Courts of Law
Source: Moshiach.com
Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky
Roots of the judicial system; jurisdiction of the courts; criteria for judicial decisions; standards within the court system; standards and goals for judges • Laws concerning witnesses
PART ONE: Roots of the judicial system; jurisdiction of the courts; criteria for judicial decisions; standards within the court system; standards and goals for judges
1. The Children of Noah are commanded to establish courts of law that will carry out justice and maintain human righteousness and morality in accord with the Seven Universal Laws.[1] A court system that perverts justice by handing down rulings in conflict with the Seven Universal Laws is an instrument for driving God’s blessings out of the world. Anyone who fails to establish a court system, that is, who lives in a community or city in which there are no courts, and who does nothing to correct the situation, is punishable by death. One who establishes or maintains courts of law that operate contrary to the Seven Universal Laws is similarly liable.
In the Book of Genesis (34:25), we learn that two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, slew every male in the city of Shechem. The prince of the community, Shechem, son of Hamor, had raped their sister, Dinah, and the city failed to execute justice by bringing him to a court of law. The city was therefore guilty of transgressing this seventh of the Seven Universal Laws, and every citizen was liable for punishment.
2. The commandment to establish courts of law, though it might appear to be a positive commandment calling for affirmative action, is considered a prohibition. In effect, the commandment to establish courts of law is a prohibition against failing to establish courts of law, because failure to establish appropriate courts inhibits the performance of justice throughout the nations.[2]
3. The only punishment meted out by the Noahide courts of law in criminal cases is the death penalty.[3]
4. One accused of a transgression of the Seven Universal Laws and brought to trial in a Noahide court may be convicted only if he is found to be mentally competent.[4]
5. Every individual must accept a legal decision he has received. It is forbidden for an individual to render a judgment himself (vigilante justice) without going to a court of law.[5]
6. In civil matters, that is, cases between individual parties, later authorities question whether the Noahide is commanded to follow the same principles as Jewish law and Jewish courts, or whether he is to follow rulings established by his own Noahide courts and laws.
Although the Noahide courts are responsibile for only the Seven Universal Laws, not the 613 laws of the Torah, there is an opinion that each decision of the Noahide courts must follow its counterpart in Jewish Law. The accepted opinion, however, is that Noahide judges and courts of law are to render legal decisions according to their own laws and principles of law.
7. Arbitration and mediation or any other means of finding an amicable settlement or compromise, thereby avoiding a court trial, is desirable, and, more than that, it is a commandment to seek compromise.
8. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in the Noahide courts of law.
9. The Children of Noah are responsible for knowledge of the Seven Universal Laws, and therefore one does not have to be warned that he is committing a transgression in order to be accused in a court of law.[6]
10. It is forbidden for a court to have compassion on a murderer, saying that since one person has already been killed, what purpose could there be in killing another? And the court may not delay the execution because of compassion.[7]
11. Similarly, in financial litigation, the court may not have mercy on a poor person, taking the attitude that a rich plaintiff has an obligation to support the poor, therefore finding for the poor defendant so that he will be supported with an honorable livelihood.
12. It is similarly forbidden to pay prejudicial respect to a great person. If two litigants appear in court, one a great wise man and the other a simple person, the judge may not ask about the welfare of the great one nor express pleasure at being in his presence in any way, nor give him honor in any way. Otherwise, the arguments of the simple person would be stifled. He would think, “What’s the use anyway?” The judge must not favor either party until judgment is finished. And the sages warn that a judge must not think that since the litigant is so great a person, it is unseemly to embarrass him or see him in his embarrassment.
