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. Yaakov of Kefar Chanan in Bereshit Rabbah(Theodore Albeck) 16:16About Bereshit Rabbah, 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 capacity 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 ability 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.

"כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל" – The comparison to vegetation is difficult for this approach, since there would seem to be no reason for it, if meat, too, had always been permitted. N. Rabban⁵ suggests that the words should not be viewed as an allusion back to Bereshit 1.  Rather, in the context of the new prohibition not to shed blood, Hashem reassures man that there is no ethical problem in killing animals, just as there is none in eating vegetation.

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 were created with the capacity to eat and digest meat, not just greens.⁶  If Hashem had not wanted man to be carnivorous, He would not have equipped his body with such abilities.⁷

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.⁸

Laws of Kashrut

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 – This position might suggest that Hevel's role as shepherd and the sacrifice of sheep supports the idea that meat was permitted before the flood as well.

Were animals always carnivorous? According to this position, animals, too, were always allowed to eat meat.⁹  In fact, R, Saadia points to the fact that many animals are predators as evidence that meat was always allowed. Had it not been, there should have been a verse that explicitly permitted it to them.

Era of the Mashiach - "וְגָר זְאֵב עִם כֶּבֶשׂ" – Shadal explains that the verse is not to be read literally but is rather an analogy teaching that in the future the strong will no longer oppress and take advantage of the weak.  It has nothing to do with changing eating habits or the ideal diet in the era of the Mashiach.

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, Akeidat YItzchak, Tzeror Hamor #2

"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה" – According to this position, this statement was first said to Adam after he sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge in the garden.¹⁰  Originally he was permitted to eat meat, but after the sin Hashem limited his food to vegetation.¹¹

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).¹² Akeidat Yitzchak compares it to the punishment of the snake, whose food source is also demoted (to dirt) after the sin.¹³

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

Sacrifices before the flood – Rashba asserts that even when meat was forbidden as a food source, it was still permitted to sacrifice to Hashem of them.

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.¹⁴  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? According to Akeidat Yitzchak animals were actually never given permission to eat meat and were really meant to always be herbivores.  The fact that there are predators amongst them is a remnant of the corruption of their nature during the generation of the flood.

Era of the Mashiach - "וְאַרְיֵה כַּבָּקָר יֹאכַל תֶּבֶן" – Akeidat Yitzchak asserts that this verse describes the return of animals to their natural state of being herbivores.

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, Ran

"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה" – According to these sources, this statement limited man's intake to vegetation.¹⁵ Ran explains that in light of the earlier command to rule over the fish and birds, Hashem needed to explain that such authority did not extend to eating of these animals.

"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה" – According to these commentators the verse represents a new command, granting permission to eat all animals¹⁶  thereby undoing what had before been prohibited.

"כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל" – According to this position, the verse alludes back to the original command of Chapter 1. Hashem compares meat to vegetation to teach Noach that the two are now comparable and he can eat meat just as he had earlier eaten greens.

Why was meat originally prohibited?

• Saved for later – According to Radak, there was no fundamental reason for the original prohibition.  Hashem simply wanted to save meat as a future reward for Noach.¹⁷
• Suffering – Ran asserts that as animals can feel pain, man was not allowed to kill them. He says that this is the reason why even later, when eating is permitted, one is not allowed to cause animals undue suffering.
• Equal Status –Ramban assumes that man was prohibited from killing animals since the two were similar in stature (with both able to feel pain and desiring to escape death).¹⁸ 

Why the change?

• Radak views the permission to eat meat as simply compensation for Noach's labor and good deeds.  Ran adds that Hashem might have also wanted to ease Noach's pain and loneliness in losing his world through the flood.
• R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ramban suggest that there was a more fundamental change. R"Y Bekhor Shor says that in saving the animals, Noach gained certain rights over them and they became his to do with as he pleased.  Ramban implies that Noach's actions revealed that man was in fact superior to the animals, thus removing the original reason for the prohibition.¹⁹

Evaluation of eating meat

• According to Radak there is nothing wrong with eating meat, and the existence of predators is built into nature.  In fact, it would seem that Hashem considers meat, rather than vegetables, the more lofty food, and thus saved it as a reward. 
• R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ramban more simply suggest that there is a hierarchy to living beings, and thus, as long as man is superior to animals, he has the right to kill them.

Sacrifices before the flood

Were animals always carnivorous? According to Radak, predatory animals were created as such, and were allowed to eat meat well before the flood.  However, he asserts that at the very beginning of creation (and on the ark) animals did not eat each other, and survived instead on vegetation,  for otherwise it would have meant the end of a species.

Era of the Mashiach - "וְגָר זְאֵב עִם כֶּבֶשׂ" – Radak asserts that the verses in Yeshayahu 11 do not imply a change in the nature of animals in the future, bu rather constitute  a promise that predators won't prey in the land of Israel nor cause damage there.²⁰

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

"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה" – According to these sources, the command to Adam only mentions vegetation, and as such, excluded animals.

"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה" – It was first with Hashem's blessing to Noach that meat was permitted.

Why was meat originally prohibited?

• No death yet - Midrash Aggadah asserts that originally (before Adam's sin in the garden) no one was supposed to die, so killing even for food was prohibited.²¹
• Sanctity of life – R. Kook and Cassuto explain more simply that the prohibition stems from the sanctity of all life.  Though man might rule over animals, he cannot ignore their vitality.  All life is sacred, even that of animals.
• Unethical to animals – R. Kook also suggests that this prohibition is similar to others which try to minimize the pain or suffering of animals.
• Killing leads to cruelty – Ibn Kaspi and R. Yosef Albo focus on what the action does to man, asserting that the act of killing leads man to become cruel.²²  R. Albo adds that the consumption of animals dirties the soul, implanting in it "turbidity  and opaqueness".

