Permission to Eat Meat/2/en

Permission to Eat Meat

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Never Prohibited

Meat was permitted from the beginning of time and even Adam was always allowed to eat animals.

Sources:PhiloQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, II:58About Philo, R. Saadia Gaon #1Commentary Bereshit 1 (p. 259-260)Commentary Bereshit 9 (p. 344)About R. Saadia Gaon, RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 1:29About R. Levi b. Gershom, ShadalBereshit 1:30Bereshit 9:4About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה" – According to this position, in these words Hashem never intended to limit man's food to vegetation. The exegetes differ, though, in how they understand Hashem's intent:

• Speaking of the majority – R. Saadia explains that Hashem mentioned only vegetation and fruits because these are mankind's major food source while meat is a luxury eaten much less often.
• Description rather than command – Ralbag¹ asserts that these words are not a command to man at all but rather a further description of man's creation and a statement of natural law.² Hashem is simply saying that He created humans with the ability to eat vegetation, even though grasses and plants are far from man's nature and one might have not expected this ability.³
• Contrast to animals – Shadal asserts that the verse serves to contrast man, who is given seeds and fruit to eat, with the animals who were only given grasses to consume.  The difference highlights man's greater intellect (only he had knowledge to sow and plant) and flows from the prior blessing regarding man's authority over animals.

"And you shall rule over the fish" – According to Shadal, it is this phrase that alludes to the fact that Adam was allowed to kill animals for food. He points out that it is impossible to rule over fish unless one takes them out of the water, which inevitably leads to their deaths.⁴  Thus, it is clear that Hashem had no issue with man killing animals for utilitarian purposes.

Why not mention meat explicitly?

• Minority discounted – According to R. Saadia, this case is is similar to many in which people highlight the majority, and make no mention of a minority even though they do not mean to exclude it.
• Obvious – For Ralbag the ability for man to eat meat was obvious and thus did not need to be stated.  It was the capacity to eat vegetation that was surprising and as such, it was only this that was mentioned.
• Prevent unnecessary killing – Shadal asserts that Hashem only alluded to the permission to eat meat rather than saying so explicitly so as not to encourage man to spill blood.

"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה" – Ralbag and Shadal assert that Hashem explicitly states that man has permission to eat meat after the flood, not to introduce a new command, but rather to juxtapose the fact with the prohibition to spill man's blood and to tear a limb from a live animal (אבר מן החי).  Hashem warns that although man is allowed to kill animals, this leniency does not extend to people, nor is one allowed to act cruelly towards animals even for the purpose of eating.

Proofs from nature – Shadal attempts to prove that Hashem could never have intended for man to eat only vegetables from the physiology of humans. Man's teeth and body are were created with the ability to eat and digest meat, not just greens.⁵  If Hashem had not wanted man to be carnivorous, He would not have equipped his body with such abilities.⁶

Philosophical motivations – Ralbag is bothered by the idea that Hashem's will might change.  He asserts that it is not possible that Hashem could originally prohibit meat from mankind and then change His mind to allow it after the flood.⁷

Evaluation of eating meat – This position does not set up vegetarianism as an ideal and sees no problem with killing animals for food.

Sacrifices before the flood

Were animals always carnivorous? According to this position, animals, too, were always allowed to eat meat.⁸  In fact, R, Saadia points to the fact that many animals are predators as evidence that meat was always allowed. Though no where in Torah are they explicitly told they can eat meat, they nonetheless do, which suggests that it was understood that they could and thus, the command in Chapter 9 was not actually coming to permit that which was prohibited beforehand, or it would have mentioned animals as well.

Prohibited After Adam's Sin Until the Flood

Adam was initially allowed to eat meat but after sinning in the garden, he lost this privilege until the flood atoned for his sins.

Sources:RashbaResponsa 367About R. Shelomo b. Aderet, Tzeror Hamor #2

"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה" – According to this position, this statement was first said to Adm after he sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge in the garden.⁹  Originally he was permitted to eat meat, but after the sin Hashem limited his food to vegetation.¹⁰

Why the change? Rashba explains that in sinning, man let his physical side overcome his intellectual side, lowering him to the level of animals.  Once he was no longer distinguished from beasts and no longer superior to them he lost the privilege of killing them to serve himself (although he was still permitted to sacrifice of them for Hashem).¹¹

"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה" – Since the flood served to atone for Adam's sin, afterwards Hashem renewed permission to eat meat, but accompanied the statement with a reminder that spilling human blood is prohibited.

