Daf Ditty Beitzah 27: Animal Death

1
MISHNA: With regard to an animal that died, one may not move it from its place on a Festival.
And such an incident once occurred and they asked Rabbi Tarfon about it. And on that same
occasion they also asked him about ḥalla that had been separated from dough and then became
ritually impure on a Festival. Such ḥalla is not fit to be eaten by anyone, nor may it be used in
any other manner, e.g., as animal feed or as fuel for a fire, on that day. Rabbi Tarfon entered the
study hall and inquired about these matters, and the Sages said to him: One may not move
them from their place.

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that we learned the unattributed mishna not in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 156b) that
Rabbi Shimon says: One may cut up gourds for an animal on Shabbat so that it can eat them
more easily, and similarly, one may cut up an unslaughtered animal carcass for dogs. Rabbi
Yehuda says: If it was not an animal carcass already on the eve of Shabbat, but rather it died
on Shabbat itself, it is prohibited. Since Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between an animal that died

2
on Shabbat and one that died before Shabbat, it would appear that Rabbi Shimon holds that one
may move an animal carcass and feed it to dogs even if it died on Shabbat. Accordingly, the mishna
that prohibits moving an animal that died on a Festival seems to conflict with Rabbi Shimon’s
opinion.

The Gemara rejects this argument: The mishna can be understood even if you say that it is in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon nevertheless concedes in the
case of animals that were entirely healthy at twilight but died on the Festival that they are
prohibited. Since they were healthy at twilight, the owner had no intention at that point in time of
feeding them to dogs, and they are therefore prohibited as muktze. The baraita, on the other hand,
is referring to an animal that had been sick on the previous day; since the owner knew that it was
close to death, he had in mind to feed it to his dogs after it died.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the
name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of animals that died on the
Festival without having been mortally sick the day before that they are prohibited on the Festival
due to muktze; according to this opinion, it is well. However, according to the opinion of Mar,
son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said that Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even
in the case of animals that died suddenly, and he holds that they are permitted, what is there
to say? The unattributed mishna appears to contradict this opinion.

The Gemara answers: Ze’iri explained it as follows: The mishna is referring to a sacred animal
that died; since it is sacred property, one may not derive benefit from it, and therefore one may not
give it to dogs. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to
this interpretation, as it teaches: They asked Rabbi Tarfon about it and about ḥalla that became
ritually impure, from which it may be inferred: Just as ḥalla is sacred, so too, the animal
mentioned here is one that was sacred, rather than a non-sacred animal.

3
Summary

Introduction1

This mishnah deals with what may be done with a beast (a cow, sheep, goat or bull) that has died
on Yom Tov.

If a beast died [on Yom Tov] it may not be moved from its place.

Since the beast died and was not slaughtered, it cannot be eaten. Since it cannot be eaten there is
nothing that one may do with it on Yom Tov. Hence, it is muktzeh. All that he can do is leave it
in its place and then when Yom Tov is over he can cut it up, use its hide and feed dogs with its
meat.

And it happened that they once asked Rabbi Tarfon concerning this and concerning hallah
that had become defiled. He went into the bet midrash and inquired, and they answered him:
they may not be moved from their place.

The mishnah now relates that this halakhah was asked of Rabbi Tarfon and he didn’t know the
answer until he went and asked the question in the study house, the bet midrash. He also was asked
about hallah, the part of the dough that is given to the priest, that had become impure on Yom Tov.
Impure hallah, like an animal that died without being slaughtered, cannot be eaten and hence it is
also muktzeh on Yom Tov. The answer therefore to both questions was that both are muktzeh and
that neither can be moved until Yom Tov is over.

AN ANIMAL THAT DIES ON SHABBOS OR YOM TOV

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara records a dispute among Amora'im whether Rebbi Shimon -- who permits one to
handle Muktzah -- permits one to move an animal that died on Shabbos or Yom Tov (such as to
feed it to a dog).

The Gemara (Shabbos 46b, Beitzah 30b) teaches that Rebbi Shimon permits one to handle
Muktzah Machmas Isur -- such as the oil of a candle that was burning during Bein ha'Shemashos
-- only when he was expecting the item to become permitted on Shabbos or Yom Tov (such as

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Beitzah.27b.4?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Beitzah.3.5&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20
Mishnah&lang3=en
2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-027.htm

4
when he was "Yoshev u'Metzapeh" during Bein ha'Shemashos, eagerly waiting for the candle to
become extinguished and the oil to become permissible). If the candle is large enough that it can
burn throughout all of Shabbos, then even Rebbi Shimon agrees that it is Muktzah and is prohibited
because the person did not anticipate that it would go out on Shabbos. (For this reason, the Gemara
in Shabbos (46b) says that Rebbi Shimon agrees that a Bechor is Muktzah even if it gets a Mum
on Shabbos, because one did not expect it to get a Mum and did not expect that a Mumcheh would
examine the animal and permit it on Shabbos (see Tosfos, Beitzah 26a).

According to the Gemara there, why should Rebbi Shimon permit an animal that dies on Shabbos?
The owner was not waiting for the animal to die during Bein ha'Shemashos, and during Bein
ha'Shemos (of Shabbos) the animal was forbidden to be slaughtered. The animal should be
Muktzah even according to Rebbi Shimon.

RASHI (DH she'Meisu) implies that even those who permit the animal permit it only on Yom
Tov. On Shabbos, they agree that it is Muktzah Machmas Isur. On Yom Tov, the animal is not
Muktzah Machmas Isur because one may slaughter it. The only reason to prohibit an animal that
dies on Yom Tov is because it becomes Nolad, a new object which did not exist until now, but
Rebbi Shimon permits Nolad. The opinion that prohibits an animal that dies on Yom Tov maintains
that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehudah in certain cases that Nolad is prohibited (such as
when the object attains a completely new status, as Tosfos says on 2a, DH Ka Salka Da'atach).
This also seems to be the opinion of Tosfos in Eruvin (40a, DH Ha).

However, the Gemara in Shabbos (45b) quotes the opinion that Rebbi Shimon permits an animal
that dies, even though the Gemara is discussing only Shabbos and not Yom Tov. Why does Rebbi
Shimon permit the animal? The answer is that the Gemara is discussing animals that are not
Muktzah Machmas Isur because they have a permitted use on Shabbos when alive, such as a chick
which children use as a plaything (as Rabeinu Yosef in Tosfos there (DH Hacha) says).

(b) The RASHBA here explains that Rebbi Shimon permits even an animal that dies even on
Shabbos. The reason why the dead animal is permitted even though the owner did not have his
mind on it at the onset of Shabbos is because he did not remove his mind from it by actively
rendering it unusable (he was not "Docheh b'Yadayim"). Rather, it was unusable merely due to its
natural state. The requirement that one have specific intent to use the object on Shabbos ("Yoshev
u'Metzapeh") applies to an object which was actively excluded from Sha3bbos use, such as when
one lights an oil lamp and thereby renders the oil Muktzah Machmas Isur.

(c) The RASHBA later (30b) suggests another reason for why an animal that dies on Shabbos is
permitted according to Rebbi Shimon. Since it is common for animals to die, one anticipates the
possibility that his animal will die and thus he is considered to have been "Yoshev u'Metzapeh."
This also seems to be the opinion of Tosfos in Shabbos (45b, DH Hacha).

3
According to this explanation, why is a Bechor which became blemished on Shabbos prohibited according to Rebbi Shimon, if
the owner did not actively exclude it from use? Perhaps a Bechor is prohibited for a different reason: a Bechor is considered
Muktzah even according to Rebbi Shimon because it is so far removed from the state of being usable on Shabbos (because the
owner does not know if it will get a Mum, and even when he considers that the Bechor might get a Mum he does not know if he
will be able to find a Mumcheh to examine it, and even when he assumes that he will find a Mumcheh to examine it he does not
know whether the Mumcheh will declare it permitted; see TOSFOS to Shabbos 46b, DH Mi Yeimar

5
 "EVERYONE AGREES" ABOUT AN ANIMAL THAT DIES ON SHABBOS

The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah prohibits moving only animals of Kodshim that die on
Shabbos (just as the other case in the Mishnah refers to something that is Kadosh -- i.e. Chalah).
The Gemara asks that according to the opinion that animals that die on Shabbos are prohibited to
be handled, even an animal of Chulin (which is not Kadosh) should be prohibited. Why does the
Mishnah say that only animals of Kodshim are prohibited?

The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to an animal which is "Mesukenes" (mortally ill) and
its ruling is therefore correct "according to everyone" ("Divrei ha'Kol"). This implies that Rebbi
Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree that an animal that is Mesukenes is not Muktzah when it dies
on Shabbos.

If, according to this opinion, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree that healthy animals that
die on Shabbos are prohibited, and they also agree that a Mesukenes that dies on Shabbos is
permitted, then in what case do they argue? The Gemara in Shabbos (106b) explicitly states with
regard to an animal that dies on Shabbos that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue!

(a) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR writes that according to the text of the Gemara which includes the
words "v'Divrei ha'Kol" ("according to everyone"), the argument between Rebbi Shimon and
Rebbi Yehudah involves neither a healthy animal nor a dying animal, but rather a sick animal.
Rebbi Shimon permits a sick animal that dies on Shabbos, and Rebbi Yehudah prohibits it. The
Ba'al ha'Me'or says that this is the opinion of the RIF.

