Difference between revisions of "Permission to Eat Meat/2/en"
m |
|||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Permission to Eat Meat</h1> | <h1>Permission to Eat Meat</h1> | ||
− | |||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
<p>Commentators differ regarding both how to resolve the textual question of when man was given permission to eat meat, and in how to interpret the theological significance of that directive.  On one end of the spectrum, Ralbag asserts that meat was always permitted and is the natural food choice of humans.  On the other end, R. Yosef Albo claims that vegetarianism is the ideal, and that meat was only allowed after the Flood as a concession to human frailties and degraded morality.  According to his position, in the future, the prohibition will be renewed.</p> | <p>Commentators differ regarding both how to resolve the textual question of when man was given permission to eat meat, and in how to interpret the theological significance of that directive.  On one end of the spectrum, Ralbag asserts that meat was always permitted and is the natural food choice of humans.  On the other end, R. Yosef Albo claims that vegetarianism is the ideal, and that meat was only allowed after the Flood as a concession to human frailties and degraded morality.  According to his position, in the future, the prohibition will be renewed.</p> | ||
<p>Others suggest that although meat might not have always been permitted, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with killing for food.  Thus, R. Saadia asserts that killing animals was prohibited at the beginning of time only for practical reasons, lest a species become extinct, while Radak asserts that eating meat was saved to be a reward for Noach.  Rashba uniquely suggests that although Adam was allowed to eat meat, he lost the privilege when he sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, and it was restored only after his sin was atoned for though the Flood.</p></div> | <p>Others suggest that although meat might not have always been permitted, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with killing for food.  Thus, R. Saadia asserts that killing animals was prohibited at the beginning of time only for practical reasons, lest a species become extinct, while Radak asserts that eating meat was saved to be a reward for Noach.  Rashba uniquely suggests that although Adam was allowed to eat meat, he lost the privilege when he sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, and it was restored only after his sin was atoned for though the Flood.</p></div> | ||
− | |||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Line 14: | Line 12: | ||
<p>Eating meat was permitted from the beginning of time, and even Adam was always allowed to eat animals.</p> | <p>Eating meat was permitted from the beginning of time, and even Adam was always allowed to eat animals.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloQUESTIONSANDANSWERSONGENESISII-58" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQUESTIONSANDANSWERSONGENESISII-58" data-aht="source">QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, II:58</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, R. Yaakov of Kefar Chanan in <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbahTheodoreAlbeck16-16" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbahTheodoreAlbeck16-16" data-aht="source">(Theodore Albeck) 16:16</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit1p259-260" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon #1</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit1p259-260" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 1 (p. 259-260)</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit9p344" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 9 (p. 344)</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Yefet b. Eli the Karaite</a><a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:3</a><a href="Yefet b. Eli the Karaite" data-aht="parshan">About Yefet b. Eli the Karaite</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot1-29" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot1-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 1:29</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit1-30" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit1-30" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:30</a><a href="ShadalBereshit4-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:4</a><a href="ShadalBereshit9-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:4</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloQUESTIONSANDANSWERSONGENESISII-58" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloQUESTIONSANDANSWERSONGENESISII-58" data-aht="source">QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GENESIS, II:58</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink>, R. Yaakov of Kefar Chanan in <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbahTheodoreAlbeck16-16" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbahTheodoreAlbeck16-16" data-aht="source">(Theodore Albeck) 16:16</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit1p259-260" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon #1</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit1p259-260" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 1 (p. 259-260)</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit9p344" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 9 (p. 344)</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Yefet b. Eli the