What is the Halacha in regards to stray animals? Namely cats. Do you feed them? And let them in your house when it is below zero weather outside?

I think Jewish Law only requires that you do not act cruelly (i.e. doing a positive act of cruelty) towards animals. Therefore, in the case of the stray cats you are not obliged to feed them or take them into your home, but by all means do so if you wish.

Isn't is better halachically if no animals live with you in your home? Since dogs and cats are not kosher animals, I thought that there are some prohibitions against it.

There were some hungry cats. I see them eating out of the garbage. and I fed them but now there seems to be alot more, including two kittens. Wouldn't it be cruel not to feed the kittens? Or to feed them and make them dependent on you and then stop feeding them? Last winter I adopted a stray, but I can already see it happening again only worse. And I really don't want any more animals in the house. And they don't belong to me so I can't give them away. Calling the humane society would be cruel, I think, because they just put them to sleep.

If I followed my parents example I would feed and shelter them.

quote:

Originally posted by Raybin:
Isn't is better halachically if no animals live with you in your home? Since dogs and cats are not kosher animals, I thought that there are some prohibitions against it.

There can be some problems with animals in the home but they can be overcome. Many Orthodox Jews don't keep pets, but others do (we have a dog).

quote:

Wouldn't it be cruel not to feed the kittens? Or to feed them and make them dependent on you and then stop feeding them?

That would be cruel if they are now depending on you, but you have no obligation towards them in the first place.

Whether the animal itself is a kosher animal, and thus could be eaten, I don't think is too significant.

There is one issue that comes up regarding pet food during Pesach, that the food one keeps in their house to feed pets during Pesach must be Kosher for Pesach. And there are issues over Shabbos.

Are cats mukzeh on Shabbos? Can they be touched for the cat's or the owner's benefit?

Can a dog be walked on Shabbos in an area with a leash law requiring a leash - can an owner carry a leash? How about if there is a law to clean up after a dog and problems of carrying?

And surely other issues.

B"H

Raybin,

Thanks for this very interesting question. It would seem that you are not "obligated" to take in stray cats. But if you should ever decide to do so, there is a teaching in the Talmud (Pesachim 112) that says a person who has a cat ("shunra" שונרא) in his house should never enter his house at night while he is barefoot. The reason being that cats sometimes kill snakes, and we fear lest that man, woman or child might inadvertently step on a poisonous snake bone (fangs). Oiy Veh! Alternatively, there was a teaching that said a person should never enter his house while barefoot unless he has a cat living in his house. Meaning, the cat was a good thing to have, since it killed poisonous snakes.

I think in our day, most would agree that cats can pose a serious problem to the mice population – that is, if you have a problem with mice.

About stray dogs, it was never a custom amongst Jews to raise dogs within their houses. It is my impression that there is not the like of this practice in all of Jewry but what was learned by the ignorant sort from the gentiles - that is, of raising a dog within one's house. In Shabbos 63a, we learn: "Anyone who raises a mean dog, prevents acts of kindness ("chesed") from his house, etc." RASHI explains there in his glosses (ad. loc) that, by having a dog in one's house, he doesn't allow the poor to come to his door's entrance."

Rabbi Nathan says that he who raises a dangerous dog within his house transgresses the command that says "Thou shalt not be guilty of shedding blood within thy house." (i.e. Where the Torah speaks about making a protecting wall around one's roof top in order to prevent unnecessary falls).

On the other hand, one is permitted to raise a dog when he is leashed outside the house, especially if that person lives on the frontier and he is afraid of passing thieves. A dog, by barking, gives a man warning of approaching danger. And, afterall, the creatures were all created by G-d in order to serve man, and what better way of service than by protecting one's master?

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
Rabbi Nathan says that he who raises a dangerous dog within his house transgresses the command that says "Thou shalt not be guilty of shedding blood within thy house."

With the emphasis on "dangerous".

Mo'adim L'Simcha.

