort and serve to promote the welfare of animals in a positive manner by providing for their rest on the Sabbath day: "But the seventh day is a sabbath unto the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work. . . nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle. . . "(Deuteronomy 5: 14). Even more explicit in expressing concern for the welfare of animals is the verse ". . . but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; that thine ox and thine ass may have rest" (Exodus 23:12).