Question: My young daughter was recently diagnosed with autism. She does not function well socially and is extremely introverted, but we have noticed that she reacts very well to small animals. We reported this to her therapist who suggested that we get a dog or cat as a pet. We know that most religious people frown upon having pets, but we hate to see our daughter suffer and want to do anything that would make her happy. Would it be okay to own a pet in the circumstances we described?
Her Loving Parents
(Via E-Mail)
Summary of our response up to this point: We discussed several clinical studies that supported using animals for therapy. The Anderson Center found that their canine therapy program helps construct a bridge between autistic children’s inner worlds and the outside world. One of its students even developed communication skills through the program that he was then able to transfer to relationships with peers and teachers. The dog’s calming presence helped him regain self-control when he became frustrated, too. A professor at Dutchess Community College also found that a prompt-dependent boy with verbal and aggression problems became more functionally independent after working with a dog.
In light of these successes, it seems that a non-dogmatic approach is necessary with regards to families with autistic children. We quoted the Sages (Bava Kamma 79b), “Ein gozrin gezeirah al ha’tzibbur ela im yecholin rov ha’tzibbur la’amod bo – We do not issue decrees on the public that it cannot, by and large, withstand.” Nevertheless, the overwhelming attitude toward pet ownership in our community has always been one of disdain.
Last week, we mentioned that Torah-observant Jews are guided by the laws of the Torah which, by their very nature, aim at distancing us from danger. In his Sefer Hamitzvot (referring to Deut. 22:8), the Rambam writes that the admonition to build a fence on a roof includes the prohibition against raising a vicious dog in one’s house. In the Mishneh Torah, he writes that the owner of a wild animal is liable for any damage it causes, but damage caused by a dog or cat is considered unusual and so the owner is only liable to pay for half the damages.
We noted that the Talmud makes no distinction between domesticated and wild animals insofar as the possibility of their being owned by humans.
* * * * *
Thus, we see (based on Bava Kamma 15b) that a person may, indeed, own a dog or a cat (and from a purely halachic sense, even wild animals as long as they are tamed somewhat). However, should a person’s animal become unexpectedly violent, he is responsible for the damage it causes.
Although pet ownership may be allowed, the Talmud looks upon it with disdain. It states: “R. Nathan says, ‘From where do we derive that one may not breed a vicious dog in one’s house or place a shaky ladder in one’s house? It is written (Deuteronomy 22:8), ‘velo tasim damim beveitecha – so that you will not place blood in your house’” [“blood” is understood to mean damages].
Yet, as we will see, there are exceptions if certain conditions are met.
The Rambam (op. cit. 5:9, based on Bava Kamma 79b, 83a) states that the Sages prohibited breeding pigs and declared that no man should breed a dog unless it is kept on a chain. One may, however, breed dogs in a town that is close to a border (Rashi, 83a, sv l’sapar, explains that the dogs are needed for security) if the dogs are kept chained during the day and only released at night. Nevertheless, the Sages adopted a contemptuous attitude toward anybody who breeds either dogs or pigs because they habitually cause extensive damage.
The Talmud (ibid. 79b-80a) also discusses the breeding of small cattle, which the Sages prohibited in Eretz Yisrael because small cattle tend to ruin crops. (The sages put Babylonia on the same footing as Eretz Yisrael in this respect.) There are, however, certain exceptions for retaining small cattle temporarily for festivals or celebrations in the family. If a shepherd repents and makes a decision not to breed small cattle anymore), we do not require him to divest himself of the cattle immediately. Instead, we allow him to do so by degrees. The same applies to a convert to whom dogs and pigs have been bequeathed (by a non-Jewish relative).
The Rambam (op. cit. 5:10) quotes this Gemara as halacha – with one modification: he omits the word “convert.” Thus his ruling on this matter applies to anyone who inherits such animals (even from a Jew who sinned by possessing them) and allows that person to sell these animals gradually. This is an example of the care our Sages took to prevent the infliction of monetary loss.
The Talmud (ibid.) also relates an incident that occurred when Rab, Samuel, and R. Assi arrived at the circumcision of a baby boy (some say it was at a pidyon haben). While they were discussing who should be given the honor to enter first, a cat came and bit off the baby’s hand. Thereupon Rab proclaimed, “It is permissible to kill a cat [even though it has an owner]; it is, in fact, a sin to keep it. The law of theft does not apply to it, nor does the law of returning a lost object to its owner.”
The Talmud proceeds: R. Shimon b. Eleazar says it is permissible to breed village dogs, cats, monkeys, and porcupines as these help keep a house clean. The Talmud explains that R. Shimon b. Eleazar refers to black cats (which are peaceful) as opposed to white cats (which are considered dangerous).
The Gaon Rabbi Menashe Klein, zt”l (Responsa Mishneh Halachot, vol. 5:297), discusses this same matter and cites the opinion of the Yeshuat Shimshon (on Bava Kamma 15b) that a person can keep a dog that causes no damage. Moreover, he writes that a yarei Shamayim may retain small dogs for beauty – l’noi, i.e., as “pets.”
He also asks: In light of the prohibition of “velo tasim damim beveitecha – so that you will not place blood in your house,” how are we allowed to keep all the types of dangerous electrical appliances and liquids (cleansers, insecticides, etc.) that are often found in our homes? The answer is simple, he writes: The hazard labels are found on these items serve to warn of the possible danger and allow us to maintain them at home.
It is hard to define exactly which “pets” are destructive and which are not, though certain breeds of domesticated dogs seem to be more prone to causing harm. The pit bull is a clear example of such a dog, as we hear time and again of attacks on humans by that particular breed of dog.
Nonetheless, we see from the discussion above that we are indeed allowed to keep some animals provided that they don’t cause damage or inflict bodily harm to human being or animals.
It is interesting to note that we do regard the dog as a commonplace component of our environment. We are commanded not to eat the flesh of an animal that was torn in the field, and told, “La’kelev tashlichun oto – To the dog shall you throw it” (Exodus 22:30). We could probably dispose of such meat in another manner but the Mechilta (on Parshat Mishpatim) points out that we throw it to the dog as a sign of gratitude. The Torah (Exodus11:7) recounts that during the Plague of the Firstborn in Egypt, “lo yecheratz kelev leshono – no dog shall whetted its tongue.” Since the dogs behaved loyally toward the Children of Israel, they were later rewarded with sustenance.
Now let us return to the original question regarding buying a dog for an autistic child: Aside from the actual case studies that we cited at the outset, I too, though in a casual, nonprofessional manner, have observed numerous situations similar to yours, in which autistic children or children with other social interaction disabilities have found comfort in the undemanding “friendship” of a pet. It would seem that when an animal is trained (properly domesticated to obey human commands) and properly cared for (we must always be conscious not to violate the command regarding the suffering of animals), it is not only permissible to own it, but may even be advised at times.
If the Gemara permits keeping a dog at a border town for security, surely it would permit keeping a dog to help an autistic child. The principle behind both is the same – benefiting human life. In the former case, the dog protects human security, and in the latter the dog heals and improves human quality of life.
Hopefully early intervention and today’s advanced therapies will help your daughter reach increased levels of social comfort to enable her to satisfactorily interact within society and achieve a productive, happy adulthood.
We pray for the time (see Sanhedrin 91b) when, with the advent of Moshiach, all will be healed of their ills and disabilities, speedily, in our days.
