Rambam maintains that the notion of Divine reward and punishment for animals is a non-Jewish concept. What are we to do when we encounter statements of Chazal which talk about God rewarding animals?
The Torah content for this week has been sponsored by Sarah and Moshe Eisen, with the following message: "Dedicated in honor of Popo, who shined bright and brought joy to so many of us. And to Rabbi Matt Schneeweiss who shared her with us and continues to share thoughts, insights, and Torah."
Click here for a printer-friendly 1-page version of this article, and click here for the podcast version.
 |
| Artwork: Release the Dogs, by Jason Kang |
Mishpatim: Does Hashem Reward Good Dogs?
“People of holiness shall you be to Me; you shall not eat flesh of an animal that was torn (treifah) in the field; to the dog shall you throw it” (Shemos 22:30). Although “treif” in the vernacular has come to refer to any non-kosher food, the technical definition is meat from an animal with a life-threatening physical defect, such as a mortal wound or a terminal illness. The question is: Why does the Torah tell us to throw our treifah to the dogs? The simple answer is that this was the most common way to dispose of treifah. However, Rashi (citing Mechilta) writes:
This teaches us that Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu doesn't deprive any creature of its reward, as it is stated [in the narrative about the Plague of the Firstborn]: “But against all the Children of Israel, no dog shall whet its tongue (i.e. the dogs will not bark)” (ibid. 11:7). Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu said, “Give [the dog] its reward.”
This explanation raises several difficulties, the first and foremost of which is stated by the Rambam (Moreh 3:17):
The notion of reward [and punishment] for animals has never been heard in our nation at all and was not mentioned by any one of the [Talmudic] Sages. However, the latter [sages] among the Geonim heard this [view] from the [Islamic philosophical sect of the] Mutazilites and approved of it and accepted it.
Reward and punishment are only relevant to human beings, who possess intellect and free will. Moreover, the dogs that refrained from barking in Egypt aren’t the same dogs we “reward” with treif. Seemingly, those Egyptian dogs were deprived of their reward! Lastly, this seems like a poorly structured reward. It would be one thing if we were obligated to give our treif to the dogs, but halachically, it’s optional, and therefore, not guaranteed.
Radak weighs in on the question of Divine recompense for animals in his commentary on Ashrei (Tehilim 145:17):
We say that there is reward and punishment for other species of animals b'eisek ha'adam (in human involvement). We find: “I [Hashem] will exact [punishment] from every wild animal [that kills a man]” (Bereishis 9:5) ... and it was said by way of reward: “[the lion had not eaten the corpse] nor had it torn the donkey” (I Melachim 13:28). Our Sages explain such reward for animals as the donkey and the dog, saying: “Why are firstborn donkeys differentiated from other firstborn animals, such that they may be redeemed (in exchange for a lamb or kid)?” (Bechoros 5b). They explain: “Because they carried the [Egyptian] spoils for Israel.” And it was said that "to the dog shall you throw it" is in merit of “no dog shall whet its tongue” which teaches that Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu doesn't deprive any creature of its reward.
Radak maintains that “there is reward and punishment for other species of animals in human involvement.” This phrase is somewhat vague. Thankfully, he provides us with a clue in his commentary on the case in Sefer Melachim mentioned above. Hashem prevented the lion from eating the donkey to “reward” it for providing transportation for the prophet. There Radak writes: “the reward for the donkey in this world was for the sake of kavod ha’navi (the honor of the prophet) who rode on him, for there is reward and punishment for other species of animals in this world b’inyan ha’adam (in the affairs of man).” In other words, God rewards and punishes animals not for their own sake, but because of the impact of this reward and punishment on humans. He protected the donkey not as a reward for the donkey’s sake, but because protecting the navi’s donkey preserved the navi’s kavod.
The same is true in our case. Hashem does not “reward” dogs with treif for their sake, but for our sake. The silence of the dogs in Egypt resulted in a more tranquil exodus. To commemorate this, Hashem incorporated dogs into the Torah’s presentation of the laws of treif. Now, whenever we encounter treif, we will be prompted to feed it to our dogs, which will lead us to reflect on the kindness shown to us by Hashem when He took us out from Egypt. The same is true for donkeys: whenever we redeem a donkey, we will recall the beneficence of Hashem in allowing us to take the spoils of Egypt which we transported on our donkeys.
The take-away is not these particular ideas, but the methodology: we interpret midrashim in light of fundamentals – not the other way around.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
WhatsApp Group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel
Rambam is doubtlessly referring to R Saadia Gaon . . see Viktor Aptowitzer's article in Huca 3, 1926 . .
ReplyDelete