(b) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR himself maintains that the words "v'Divrei ha'Kol" should be omitted
from the text of the Gemara. In the case of a Mesukenes that dies on Shabbos, it is only Rebbi
Shimon who permits the animal, and not Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara is not explaining the
Mishnah in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yehudah. (This also seems to be the Girsa
of RASHI (DH Hacha b'Mai) and other Rishonim.)

CHALAH TEME'AH IS MUKTZAH

The Mishnah states that the Chachamim told Rebbi Tarfon that Chalah that became Tamei may
not be moved on Yom Tov.

Why is Chalah Teme'ah considered Muktzah? Even though a Kohen is not permitted to eat Chalah
Teme'ah, it has a useful purpose on Shabbos or Yom Tov: it is fit to be fed to dogs. The Gemara
in Pesachim (32a) states that one may feed Terumah Teme'ah which is Chametz to a dog on Pesach,
and the same applies to Chalah Teme'ah.

RASHI (DH Chalah) answers that one may not give Chalah Teme'ah to a dog on Yom Tov because
he thereby fulfills the Mitzvah to destroy Kodshim that became Tamei. One is not permitted to
destroy Kodshim Teme'im on Yom Tov, as the Gemara in Shabbos (23b) teaches. The Mitzvah to

6
burn Kodshim Teme'im does not override the prohibition against kindling a fire on Yom Tov
(when the fire is not made for the sake of food preparation).

However, the prohibition against destroying Kodshim Teme'im on Yom Tov applies only when
one does so by kindling a fire. Since the kindling of the fire involves the transgression of an Isur
d'Oraisa, one may not destroy Kodshim Teme'im on Yom Tov by burning them. Why, though,
may one not feed Chalah Teme'ah to a dog on Yom Tov? The act of feeding Chalah Teme'ah to a
dog involves no Isur d'Oraisa, and thus it should be permitted.

(a) RASHI explains that the fact that it is a Mitzvah to destroy Kodshim Teme'im makes the act
of destroying it a "significant act," which is considered a Melachah on Yom Tov ("Ach'shevei
l'Melachah"). Since the Torah gives this act a high level of significance, even when one destroys
the Kodshim Teme'im in a manner that does not constitute an actual Melachah (such as by feeding
it to a dog), it is included in the category of "Melachah" prohibited on Yom Tov.

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Al) disagrees with Rashi. The reason why one may not give Chalah Teme'ah
to his dog on Yom Tov is because there is a specific Mitzvah to destroy Chalah Teme'ah
by burning it. (Even though the verse does not specify that the Chalah must be burned, it mentions
burning with regard to Kodshim, and Chalah is derived from Kodshim.) Therefore, Chalah
Teme'ah is Muktzah because it has no use. It must be burned and it may not be fed to a dog. (Tosfos
points out that only Terumah Teme'ah which is Chametz on Pesach (and which must be destroyed)
may be fed to a dog.) (See also Insights to Shabbos 126:1.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, there is a disagreement between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi
Shimon regarding the question of checking the status of a behor – a first-born animal – on Yom
Tov. The Gemara on our daf, in an attempt to clarify which of the two positions is accepted as
the halakhah, relates a number of stories in which this issue is brought to the fore.

The Gemara talks about an individual named Ami Vadina’ah whose official position was the
checker of behorot in the house of the Nasi. When questions were referred to him on Yom Tov, he
insisted on examining the animal only after the holiday.

Ami Vadina’ah is mentioned a number of times in the Talmud. According to Rashi, he is one and
the same as “Ami Shapir Na’eh” (Ami, the handsome one). The position that he held was well-
respected, since the person who had that role needed to have a deep understanding of animal
husbandry and physiology, as well as a broad knowledge of halakhah.

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_2127/

7
Rav Ami is recorded as applauding Ami Vadina’ah decision, even though he, himself had a
reputation of examining animals on Yom Tov. The Gemara explains that Rav Ami would always
examine the animal before Yom Tov, but would make further examinations on Yom Tov itself, if
necessary. The “further examinations” involved questioning the person who asked for the animal
to be checked – and perhaps even taking testimony from others.

Current practice is that when a behor is born in a flock of animals owned by a Jewish person, the
animal is tended by its owner for the first three months, at which time it is transferred to the kohen.
Since today there is no possibility of bringing the behor as a sacrifice, such an animal only has
value to the kohen once a mum has been found in it. This reality has led to a situation
that kohanim are suspected of placing the animal in a situation where it will easily develop a mum,
so the expert who examines the animal must also play the role of prosecutor in an attempt to
establish whether the mum was an accidental one or was done purposely.

The Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 498:9) accepts the conclusion suggested by these stories, and
rules like Rabbi Shimon that a behor should not be inspected on Yom Tov to see whether it has
developed mumim.

On our daf we find that on Yom Tov one may not move an animal that has died. Chazal taught us
that a materialistic person is compared to an animal.5 Chazal also teach that the wicked are
considered dead even during their lifetimes. This is because they do not move forward spiritually
or morally. A “dead animal” of this kind who doesn’t even feel a spark of life or inspiration on
Yom Tov cannot be moved by anything short of a miracle.

A group of maskilim once approached the famous Dubno Maggid, zt”l, with a strange request.
“We would like to invite you to lecture to us, provided that you promise that you won’t lace your
storytelling with mussar. We aren’t interested in that; we just want to hear a good tale.” The
Maggid heard them out and offered them a parable right then and there. “Once, a man from a small
town visited the city for the first time.

He saw many things that astonished him, but nothing came close to the wondrous device that the
blacksmith used to keep his fires burning bright. The man had never seen a bellows before, and
the fantastic apparatus seemed to manufacture fire from nothing at all. He said to himself, “Such
a device could save me so much time! I must get one!” He bought a bellows off the blacksmith for
what seemed a ridiculously low price and brought it back proudly to his little town. He summoned
everyone to the middle of the town to demonstrate the magical power of his new acquisition.

To his dismay and great shame, however, the bellows would not make fire at all—it only blew air!
The simple man returned to the smith fuming with indignation. “How could you sell me this fire-
maker when you knew full well that it doesn’t work?” “What ‘fire-maker?’ This is just a bellows—

5
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Beitza%20027.pdf

8
everyone knows that it blows air that fans a spark into a flame. Am I to blame if you don’t know
the simplest truth? If you want a fire, you need a spark!”

The Maggid thundered, “And you maskilim are exactly the same! A story is just like a bellows.
Unless you have a spark of willingness to change, there is no moving you at all.”

The matter hangs on great trees.

RACHEL SCHEINERMAN WRITES:6

If two rabbis disagree on the halakhah, who do we follow — and why? Today we’re going to work
systematically through a larger chunk of text than we usually do, with an eye to answering that
question. It makes for a slightly longer piece, so go ahead and pour yourself a cup of something.

Here’s some background: Firstborn animals of kosher species were sanctified at birth and handed
over to a priest to be sacrificed ( Exodus 13:12 and 34:20, Numbers 18:15-17 , Deuteronomy
12:6 ). However, if a firstborn animal had a blemish that disqualified it from being offered, it
could be redeemed — meaning its monetary value was given to the priest and the animal was then
free to be eaten by its owners.

The discussion on today’s page has to do with whether or not one could perform this inspection
on — you guessed it — a festival. Rabbi Rabbi Yehuda permitted it, Rabbi Shimon did not. This
disagreement between them led to some confusion about what to do if this unlikely situation were
ever to arise:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia had a firstborn animal (that acquired a blemish on a festival, and he wished
to serve it to priests staying at his house). He sent it to Rabbi Ami (for inspection) and Rabbi
Ami thought that he should not examine it (in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon).

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia has a firstborn animal that he wishes to serve to some visiting priests on a
festival, as it is considered sacred meat that only priests can eat. Unfortunately, the animal acquires
a blemish on that day that might disqualify it, and so he sends it to an expert inspector to confirm
whether or not it is still fit to serve. But Rabbi Ami is reluctant to inspect the animal out of
deference for Rabbi Shimon’s view that such inspections should not be carried out on a festival.

Was it necessary for Rabbi Ami to refrain from inspecting? Not according to some of his
colleagues:

6
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/beitzah-27/

9
Rabbi Zerika said to him, and some say it was Rabbi Yirmeya: When there is disagreement
between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halakhah is in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Zerika (or perhaps Rabbi Yirmeya) tells Rabbi Ami that no, the halakhah doesn’t follow
Rabbi Shimon, but rather Rabbi Yehuda as it always does when the two disagree. (Much as the
halakhah generally follows Hillel when he disagrees with Shammai.) Therefore, he should have
felt free to examine the animal.

This is the first litmus test for what to do when sages disagree: Determine which sage normally
takes priority over the other.

Does this change Rabbi Ami’s mind? Apparently not, because the next we hear is that Rabbi
Yehuda Nesia is looking for another inspector for his blemished animal:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia then sent the firstborn to be presented before Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha, who
(likewise) thought that he should not examine it.

It seems that although Rabbi Yehuda normally takes precedence, the idea that Rabbi Shimon’s
more stringent opinion is the correct one is fairly widespread, since Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaha also
will not inspect the animal. The Gemara once again reports that Rabbi Yirmeya (or maybe it was
Rabbi Zerika, we’re still not sure) also told this second inspector that the halakhah follows Rabbi
Yehuda, implying he may go ahead with his inspection.