I would think that perhaps, one should study the relevant Laws pertaining to owning an animal and/or caring for one, before one decides to take one in as a pet. And then decide afterwards if one wishes to do so.

A Gut Moed

quote:

one should study the relevant Laws pertaining to owning an animal and/or caring for one,

To what depth of study should one look into laws of divorce before getting married, or these laws of responsibility for having children before deciding to have children?

A pet is surely a lower stakes responsibility than each of my cases.

quote:

About stray dogs, it was never a custom amongst Jews to raise dogs within their houses. It is my impression that there is not the like of this practice in all of Jewry

Who's were the dogs mentioned in the Pesach Hagaddah who did _not_ bark among the land of Goshen?

quote:

The reason being that cats sometimes kill snakes, and we fear lest that man, woman or child might inadvertently step on a poisonous snake bone (fangs). Oiy Veh!

If this side of the quote is accurate, do we think it would apply in areas where it has been determined that there are no poisonous snakes?

If a cat kills a poisonous snake, what part of the dead snake would still have the capability to harm a person? I think that their venom is stored in sacks, and without a fang piercing skin with a squeeze combined with the venom squirting out from the sack at the open wound of the fang, that there is not much risk.

That only a live snake would have the capability to squeeze a fang into flesh and aim a venom squirt onto the wound, and not a dead snake.

How poisonous is snake venom without a fang bite wound? And how does the cat keep from losing at least one of its lives when killing a poisonsous snake that has such a potent venom with the benefit of live jaws and eyes?

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

one should study the relevant Laws pertaining to owning an animal and/or caring for one,

To what depth of study should one look into laws of divorce before getting married, or these laws of responsibility for having children before deciding to have children?

Why do you think Tractate Gittin comes before Tractate Kiddushin?

quote:

A pet is surely a lower stakes responsibility than each of my cases.

I think the bottom line is that one should try and study all laws relevant to situations one finds oneself in. For example, when I bought a new pair of Tefillin (a really good pair, at a time when I decided to put them on daily) I studied the Laws of Tefillin so that I would be able to fulfill the Mitzva properly.

quote:

Originally posted by rob:
Who's were the dogs mentioned in the Pesach Hagaddah who did not bark among the land of Goshen?

Rob,

Obviously, they were the dogs of the Egyptians. If not, what novelty is there in saying that the dogs did not bark at the children of Israel? No man's dog barks at his owner.

So, if you ask, "what were they doing in the land of Goshen?" The dogs met the people while they passed through their neighbour's plots and fields, or else, they were simply wild and stray dogs, just as I have seen in Yemen, roaming in packs around the periphery of the city.

David

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

The reason being that cats sometimes kill snakes, and we fear lest that man, woman or child might inadvertently step on a poisonous snake bone (fangs). Oiy Veh!

If this side of the quote is accurate, do we think it would apply in areas where it has been determined that there are no poisonous snakes?

Rob,

When I lived in Ramstein, Germany, as a child, I had always been taught that Germany had no poisonous snakes. There was, however, a non-poisonous glass snake that I was fond of catching. Perhaps the above teaching (about not walking barefoot in one's house) would not apply to Germans as a people, that is, if only poisonous snakes were the issue. But what about the simple probably of your cat dragging into your house a dead snake (howbeit, a non-poisonous one) and your child piercing his foot by accidentally stepping on one of its bones?

These are all hypothetical situations, and even if the likelihood of their ever happening is extremely rare (including that of poison being injected into a person by a dead snake's fangs), it only goes to show how far the Rabbis went to ensure our safety.

David

quote:

Originally posted by rob:

quote:

one should study the relevant Laws pertaining to owning an animal and/or caring for one,

To what depth of study should one look into laws of divorce before getting married, or these laws of responsibility for having children before deciding to have children?

A pet is surely a lower stakes responsibility than each of my cases.

Rob, I have seen cases of where parents, had they taken a written test or even had been evaluated by a psychologist (or perhaps by a psychiatrist instead) to see whether they are capable to have kids or take care of them they would have failed and I think that it is a huge issue which can be battled out in a different thread.