13. If two litigants appear in court, and one is a righteous person while the other is a wicked person, the judge should not presume that the wicked person will not tell the truth, nor presume that he will not change his ways, and therefore the judgment should go against him.[8]
14. One should not judge unrighteously, acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent. And a judge who delays the judgment, lengthening the time of the testimony or cross-examination, in order to cause either of the litigants to suffer, falls under the ruling of judging unrighteously.[9]
15. One who judges haughtily, without fearing his awesome responsibility and without due deliberation, and then comes to a decision quickly before he has taken the time to carefully consider the case, is considered stupid, wicked, and coarsely egotistical.[10]
16. The courts should not establish a standard judgment by which numerous cases may be judged according to a precedent system, but should consider each case individually on its own unique merits.[11] (Note: Precedent in legal cases may be followed as guidelines, however.)
17. A case concerning a large sum of money and a case concerning a small amount of money should be given equal and individual consideration.[12]
18. It is a positive commandment to deliver a righteous judgment, treating the two claimants equally in every respect. The judge may not permit one to explain his case at great length while telling the other to keep his words brief. Nor should the judge be pleasant and smile at one while being short and gruff to the other.[13]
19. A judge is forbidden to take a bribe. Bribery will certainly corrupt any judgment. A judge who takes a bribe is obligated to return the bribe if the giver demands it.[14]
20. It is also forbidden to offer a bribe to a judge.[15] The category of bribery is not limited to money, but includes any type of gift or favor.[16]
21. Any judge who sits in judgment and attempts to magnify his importance, even in order to increase the wages of his bailiff or the court clerk, is in the category of one who leans after the wrong things. Once a judge was entering a boat to cross a river. A man who had a case in litigation before the judge was on the boat and stretched out his hand to help the judge aboard. The judge told him, “Behold, I am disqualified to judge your case.”
* * *
(Note: The goal of justice is to function as impartially and righteously as possible, to the ultimate degree. The following section delineates some of the details of the standards of the Jewish Bet Din, the ecclesiastical court. The Noahide courts are not obligated to follow these rules, but must be acquainted with them as points of reference.)
22. Two litigants appear before a judge. One is dressed very elegantly with expensive clothing and the other is wearing the clothes of a pauper. The judge should tell the elegantly dressed one, “You should clothe the other one until he is dressed as elegantly as you are, or you should clothe yourself to appear as he does, and then you can enter judgment with him.”[17]
23. The litigants should both sit or stand; it is improper for one to stand and the other to sit. If the judge wishes to seat them both, he may do so. If they sit, they should sit side by side, neither one higher than the other, and they may so sit during the entire time that the judge is listening to the case. But when the judge’s decision is being announced, then both litigants should be standing. The “decision” is the judge’s announcement finding for the defendant and against the plaintiff or for the plaintiff and against the defendant. Witnesses for either side should always stand during testimony.[18]
24. If there are many cases before the judge, the case of an orphan should precede the case of a widow, and the case of a widow should precede the case of a Torah scholar, and the case of a scholar should precede the case of an unlearned man, and the case of a woman should precede the case of a man, for a woman’s embarrassment is greater.[19]
25. It is forbidden for the judge to hear the plea of one of the litigants unless the other one is also present. To listen to even one word of the case itself is forbidden. And we warn the litigant that he should not allow his words to be heard before the other litigant arrives.[20]
26. The judge may not hear testimony through an interpreter or a translator, as the truth is reached only by hearing the words of the litigants themselves. He must understand the language of the litigants and hear their testimony and proofs. If the judge does not speak their language fluently, he may use an interpreter to reply to the litigants to inform them of the judgment and the reason he found for this one and against that one.[21]
27. The judge must hear the arguments of the litigants, then review the arguments in their presence to be sure that he understands them clearly. Then he righteously decides the case in his heart, and afterward he reaches the final decision.[22]
28. The judge should not defend the words of the litigant, but he should sit silently as each litigant says what he feels he must. And the judge should not instruct either of the litigants in his presentation of any argument.[23]