Now the Gemara asks a higher order question: How do we know that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinions are
preferred to Rabbi Shimon’s? Rabbi Abba, a new character, poses it to Rabbi Yirmeya, who has
now told two reluctant inspectors that Rabbi Yehuda supercedes Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya: What is the reason that you did not allow the sages to act in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

He said to him: And you, what do you have?

What do you have? That is: Do you have a teaching that we should follow Rabbi Shimon? Such a
teaching, suggests Rabbi Yirmeya, would be a reason to go against our general approach of
favoring Rabbi Yehuda.

This is the second litmus test. If sage A normally overrules sage B, we can determine that sage B
actually has the authoritative ruling in a specific case if we have a tradition that says so.

And it turns out that yes, Rabbi Abba does have such a tradition:

Rabbi Abba said to him that Rabbi Zeira said as follows: The halakhah in this case is in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

This teaching in the name of Rabbi Zeira says that in this specific instance, the halakhah follows
Rabbi Shimon. This might have settled the matter. But instead, the Gemara presses further with a
story about a skeptical bystander:

10
A certain person in Babylonia said: May it be his will that I merit to go up there (to the land of
Israel) and that I learn this teaching from the mouth of its master.

In other words, this person is not entirely trustful of Rabbi Abba’s report about what Rabbi Zeira
said and wants to hear it from Rabbi Zeira himself. Lucky for him, he is able to do so. The Gemara
continues:

When he went up there, he found Rabbi Zeira and said to him: Did the master (i.e. you) say that
the halakhah is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, what I said was that it stands to reason.

The skepticism of this anonymous observer is justified! In fact, Rabbi Zeira didn’t say Rabbi
Shimon overrules Rabbi Yehuda in this case, he only said it makes sense to follow Rabbi Shimon
instead of Rabbi Yehuda. He goes on to explain his reasons:

(I understand this) from the fact that it teaches in the Mishnah that Rabbi Shimon says: Any
firstborn animal whose blemish is not perceptible while it is still day is not considered to be
among the animals prepared prior to the festival for use on the festival. And a beraita taught
the same ruling in the name of the sages (indicating that this is the majority opinion). One
should therefore learn from this that it stands to reason that the halakhah is ruled in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Zeira doesn’t give a logical argument for why Rabbi Shimon is correct. Instead, he gives a
textual argument. Litmus test #3: Look for corroborating textual evidence that will tell us which
opinion is favored by the sages.

The discussion doesn’t stop there, and later down the page Rav Yosef summarizes: “Come and
hear, as this matter hangs on great trees” — meaning it was a point of real dispute among the
early stages. The later generations vigorously sought to determine who was right with no single
method, but by relying on a mix of precedent, named teachings, intuition, interrogation of teachers
and textual evidence.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

Quite often, while explaining a particular halachic ruling, the Gemara will make a statement which
is rich with theological meaning and which deserves further examination.

Our daf (Beitzah 27a) provides a great example of this where, having previously discussed (see
Beitzah 26b) the mukzeh status of an item that – through its contact with the natural world –
switched from being edible (non-mukzeh) to non-edible (mukzeh) to edible (non-mukzeh) on
Shabbat, Rav Zeira suggested that that food which is cooked on Yom Tov often undergoes a similar
process. To this, Abaye responds and says that were such an extension to be made to the act of
cooking on Yom Tov, all Yom Tov cooking would be problematic. This is because, ‘in general,

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

11
pots are boiling hot during the twilight period, yet we partake of them in the evening [after they
cool down]’.

Given all this, the Gemara explains that, ‘we have no question about [the mukzeh status of]
something whose completion is in human hands. So in which situations do we have a question?
When we are dealing with [the mukzeh status of] something whose completion is in the hands of
Heaven.’

However, I should point out that in order to help explain this reply I added some parentheses, and
what the Gemara actually says is: ‘we have no question about something whose completion is in
human hands. So in which situations do we have a question? When we are dealing with something
whose completion is in the hands of Heaven’.

Clearly, this remark is rich with theological meaning - but all the more so when we understand it
as a critical remark. And this is because, far too often, we ignore the human role in events and
don’t bother asking probing questions concerning the role that humans play in terms of their
responsibility to provide for the hungry and the vulnerable. Instead, we only ask questions about
what we think God should be doing in the present, or should have done in the past.

Yet not only are such responses irresponsible, but they undermine the very message of the Tanach
which, though it begins with magnificent stories including the miraculous exodus of Egypt, it then
pivots and speaks of a more natural existence with an emphasis on human responsibility once the
Jewish people enter the land of Israel. As Rabbi Sacks explains, ‘Jewish history begins in miracles,
but culminates in human responsibility. What changes us is not what is done for us by God, but
what we do in response to his call’ (To Heal a Fractured World p. 160).

But why is this so? Why do we expect that life be full of miracles and that God solve all the
problems of the world when the Torah itself does not paint such a picture? Why do ‘we have no
questions about something whose completion is in human hands… [but] we have a question[s]
when we are dealing with something whose completion is in the hands of Heaven’?

While I am sure that there are many answers to this question, I believe that one of them is actually
based on the fact that most of us haven’t studied most of the Torah, even fewer of us have studied
the Tanach, and all we know of our sacred texts are the stories relating to divine miracles, and not
the teachings relating to human responsibility.

This fact was brought home just yesterday when the Israeli journalist Amalya Duek posted how,
just prior to last Simchat Torah while organizing her books at home, she found the Tanach that she
had been given for her batmitzvah and began reading the weekly Torah portion. Over time this
became a fixed part of her week, and this week she completed her reading of the whole Torah for
the first time. And what were her conclusions? As she explained, ‘truth be told, I was
uncomfortably surprised to find out how little I was taught, and how little of that little I really
remembered.’

Given this, as we are about to celebrate Simchat Torah, let us commit ourselves to study Torah;
not just the stories about divine miracles, but also those about human responsibility. And while

12
doing so, let us put those teachings into practice because, ‘what changes us is not what is done for
us by God, but what we do in response to his call’.

Why cause of death matters for wild animal welfare

L U K E H E C H T W R I T E S : 8

The most fundamental reason for viewing death as a bad thing is that it deprives individuals of
future experiences, assuming those experiences would have been predominantly positive.
However, the process of dying is also often painful in itself, and an individual’s death can have
additional negative impacts—emotional and material—on others, including family and the broader
population.

The costs of a death depend on its cause. Humans are willing to sacrifice periods of healthy life to
avoid especially unpleasant deaths, and see various causes of death as more fearsome than others
(Sunstein 1997; Chapple et al. 2006). Of course, people’s perception of how much suffering
particular deaths would entail may be biased by things like squeamishness; they may assume that
because a death is gruesome it must be especially painful. The terminal stages in the process of
dying, during which suffering presumably outweighs pleasure, comprise a small fraction of most
humans’ lives. Willingness to trade years of healthy life to obtain a quicker, less painful death
implies that either the original manner of death must be extremely bad, or that we have an
exaggerated sense of how bad dying is.

As recently as the 19th century, only around half of newborns could expect to survive to adulthood
(Riley 2005). Many human cultures have had traditions of only conferring names on children when
they reached a certain age, potentially because it was understood that most would not survive that
long (but that if they did, they would have a decent prospect of reaching adulthood) (Lancy 2014).
For example, birth registration was not a legal requirement in the United Kingdom until 1874
(ONS 2015). As average lifespan increases, the dying process represents an ever smaller
proportion of human life.

While human childhood mortality has declined dramatically throughout much of the world, most
wild animals still die at a young age relative to the longest-lived members of their own species
(Figure 1). For these animals, the process of dying may actually represent a substantial portion of
their lifetimes, suggesting that, in addition to knowing the most likely causes of death for entire
populations, it would be especially valuable to know which manners of death are common among
juveniles in specific wild animal populations.

8
https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/cause-of-death-1

13
Figure 1: A boxplot showing life expectancy as a percentage of a species’ maximum lifespan
for 152 populations of fish (n=16), birds (n=54), mammals (n=72) and reptiles (n=10). Life
expectancies were calculated from models found in the COMADRE database (Salguero-
Gomez et al. 2016), and maximum lifespans were obtained from AnAge (De Magalhães et al.
2005). Across major vertebrate classes, most individuals live to only 10-30% of the age of the
oldest known individuals of their species.

“Cause” of death can be interpreted in at least two different ways: “manner” of death, or “ultimate
cause” of death. Both matter for wild animal welfare, but they can be difficult to disentangle in
practice. For example, an animal who died during a forest fire may have died by burning or
asphyxiation. Other animals may die in the immediate aftermath of a forest fire from dehydration
or infected burn wounds. The welfare impact of these different manners of death would likely vary,
and it is possible in theory to rank their welfare impacts based on the intensity and duration of
suffering leading up to death (Figure 2; Sharp and Saunders 2011). Learning about the precise
manner in which wild animals die can help us prioritize hazards to protect them from to reduce
instances of the most extreme suffering. On the other hand, it is often easier to estimate the number
of animals who died due to an ultimate cause - such as forest fires - than to break this down into
specific manners of death. Learning about an ultimate cause of death, and the number of deaths
resulting from it, is also useful for prioritizing welfare interventions directed at extending good
lives.

