If a person has only one portion of food, there is no question that
his consumption supersedes that of his animals. The Torah requirement is
that when a person has sufficient food for both himself and his animal,
the responsibility to his animal comes first. If the food does not belong to the owner of the animal, but it is being given to him as a gift, the person giving the gift does not have a responsibility to his friend’s animal. In fact, it could be viewed as disrespectful to feed an animal prior to its owner. Therefore, during the shemitah year, when a person does not own his produce, but Hashem is gifting it all to him, he may eat prior to his animals. Similarly, when Hashem gives Bnei Yisroel water to drink, His responsibility is to the people first.

With the understanding that feeding an animal prior to its owner is only applicable when the owner owns the food, and not when someone else is providing it, there may be grounds to question a ruling made by the Magen Avraham. The Magen Avraham asks why Rivka gave Eliezer water to drink prior to his animals. He concludes that a person is required to feed his animals first only in regard to eating, and not drinking.4 Since Rivka was providing Eliezer with the water. Therefore, her responsibility was to the person first and not his animals, and no distinction between eating and drinking is necessary.

.1Berachos 40a .2Bamidbar 20:8 .3Binyan Ariel ibid .4Magen Avraham ,167:18See Torah Temimah Bamidbar 20:8for explanation of Magen Avraham

Quick Halacha:

May a person respond to Borechu if he has not heard the Chazzan’s recitation? If at least nine people have heard the Chazzan’s recitation of Borechu it is permissible to respond. He may not, however, respond if all he hears is the Chazzan’s repetition of the congregation’s response. If the Chazzan recites Borechu in a low voice and fewer than nine congregants hear him, a person should not respond. At least ten people, including the Chazzan, must hear the Borechu for the congregation.