29. If the judge sees a favorable point in the case of either of the litigants and the litigant does not know how to bring forth the point, or gets angry and confused to the point of being unable to state his case clearly, the judge may come to his aid slightly and put him on the right track to state the beginning of his case. But the judge must be careful of how he does this so as to avoid instructing the litigant in how to present a meritorious case, for if the judge did this, he would be perverting justice.[24]
30. Prior to the judge’s hearing the case, if he feels personally threatened by either of the litigants, he may refuse to sit in judgment. But if he has already heard their words and knows which way the judgment is leaning, it is not proper for the judge to refuse to pass judgment out of fear of one of the litigants.[25]
31. If there is more than one judge in a case, it is forbidden for any of them to say after the trial, “I judged in your merit, but my colleagues found against you and inasmuch as they were the majority, what could I do?”[26]
32. A judge is forbidden to sit in judgment with a colleague whom he knows to be a thief or a wicked person. He must not sit in judgment with another until he knows with whom he is sitting. And no one should sign a contract until he knows with whom he is signing.[27]
33. A judge is forbidden to judge someone he loves, even though it is less than a great abiding love. Nor can he judge one he hates, even though the person is not his enemy. Ideally, the litigants should be equal in the eyes and heart of the judge. If he recognizes neither them nor their deeds, he can render the most honest judgment possible.[28]
34. Men of learning who are contemptuous of each other should not judge a case together. The judgment is likely to be distorted, as the contempt would incline one to contradict the opinions of the other.[29]
35. A judge should imagine himself with a sword resting on his neck and the Pit of Hell open below him. And he should know Who is the Judge and in front of Whom he judges, and Who will seek retribution from him if he strays from the truth.[30]
36. If a judge feels deeply in his heart that one of the litigants is in the right, and there is no proof for it, or if the judge feels that there is deception and trickery afoot by one of the litigants or with one of the witnesses, and there is no proof for it, or if he feels he cannot rely on the words of the witnesses even if he is not able to disqualify them, or if another similar situation arises, then this judge must disqualify himself from the case and be replaced by one who can judge with a whole heart in the matter. But if the judge knows for sure that one of the witnesses is lying, he should not remove himself from the case, but judge it according to his understanding of the truth. And all these things are matters of the heart.[31]
37. If a judge errs in his decision in a financial matter, he should retract his decision, restore everything to its original status, and retry the case. If it is not possible to retract and restore, for instance, one of the litigants went to a foreign land and took the money awarded him, or the like, then the judge is held harmless from making restitution of the money. It is clear that he had no intention of causing damage.[32]
38. Every judge should possess the following seven attributes:
Wisdom
Humility
Fear of Heaven
Fear of sin
Contempt for money
Love of truth
Beloved by his fellow man
A good reputation[33]
39. When is one beloved by his fellow man? When he views things in a favorable light and is humble, and he speaks and conducts business in a pleasant manner. He should be meticulous in fulfilling the commandments of God, and he should have conquered his evil inclination to the point that he is without blemish. His name should serve as an outstanding model for the generation. He should be courageous in order to exact a righteous judgment against strong?willed wrongdoers. Money should not be precious to him so that he will not chase after it, for it is taught that if one desires to be rich, poverty will come upon him. He should not need to be exhorted to strive after truth, but should pursue truth from his own desire for it. He must love truth and despise whatever opposes truth. And he must flee from all forms of transgression.
40. If a judge who possesses all these noble attributes cannot be found, then one should strive to find one who meets as many of these requirements as possible.
PART TWO: Laws concerning witnesses
1. A person may be convicted in a Noahide court by the testimony of a single witness, but only if the witness is known to be righteous.[34] If the character of the witness is not known, it takes two witnesses to be able to convict the accused. It is permissible for the witnesses as well as the judge to be relatives of the accused.[35]
2. A person may testify against himself in a court of law,[36] but since he is the accused, his character is definitely in question, and a second witness is necessary to be able to convict him.