14
Figure 2: An example scheme for grading the welfare impact of different manners of death,
considering both the severity of suffering inflicted and the length of time it takes for the
animal to die. Adapted from work by Sharp and Saunders (2011) on wild animal culling
methods.

To minimize the suffering animals experience in the wild, we need to understand how and why
wild animals die, paying particular attention to the most numerous experiences: that is, the deaths
of juvenile animals belonging to common species. The rates of different causes of death are also
valuable to know because even if dying turns out to be a minor contributor to lifetime welfare, or
the difference in severity between manners of death is relatively low, substituting one manner of
death for another less painful one could improve individual welfare without affecting population
size, minimizing the number of variables we need to consider determining whether an intervention
is worth implementing.

In a series of posts to follow, I will review the methods available for studying causes of wild animal
deaths and present a selection of published data on cause-specific mortality rates. Finally, I’ll
describe some original modeling by former Wild Animal Initiative Intern Anthony DiGiovanni
that explicitly considers how cause of death may change along with the size and demography of
wild animal populations.

References
1. Sunstein, C. (1997). Bad deaths. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 259-282.
2. Chapple, A., Ziebland, S., McPherson, A., & Herxheimer, A. (2006). What people close to death say about euthanasia
and assisted suicide: a qualitative study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(12), 706-710.

15
 3. Riley, J. C. (2005). Estimates of regional and global life expectancy, 1800–2001. Population and Development Review,
31(3), 537-543.
4. Lancy, D. (2014). “Babies aren’t persons”: A survey of delayed personhood. In H. Otto & H. Keller (Eds.), Different
Faces of Attachment: Cultural Variations on a Universal Human Need (pp. 66-110). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
5. Office for National Statistics. (2015). How has life expectancy changed over time? Retrieved from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslife
expectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09.
6. Sharp, T., & Saunders, G. (2011). A model for assessing the relative humaneness of pest animal control methods.
Canberra, Australia: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
7. De Magalhaes, J. P., & Costa, J. (2009). A database of vertebrate longevity records and their relation to other life‐history
traits. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22(8), 1770-1774.
8. Salguero‐Gómez, R., Jones, O. R., Archer, C. R., Bein, C., de Buhr, H., Farack, C., ... & Römer, G. (2016). COMADRE:
a global database of animal demography. Journal of Animal Ecology, 85(2), 371-384.
9.

How wild animals die: what we know so far

LUKE HECHT WRITES:9

Key takeaways

• Many studies have investigated the causes of death of adult mammals and birds, but there
is a lack of data on the deaths of juvenile animals, as well as fish and insects.
• Large, adult animals are more likely to be killed by humans than by any other cause. Small-
bodied animals and juveniles are more susceptible to predation by other wild animals.
• Technological improvements in underwater monitoring will improve our understanding of
wild fish mortality.
• Insects often die in very different ways from larger animals. Most of what we know about
insects’ deaths comes from agricultural pest control research.
• Populations need to be studied under a range of conditions to predict how their cause-
specific mortality rates might change under different scenarios.

Introduction

Previously, I wrote about approaches to studying wild animals’ causes of death, with the goal of
making work in this field maximally useful for understanding wild animal welfare. Cause of death
has not received sufficient research attention relative to its significance to wild animal welfare.
The overwhelming majority of the research that does exist is focused on land-dwelling mammals
and birds, and primarily on cases where understanding what animals are dying from is instrumental
to preventing the extinction of their species. Here, I will give an overview of what research in this
field has taught us so far about how wild animals die and highlight gaps that seem especially
important for welfare biology.

9
https://www.wildanimalinitiative.org/blog/cause-of-death-3

16
Cause of death in wild terrestrial vertebrates

Collins and Kays (2011) conducted the first systematic review of cause-specific mortality rates in
mammals, selecting only studies that used small radio trackers to monitor animals and document
their deaths in a timely manner. They also limited their analysis to adult animals, due to a serious
lack of data on juvenile mortality causes. This review found that, overall, predation was the most
common cause of death for small-bodied mammals, while human-caused deaths, including hunting
and vehicle collision, were the most common causes of death in larger mammals.

In 2019, Hill et al. expanded on this review with a vast amount of new data, including data from
juveniles and non-mammalian vertebrates. They found that natural causes of death (predation,
disease, starvation), especially predation, were common among juvenile animals irrespective of
their species’ typical adult body size. For mammals and reptiles, predation was roughly twice as
frequent in juveniles as in adults, with predation accounting for more than 95% of documented
deaths of juvenile reptiles (Figure 1). Birds, on the other hand, exhibited very similar cause-
specific mortality rates between juvenile and adult age classes.

The authors note that their dataset probably still greatly underestimates natural causes of death,
considering that these deaths are often harder to detect. Although smaller animals exhibit the
highest natural mortality rates, they are harder to monitor. Research to date has also focused on
populations that come into conflict with or are used by humans. These factors combine to make
the most numerous deaths in the wild the least understood.

Figure 1

Cause-specific mortality rates separated by age and taxonomic class. Adapted from Hill et
al. (2019).

Hill et al. provide an excellent summary of mortality causes, but many of these categories —
especially predation, accident and disease — encompass a huge degree of variation in experience.
For example, 18% of New Zealand sea lions die from tuberculosis, while 24% die as a result of

17
violence from other sea lions (Lenting et al. 2019). Similarly, approximately half of American
black bears die as cubs, often as a result of attacks by older male bears (LeCount 1987). In their
study area of northern Pennsylvania, Alt (1984) estimated that 5% of cubs drowned in their winter
dens as a result of flash flooding. This was 3-5 times more likely to occur when dens were made
in root cavities or excavated soil. Juvenile bears also frequently die from disease (e.g. Chomel et
al. 1998). For example, a grizzly cub suffering from canine hepatitis died live on camera in Katmai
National Park beside their bewildered mother and siblings. Welfare interventions will need to
account for all this variation in individual wild animals’ experiences of death.

Much of the data on birds’ deaths comes from urban wildlife hospitals, where traumatic injury is
often the apparent leading cause of death among adult birds, while disease and malnutrition is
responsible for the majority of juvenile deaths (e.g. Stenkat et al. 2013). However, these statistics
are certain to be biased by the kinds of birds and causes of death that people are most likely to
come into contact with. For example, although many traumatic injuries are attributable to domestic
cats, birds attacked by predatory raptors are rarely admitted (c.f. Palma et al. 2006). Studies of
radio-tagged wild birds report predation and hunting as the leading causes of death (Hill et al.
2019). Some disease mortality can also be linked to hunting practices, as the importation of birds
to stock hunting grounds can contribute to outbreaks (Buenestado 2009). Migratory birds present
a special challenge for researchers, since many of their deaths occur in transit over long distances,
where it may be impossible to recover their corpses. For example, out of 51 probable deaths among
satellite-tracked migratory raptors, Klaasen et al. (2014) were only able to confirm 10, among
which the leading causes of death were collision with man-made structures and exhaustion during
migration.

The progress made in the last decade of cause-specific mortality research is encouraging, but there
is much more to be learned, especially about more numerous, smaller-bodied animals. Little is
known about the causes of death among prairie dogs, for instance, except that predation is common
and plague occasionally wipes out entire colonies (Crosby and Graham 1986; Stapp et al. 2004).
Studies of wild reptiles, especially snakes and turtles, consistently indicate road traffic accidents
as a leading cause of death (e.g. Himes et al. 2002), although most juveniles are killed by predators
(e.g. Butler and Sowell 1996). These gaps in our knowledge of wild animal mortality seem likely
to be filled as radio tracking devices are made smaller, lighter and more resilient over the next
decade (Kays et al. 2015).

Cause of death in wild fish

Among vertebrates, the most neglected group in the current body of cause-specific mortality
research is wild fish. Of the papers that do touch on causes of death in wild fish, many are case
reports focusing on the risks of disease outbreaks to human health or the fishing industry. Case
reports can be valuable for demonstrating the presence of specific risks that some number of fish
do die from (Krkošek 2017). For example, Sterud et al. (2007) detected an outbreak of the parasite
Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae in an Atlantic salmon population that appeared to be their most
common cause of death during the study period. This parasite is probably in constant circulation
among the fish, and outbreaks have been documented in many other populations, but it is
impossible to say whether these results are a representative snapshot of the parasite’s effect on
mortality or what alternative causes of death occur in the population.

18
Most effective studies of terrestrial animals’ cause of death rely on recovering the corpses of
tagged individuals, as discussed in my previous post. However, this is clearly more challenging to
do with fish. Radio signals for tracking individuals are relatively ineffective underwater, and
corpses are much less likely to be recovered (c.f. Benelli and Pozzebon 2013). Several studies have
cleverly taken advantage of avian predators naturally retrieving radio-tagged fish from the water
and depositing their eaten corpses on shore. For example, Koed et al. (2006) estimated that 39%
and 12% of juvenile salmon and brown trout, respectively, were preyed upon by cormorants in the
estuary where their study was set. Approximately a further 10% of salmon and trout were killed
by cormorants in the adjoining river, while 3-6% were preyed upon by pike, a predatory fish. A
similar study by Dieperink et al. (2001) recorded that 65% of juvenile trout were eaten by
cormorants and herons while migrating downstream to the Baltic Sea. Fritts and Pearsons (2004)
used another predator-based approach to quantify predation, analyzing the stomach contents of
smallmouth bass to estimate their annual consumption of salmon. Taken at face value, their results
suggested that smallmouth bass accounted for only around 4% of salmon mortality in this system,
though the authors noted that this was probably an underestimate. Despite the special challenges
involved in recovering the corpses of wild fish, it is at least possible to study the impact of specific
predators on fish populations.

