There is no verse in the Ten Commandments that reads, “Thou shall not hunt for sport.” Nor, for that matter, does that verse appear in any other part of the Bible.
So what’s so un-Jewish about hunting?
Of the billions of people who have read the Bible, more will remember its stories than its commandments. And it’s quite obvious that, as a book in which every letter is calculated, the stories that the Bible chooses to tell are there for a specific reason. For starters, there are the messages they convey to us through the depiction of their heroes. Even a child can pick up lessons about hospitality from Abraham, or lessons in leadership from Moses.
Then there are the lessons we learn from the bad guys: what not to do and who not to be. Two ignoble characters who appear early on in the Bible are Nimrod and Esau.
Nimrod’s name means “rebellion,”1 referring to the fact that it was he who led his generation to build the Tower of Babel as a revolt against G‑d.2 Nimrod is also the king who threw Abraham into a fiery furnace.3 He is also identified by the Talmud as Amrafel, the king against whom Abraham waged war in order to save his nephew, Lot.4
Then we have Esau, who, as the archetype of evil, mocks the important status that G‑d gives to the firstborn, sells it to his brother Jacob and then seeks to kill him. According to the Talmud, he was an adulterer, a heretic and a murderer, too (one of his first victims being our friend, Nimrod).5
Interestingly enough, there are two people in the entire Bible who are described as hunters. You guessed it: Nimrod and Esau.
Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:9:
He was a mighty hunter before the L‑rd; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the L‑rd.”
Esau is contrasted to his brother Jacob in Genesis 25:27:
And the youths grew up, and Esau was a man who understood hunting, a man of the field, whereas Jacob was an innocent man, dwelling in tents.
What does that tell you about the Jewish attitude toward the sport of hunting?6
Of course, Jewish law does permit the slaughter of animals for food, clothing or any other purposeful need (read Judaism and Vegetarianism).7 But this too should not be done with an attitude of cruelty, as is illustrated in the following Talmudic story:
A calf was being taken to the slaughter, when it broke away, hidits head under the robes of Rabbi Judah the Prince (Yehudah Hanassi, referred to throughout the Talmud simply as “Rabbi”), and cried. “Go,” said Rabbi, “for this you were created.” Thereupon they said [in Heaven], “Since he has no pity, let us bring suffering upon him.” [He subsequently suffered from physical pain for thirteen years.]
And [the suffering] departed likewise. How so? One day, Rabbi’s maidservant was sweeping the house; [seeing] some young weasels lying there, she began to sweep them away. “Let them be,” said Rabbi to her; “It is written (Psalms 145:9), ‘His mercies extend to all His creatures.’” Said they [in Heaven], “Since he is compassionate, let us be compassionate to him.”[At which point his physical pain dissipated.]8
Beyond that, Jewish law prohibits causing any unnecessary pain to animals. This is derived from the injunction in Deuteronomy (22:4),9 “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fallen [under its load] on the road, and ignore them.”10 Here, the Torah requires a Jew to help unload an overburdened pack animal as quickly as possible, even if the animal belongs to a wicked person.11 Similarly, kosher slaughter is done in a way that causes the animal the least amount of pain.12
If one hunts and leaves the game writhing in pain, or maimed for the rest of its life, one clearly transgresses this moral code.13 One could argue, however, that the above rule does not apply in a case where one kills the animal and swiftly takes it out of its pain.14
There is another Jewish value to which this sport would run contrary: the laws of conservation.15 Everything in this world has a “soul,” a spark of Divine purpose, or that which animates it until it reaches the goal for which it was created. If a human being has a need for this other creation, then the animal and vegetative kingdom are contributing to the human’s mission in this world, which is ultimately the soul of every creation’s existence (see The Development).
If one is hunting to utilize the hides of animals for things that are justifiably beneficial for the human, this purpose is achieved. Similarly, if the animal is being used for medical research, this can be justified. But if one is killing animals for sport, he is cruelly depriving the animal from realizing its ultimate potential.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, referred to the cruelty of hunting in his talk of January 31, 1972.16 He recounted the story of his predecessor, the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn, where he was rebuked by his father when he mindlessly tore a leaf off a tree (see “The Leaf“), illustrating that this idea applies to carelessly ruining the plant kingdom as well.
This aversion to hunting is expressed in another teaching of the Talmud. The book of Psalms opens with the verse, “The praises of a man are that he did not follow the counsel of the wicked, neither did he stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the company of scorners.”
The Talmud states that “‘neither did he stand in the way of sinners’ refers to one who does not attend kenigyon.”17 Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, the foremost commentator of the Talmud (known as Rashi), explains that kenigyon means “hunting animals, using dogs, and their entire intent is for play and fun.”18
Accordingly, it is ruled in the Code of Jewish Law that “it is forbidden to hunt with dogs, because this constitutes ‘the company of scorners.’”19
Whether because there is an actual prohibition involved, or because it runs contrary to the morals and values taught by the Torah, hunting is not a good sport for a nice Jewish boy or girl. Try basketball.
Please let me know of any Kosher, free range animal farms in the United States. Instead livestock and chickens are kept under terrible conditions in feed lot cages, where they are pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, and suffer during their short life. Kosher meat is the worst I have tasted, usually frozen, fatty, and tough. Just remember that the spirit of the animals you eat, enters their flesh, and wrecks havoc on your souls. A wild happy animal can have a long natural happy life, killed quickly with no suffering, and then bleed and koshered in the field. Visit a Kosher packing house sometimes and see that goes on…it will open your biased minds.
