The Mishnah says that if one lost the chatas he designated he designates another one in its place; which he is makriv it and thus he gets his kaporah. Afterwards the animal originally designated as a chatas was found. That animal he must be left to die by leaving it penned up without food or water. Since he got his kaporah the Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai teaches that this is what must be done, unlike where it is found before he gets his kaporah in which case it is sold and proceeds go the chest in the Beis Hamikdash for voluntary olos.
This concept is dealt with thoughout this perek and my question is a basic one. It is understandable that there is an element of kedushah that is at stake here since this animal was designated as a korban. But why wasn't the Halachah L'Moshe MiSinai concerned with the tzaar baalei chaim which seems to be taking place since the animals are being starved.
Thank you.
Yosef Feivelson, New York City
Yosef,
I am enclosing, below, a copy of what we replied to a similar question in the past.
Best wishes,
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
==============================================================
Yoma 050: Chatas Mesa
Joseph Neustein, M.D. asked:
How do we reconcile the status of a chatas mesa which ostensibly appears
quite cruel with the injunction against tzaar baaleh chayim?
Respectfully yours,
Joseph Neustein, M.D., El Paso, Texas USA
----------------------------------------------
Rav Joseph Pearlman replies:
Animals exist for the service of mankind and are for food or sacrifice or for other positive function. This includes the performance of Mitzvos and also reasonable experimentation for medical purposes for the benefit of mankind (Rema, Even ha'Ezer 5:14).
Thus, the goat to Azazel of the Avodah on Yom Kipur (Vayikra 1610) was necessary for the sake of Hash-m's commandment, however cruel it might seem to us. Another good example is in the Shulchan Orech, Yoreh Deah 24:8, Rema and Shach (#8), quoting the Mordechai and others, and see also the Pri Megadim in Sifsei Da'as there, regarding plucking the wool or feathers from an animal that interfere with the Shechitah.
It should be noted also that the Noda b'Yehudah (Mahadura Tinyana, YD #10) holds that Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim, the prohibition against cruelty to animals, has no application where the animal is being put to death. Others, though, disagree.
Hence, there is no problem with Chato'os ha'Meisos, as there is no alternative possibility with sound Halachic reasons as to what to do with the animal. (Since it is being left to starve for the sake of serving a Halachic purpose as mandated by G-d, it is not considered Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim.)
However, where these considerations do not apply, one is certainly obligated to treat animals
with kindness, as a number of sources in the Gemara and Halachah clearly indicate. Moreover, apart from all of the specific Mitzvos in the Torah (such as lifting the heavy burden off of an animal that has fallen down, the prohibition against muzzling an animal to prevent it from eating while working, letting one's animal rest from work on Shabbos, the prohibition against working two different types of animals together, the requirement to feed one's animals first before eating, and Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim), there is the general overriding principle of emulating G-d's trait of "v'Rachamav Al Kol Ma'asav," Hash-m "is merciful upon all of His creations."
Joseph Pearlman