Technological progress is proving especially important for studying cause of death in the marine
environment. In one recent study, fish were implanted with acoustic transmitters that enabled the
researchers to detect predation events occurring within range of their underwater receiver array
(Weinz et al. 2020). They inferred that approximately one third of tagged fish were preyed upon
over the four months following their release. Several factors could be confounding this result, in
both directions. For one, the invasive procedure required to implant the fish with acoustic
transmitters could have made these particular fish more susceptible to predation than average. This
would be consistent with other studies showing that fish caught and released are more vulnerable
due to physical injuries or stress (e.g. Raby et al. 2013). On the other hand, some predation events
were likely missed because they occurred out of range of the acoustic array. As the range of
underwater tracking improves and the size of transmitting devices decreases so as to cause less
harm to the tagged individuals, we should expect to see much more data on the lives and deaths of
fish and other marine animals.

Cause of death in insects

Insects are among the most numerous and diverse animals, but also the smallest. Their diversity
and size makes them especially difficult to monitor on an individual level. At the same time, some
insect species are viewed as pests, and so there is commercial interest in understanding their natural
causes of death to devise more effective management strategies (Roux and Baumgärtner 1998).
This has motivated a handful of studies reviewing the causes of death of agriculturally relevant
insects (Table 1).

Some of these studies use a combination of field observations and population modeling to estimate
by how much the population’s overall mortality rate would be reduced if a given cause of death
could be eliminated. For example, if predators disproportionately target weak or sick prey, then
even if many individuals ultimately die from predation, eliminating their predators may have only

19
a small effect on the overall mortality rate because the same individuals who are vulnerable to
predation are also vulnerable to dying soon from disease or starvation.

Table 1

Summarized results from eight studies on cause-specific mortality in six insect species from
a pest management context.

Determining the significance of competing mortality risks

Future interventions seeking to improve wild animal welfare should account for how actions to
protect animals from specific causes of death could influence population sizes, lifespans, and
alternative causes of death. Compensatory mortality, where mortality due to a certain cause is
replaced by mortality due to another cause when the first is removed, has been noted in many
diverse species and ecosystems. For example, Hostetter et al. (2012) reported that cormorants
along the Columbia River in Oregon selectively predate poorer-condition juvenile steelhead
salmon en route to the sea. Had they not been killed by cormorants, these same individuals would
likely have been among the first to succumb to harsh conditions and competition during their first
winter in the ocean (Hurst 2007). Similarly, in a classic study on mule deer, Bartmann et al. (1992)
found that removal of coyotes over winter reduced the rate of mule deer deaths by predation, but
did not increase their overall survival rates, as the researchers observed increased mortality due to
starvation. Diseased mule deer are also selectively preyed upon by mountain lions (e.g. Krumm et
al. 2009), which suggests that some of this predator-caused mortality is compensatory.

On the other hand, some cause-specific mortality really is irreplaceable. Achhami et al. (2020)
demonstrated this for plant chemical defenses against wheat stem sawflies, while Cooley et al.
(2009) showed that other causes of death are not reduced in populations of mountain lions hunted
by humans. Bergman et al. (2015) proposed that the degree to which mortality due to a particular
cause is compensatory depends on ecological context. For example, if chronic illness made animals

20
less effective at competing for food in a dense population, death by starvation may occur first and
compensate for some disease-related mortality in this hypothetical population. If food later became
more accessible, we might observe an apparent increase in mortality caused by diseases that are
now able to run their course. In addition to studying mortality dynamics in a snapshot of a
population’s present conditions, research should model how mortality risks compete under
different conditions (Siler 1979) (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Three hypothetical scenarios for the dynamics of mortality due to predation on a prey population.
In all scenarios, baseline mortality in the absence of predators is 50 individuals per year. If
predator-induced mortality is completely additive (purple diamonds), 10 more animals dying to
predation increases total mortality by 10. If predation is completely compensatory (blue squares),
total mortality stays constant despite an increased number of deaths by predation; instead, there
are commensurately fewer deaths by other causes. In most cases, mortality due to a given cause is
likely to be partially compensatory (green circles), lying somewhere between these two extremes.
In this model, low rates of predation are mostly compensatory, perhaps removing old or sick
individuals from the population. As the intensity of predation increases, a larger proportion of
healthy animals are killed and so predation mortality becomes increasingly additive.

Conclusions

A relatively comprehensive snapshot of cause of death in the wild is emerging for terrestrial
mammals, birds, and reptiles, thanks to mainstream research in ecology and conservation (Hill et
al. 2019). For example, we can see that predation is the leading natural cause of death, especially
in juveniles (Figure 1). However, this account is still likely to be heavily biased, since most studies
focus on adults and large-bodied species. The focus on large animals could be inflating the number
of deaths caused by hunting rather than vehicle collisions, for instance, given that accidents
involving small animals often go unreported (Sáenz-de-Santa-María and Tellería 2015). More
research on juveniles and small mammals is needed (Table 2). We are also at the stage of
considering interventions to improve the welfare of some wild mammals and birds, ranging from

21
pigeon fertility control to reducing feral cat predation. To make these interventions as effective as
possible, it would be valuable to understand the replaceability of different sources of mortality.

Table 2

Research gaps and proposed priorities by taxon.

Fish and juvenile amphibians are still seriously lacking in data on cause-specific mortality,
especially relating to juveniles. Research on both of these groups is challenged by the fact that they
spend some or all of their lives underwater, but biologging technologies — including pop-up
satellite archival tags (PSATs) (Tolentino et al. 2017) and acoustic telemetry (Weinz et al. 2020)
— could enable more research on cause of death in aquatic environments, especially related to
predation.

A surprising amount is known about cause-specific mortality in insects regarded as agricultural

pests (Table 1). However, very little research has been done on the deaths of insects with less
agricultural relevance. From the existing research, it is clear that insects face challenges that would
surprise us. For example, Asiimwe et al. (2006) found that many whiteflies died as a result of
poorly understood developmental abnormalities, such as failure to complete metamorphosis.
Drowning during rainy weather was one of the foremost causes of death among the moths of
Pereira et al. (2007), and plant chemical defenses were responsible for a majority of the deaths of
wheat stem sawflies monitored by Acchami et al. (2020).

As many challenges as we know that animals face in the wild, some may yet be masked by the
urgent threats they face from humans through hunting, fishing, extermination, and competition for
resources. Humans should leave more space for wildlife, and try not to make their existence harder
than it already is, but we should also be willing to go further. Learning more about cause-specific
mortality in different populations and environmental contexts can inform plans for the most
effective actions to improve wild animal welfare.

References
1. Achhami, Buddhi B., Robert K. D. Peterson, Jamie D. Sherman, Gadi V. P. Reddy, and David K. Weaver. 2020. ‘Multiple
Decrement Life Tables of Cephus Cinctus Norton (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) across a Set of Barley Cultivars: The