Karaite</a><a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:3</a><a href="Yefet b. Eli the Karaite" data-aht="parshan">About Yefet b. Eli the Karaite</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot1-29" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshitBeurHaMilot1-29" data-aht="source">Bereshit Beur HaMilot 1:29</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit1-30" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit1-30" data-aht="source">Bereshit 1:30</a><a href="ShadalBereshit4-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:4</a><a href="ShadalBereshit9-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:4</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>Before the Flood: "הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – According to this position, these words were intended to proscribe man's consumption of meat.  The exegetes differ, though, in their interpretations of the verse:<br/> | + | <point><b>Before the Flood: "הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – According to this position, these words were not intended to proscribe man's consumption of meat.  The exegetes differ, though, in their interpretations of the verse:<br/> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Speaking of the norm</b> – R. Saadia explains that Hashem mentioned only vegetation and fruits because these are mankind's major food source, while meat is a luxury eaten only much less often.</li> | <li><b>Speaking of the norm</b> – R. Saadia explains that Hashem mentioned only vegetation and fruits because these are mankind's major food source, while meat is a luxury eaten only much less often.</li> | ||
Line 25: | Line 23: | ||
<li><b>Obvious</b> – For Ralbag, the ability of man to eat meat was obvious and thus did not need to be stated.  It was his capability of eating vegetation which was surprising and needed to be mentioned.</li> | <li><b>Obvious</b> – For Ralbag, the ability of man to eat meat was obvious and thus did not need to be stated.  It was his capability of eating vegetation which was surprising and needed to be mentioned.</li> | ||
<li><b>Prevent unnecessary killing</b> – Shadal asserts that Hashem only alluded to the permission to eat meat rather than making it more explicit so as not to encourage man to spill blood.</li> | <li><b>Prevent unnecessary killing</b> – Shadal asserts that Hashem only alluded to the permission to eat meat rather than making it more explicit so as not to encourage man to spill blood.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Way of Torah</b> – Yefet the Karaite suggests that sometimes the Torah mentions something only at a later point, even though it was applicable earlier.  He compares the situation here to the lists of pure and impure animals which are provided only in Devarim 14 but not in Parashat Noach, even though already Noach in Bereshit 7:2 needed to differentiate between them.<fn>Other commentators (e.g. Reconstructed Rashbam Bereshit 7:2) explain that | + | <li><b>Way of Torah</b> – Yefet the Karaite suggests that sometimes the Torah mentions something only at a later point, even though it was applicable earlier.  He compares the situation here to the lists of pure and impure animals which are provided only in Devarim 14 but not in Parashat Noach, even though already Noach in Bereshit 7:2 needed to differentiate between them.<fn>Other commentators (e.g. Reconstructed Rashbam Bereshit 7:2) explain that the terms "הַטְּהוֹרָה" and "לֹא טְהֹרָה" (in Bereshit 7:2) are the language of the narrative voice, and Noach was merely given a list of each but not the laws of Kashrut.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Why speak of meat after the Flood, if already allowed?</b> Ralbag and Shadal assert that Hashem explicitly states the permission to eat meat after the Flood, not to introduce a new command, but rather to juxtapose it with the new prohibition not to spill man's blood or 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, and that additionally one is not allowed to act cruelly towards animals even for the purpose of eating.</point> | <point><b>Why speak of meat after the Flood, if already allowed?</b> Ralbag and Shadal assert that Hashem explicitly states the permission to eat meat after the Flood, not to introduce a new command, but rather to juxtapose it with the new prohibition not to spill man's blood or 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, and that additionally one is not allowed to act cruelly towards animals even for the purpose of eating.</point> | ||
<point><b>"כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל"</b> – The comparison to vegetation is difficult for this approach since there would seem to be no need for it, given that meat, too, had always been permitted.  N. Rabban<fn>See his article, "שאלת אכילת בשר בפרשת בראשית" in Tarbiz 21 (1950): 25-29.</fn> suggests that the words should not be viewed as an allusion back to Bereshit 1.  Rather, in the context of the new prohibition of shedding blood, Hashem reaffirms that there is no ethical problem in killing animals, just as there is none in eating vegetation.</point> | <point><b>"כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל"</b> – The comparison to vegetation is difficult for this approach since there would seem to be no need for it, given that meat, too, had always been permitted.  N. Rabban<fn>See his article, "שאלת אכילת בשר בפרשת בראשית" in Tarbiz 21 (1950): 25-29.</fn> suggests that the words should not be viewed as an allusion back to Bereshit 1.  