Parallel Cases – Rashba suggests that the stages here parallel the stages regarding the permission granted to eat meat for pleasure  (בשר תאוה) in the desert.¹²  He suggests that initially this was permitted, but with the sin of the Golden Calf, it was prohibited and only sacrificial meat was allowed. With entry into Israel, the nation was forgiven and permission to eat meat was renewed.

Evaluation of eating meat – This position views eating animals as the norm and a sign of man's superiority, while a diet lacking meat is considered a punishment.

Were animals always carnivorous?

Permitted After the Flood

Man was not given permission to eat meat until after the flood.  Commentators differ in their understanding of the reason for the change.

Permission was granted as a reward

As a reward for caring for the animals on the ark, Noach and future generations were given permission to eat meat.

Sources:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 9:3About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RadakBereshit 1:29Bereshit 9:3About R. David Kimchi, RambanBereshit 1:29Bereshit 9:3About R. Moshe b. Nachman

Permission was a concession

After the flood, mankind was allowed to eat animals as a concession to human frailties.

Sources:Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Bereshit 9:3About Midrash Aggadah (Buber), R. Yosef ibn KaspiDevarim 22:6About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, R. Yosef AlboSefer Ha'Ikarim 3:15About R. Yosef Albo, AbarbanelBereshit 9:1-4About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoBereshit 6:13About R. Ovadyah Seforno, R. A"Y KookR. A"Y Kook, U. CassutoBereshitAbout Prof. Umberto Cassuto

Original prohibition was a practical necessity

Adam was not prohibited from eating meat for any fundamental reason, but rather due to the scarcity of animals at the time or lack of knowledge regarding how to cook them.

Sources:R. Saadia Gaon #2Commentary Bereshit 1 (p. 259-260)Commentary Bereshit 4 (p. 304)Commentary Bereshit 9 (p. 344)About R. Saadia Gaon, Hoil MosheBereshitAbout R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

¹ See Philo similarly, "perhaps the present expression has no reference to eating food, but rather to the possession of the power to do so."

² As proof that the words are an extension of the description of creation, Ralbag points to the fact that the words are followed by the statement "and it was so", the same phrase that follows the description of the other facets of creation. Cf. R. D"Z Hoffmann who makes a similar point.

³ Apparently, according to Ralbag even though Hashem also created man and animals with the ability to eat meat, this was not mentioned explicitly as this was more obvious since humans and animals are much more similar to each other than to plants.

⁴ He argues against those who might claim that ruliing might refer to benefiting from the animals, making use of fish oils or the like by pointing out that other instances of the root רדה all connote some typoe of oppression of the other, leading to their subservience.  See the words' usage in Vayikra 25, Vayikra 26:17, and Melakhim  I 5:4.

⁵ See who elaborates on the various aspects of man's body that are fit for a carniverous diet, pointing to the existence of canines that are meant to tear meat, a gut which does not chew its cud, and

⁶ Hoil Moshe questions this assertion.  Since Hashem is omniscient he might have created man with this ability knowing that he was to eat meat in the future.  In addition, there are many people who eat only fruits and grains despite having the ability to also meat.

⁷ Ralbag notes that one might argue that when Hashem later prohibits the Israelites from eating certain types of food, this is also an instance of His changing His mind.  Ralbag argues that this is not comparable since Hashem  simply wanted to distinguish the nation of Israel from others, and thus prevented them from eating some of the foods allowed to the descendants of Noach.  This, thus, is not an example of Hashem changing some fundamental principle, but rather adding obligations to a specific group of people so as to elevate them.

⁸ R. Saadia is the only one to address the question explicitly, but Ralbag and Shadal's arguments all work for animals as well.

⁹ Accordingly, the verse is placed out of chronological order.  Rashb"a might explain that the sin occurred so early in history that the Torah views the prohibition as exisiting almost from the beginning of time.

¹⁰ Perhaps this verse is equivalent to Hashem's curse to Adam that "by the sweat of your brow will you eat bread" (Bereshit 3:19).  Now that meat was prohibited, man would have to toil extra in the fields.

¹¹ Just as a person is not allowed to kill a fellow human because the two are on equal footing, so too in this era when man proved himself to be similar to animals, he was not permitted to kill them.

¹² Cf. R. D"Z Hoffmann who also notes the parallel to the changing laws of eating meat for pleasure but does not associate these with sin and punishment.