22
 Importance of Plant Defense versus Cannibalism’. PLOS ONE 15 (9):
e0238527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238527.
2. Andis, M. D., and C. L. Meek. 1985. ‘Mortality and Survival Patterns for the Immature Stages of Psorophora Columbiae’.
Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1 (3): 357–62.
3. Asiimwe, P., J. S. Ecaat, M. Otim, D. Gerling, S. Kyamanywa, and J. P. Legg. 2007. ‘Life-Table Analysis of Mortality
Factors Affecting Populations of Bemisia Tabaci on Cassava in Uganda’. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 122
(1): 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2006.00487.x.
4. Bartmann, Richard M., Gary C. White, and Len H. Carpenter. 1992. ‘Compensatory Mortality in a Colorado Mule Deer
Population’. Wildlife Monographs, no. 121: 3–39.
5. Benelli, G., Pozzebon, A., & Reaz, M. B. I. 2013. ‘RFID under water: Technical issues and applications’ (pp. 379-395).
Rijeka: InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/53934.
6. Bergman, Eric J., Paul F. Doherty, Gary C. White, and A. Andrew Holland. 2015. ‘Density Dependence in Mule Deer:
A Review of Evidence’. Wildlife Biology 21 (1): 18–29. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00012.
7. Buenestado, F. J., Ferreras, P., BLANCO‐AGUIAR, J. A., Tortosa, F. S., & Villafuerte, R. 2009. ‘Survival and causes
of mortality among wild Red‐legged Partridges Alectoris rufa in southern Spain: implications for conservation’. Ibis 151
(4): 720-730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2009.00952.x.
8. Butler, J. A., & Sowell, S. 1996. ‘Survivorship and predation of hatchling and yearling gopher tortoises, Gopherus
polyphemus’. Journal of Herpetology 30 (3): 455-458. https://doi.org/10.2307/1565195.
9. Chomel, B.B., R.W. Kasten, G. Chappuis, M. Soulier, and Y. Kikuchi. 1998. ‘Serological Survey of Selected Canine
Viral Pathogens and Zoonoses in Grizzly Bears (Ursus Arctos Horribilis) and Black Bears (Ursus Americanus) from
Alaska: -EN- -FR- -ES-’. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE 17 (3): 756–
66. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.17.3.1134.
10. Collins, C., and R. Kays. 2011. ‘Causes of Mortality in North American Populations of Large and Medium-Sized
Mammals’. Animal Conservation 14 (5): 474–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00458.x.
11. Cooley, Hilary S., Robert B. Wielgus, Gary M. Koehler, Hugh S. Robinson, and Benjamin T. Maletzke. 2009. ‘Does
Hunting Regulate Cougar Populations? A Test of the Compensatory Mortality Hypothesis’. Ecology 90 (10): 2913–
21. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1805.1.
12. Crosby, Lyle A., and Randy Graham. 1986. ‘Population Dynamics and Expansion Rates of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs’.
Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 12 (12). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/23t218h1.
13. Dieperink, C., S. Pedersen, and M. I. Pedersen. 2001. ‘Estuarine Predation on Radiotagged Wild and Domesticated Sea
Trout (Salmo Trutta L.) Smolts’. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 10 (3): 177–83. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-
0633.2001.100307.x.
14. Fritts, Anthony L., and Todd N. Pearsons. 2004. ‘Smallmouth Bass Predation on Hatchery and Wild Salmonids in the
Yakima River, Washington’. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133 (4): 880–
95. https://doi.org/10.1577/T03-003.1.
15. Hill, Jacob E., Travis L. DeVault, and Jerrold L. Belant. 2019. ‘Cause-Specific Mortality of the World’s Terrestrial
Vertebrates’. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28 (5): 680–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12881.
16. Himes, J. G., Hardy, L. M., Rudolph, D. C., & Burgdorf, S. J. 2002. ‘Growth rates and mortality of the Louisiana pine
snake (Pituophis ruthveni)’. Journal of Herpetology 36 (4): 683-687. https://doi.org/10.2307/1565941.
17. Hostetter, Nathan J., Allen F. Evans, Daniel D. Roby, and Ken Collis. 2012. ‘Susceptibility of Juvenile Steelhead to
Avian Predation: The Influence of Individual Fish Characteristics and River Conditions’. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 141 (6): 1586–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2012.716011.
18. Hurst, T. P. 2007. ‘Causes and Consequences of Winter Mortality in Fishes’. Journal of Fish Biology 71 (2): 315–
45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01596.x.
19. Jones, Davy. 1982. ‘Predators and Parasites of Temporary Row Crop Pests: Agents of Irreplaceable Mortality or
Scavengers Acting Prior to Other Mortality Factors?’ Entomophaga 27 (3): 245–
65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02374809.
20. Karut, K., and S. E. Naranjo. 2009. ‘Mortality Factors Affecting Bemisia Tabaci Populations on Cotton in Turkey’.
Journal of Applied Entomology 133 (5): 367–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2008.01369.x.
21. Kays, Roland, Margaret C. Crofoot, Walter Jetz, and Martin Wikelski. 2015. ‘Terrestrial Animal Tracking as an Eye on
Life and Planet’. Science 348 (6240). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa2478.

23
22. Klaassen, R. H., Hake, M., Strandberg, R., Koks, B. J., Trierweiler, C., Exo, K. M., ... & Alerstam, T. 2014. ‘When and
where does mortality occur in migratory birds? Direct evidence from long‐term satellite tracking of raptors’. Journal of
Animal Ecology 83 (1): 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12135.
23. Koed, Anders, Henrik Baktoft, and Brian Daniel Bak. 2006. ‘Causes of Mortality of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) and
Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta) Smolts in a Restored River and Its Estuary’. River Research and Applications 22 (1): 69–
78. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.894.
24. Krkošek, Martin. 2017. ‘Population Biology of Infectious Diseases Shared by Wild and Farmed Fish1’. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, January. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0379.
25. Krumm, Caroline E., Mary M. Conner, N. Thompson Hobbs, Don O. Hunter, and Michael W. Miller. 2010. ‘Mountain
Lions Prey Selectively on Prion-Infected Mule Deer’. Biology Letters 6 (2): 209–
11. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0742.
26. LeCount, Albert L. 1987. ‘Causes of Black Bear Cub Mortality’. Bears: Their Biology and Management 7: 75–
82. https://doi.org/10.2307/3872610.
27. Lenting, B., B. Gartrell, A. Kokosinska, P. J. Duignan, S. Michael, S. Hunter, and W. D. Roe. 2019. ‘Causes of Adult
Mortality in Two Populations of New Zealand Sea Lions (Phocarctos Hookeri)’. Veterinary and Animal Science 7 (June):
100057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2019.100057.
28. Naranjo, Steven E., and Peter C. Ellsworth. 2005. ‘Mortality Dynamics and Population Regulation in Bemisia Tabaci’.
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 116 (2): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2005.00297.x.
29. Palma, L., Beja, P., Pais, M., & Cancela Da Fonseca, L. 2006. ‘Why do raptors take domestic prey? The case of Bonelli's
eagles and pigeons’. Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (6): 1075-1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01213.x.
30. Pereira, E. J. G., M. C. Picanço, L. Bacci, A. L. B. Crespo, and R. N. C. Guedes. 2007. ‘Seasonal Mortality Factors of
the Coffee Leafminer, Leucoptera Coffeella’. Bulletin of Entomological Research 97 (4): 421–
32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485307005202.
31. Peterson, Robert K. D., Ryan S. Davis, Leon G. Higley, and Odair A. Fernandes. 2009. ‘Mortality Risk in Insects’.
Environmental Entomology 38 (1): 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1603/022.038.0102.
32. Raby, Graham D., Jessica R. Packer, Andy J. Danylchuk, and Steven J. Cooke. 2014. ‘The Understudied and
Underappreciated Role of Predation in the Mortality of Fish Released from Fishing Gears’. Fish and Fisheries 15 (3):
489–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12033.
33. Roux, Olivier, and Johann Baumgärtner. 1998. ‘Evaluation of Mortality Factors and Risk Analysis for the Design of an
Integrated Pest Management System’. Ecological Modelling 109 (1): 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-
3800(98)00035-0.
34. Sáenz-de-Santa-María, A., & Tellería, J. L. 2015. ‘Wildlife-vehicle collisions in Spain’. European Journal of Wildlife
Research 61 (3): 399-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0907-7.
35. Siler, W. 1979. ‘A competing‐risk model for animal mortality’. Ecology 60 (4): 750-757.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1936612.
36. Stapp, Paul, Michael F. Antolin, and Mark Ball. 2004. ‘Patterns of Extinction in Prairie Dog Metapopulations: Plague
Outbreaks Follow El Ninì Events’. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 (5): 235–
40. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0235:POEIPD]2.0.CO;2.
37. Stenkat, J., Krautwald-Junghanns, M. E., & Schmidt, V. 2013. ‘Causes of morbidity and mortality in free-living birds in
an urban environment in Germany’. Ecohealth 10 (4): 352-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-013-0868-9.
38. Sterud, E, T Forseth, O Ugedal, Tt Poppe, A Jørgensen, T Bruheim, H Fjeldstad, and Ta Mo. 2007. ‘Severe Mortality in
Wild Atlantic Salmon Salmo Salar Due to Proliferative Kidney Disease (PKD) Caused by Tetracapsuloides
Bryosalmonae (Myxozoa)’. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 77 (October): 191–98. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao01846.
39. Tolentino, Emily R., Russell P. Howey, Lucy A. Howey, Lance K. B. Jordan, R. Dean Grubbs, Annabelle Brooks, Sean
Williams, Edward J. Brooks, and Oliver N. Shipley. 2017. ‘Was My Science Project Eaten? A Novel Approach to
Validate Consumption of Marine Biologging Instruments’. Animal Biotelemetry 5 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-
016-0117-4.
40. Weinz, Amy A., Jordan K. Matley, Natalie V. Klinard, Aaron T. Fisk, and Scott F. Colborne. 2020a. ‘Identification of
Predation Events in Wild Fish Using Novel Acoustic Transmitters’. Animal Biotelemetry 8 (1):
28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-020-00215-x.

24
 The Macabre Science of Mass Animal Die-Offs
Matt Simon writes:10

Researchers are replicating “mass mortality events” with pig carcasses. The ecological
consequences could hint at what's happening in Australia right now.

UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW across swaths of Australia is an ecological catastrophe, as

massive, turbo-charged fires reduce whole landscapes to nothingness. Tens of thousands of koalas
had no way of escaping. Livestock lie dead in fields. Innumerable animals have perished, with
many species likely pushed to extinction. The few survivors could well starve or fall victim to
predators.

10
https://www.wired.com/story/the-macabre-science-of-animal-mass-die-offs/

25
We’ll never know the true toll of this mass mortality event, or MME as scientists call it, but we
know this: The cadavers that litter the Australian landscape are now rotting, kicking off a cascade
of ecological consequences and potentially imperiling human health.

