R' Shai Weissbrodt
Question: The modern industry of creating food from animals often uses methods that harm the animals in order to increase production efficiency (an example is the increase in space density of chickens kept in chicken coops). Doesn't this violate the prohibition of causing "animal suffering?"
Answer:
Animal Suffering
There is a Torah prohibition to cause an animal to suffer (RAMA, Choshen Mishpat 272:9). This is derived in the Talmud (Bava Metzia 32b) from the mitzva of unloading a heavy burden from an animal (Shemot 23:5), but it is possible that the same principle applies to other mitzvot. Examples might be: "Do not block an ox from eating while it plows" [Devarim 25:4]; the mitzva of slaughtering by cutting into the neck with a sharp knife (Sefer Hachinuch, Mitzva 451); "Do not slaughter it and its calf on the same day" [Vayikra 22:28]; the prohibition of eating a limb taken from a live animal; and the mitzva of sending away a mother bird before taking the chicks (see Moreh Nevuchim 3:48). Some say that the mitzva of letting the animals rest on Shabbat is also based on a desire to minimize their suffering (Bartenura, Shabbat 1:5; Responsa Maharshadam, Orach Chaim 2).
To Benefit a Person
However when it is necessary to make an animal suffer for the good of a human being, the action is permitted. Otherwise a man would not be allowed to ride animals or to put burdens on them, since in general this action causes them to suffer to some degree. In addition, the Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded mankind, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and conquer it. And rule the fish in the ocean and the birds in the sky, and all the animals which roam the earth" [Bereishit 1:28]. The Rambanexplains: "He gave human beings the power to rule over the earth and to do as they desired with animals and vermin and all those that crawl on the dust, and to build, to uproot plants, to mine copper from the mountains, and similar things." Animals have been given to mankind to be put to use, but the Torah warns us not to cause them to suffer unnecessarily. However, if it is necessary to make an animal suffer in order to satisfy a human need, there is no prohibition involved. This was ruled by Terumat Hadeshen: "There is no prohibition of animal suffering if the man does so for his needs and use, since all the creatures were created only for the use of mankind." [Rulings and Writings, 105]. This is also the ruling of the RAMA: "Anything that is needed for medical reasons or anything else does not involve a prohibition of animal suffering" [Even Ha'ezer 5:14].
For the Benefit of the Public
We can also consider another significant reason to allow the practice in our case. Increasing the production yield from animals might have additional significance, beyond the economic benefit to the growers and the producers. If such efficiencies lead to lower prices, they can be beneficial to the general public. In addition, it may be that a result of lowering the prices of animal products (such as eggs, milk, and so on) will be that more homes will be able to use these products regularly, benefiting public health in general. (See also an article by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, "Animal Suffering during Distribution of Pesticides," Techumin, volume 6, pages 432-436).
Necessity, Proper Balance, and Extra Piety
In spite of the above, there are some limitations which should be taken into account. First of all, if it is clear that if it is possible to achieve the same level of personal and public benefit without causing the animals to suffer we should try to do so (Tzitz Eliezer 14:68). In addition, every case should be considered separately to balance the benefit achieved against the level of suffering, and to decide whether the profit is real and justifies the suffering of the animals (Igrot Moshe, Even Haezer 4:92; Yaviah Omer 9, Yoreh Dei'ah 3; Yechaveh Dei'ah 3:66).
In the Talmud we are told (Bava Metzia 85b; Responsa of the Geonim 375) that Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi suffered greatly because of behavior that was permitted in itself but which might have been interpreted as not having pity on animals from the point of view of a man like him, who was at such a high spiritual level. Rabbi Yehuda's suffering left him only when many years later he showed mercy for other animals beyond the strict requirement of the law. Thus, it is worthy of compassionate people from Yisrael (Yevamot 79b) – and especially anybody who feels compelled to act in this way – to try as much as possible to avoid actions which show a level of cruelty to animals (Terumat Hadeshen, ibid; Noda B'Yehuda Tanyana Yoreh Dei'ah 10; RAMA Even Haezer ibid; Igrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:47).
Summary
Avoiding animal suffering is a prohibition and a general principle in the Torah. On the other hand, any action that provides a benefit for an individual and certainly for the public is not prohibited because of animal suffering. Even so, it is appropriate to use this permission in a measured and reasonable way, only when it is impossible to achieve the same benefit without causing the animal to suffer. We must adopt the behavior of the Holy One, Blessed be He, about whom we have been taught, "He shows pity for all of His creatures" [Tehillim 145:9].
With respect to the specific question asked above: On one hand, we should try to refrain from causing animal suffering even in a case where there is no formal prohibition. On the other hand, if being stringent and preventing the chickens from suffering will lead to a result that hundreds and possibly thousands of children will not be able to eat eggs because of their high price, we will have caused a more serious problem. The best policy, then, is to search for alternative methods to reduce the suffering of the chickens without raising the price of the eggs (for example, government subsidies).