Rather, in the context of the new prohibition of shedding blood, Hashem reaffirms that there is no ethical problem in killing animals, just as there is none in eating vegetation.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Proofs from nature</b> – Shadal attempts to prove from the physiology of humans that Hashem could never have intended for man to eat only vegetables.  Man's teeth and body were created with the capacity to eat and digest meat, not just greens.<fn>The existence of canine teeth that are made to tear meat suggest that man was meant to do so.  In addition, man's gut does not chew its cud, suggesting that he was not intended to be a pure herbivore.</fn>  If Hashem had not wanted man to be carnivorous, He would not have equipped his body with such capabilities.<fn>The 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.  For further critique of Shadal's arguments, see E | + | <point><b>Proofs from nature</b> – Shadal attempts to prove from the physiology of humans that Hashem could never have intended for man to eat only vegetables.  Man's teeth and body were created with the capacity to eat and digest meat, not just greens.<fn>The existence of canine teeth that are made to tear meat suggest that man was meant to do so.  In addition, man's gut does not chew its cud, suggesting that he was not intended to be a pure herbivore.</fn>  If Hashem had not wanted man to be carnivorous, He would not have equipped his body with such capabilities.<fn>The 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.  For further critique of Shadal's arguments, see R"E Samet's article, <a href="http://etzion.org.il/he/%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%94">"אדם הראשון לא הותר לו בשר לאכילה"</a> pp.4-5, n.14.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Philosophical motivations – Can Hashem change His mind?</b> Ralbag is bothered by the idea that Hashem's will might change.  He asserts that it is not possible that Hashem would originally prohibit meat from mankind and then change His mind to allow it after the Flood.<fn>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 all others.  This, thus, is not an example of Hashem altering a fundamental principle, but rather only a case of adding obligations to a specific group of people so as to elevate them.</fn></point> | <point><b>Philosophical motivations – Can Hashem change His mind?</b> Ralbag is bothered by the idea that Hashem's will might change.  He asserts that it is not possible that Hashem would originally prohibit meat from mankind and then change His mind to allow it after the Flood.<fn>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 all others.  This, thus, is not an example of Hashem altering a fundamental principle, but rather only a case of adding obligations to a specific group of people so as to elevate them.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Evaluation of eating meat</b> – This position does not view vegetarianism as an ideal and sees no problem with killing animals for food.</point> | <point><b>Evaluation of eating meat</b> – This position does not view vegetarianism as an ideal and sees no problem with killing animals for food.</point> | ||
Line 42: | Line 40: | ||
<point><b>Why the change?</b> 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 distinguishable from beasts or superior to them, he lost the privilege of killing them for his own purposes.<fn>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.</fn>  The Akeidat Yitzchak compares it to the punishment of the snake, whose food source is also demoted (to dirt) after the sin.<fn>The Akeidat Yitzchak asserts that each species is meant to partake from the food source underneath them in the hierarchy of living beings.  Thus humans are meant to eat animals, animals to eat plants, and plants to derive their sustenance from the ground, etc.</fn></point> | <point><b>Why the change?</b> 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 distinguishable from beasts or superior to them, he lost the privilege of killing them for his own purposes.<fn>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.</fn>  The Akeidat Yitzchak compares it to the punishment of the snake, whose food source is also demoted (to dirt) after the sin.<fn>The Akeidat Yitzchak asserts that each species is meant to partake from the food source underneath them in the hierarchy of living beings.  Thus humans are meant to eat animals, animals to eat plants, and plants to derive their sustenance from the ground, etc.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>After the Flood: "כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – Since the Flood atoned for Adam's sin and killed off all sinners, afterwards Hashem renewed the permission to eat meat.  However, He accompanied the statement with a reminder that spilling human blood is prohibited.</point> | <point><b>After the Flood: "כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – Since the Flood atoned for Adam's sin and killed off all sinners, afterwards Hashem renewed the permission to eat meat.  However, He accompanied the statement with a reminder that spilling human blood is prohibited.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Sacrifices before the Flood</b> – Rashba asserts that even when meat was forbidden as a food source, it was still permitted to sacrifice animals to Hashem.<fn | + | <point><b>Sacrifices before the Flood</b> – Rashba asserts that even when meat was forbidden as a food source, it was still permitted to sacrifice animals to Hashem.<fn>From Rashba's words, "חלק גבוה לא נאסר" it sounds as if he assumes that <i>only</i> Hashem's portion was allowed.  