Bava Kamma 012

1:
Our present mishnah seeks to define the Hebrew terms tam and mu'ad. The teaching of two sages – contemporaries – is given in our mishnah.

2:
Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai holds that an animal is considered to be 'innocuous' unless there is clear evidence that it has become dangerous. That evidence must be supplied and accepted in court. Experience taught that a docile animal might be goaded into violent behaviour once or twice, but that is not evidence that it is 'vicious' by nature. Rabbi Yehudah holds that if the animal displayed vicious behaviour on three consecutive days and the animal's owner was warned by the court on three consecutive days to 'watch that animal' after the third time it can no longer be considered to be docile. He also holds that if three days pass without that same animal displaying a vicious temper it reverts to the assumption of docility.

3:
Rabbi Yehudah's colleague, Rabbi Me'ir, has a larger view of what is required to turn an animal from the presumption of docility to one of viciousness. Rabbi Yehudah taught that an animal must 'appear in court' for three consecutive days on a charge of viciousness whereas Rabbi Me'ir holds that it is enough that an animal be accused of viciousness three times during its lifetime – even if the incidents are far apart in time. On the other hand he holds that a vicious animal reverts to a presumption of docility when children can approach it freely, touch it, fondle it and such behaviour provokes not kind of angry response: such an animal is immediately held to be docile.

4:
The sages [BK 24a] decided to enjoy the best of both worlds! Regarding when and how an animal loses the presumption of docility halakhah follows the teaching of Rabbi Yehudah; but how a vicious animal regains the presumption of docility follows the teaching of Rabbi Me'ir.

5:
For the sake of completeness:

A docile animal is considered to have become vicious when its owner has been warned on three consecutive days that his animal is dangerous and must be carefully watched. Such an animal is now mu'ad (and the owner will have indemnify in full and damage that her animal caused). But when it is observed that children can approach that animal with no violent reaction from the animal it has immediately regained its status of 'docile' (tam) and its owner will only pay half-damages for any damage the animal causes.

Ronen Lautman writes:

You have mentioned several situations in which the owner of an animal is required to take steps to ensure that the animal will not cause damage. Is there a list of kinds of steps that would be considered 'cruelty to animals'? For example, it is forbidden to muzzle an ox while it is threshing; but is it permitted to muzzle an ox when it is transporting merchandise? What is the difference between them?

I respond:

The command not to treat animals with cruelty is based on a verse in the Torah [Exodus 23:5]:

Here the Torah warns that despite one's unwillingness to assist an enemy in his time of trouble, nevertheless in such a case the discomfort of that person's animal must cancel out any reticence to lend a helping hand. The animal is suffering because it has been overloaded or because the load was placed badly: it is one's duty to allay that animal's suffering. The Psalmist [Psalm 8:5-9] says:

Man is Lord of all creation. In the very first chapter of Genesis we read:

But man's overlordship of the rest of the animal world is one of faithful stewardship: the animals are not there for man to exploit but to be carefully preserved. Man may use the animals but only within reason. The Torah draws the line at cruelty: that is to say that we are forbidden to subject animals and birds to unnecessary suffering or to unreasonable exploitation.

Thus, to return to Ronen's question, there is no list of what is permitted and what is not permitted: the same thing may be permitted in the case of an elephant which is out of the question with regards to a deer. The rules of thumb should be:

1. Is what I require of this animal a reasonable use of its capabilities or is it unnecessary exploitation?
2. Is the experience to which I subject this animal 'fair use' or does it come within the rubric of "cruel and unnatural"?

To muzzle an ox while it is threshing for you just because you don't want to lose any of your precious crop is cruel and unfair; to muzzle that same ox when it is transporting wares through the public thoroughfare in order to prevent it causing damage to people and property is fair and reasonable.

I think that to go into any greater detail would take us far beyond the parameters of our present discussions.