And as Rabbi Yisroel Phillips explained, what I was trying to say, was that when a person gets into a new situation in Torah living, one should aim to study and know as much as one can about the laws for that situation beforehand. And yes, I think that if more people studied the laws of divorce and marriage and took these laws seriously, there would probably be a lot less divorces taking place then the amount that is todays norm.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:

quote:

Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
Rabbi Nathan says that he who raises a dangerous dog within his house transgresses the command that says "Thou shalt not be guilty of shedding blood within thy house."

With the emphasis on "dangerous".

Mo'adim L'Simcha.

I think you are probably right here, Rebbe Yisroel. The emphasis is, indeed, on "dangerous." This would mean that a tamed dog could possibly be kept within, let's say, one's courtyard.

The Talmud (Shabbath) mentions an old story about King David's death, and how that he was told that he would die on a Sabbath day. He had, subsequently, occupied himself in the study of the Torah incessantly on every Sabbath day since the time of his learning which day of the week he would die. One day, he went out into his courtyard at hearing the rustling of the leaves on the tree tops. Thinking that thieves had broken into his garden, he ceased from his rehearsal of Torah and suddenly slipped and fell down upon the steps, breaking his neck. Solomon, his son, went immediately to the elders in order to inquire from them what should be done about his father, since a dead human corpse is a "mukseh" on the holy Sabbath. Solomon was pressing about the issue, saying that his father was "lying in the sun, and the dogs of his father were hungry!" This would imply that King David kept watch dogs in his courtyard.

Hag Sameach!

quote:

Solomon was pressing about the issue, saying that his father was "lying in the sun, and the dogs of his father were hungry!" This would imply that King David kept watch dogs in his courtyard.

I would have thought that dogs are known to not be cannabals, and thus in the wild if a leader of a pack of dogs dies, the pack does not eat the corpse of the leader.

I understand that dogs relate to a human master just like the leader of their pack, and thus I find it very strange to think that watch dogs owned by Dovid HaMelech would eat the corpse of their master... if anything I might expect dogs to protect the corpse of their master for a while (at least a day) vigil and then move on to find food after the realization that the corpse is not going to move, feels code, and smells dead.

Has the implication of this gemara been commented upon by any authorities on animal behavior?

I think it was two separate questions, How to move the dead and how do you feed dogs on Shabbos.

quote:

I think it was two separate questions, How to move the dead and how do you feed dogs on Shabbos.

If this is the meaning, then I think we can deduce that either Dovid HaMelech fed the watch dogs himself, even on Shabbos, (and unlike the commentary by Avraham Avinu taking his 2 young men with him - he did this without any companions) or

there were a sufficient steady stream of invaders during Dovid HaMelech's life, which ended immediately at his death, to keep the watch dogs well fed even on Shabbos!

The Shayla of feeding the dogs, though it doesn't say so explicitly, it seems to be, that they didn't have any dog food available. What they did have where the carcass of cattle that died on Shabbos. Do we say that since they were alive when Shabbos came in, thus they were Muktze Machmas Issur (since it's forbidden to Shecht them) so it remains Mukzah the whole day, even though it becomes fit later on that Shabbos by dying. Or do we say it's status from Erev Shabbos has no bearing on what it is now.

Tosfos proves that it's also dealing with where it's not Mukzeh Machmas Issur (where you don't have to kill it, it's talking about young fowl that the dog could kill itself.) The rub is, since in the start of Shabbos this animal was designated to human consumption and not for dog consumption. Thus by dying and making itself no longer fit for human consumption, do we say it's no longer what it was set aside for, so it's Muktzah, or that originally, since it was fit also for the consumption of dogs, it still has it's old usefulness and is not Mukzah.

These are Machlokes between R' Yehudah, that is stricter by Muktzah, and R' Shimon that is more lenient. The Gemara, in R' Shimon's Shita, said the Bais Medresh ruled leniently in these Shaylos.