Though Hevel could sacrifice, he was not allowed to partake of the offering.  Rashba would read the verse, "וְהֶ֨בֶל הֵבִ֥יא גַם־ה֛וּא מִבְּכֹר֥וֹת צֹאנ֖וֹ <b>וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵהֶ֑ן</b>" to mean that Hevel took from the choicest and most fatty animals as a sacrifice, not that he sacrificed only the fat and ate the rest.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Parallel cases</b> – Rashba suggests that the stages here parallel the stages regarding the permission granted to eat meat for pleasure (בשר תאווה) in the desert.<fn>See <a href="Devarim12-20-28" data-aht="source">Devarim 12:20-28</a>. Cf. R. D"Z Hoffmann who also notes the parallel to the evolving laws of eating meat for pleasure, but does not associate these with sin and punishment.</fn>  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 their entry into Israel following their long atoning sojourn in the desert, the nation was forgiven and their permission to eat meat was renewed.</point> | <point><b>Parallel cases</b> – Rashba suggests that the stages here parallel the stages regarding the permission granted to eat meat for pleasure (בשר תאווה) in the desert.<fn>See <a href="Devarim12-20-28" data-aht="source">Devarim 12:20-28</a>. Cf. R. D"Z Hoffmann who also notes the parallel to the evolving laws of eating meat for pleasure, but does not associate these with sin and punishment.</fn>  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 their entry into Israel following their long atoning sojourn in the desert, the nation was forgiven and their permission to eat meat was renewed.</point> | ||
<point><b>Evaluation of eating meat</b> – This position views eating animals as the norm and a sign of man's superiority, while a diet lacking meat is considered a punishment.</point> | <point><b>Evaluation of eating meat</b> – This position views eating animals as the norm and a sign of man's superiority, while a diet lacking meat is considered a punishment.</point> | ||
Line 76: | Line 74: | ||
<opinion>Permission as a Concession | <opinion>Permission as a Concession | ||
<p>After the Flood, mankind was allowed to eat animals as a concession to human frailty.</p> | <p>After the Flood, mankind was allowed to eat animals as a concession to human frailty.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:3</a><a href="Midrash Aggadah (Buber)" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefibnKaspiDevarim22-6" data-aht="source">R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiDevarim22-6" data-aht="source">Devarim 22:6</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SeferHaIkarim3-15" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Albo</a><a href="SeferHaIkarim3-15" data-aht="source">Sefer Ha'Ikarim 3:15</a><a href="R. Yosef Albo" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Albo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBereshit9-1-4" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit9-1-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:1-4</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TzerorHaMorBereshit9-1" data-aht="source">Tzeror HaMor #1</a><a href="TzerorHaMorBereshit9-1" data-aht="source">Tzeror HaMor Bereshit 9:1</a><a href="R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href=" | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a><a href="MidrashAggadahBuberBereshit9-3" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:3</a><a href="Midrash Aggadah (Buber)" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Aggadah (Buber)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefibnKaspiDevarim22-6" data-aht="source">R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiDevarim22-6" data-aht="source">Devarim 22:6</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SeferHaIkarim3-15" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Albo</a><a href="SeferHaIkarim3-15" data-aht="source">Sefer Ha'Ikarim 3:15</a><a href="R. Yosef Albo" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Albo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBereshit9-1-4" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit9-1-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:1-4</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TzerorHaMorBereshit9-1" data-aht="source">Tzeror HaMor #1</a><a href="TzerorHaMorBereshit9-1" data-aht="source">Tzeror HaMor Bereshit 9:1</a><a href="R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SfornoBereshit6-13" data-aht="source">Sforno</a><a href="SfornoBereshit6-13" data-aht="source">Bereshit 6:13</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Sforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Sforno</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="הרבאיקוקטלליאורותפרקח" data-aht="source">R. A"Y Kook</a><a href="הרבאיקוקטלליאורותפרקח" data-aht="source">R. A"Y Kook</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="UCassutoBereshit" data-aht="source">U. Cassuto</a><a href="UCassutoBereshit" data-aht="source">Bereshit</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink></mekorot> |
<point><b>Before the Flood: "הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – According to these sources, the command to Adam only mentions vegetation and purposefully excluded animals.</point> | <point><b>Before the Flood: "הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – According to these sources, the command to Adam only mentions vegetation and purposefully excluded animals.</point> | ||