3. The witnesses must be subjected to a thorough and systematic scrutiny to reveal any inconsistencies or other flaws in their testimony.[37]
4. One is commanded to give truthful testimony in a court of law even if he knows the testimony will damage a friend or exonerate an enemy. And, this refers to civil litigation or criminal matters. In a criminal case, he is commanded to come forth and give testimony even if the court does not request him to do so.[38]
5. There are ten classifications that are disqualified as witnesses or as judges in a court of law:
Women
Slaves
Small children
Fools and the insane
The deaf and the mute
The blind, even if they recognize voices
Known transgressors
People who care not how they behave in public
Husbands of women involved in the trial
People who would benefit from a decision in the case[39]
6. A wicked person is disqualified as a witness. This means that the testimony of anyone who is known to transgress the Seven Universal Laws is inadmissible.[40]
7. The courts should not admit the testimony of anyone unless it is ascertained that this person is involved in keeping the Seven Universal Laws and does acts of kindness and conducts himself in a straight way and is honest and upright.[41]
8. The judge who admits testimony from a witness before it is ascertained whether the witness is qualified to testify is held responsible. This judge is considered as one who perverts justice.[42]
9. Whoever disgraces himself publicly is disqualified as a witness. These are people who walk and eat in a coarse, impolite fashion in public, or who go naked in public, or who are involved in any disgusting work or activity, or anyone who feels no self?embarrassment. All these people are considered on the level of dogs, and one cannot trust them to be stringent against giving false testimony.[43]
10. Even if a multitude of wise, God?fearing people tell someone that they saw such?and?such a person commit such-and?such a crime, and even though he believes it in his heart to be true, he is forbidden to testify in court unless he saw the incident with his own eyes. Anyone who testifies on the hearsay of others is considered a false witness, which is tantamount to conspiring against another, and this is a grave transgression.[44]
(Note: One who gives false testimony which convicts a person and causes him to be executed receives the death penalty.)
Honoring Mother & Father
Source: Moshiach.com
Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky
Although the Children of Noah are not commanded to honor father and mother, they have accepted the obligation of performing this meritorious act from the beginning of time and have distinguished themselves through the ages with this righteous behavior.[1]
The Talmud[2] tells the story of Doma ben Nessina, one of the Children of Noah who excelled in the performance of honoring his father to the highest degree. Doma ben Nessina lived in a small village, and it was learned by the Sages of Israel that he had possession of a rare gem that the Sages wanted for the Holy Temple. They traveled to Doma ben Nessina’s village and offered him a fabulous sum of money for the gem. He refused their offer because the key to the chest where the gem lay safeguarded was with his father, and his father lay asleep. Rather than wake his father, he turned down the Sages’ offer, and they returned to Jerusalem. As a reward for his performance of the commandment of honoring one’s father, the next year a red heifer was miraculously born in Doma ben Nessina’s herd. (The red heifer, a unique creation that is born only through a miracle, is essential for the performance of one of the ritual purifications in the time of the Holy Temple.) The Sages traveled to Doma ben Nessina again and offered him anything he wanted for his red heifer. Seeing that it was all a miracle from God, he took the same amount they were willing to pay him for the precious gem the year before.
2. One should be extremely meticulous in honoring and respecting one’s mother and father, for it is compared to honoring God. Three partners share in the creation of a child: the mother and the father provide the child with a body, and God provides the child with a soul.[3]
3. What is considered respecting one’s parents? One should not occupy the designated place for one’s father in a council of elders, nor should one sit at the designated place of one’s parents during meals, nor should one publicly contradict the words of one’s parents.
4. What is considered honoring one’s parents? One must provide them with food, drink, and clothing from the parents’ own funds. If the parents have no funds, the child is obligated to provide for them from his private charity funds. One should escort and help them to and from the house and supply all their needs cheerfully. If a child provides even fattened hens for his parents, but does so rudely, he will receive Divine punishment.
5. If one’s mother or father are sleeping and the key to the child’s place of business is under their heads, it is forbidden to wake them even if there would be a loss of profit. But, if the parents would benefit from the profit and be saddened by the loss if they were not awakened, it is the child’s duty to awaken them and cause them to rejoice over the situation.
