Misva #596: Not to Muzzle an Animal Working in the Field

The Torah commands in Parashat Ki-Teseh (Debarim 25:4), “Lo Tahsom Shor Be’disho” – “You shall not muzzle an ox as it threshes.” This establishes a prohibition against preventing an animal from eating as it works outside in the field. The Torah gives the example of an ox on the threshing floor, but this command applies to all animals. It applies even to non-kosher animals, as the animal’s status vis-à-vis human consumption is of no relevance to this prohibition. It also applies to any form of work outside in the field, and not only to threshing. Anytime a person has an animal perform work in the field, he may not prevent the animal from eating. It makes no difference whether the animal wishes to eat produce that is still attached to the ground, or produce that has already been harvested. The Sefer Ha’hinuch writes that the Torah introduced this prohibition in order to engender within a person a kind, compassionate, sensitive character. Although G-d created animals to serve human beings, He commanded us to show sensitivity to the animals who work for us so that we accustom ourselves to show sensitivity to the people who work for us, pay them fairly, and care for their needs and for their wellbeing. This command refers only to animals; the laws regarding the rights of human workers is addressed in other contexts. One violates this prohibition even if he muzzled the animal before it started working and then kept the muzzle on as the animal worked. This prohibition applies in all times and places, and is binding upon both men and women. One who muzzled an animal while it was working in the field has transgressed this command and is liable to Malkut. Even if one did not muzzle the animal, but he shouted at the animal when it tried to eat, thus preventing it from eating, he is liable to Malkut. With respect to this prohibition, moving one’s lips to shout qualifies as an “action” such that the violator is regarded as having transgressed by committing a forbidden act, and is thus liable to Malkut. If somebody leased his fellow’s animal and muzzled it while it worked in the field, then in addition to receiving Malkut, the violator must compensate the owner for failing to feed the animal. One who leases someone’s animal accepts responsibility to feed it, and thus if he prevents the animal from eating, he owes the owner money for failing to meet this obligation. Normally, if a person commits an act for which he is liable to both Malkut and payment, he receives the Malkut and does not need to pay (“En Adam Lokeh U’meshalem”). In this instance, however, the violator must compensate the animal’s owner, because the financial obligation is incurred not by the forbidden act of muzzling the animal, but rather by the failure to feed the animal as required.