<point><b>After the Flood: "כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – It was first with Hashem's blessing to Noach after the Flood that meat was permitted.</point> | <point><b>After the Flood: "כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – It was first with Hashem's blessing to Noach after the Flood that meat was permitted.</point> | ||
Line 88: | Line 86: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Practical necessity</b> – Abarbanel maintains that the 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 regrew.</li> | <li><b>Practical necessity</b> – Abarbanel maintains that the 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 regrew.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Man weakened</b> – | + | <li><b>Man weakened</b> – Sforno and Tzeror HaMor assert that the people who lived after the Flood were weaker than Adam's generation.  Sforno maintains that the quality of the world's atmosphere and vegetation had deteriorated during the Flood, while Tzeror HaMor points to the shortened lifespans of humans.  To compensate for this frailty, Hashem allowed humans to eat meat.</li> |
<li><b>Teach humans their proper status</b> – 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.</li> | <li><b>Teach humans their proper status</b> – 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.</li> | ||
<li><b>Degraded morals</b> – 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 a violent nature and an inclination to kill, better that he channel it into killing animals than fellow humans.</li> | <li><b>Degraded morals</b> – 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 a violent nature and an inclination to kill, better that he channel it into killing animals than fellow humans.</li> | ||
Line 95: | Line 93: | ||
<point><b>Were animals always carnivorous?</b> According to this approach, predatory animals, too, were originally herbivores.</point> | <point><b>Were animals always carnivorous?</b> According to this approach, predatory animals, too, were originally herbivores.</point> | ||
<point><b>Messianic times – "וְאַרְיֵה כַּבָּקָר יֹאכַל תֶּבֶן"</b><ul> | <point><b>Messianic times – "וְאַרְיֵה כַּבָּקָר יֹאכַל תֶּבֶן"</b><ul> | ||
− | <li> | + | <li>Sforno, R. Kook, and Cassuto all suggest that, in the future, the world will revert back to the ideal of creation.  Cassuto points to Yeshayahu 11 to prove that in Messianic times even animals will become herbivores, and no longer eat one another.<fn>See R. Bachya who suggests the same though he understands the varying commands to Adam and Noach differently.</fn></li> |
<li>Abarbanel agrees but limits this to the Land of Israel.<fn>The verse in Yeshayahu specifies, "לֹא יָרֵעוּ וְלֹא יַשְׁחִיתוּ <b>בְּכׇל הַר קׇדְשִׁי</b>".</fn>  He posits that predatory animals were created as punitive tools of Hashem.  In the era of the Mashiach this will not be necessary as evil will have disappeared and the Mashiach himself will mete out justice.</li> | <li>Abarbanel agrees but limits this to the Land of Israel.<fn>The verse in Yeshayahu specifies, "לֹא יָרֵעוּ וְלֹא יַשְׁחִיתוּ <b>בְּכׇל הַר קׇדְשִׁי</b>".</fn>  He posits that predatory animals were created as punitive tools of Hashem.  In the era of the Mashiach this will not be necessary as evil will have disappeared and the Mashiach himself will mete out justice.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 110: | Line 108: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Why the change?</b><ul> | <point><b>Why the change?</b><ul> | ||
− | <li>According to R. Saadia's approach, it is surprising that permission to eat | + | <li>According to R. Saadia's approach, it is surprising that permission to eat meat would be granted immediately after the Flood, considering that at that point, too, there was a scarcity of animals.<fn>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 "וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים" by the story of Kayin and Hevel, where he suggests that Hevel waited to sacrifice of his sheep until 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.</fn></li> |
<li>Hoil Moshe maintains that by this point civilization had progressed enough that man had learned how to cook meat.</li> | <li>Hoil Moshe maintains that by this point civilization had progressed enough that man had learned how to cook meat.</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> |
Latest revision as of 13:42, 19 June 2024
Permission to Eat Meat
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators differ regarding both how to resolve the textual question of when man was given permission to eat meat, and in how to interpret the theological significance of that directive. On one end of the spectrum, Ralbag asserts that meat was always permitted and is the natural food choice of humans. On the other end, R. Yosef Albo claims that vegetarianism is the ideal, and that meat was only allowed after the Flood as a concession to human frailties and degraded morality. According to his position, in the future, the prohibition will be renewed.
Others suggest that although meat might not have always been permitted, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with killing for food. Thus, R. Saadia asserts that killing animals was prohibited at the beginning of time only for practical reasons, lest a species become extinct, while Radak asserts that eating meat was saved to be a reward for Noach. Rashba uniquely suggests that although Adam was allowed to eat meat, he lost the privilege when he sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, and it was restored only after his sin was atoned for though the Flood.