If, however, the parent intentionally wanted to cause the son or daughter a financial loss, for example by throwing away money, the child can stop the parent. This is only where the parent has no means of reimbursing the child if the child takes legal recourse. Some say that even if the parent has the means of reimbursement, the child should prevent the parent from causing financial loss in order to avoid the anguish of a legal battle. If the money has already been thrown away, one may not shout at or insult the parent, but may quietly initiate legal proceedings.
6. If the child needs a favor from the community and knows that the favor will be granted because of the esteem in which his parent is held, and if the child also knows that he can obtain the favor based on his own position of esteem, he should not say, “Do it for me because of me,” but rather, “Do it for me because of my parent.” This way it is an honor for the parent. If, however, the request can be made without personal mention, one does not have to mention the parent.
7. Suppose a mother asks her child to do a task and the child complies, and then, later, the father asks, “Who told you to do this?” If the child feels that by stating, “Mother told me to do it,” the father will become angry at the mother, then the child should incur the father’s wrath rather than implicate the mother.
8. Children must rise and remain standing in the presence of their mother or father.
9. One is obligated to honor his mother and father after their deaths. For example, when the child mentions the deceased parent’s name, he should add, “May his (or her) memory be blessed in the World to Come,” or, “May he (or she) rest in peace.”
10. Even if the father or mother are wicked and transgress the Seven Commandments, the child must honor and revere them. Even a child born to a forbidden union is obligated to honor and revere his parents. Others hold that one does not have to honor and revere wicked parents until they repent of their deeds, but it is forbidden to cause them grief. However, it is better to follow the first opinion.
11. If a child sees a parent transgress one of the Seven Commandments, the child should not chastise the parent in a rude way by saying, “You have violated one of the commandments.” Rather, the child should put it in the form of a question, such as, “Father (or Mother), doesn’t it state in the Seven Laws of Noah such?and?such?” In this manner, the correction comes in the way of the child seeking information rather than reprimanding. The parent will understand the implication, correct himself or herself, and will not be embarrassed.
12. If the parents tell the child to transgress one or more of the Seven Universal Laws, the child should not listen. The parents have an obligation to honor God, and therefore the child has to honor God’s wishes before the wishes of the parent.
13. Both men and women have an obligation to honor and revere their parents. However, a married woman owes her devotion to her husband and is exempt from honoring her mother and father. But if he does not object, she is obliged to honor her parents as much as possible.
14. Whoever shames his or her mother or father, even with words or gestures, is considered cursed by God, as it says, “Cursed is the one who dishonors his father or mother” (Deut. 27:16).
15. If the mother or father have a splinter deeply imbedded, the son or daughter may not remove it because a wound may result, and a child is forbidden to inflict any kind of a wound on a parent. Even if the child is a doctor, he may not operate, though his intention may be only to heal. However, this is only in the case where there are other doctors available. Where the need is pressing and only the child can help, he or she may do whatever is necessary.
16. If one’s parents have become mentally ill, God forbid, the child should attempt to act with them in accord with their mental state until God will have mercy on them. If the situation becomes aggravated and the child can no longer handle it, then he or she must leave the parents in the charge of professionals.
17. A parent should not be too exacting in demanding honor from the child, but be forgiving and overlook the shortcomings of a child.
18. A parent should not strike a grown child. This refers to the child’s maturity, not his chronological age, and is based on the specific nature of the child. If a parent sees that a grown child has a rebellious nature, he should reason and discuss the situation with the child. Striking the child will only aggravate matters.
19. A child is obligated to honor a stepmother as long as the father is still living. Also the child must honor the stepfather so long as the mother is still living. It is also proper conduct to honor the stepmother or stepfather even after the death of one’s own parent.
20. One must honor an older brother even if he is only a half brother.
21. A man must honor his father?in?law and mother?in?law as one would honor any other important elder, through kind words and good deeds.
22. One who truly wishes to honor his mother and father should study and observe the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah and should perform good deeds. It is the greatest honor possible for the parents when people say, “Happy are the parents who raised such a child.”