Why the change? All these commentators agree that permission to eat meat was granted only as a second resort (בדיעבד) because of the circumstances of the flood era, but differ in the specifics

• Practical necessity – Abarbanel maintains that permission was granted out of necessity.  Since the flood had destroyed all produce, Hashem had to allow Noach to eat of animals or they would have perished from famine.  Abarbanel does not explain, why then, the prohibition was not renewed after vegetation grew again.
• Man weakened – Seforno asserts that in the aftermath of the flood, the quality of the world's atmosphere and vegetation deteriorated.   People, too, were weaker. To compensate, Hashem allowed the human species to eat meat.
• Teach humans their proper status - R. Albo maintains that one of the problems of humankind had been that they did not realize that they were different from animals, leading to the principle that "might is right". To ensure that man recognized their higher stature, Hashem allowed man to eat of the animals.
• Degraded morals – R. Kook and U. Cassuto suggest that due to man's degraded morality, Hashem decided to hold him to a lower standard than the earlier  ideal.  If man was to have an inclination to kill and be violent better that he channel it into killing animals than fellow humans.

Evaluation of eating meat – This position maintains that vegetarianism is the ideal and that, a priori, it should never have been permitted to eat meat.

Were animals always carnivorous? According to this approach, predatory animals, too, were originally herbivores.

Kashrut

Era of the Mashiach - "וְגָר זְאֵב עִם כֶּבֶשׂ"

• Seforno, R. Kook, and Cassuto suggest that in the future the world will revert back to the ideal of creation.  Cassuto points to Yeshayahu 11 as support than in Messianic times even animals will no longer eat one another, but only plants.²³
• Abarbanel agrees but limits this to the Land of Israel.²⁴  He posits that predatory animals were created as punitive tools of Hashem.  In the era of the Mashiach this won't be necessary as evil will have disappeared and the Mashiach himself will mete out justice.

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

"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה" – This original command prescribed a vegetarian diet.

"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה...כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב" – After the flood, Hashem granted man permission to eat meat just as he had eaten greens.

Why was meat originally prohibited?

• Scarcity of animals –  R. Saadia posits that Hashem only prohibited man from eating meat at the beginning of creation due to the scarcity of animals.²⁵  Had men been predators, there was a real possibility that many species might go extinct.
• Lack of technology – Hoil Moshe asserts that though Hashem prefers that man's intake of meat be limited, He nonetheless allows it in moderation. In the beginning of the world, though, man had not yet learned to cook or roast meat and raw meat did not appeal to his palate, so he naturally ate mainly vegetation.

Why the change?

• According to R. Saadia's approach it is surprising that permission would be granted right after the flood, considering that at that point, too, there was a scarcity of animals.²⁶
• Hoil Moshe maintains that by this point civilization had progressed enough that man had learned how to cook meat.

Sacrifices before the flood – R. Saadia

Were animals always carnivorous?

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 his article, "שאלת אכילת בשר בפרשת בראשית"  in Tarbitz 21 (1950): 25-29.

⁶ 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

⁷ 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.

⁸ 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.

⁹ R. Saadia is the only one to address the question explicitly, but Ralbag and Shadal's arguments all work for animals as well.

¹⁰ Accordingly, the verse is placed out of chronological order.  Rashba might explain that the sin occurred so early in history that the Torah views the prohibition as existing almost from the beginning of time.

¹¹ 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.

¹² 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.

¹³ Akeidat Yitzchak asserts that each species is meant to eat of the food source underneath them in the hierarchy of living beings.  Thus humans are meant to eat animals, and animals to eat plants etc.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ Ramban asserts that it also served to slightly elevate man above other creatures since only he was permitted seeds and fruit, while the birds and beasts were only given grasses.

¹⁶ Ramban assumes that the word "רֶמֶשׂ" includes all living creatures from bird to fish, while Radak suggests that the verse is missing a "ויו" and should read as if written, "all creeping creatures and all that are alive."

¹⁷ Radak does not explain why Hashem decided to save this food source as a reward rather than compensating Noach in some other fashion.

¹⁸ The Ramban and Ran are very similar in their approaches but while Ramban highlights the problem of killing your almost-equal, the Ran focuses more on the suffering that animals will feel.

¹⁹ He does not say this explicitly, but this would follow from his words.

²⁰ Thus, it will be as if the lion is eating grains.

²¹ One might have thought that as soon as Adam sinned and mortality was introduced into the world, meat would have been permitted.  the Midrash asnwers that Hashem delayed the permission so that "the sinner should not benefit form his sin."

²² Ibn Kapsi points out that the many laws that teach one to act mercifully to animals and nature help humble man and let him recognize that he is not all that different from them.

²³ See R. Bachya who suggests the same though he understands the varying commands to Adam and Noach differently.

²⁴ The verse in Yeshayahu specifies, "לֹא יָרֵעוּ וְלֹא יַשְׁחִיתוּ בְּכׇל הַר קׇדְשִׁי".

²⁵ Cf. Radak above who posits that animals did not eat of each other both at the beginning of creation and during the flood for this reason.

²⁶ R. Saadia is actually not explicit that permission was first granted after the flood, and might actually hold that as soon as animals had multiplied sufficiently, man was allowed to kill them.  This, in fact, is what he implies in his explanation of the term "" by the story of Kayin and Hevel, where he suggests that Hevel waited to sacrifice of his sheep unitil he had many of them.  Nonetheless, based on R. Saadia's logic the prohibition should have been renewed (or have remained in place) after the flood and the explicit permission specifically at that point needs explaining.  Unfortunately, R. Saadia's comments on the verse are missing.