There’s no need for anyone to eat any animal. Even “free range “ is a fallacy. All animals that are raised and slaughtered are being cruelly and viciously abused. The protein from vegetables is superior and healthy and yummy. I’m very healthy and almost 80. But I don’t eat vegan for my health. I don’t want to contribute to the evil of animal husbandry
You are in error, at least as to poultry products. Empire Poultry states on its website: "All of our chickens and turkeys are raised on family farms in central Pennsylvania within a 100- mile radius of our Mifflintown facility." Mifflintown is in central Pennsylvania, about 45 miles northwest of Harrisburg.
Empire furhter declares that it does NOT allow hromones to be given to poultry, raised by contracted growers.
Poultry raised for Empire processing is raised in barns, not cages.
Further, kosher slaugher is the most humane method. Birds are handled one-at-a-time and killed with a single movement of a knife, that it changed every five birds.
I do not work - and have never worked - for Empire Pountry or for any firm connected with that company.
I don't doubt your sincerity. But you're in error at least as to poultry.
If you think me wrong, please reply with some source citations that relate to kosher poultry and meat.
Plants are rich in cellulose. Humans' single-compartment stomachs cannot easily digest cellulose. But cows, sheep and goats - all kosher animals - have multi-compartment stomaches, so can digest cellulose.
You may be correct that vegetable protein is superior. But humans are not bio-engineered to eat plants.
You might want to watch some videos that show plant-eating animals - e.g., gazelles, wildebeest, springbok, etc. - in the wild. Being chased and killed by lions or hyenas is hardly a "humane" outcome. Compared with that, death by a hunter's bullet is quick and so merciful.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. We have neither talons, nor huge incisors, nor the short gut that carnivores possess. Just because we CAN digest something doesn't mean it's optimal. No, we can't digest cellulose but even though we don't get any nutritional value from fiber, it performs a very necessary function--it keeps the gut clean and prevents diverticulitis BECAUSE it's not digestible. I suggest reading the 1984 edition of Nathaniel Altman's Eating for Life for a very well-researched case for not eating meat. And for the record, I don't care how anyone else eats (I'm no missionary) but the conclusions to your assertions are incorrect.
My points are sound. Humans long ante-dated the development of agriculture (about 9,000 years ago). For most of humans' existence, meat was the main source of nourishment. We are still bio-engineered to eat animal protein. For sure, a small amount of plant fiber is healthy. But the amounts should be limited.
There was a time in our evolution when it was either eat animals or become extinct; in fact, it made us smarter. We no longer live in caves, however, nor are we even that species. We are no longer "bio-engineered to eat animal protein"; again, just because we can doesn't mean that it's optimal. Your nutritional suggestions are bass-ackwards--if one is going to eat meat, THAT should be consumed in small amounts with a LARGE amount of "plant fiber." Heart disease, high cholesterol, colon and breast cancer, fried kidneys, diabetes, stroke . . . . . these all result from a meat-heavy diet. I reiterate--eat as you please but your assertions couldn't be more erroneous.
"We are no longer "bio-engineered to eat animal protein"". So, do humans now have multi-compartment stomachs? The 9,000 years that humans have engaged in agriculture - and so able to have a plant-heavy diet - is an eyeblink in evolutionary time.
You misattribute illnesses to a meat-heavy diet. Most morbidly obese consume large amounts of carbothydrates, which metabolize as sugar. Humans have not yet adapted to eating large amounts of sugars. Atop that, only recently have we been able to sit for long periods each day. Farming, herding, and hunting - that few now do - used to require lots of physical activity.
Until Columbus "discovered" the Americas, sugar was scarce and costly. Potatoes and corn, native to Peru and Mexico, respectively, were unknown elsewhere. Humans have not yet adapted to these foods.
If there's a link between eating fish or non-deli meat (beef, lamb, chicken, goat, turkey) and diabetes, please cite to some studies that show this. I await your reply
The most recent studies have shown that the meat consumption diet is the most commonly cause of cancer in humans. This carnivore diet has not affected non humans. Thus humans are not supposed to eat dead animals. Meat is dead animals Nothing more. When someone is diagnosed with Diabetes they are very susceptible to kidney failure. The cause is related to the high protein intake and the decrease in carbohydrates. Many diabetics die of kidney failure
Do you really believe that! Of course the humongous company says anything to try and sell their products. The extremely large amount of livestock that is slaughtered in order for the immense commercial farms to make a profit means that it is impossible for the animals to be slaughtered in a humane or kosher manner. How would you like to be “slaughtered?” No manner of killing a beautiful creature is ever acceptable
Hatred blinds. Your comments - perhaps accurate as to non-kosher poultry and beef - are not likely relevant to kosher poultry and meat. Thus, Empire Poultry is not owned by a "humongous company". It is owned by an investment partnership, that owns a wide range of businesses.
Further, "the immense commercial farms" - to which you refer - don't likely exist in the realm of kosher poultry. The reason: Jews comprise about 2.5% of Americans. (Pew Research). Of that wafer-thin slice, perhaps a quarter observe the dietary laws. Kosher poultry demand is a micro-fraction of the 47 BILLION pounds of chicken processed in 2024 (US Dept. of Agriculture data).
Even further, you impugn the good name of the Union of Orthodox Congregations - which supervises kashrut at Empire Poultry - by claiming it is "impossible for the animals to be slaughtered in a humane or kosher manner." You are in error!
Your final sentence explains fully your hate-blinded and so error-filled claims.
True “kosher slaughter “is not possible due to the thousands of animals that are slaughtered by extreme mass production