But a child who does not walk in the right path brings reproach to the parents and disgraces them in the most severe way. Furthermore, parents who are concerned about the welfare of their children should be involved in the learning and practice of the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah and should perform acts of kindness so that they may please God and their fellow man and make their children proud of them. One who does not do so disgraces the children. And worse than this, children die for the sins of their parents, as it says, “Visiting the transgression of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me” (Exod. 20:5). There is no cruelty greater than causing the death of one’s own child through one’s sins. Conversely, no one exhibits more compassion for his children than a righteous person, as it says, “And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me” (Exodus 20:6).
The Limb of a Living Animal
Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky
Definition and explanation; drinking blood; criteria concerning what is an animal and what constitutes a limb; spiritual elevation through proper eating
1. There is some discussion as to whether or not the prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal was originally given to Adam, the first man. One opinion states that it was included in the original commandment forbidding the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.[1] According to this opinion, Adam, who was clearly given vegetation for food, as it is written, “And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the whole earth, and every tree upon which there is fruit of a tree bearing seed, to you these shall be for food” (Gen. 1:29), was not forbidden to eat meat, but was merely forbidden to kill animals for food. If the animal had died of itself, it was permissible as food.[2] What Noah was given, therefore, was permission to kill animals for food, but he was forbidden by God to eat the flesh of any animal while the animal was still alive.[3] According to the other opinion, Adam had received six of the Seven Universal Laws and had been forbidden to eat the flesh of an animal in any manner. Only after the Flood was the leniency of permitting animal flesh instituted.[4]
This commandment is explicit, as it is written, “Every moving thing that lives shall be for you for food; just as the green herbs, I have given you everything. But flesh with its living soul, its blood, you shall not eat” (Gen.9:3?4). This does not mean that an animal’s blood is its soul and God was forbidding man to drink animal blood. The vitalizing animal soul is contained within the blood, and this is what the commandment refers to, for when an animal dies, this vitalizing soul departs. So long as this vitalizing soul remains within the animal, its flesh is forbidden to man as food.[5]
At first glance, this commandment seems peculiarly out of place as one of the Seven Universal Laws. How can eating the limb of an animal take its place side by side with such monumental principles of human morality as those prohibiting idolatry or murder? Besides a few scattered sociological perversions in Africa and China, one is hard put to imagine who would even consider eating an animal’s meat while the animal lives.
And yet this is precisely why this commandment may well epitomize the spirit of the Seven Universal Laws.[6] Although mankind is enjoined to obey these commandments as they appear, nevertheless the letter of the law serves only as a minimum, a starting point, which guarantees God’s favor and ensures human morality. But, if man wishes to realize his spiritual greatness, he must tap into the infinite potential of the Seven Laws, using them to refine and elevate himself. We see here that eating the limb of a living animal serves as a hint to the potential refinement that man can attain through his eating habits and by practicing kindness to God’s creatures. For what man ingests as food is absorbed in his bloodstream and in every cell of his body and thereby becomes part of his essential being. The person who eats snakes and monkeys will surely be different from the one who eats nuts and berries. And the mystical teachings state that the Holy Spirit will never rest on one who kills any creature, even the lowliest insect, purposelessly.[7]
2. The early Sages differ concerning the act of consuming the blood of an animal.[8] The Sages say that the Children of Noah contend that they were never forbidden blood as food.[9]
3. The Noahide may eat the flesh of an animal that dies by itself,[10] but there is an opinion stating that only the flesh of an animal killed through slaughtering is permissible.[11]
4. One guilty of transgressing this commandment is subject to punishment by the courts whether he eats the limb of a living animal or merely the flesh of a living animal or any internal organ, even the smallest amount.[12] (The actual transgression has to do only with eating; the use of the animal’s hide or any other benefit is permissible.)
5. A person is subject to punishment by the courts for eating the limb or the flesh of either a living domestic or wild animal, but not for eating the limb or flesh of a living chicken.[13] Although the courts do not punish for this, it is forbidden.