As a field, the experimental study of MMEs is quite new. Sure, researchers can scrutinize a mass
die-off in the wild, for instance when a bacterial outbreak killed 200,000 saiga antelopes in central
Kazakhstan in 2015. But without meticulously surveying the environment just before the event,
any comparison is inherently limited. To do a controlled experiment, you’d either have to source
and distribute hordes of carcasses yourself or somehow learn to predict an impending mass death.

One team of researchers has found a clever workaround to the problem, using a subject no one
will miss: feral pigs. Mississippi State University ecologist Brandon Barton, forensic
entomologist Abby Jones, and environmental microbiologist Heather Jordan set up plots of land
and take stock of their ecosystems: the nutrients and microorganisms in the soil, insects,
vegetation, and more. Cameras and microphones capture the movements of animals stalking the
lands. Then it’s time for the swine.

Feral pigs have become an invasive menace in the US, breeding like crazy and tearing through
ecosystems. Trappers nab them, kill them, and send them to Barton and Jones. The team then
delivers them to their test plots, distributing some 15 tons of pig carcasses (about 200 individuals
of varying sizes) over the course of a day.

26
While they’re still fairly fresh, dealing with the carcasses is comparatively easy. Returning daily
for two weeks, as the stench grows more brutal and penetrating by the day, that’s the perilous bit.
“We took a lot of precautions with gallons of Purell and soap and water and protective equipment,
but you still are dealing with a lot of wild animals that are harboring who knows what,” says
Barton.

Maggots, for one—rivers of maggots. These infant flies play a pivotal role in the way nature
recycles dead animals: They eat decaying flesh, converting it into their own tissue. They took a
liking to the pig carcasses in such numbers, they formed great squirming mats on the ground. “It
was one of the most incredible things I've ever experienced,” says Barton. “Just seeing this carpet
of writhing maggots going through the forest and you think, that's gross. And maybe it is, but
those guys are basically little packets of nutrients.”

The maggots then become a source of food for a range of creatures. The researchers watched
birds, hornets, beetles, and even armadillos devour them. “Everything we could think to measure,
we wanted to measure,” says Barton. “Because with an experiment like this, we've never done
one and been like, can't wait to do the next one. The idea is to do it right the first time and not

27
have to deal with 15 tons of dead pigs again.” (They’ve done three separate simulated MMEs thus
far.)

The plants, however, are not as happy as the predators, at least not in the near term. When a pig
rots on the forest floor, it floods the soil with nutrients like nitrogen—too many nutrients that
overwhelm the vegetation. At first, says Jones, they’d see “barren brown land where all of the
grasses and the other plants had perished.” But after 5 months, the ecosystem would adapt and
“you start getting extremely green grass right around that area.” The grass directly underneath a
carcass, though, wouldn't return until the next year.

The river of maggots

The microbiome of the soil, too, goes into shock. Jordan, the microbiologist, samples the dirt’s
microorganisms, such as fungi and bacteria, before and after the introduction of pig carcasses. As
a carcass decomposes, the bacteria in the body itself runs rampant, producing its signature stink
and bastardizing the soil’s microbiome. “From day zero to day 365, there's microbes from the
beginning that have not completely bounced back,” says Jordan. This could interfere with an

28
environment’s natural allotment of fungi and bacteria and how they cycle nutrients and
decompose matter like leaf litter.

Still, eventually the environment will return to equilibrium, and plants will grow anew. But that
period of vegetal death is a precarious time, and indeed this could be a particular problem in
Australia. When a plant community emerges from the decay, is it the same as it was before? “One
of the things we see over and over again is that a lot of invasive species are really good at beating
the native species to colonizing these open habitats,” says Barton.

In Australia, vast tracts have been reduced to open habitats. Even in the absence of innumerable
animal carcasses, ecologists are worried that hardy, fast-growing invasive species will gain a
foothold in burn scars and muscle native species out. The problem is these climate-change-driven
bushfires are obliterating whole plant communities, whereas before they would burn mildly
enough to leave some species standing, putting a check on the invasives.

There’s also concern about the pathogens that might thrive amid the carcasses. Usually,
scavengers like raptors consume carrion and shrink the breeding grounds of demons like E. coli,
anthrax, salmonella, and botulism. If the bushfires also killed off the scavengers, the risk of
transmission and potential epidemics goes up. “Some of these are zoonotic, and they could impact
humans,” says Jordan, the microbiologist. “In Australia, all of these carcasses are out there, and
there's got to be a method of controlling them.”

If people burn the carcasses, they could come into contact with pathogens. Flies, too, might carry
pathogens into homes. Or the scavengers themselves could carry them far and wide. “It sounds
scary, because the possibility is definitely there, but more studies need to be conducted,” she adds.
A lot of open questions persist around how an intense bushfire influences its environment. “We
know very little about mass mortality events in general, and the impact of microbes in the
environment and transmission of pathogens,” says Jordan. “But we know even less about the
impact of these in fire.”

The answers will come from carefully controlled experiments, like what Jordan and her
colleagues are doing. They can’t come quickly enough: The killing fields are growing around the
world, with dire effects on ecosystems, and potentially human health.

29
 Animal Death

Jay Johnston and Fiona Probyn-Rapsey write:11

11
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt1gxxpvf.6.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aac1d9d78385e6b94d54e0f20

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
 Equus
Equus is a play by Peter Shaffer written in 1973, telling the story of a psychiatrist who attempts
to treat a young man who has a pathological religious fascination with horses.[1]
Shaffer was inspired to write Equus when he heard of a crime involving a 17-year-old who blinded
six horses in a small town in Suffolk.[2] He set out to construct a fictional account of what might
have caused the incident, without knowing any of the details of the crime. The play's action is
something of a detective story, involving the attempts of the child psychiatrist Dr. Martin Dysart
to understand the cause of the boy's (Alan Strang) actions while wrestling with his own sense of
purpose.[3]
The original stage production ran at the National Theatre in London between 1973 and 1975,
directed by John Dexter. Alec McCowen played Dysart, and Peter Firth played Alan Strang. Later
came the Broadway productions that starred Anthony Hopkins as Dysart (later played by Richard
Burton, Leonard Nimoy, and Anthony Perkins) and from the London production, Peter Firth as
Alan. When Firth left for Broadway, Dai Bradley took over the role of Alan in the London
production, playing opposite Michael Jayston as Dr. Dysart.[4] Tom Hulce replaced Firth during
the Broadway run. The Broadway production ran for 1,209 performances. Marian Seldes appeared
in every single performance of the Broadway run, first in the role of Hesther and then as Dora.
Shaffer also adapted his play for a 1977 film of the same name.
Numerous other issues inform the narrative. Most important are religious and ritual
sacrifice themes, and the manner in which character Alan Strang constructs a personal theology
involving the horses and the supreme godhead, "Equus". Alan sees the horses as representative of
God and confuses his adoration of his "God" with sexual attraction. Also important is Shaffer's
examination of the conflict between personal values and satisfaction and societal mores,
expectations, and institutions. By employing classical structure, themes, and characterisation,
Shaffer dramatizes the conflict between Apollonian and Dionysian values and systems in human
life.
The effects of Alan’s midnight riding was noticed by the stable master when he saw how exhausted
they were. This was based on the folklore of pixies. They take horses from stall and ride them all
night, returning them exhausted and with mysteriously knotted manes in the morning.

Act 1
Martin Dysart is a psychiatrist in a psychiatric hospital. He begins with a monologue in which he
outlines the case of 17-year-old Alan Strang, who blinded six horses. He also divulges his feeling
that his occupation is not all that he wishes it to be and his feelings of dissatisfaction and
disappointment about his barren life. Dysart finds that the supply of troubled young people for him
to "adjust" back into "normal" living is never-ending, but he doubts the value of treating these
youths, since they will simply return to a dull, normal life that lacks any commitment and
"worship" (a recurring theme). He comments that Alan Strang's crime was extreme, but adds that
just such extremity is needed to break free from the chains of existence.
A court magistrate, Hesther Saloman, visits Dysart, believing that he has the skills to help Alan
come to terms with what he did. At the hospital, Dysart has a great deal of difficulty making any
kind of headway with Alan, who at first responds to questioning by singing TV advertising jingles.

