Thought for the Day: It Is Still Logical to Not Eat Limbs of Living Animals, But Lions are a Notable Exception

In a recent TftD, which was really about why we got the Torah (Go Team Klal Yisrael!), I mentioned that it is simply logical to not eat the limb of a living animal. After all, besides fish eating live fish and small reptiles/amphibians eating live bugs, animals kill their prey before eating it. Here is what Gemini says about it:

So, while the image of a predator instantly killing its prey might not always be precisely accurate in every second of a hunt, the overwhelming preference and typical strategy for large land animals is to kill their prey as efficiently as possible to minimize risk and ensure a successful meal.

As my daughter told me recently, I have found my people... I love learning in kollel in the morning and they more than put up with my presence. I often share ideas when getting coffee and/or passing each other outside beis medrash. (Inside beis medrash everyone is constantly busy!) It is a great environment for me because I have a huge pet peeve; I hate being wrong. In the kollel I am rarely wrong for long, because someone will correct me.

So... it turns out that the gemara (Bava Kama 16b) discusses the eating habits of lions. Why in Bava Kama? Because the owner of an animal that eats normally in the public thoroughfare is not obligated to pay damages. It's the public domain, animals are allowed there, animals eat. If you leave food lying around, too bad for you. If the animals acts in an unnatural way, then the owner has to pay damages. (That's the overview; there are details. See the first chapter of Bava Kama for all the fun.) There Shmuel says that a lion that דרס ואכל/stomps and eats is exempt. Rashi explains that to mean that the lion does not kill its prey, but eats it alive and the owner is therefore exempts because that is called the normal way to eat for a lion. Shmuel says further that if the lion טרף ואכל/viciously kills and eats its prey, then the owner needs to pay.

The gemara pushes back. From logic? From scientific observations in the wild? Nope. From the prophet Nachum, who is describing the startling and definitive downfall of the great Nineveh, which he compares -- in its glory years -- to a lion. The gemara opines: But Nachum says that lions טרף/kill for their young and their lionesses and to store away. The gemara answers: Yes, for its young and for its lionesses and to store food for later, it will kill. But for itself, דרס ואכל/stomps and eats. Why? Maybe to assert itself as king of the beasts. I don't really know, but there don't seem to be any other animals that Chazal call out. It doesn't change the conclusion: With the notable exception of lions, the way of the world is to kill your prey before eating it. We should follow suit and not eat the limbs of living animals.

I am amazed by the fact that Chazal understand that when the Navi makes even a poetic statement, the statement is to be taking seriously. As much as it is a parable/analogy, the simple meaning is also true. Moreover, we use it to learn real live halachos, even about monetary obligations! So cool... I am glad I brought it up!