(Note: Animals, birds, and fish may be killed for food in any way that man deems to be efficient and it should be done as humanely as possible. Slaughtering of animals or birds does not have to be in a ritual manner as with Jews. Fish are considered dead the moment they are taken out of the water, but even so, one may not eat a fish while it appears to be alive, as this is a lack of refinement, and the chief reason for the giving of the Seven Universal Laws was to refine the nature of man.)
6. When one slaughters an animal, even if its windpipe and esophagus are severed, so long as the limbs are still moving, the limbs and the meat that are separated from them are forbidden to a Noahide because of this law.[14] However, if one eats the limb or flesh of an animal after it has been killed, but while it is still moving, he is not punished for this by the courts, for it is not actually considered the limb or flesh of a living animal.[15]
7. Whether it is a part of an animal that has meat with sinews, cartilage and bone, such as a leg, or even if it contains no bone material at all, such as the kidneys or the heart or the tongue, it is all the same, that is, it is regarded as a limb for the purposes of this commandment.[16]
8. A limb or piece of flesh that is hanging detached from its original position is not forbidden to be eaten (after the animal is slaughtered) if one could have returned the limb to its original position and the animal could have remained alive for a year. But if one could not have returned this limb to its original position so as to permit the animal to live for a year, this detached limb is forbidden even after the animal is slaughtered.
9. The foregoing refers only to a limb that is actually hanging, that is, it has been dislodged from its original position and is only slightly attached. However, if a bone were broken in a place that does not cause serious damage to the animal or bird (for example, a wing tip), if flesh covers the majority of the broken limb, then the limb is not forbidden when the animal is slaughtered. If flesh is missing from the major portion of the limb, then the limb has to be removed completely after the animal is slaughtered before the rest of the creature can be eaten.
10. If an animal has an extra limb that is located in its proper area and its presence will not affect the life of the animal, this extra limb is permitted and is not considered like a hanging limb. Double limbs that will affect the life of the animal, such as the stomach, liver, and kidney must be removed, for the law of a hanging limb is applicable to them.
11. Everything that is forbidden to a Jew because of the law of the limb of a living animal is similarly forbidden to a Noahide, except that the latter has the added strictness of being guilty of this particular transgression whether the animal is spiritually clean or unclean. The Jew is guilty only if the animal is of a type that is spiritually clean.[17]
12. Animals, together with their lives, were given into the hands of mankind. The higher spiritual rank of man dictates that he not eat the limb of a living animal. Even though human flesh and animal flesh are related, the one may be incorporated within the other through eating. But the soul of an animal may never be incorporated within the soul of man. The soul of an animal must first be separated from its physical being before the animal body may be absorbed within and become part of the human body.[18]
13. Vegetarian practices, including those of many religions (even some fundamentalist Christian sects) are generally spurious, and at the very least, reflective of incomplete theology. Lest one think that vegetarianism reflects enlightenment, it is important to remember that the ancient Egyptians were religious vegetarians, yet idolaters and moral degenerates in the extreme.[19]
There are four general reasons why a man will likely be a vegetarian. If meat disgusts him, or if he feels that eating meat is unhealthy (particularly in the modern age of chemicals and growth hormones), or if he distrusts the appropriateness of current methods of slaughtering, a person has every right to be a vegetarian. But, if he claims that it is cruel to eat meat, or he is vainly attempting to hearken back to the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, he denies the truth of God and places his own understanding of mercy above God’s. Since God gave Noah and his descendants the right to eat meat, this right is Divine.
A story is told about Rabbi Sholom Ber Schneersohn, known as the Rebbe Rashab, who was strolling with his young son, Yosef Yitzchak, destined to become the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe. As they walked, the young boy idly stretched forth his hand and tore off a leaf from a nearby plant. His father reprimanded him for the act, reminding him that everything in creation has a soul and therefore one must be careful. If man has need for an object and can take it within the bounds that God has determined, he has a right to it, for man was given dominion over the whole world. But man has no right to wantonly destroy, even to the extent of purposelessly tearing off the leaf of a plant.