39
Dysart reveals a dream he has had, in a Homeric Grecian setting, in which he is a public official
presiding over a mass ritual sacrifice. One after another, he slices open the abdomens of hundreds
of children, and pulls out their entrails. He becomes disgusted with what he is doing, but fears
being murdered in the same manner if discovered as a "non-believer" by the other priests, so does
not stop. Eventually the other priests, aware of his misgivings, grab the knife from his hand—at
which point he awakens from the dream.
Dysart interviews Alan's parents. He learns that, from an early age, Alan has been receiving
conflicting views on religion from his parents. Alan's mother, Dora, is a devout Christian who has
read to him daily from the Bible. This practice has antagonized Alan's father Frank, a non-believer.
Slowly, Dysart contacts Alan by playing a game where each of them asks a question, which must
be answered honestly.
Dysart learns that Frank, concerned that Alan was taking far too much interest in the more violent
aspects of the Bible, destroyed a violent picture of the Crucifixion that Alan had hung at the foot
of his bed. Alan replaced the picture with one of a horse, with large, staring eyes.
Alan reveals to Dysart that, during his youth, his attraction to horses came about by way of his
mother's biblical tales, a horse story that she had read to him, Western movies, and his grandfather's
interest in horses and riding. Alan's sexual education began with his mother, who told him he could
find true love and contentment by way of religious devotion and marriage. During this time, Alan
also begins to develop a sexual attraction to horses, desiring to pet their thick coats, feel their
muscular bodies, and smell their sweat. Alan reveals to Dysart that he had first encountered a horse
at age six, on the beach. A rider approached him, and took him up on the horse. Alan was visibly
excited, but his parents found him and Frank pulled him violently off the horse. The horse rider
scoffed at the father and rode off.
Dysart hypnotizes Alan and, during the hypnosis, reveals elements of his terrifying dream of the
ritual murder of children. Dysart begins to jog Alan's memory by filling in blanks and asking
questions. Alan reveals that he wants to help the horses by removing the bit, which enslaves them.
After turning 17, Alan took a job working in a shop selling electrical goods, where he met Jill
Mason, an outgoing and free-spirited young woman. She visits the shop wanting to purchase blades
for horse-clippers. Alan was instantly interested when he discovered that Jill has such close contact
with horses after she tells him that she works for a local stable owner. Jill suggested that Alan work
for the owner of the stables, Harry Dalton. Alan agrees.
Dysart meets with Dalton, who tells him that he first held Alan to be a model worker, since he kept
the stables immaculately clean and grooms the horses, including one named Nugget. Through
Dysart's questioning, it becomes clear that Alan is erotically fixated on Nugget (or "Equus") and
secretly takes him for midnight rides, bareback and naked. Alan also envisions himself as a king,
on the godhead Equus, both destroying their enemies.

Act 2
Dysart gives Alan a placebo "truth pill". Revealing a tryst with Jill, he begins to re-enact the event:
Jill, who has taken an interest in Alan, asks him to take her to a porno theatre. While there, they
run into Alan's father, Frank. Alan is traumatized, particularly when he realizes that his father is
lying to justify his presence in the theatre. However, this allows Alan to realize that sex is a natural

40
thing for all men, even his father. Alan walks Jill home after they leave and she convinces Alan to
come to the stables with her.
Once there, Jill seduces Alan and the two undress and attempt to have sex. However, Alan hesitates
when he hears the horses making noises in the stables beneath, which he blames as the reason for
his inability to get an erection. Jill tries to ask Alan what the problem is, but he shouts at her to
leave. After Jill dresses and walks out of the stables, the still nude Alan begs the horses for
forgiveness, as he sees the horses as God-like figures. "Mine!...You're mine!...I am yours and you
are mine!" cries Equus through Dysart's voice, but then he becomes threatening: "The Lord thy
God is a jealous God," Equus/Dysart seethes, "He sees you; he sees you forever and ever, Alan.
He sees you!...He sees you!" Alan screams, "God seest!" and then he says "No more. No more,
Equus!" Alan then uses a steel spike to blind the six horses in the stable, whose eyes have "seen"
his very soul.
In the final scene, Dysart delivers a monologue questioning the fundamentals of his practice and
whether his methods will help Alan, as the effect of his treatment will make him "normal", but at
the cost of his humanity.

Literary Style12

Dramatic Genre

Equus closely resembles a suspense thriller in form and structure, revealing Shaffer’s fondness for
detective stories. Dysart is much like a classic sleuth solving a crime; he painstakingly tracks down
the factors that led Alan to blind the six horses. Shaffer has worked in many dramatic genres,
including domestic tragedy, farce, and historical drama. Many critics have noted that what
makes Equus a unique theatrical experience is its seamless incorporation of several dramatic
genres. In addition to being a serviceable suspense tale, the play has also been credited for its
intriguing examination of the roots of mental illness as well as its canny updating of Greek tragedy.
The play’s popularity among audiences and critics has been attributed to its ability to appeal to
numerous tastes. Likewise, not linked to any one dramatic school of thought, Shaffer has
demonstrated his versatility with each new play.

Point of View

In Equus—as he has in other plays such as Amadeus—Shaffer uses the dramatic device of the
raisonneur, a kind of ‘‘color commentator’’ who directly addresses the audience, providing details
that assist the viewer in understanding the play’s action. Thus, the point of view of Equus is largely
that of Dysart (the play’s raisonneur), who provides the context in which the story unfolds.

12
https://www.enotes.com/topics/equus/in-depth

41
However, certain elements in the play are clearly presented from Alan’s perspective: the
flashbacks are a theatrical reenactment of Alan’s memories.

Staging

The set for Equus, rather than being realistic, is flexible and allows for numerous different
performing spaces. The almost cinematic structure of the play—multiple, brief scenes in numerous
locations— requires rapid changes in staging. This effect is achieved through a rotating turntable
as well as other set techniques such as spot lighting and sparse use of props. For example, Alan
picks up benches at one point and moves them, forming three stalls for a scene at Dalton’s stables.
The use of mimed objects and actions is also significant to the play’s theatrical technique. Clive
Barnes wrote in the New York Times that Shaffer ‘‘has his theatre set up here as a kind of bullring
with a section of the audience actually sitting on stage.’’ In addition to members of the audience,
all the actors are seated on stage, rising to perform in scenes and then being seated, still in view of
the audience. Thus, there is little separation between stage and audience, creating an intimacy
which underscores the intensity of the drama. Irving Wardle wrote in the London Times that the
stage ‘‘combines the elements of rodeo, stable, and Greek amphitheatre.’’

Temporal Organization

Rather than moving forward in strictly linear time, Equus combines a main plot unfolding in the
present with repeated flashbacks to past events. Dysart’s opening monologue in each act, and some
of the therapy sessions with Alan, take place in the present. Incidents involving Alan’s childhood
and the night of his crime are in flashback, as are the sequences in Dysart’s life that lead up to his
treating the boy. The different temporal threads are woven together, with overlapping elements
providing points of transition.

For example, the Nurse’s comments to Dysart about Alan’s condition are melded with Dysart later
relating the same details to Hesther. By staging both events on stage at the same time, Shaffer
achieves a kind of cinematic edit that allows the same topic to be simultaneously discussed in two
distinct settings. The Nurse tells Dysart that Alan has been having nightmares during which he
repeatedly screams ‘‘Ek!’’ Hesther, however, not Dysart, asks ‘‘Ek?’’ but the Nurse continues,
‘‘Yes, Doctor. Ek.’’ The past is revealed in glimpses, usually an acting out of what one character
is telling another in the present. As these memories are recalled in the present, lighting and set
placement allow the actors to slip to another part of the stage and enact the past event being
described.

42
Catharsis

Many critics have called Equus a ‘‘modern tragedy,’’ some evoking Aristotle’s principles of
tragedy (as he outlines in his Poetics ) to discuss the manner in which the play operates.
While Equus does not truly follow the formula for tragedy, it does contain many of the genre’s
important components. One of the most closely related is that of catharsis: the purgation of feelings
of pity and fear, which Aristotle identified as the social function of tragedy. Parallel to the concept
of catharsis is that of abreaction, the discharge of the emotional energy supposed to be attached to
a repressed idea, especially by the conscious verbalization of that idea in the presence of a therapist.
Thus, the staging of Alan’s repressed memories has a therapeutic purpose that mirrors the potential
cathartic effect of the play upon an audience.

Philosophical Content

The 1964 full-length play Royal Hunt of the Sun: A Play Concerning the Conquest of
Peru introduced Shaffer’s characteristic technique of opposing two central figures (in that play’s
case, the Inca king Atahualpa and the Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizarro) whose actions
establish a dialectic on complex philosophical questions. This technique revealed itself again in
the pairing of Dr. Dysart and Alan and would later resurface with the characters of Mozart and
Salieri in Shaffer’s 1979 play, Amadeus. Dysart and Alan stand, respectively, as philosophical
representatives for subdued rationalism and passionate instinct. As the factors underlying Alan’s
violent act are revealed, Dysart discovers a dilemma of his own. Ridding Alan of his mental
conflicts only succeeds in transferring them onto Dysart himself.

The Horse Chorus

In Greek theatre, the masked chorus serves to comment on the action of the play. Shaffer has a
similar concept in mind with his chorus, although they make equine noises of humming, thumping,
and stamping rather than speaking. In the early scenes concerning Alan’s interaction with horses,
the choral noises intensify the emotional content, making a connection between the early scenes
and the foreshadowing of the act Alan will later commit. This non-realistic technique allows the
audience a glimpse into Alan’s state of mind—for the noise, as Shaffer comments, ‘‘heralds or
illustrates the presence of Equus the God.’’

Among the chorus are six actors who represent Nugget and the other horses in the play. No attempt
is made to make them appear realistic; they wear horse-like masks of wire and leather beneath
which the heads of the actors are visible. Barnes observed that while ‘‘is not easy to present men
playing horses on stage without provoking giggles . . . here the horses live up to their reputed
godhead.’’ Mollie Panter-Downes commented in the New Yorker that ‘‘these masked presences

43
standing in the shadows of the stable manage to suggest the eeriness and power of . . . the old,
hoofed god.’’

When Alan mounts Nugget for the first time, all the other horses lean forward to create a visual
picture that highlights Alan’s belief that his god Equus resides in all horses. By having the same
actor play the Horseman and Nugget, a visual connection is established which suggests Alan’s
transference of emotions from humans onto horses.

44