Never Prohibited
Eating meat was permitted from the beginning of time, and even Adam was always allowed to eat animals.
- Speaking of the norm – R. Saadia explains that Hashem mentioned only vegetation and fruits because these are mankind's major food source, while meat is a luxury eaten only 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 him to possess this capability.3
- Contrast to animals – Shadal asserts that the verse serves to contrast man, who is given seeds and fruit to eat, with animals who were given only 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 dominion over the animal kingdom.
- Minority discounted – According to R. Saadia, this case is similar to many others in which people focus on the majority and make no mention of a minority, even though they do not intend to exclude it.
- Obvious – For Ralbag, the ability of man to eat meat was obvious and thus did not need to be stated. It was his capability of eating vegetation which was surprising and needed to be mentioned.
- Prevent unnecessary killing – Shadal asserts that Hashem only alluded to the permission to eat meat rather than making it more explicit so as not to encourage man to spill blood.
- Way of Torah – Yefet the Karaite suggests that sometimes the Torah mentions something only at a later point, even though it was applicable earlier. He compares the situation here to the lists of pure and impure animals which are provided only in Devarim 14 but not in Parashat Noach, even though already Noach in Bereshit 7:2 needed to differentiate between them.5
Prohibited After Adam's Sin Until the Flood
Adam was initially allowed to eat meat, but he lost this privilege after his sin in the Garden of Eden. Permission was restored after the Flood atoned for all of mankind's sins.
First Permitted Only After the Flood
Man was not given permission to eat meat until after the Flood. Commentators differ in their understanding of the reason for this change:
Permission as a Reward
As a reward for caring for the animals in the ark, Noach and his descendants were granted permission to eat meat.
- 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.20
- Prevent suffering – Ran asserts that since animals can feel pain, man was not allowed to kill them. He says that this is the reason why, even later, when eating meat 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 nature (both are able to feel pain and desire to escape death).21
- 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 righteous conduct revealed that man was in fact superior to the animals, thus removing the original reason for the prohibition.22
- 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 He thus saved it as a reward.
- R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ramban suggest more simply that there is a hierarchy to living beings, and thus, as long as man is superior to animals, he has the right to slaughter them for consumption.
Permission as a Concession
After the Flood, mankind was allowed to eat animals as a concession to human frailty.
- No death yet – The Midrash Aggadah asserts that originally (before Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden) no one was supposed to die, so killing even for food was prohibited.26
- 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 maintains 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"Y Albo focus instead on the deleterious effects on man's moral fiber, asserting that the act of killing leads man to become cruel.27 R. Albo adds that the consumption of animals tarnishes the soul while the Tzeror HaMor speaks of its detrimental effect on the intellect.
- Practical necessity – Abarbanel maintains that the 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 regrew.
- Man weakened – Sforno and Tzeror HaMor assert that the people who lived after the Flood were weaker than Adam's generation. Sforno maintains that the quality of the world's atmosphere and vegetation had deteriorated during the Flood, while Tzeror HaMor points to the shortened lifespans of humans. To compensate for this frailty, Hashem allowed humans 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 a violent nature and an inclination to kill, better that he channel it into killing animals than fellow humans.
- Sforno, R. Kook, and Cassuto all suggest that, in the future, the world will revert back to the ideal of creation. Cassuto points to Yeshayahu 11 to prove that in Messianic times even animals will become herbivores, and no longer eat one another.29
- Abarbanel agrees but limits this to the Land of Israel.30 He posits that predatory animals were created as punitive tools of Hashem. In the era of the Mashiach this will not be necessary as evil will have disappeared and the Mashiach himself will mete out justice.
Original Prohibition was only a Practical Necessity
Adam was not prohibited from eating meat for any fundamental reason, but only due to the scarcity of animals at the time, or because he simply lacked knowledge of how to cook them.
- Scarcity of animals – R. Saadia posits that Hashem prohibited man from eating meat at the beginning of creation only due to the scarcity of animals.31 Had men been predators, there was a real possibility that many species might have become extinct.32
- 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.33
- According to R. Saadia's approach, it is surprising that permission to eat meat would be granted immediately after the Flood, considering that at that point, too, there was a scarcity of animals.34
- Hoil Moshe maintains that by this point civilization had progressed enough that man had learned how to cook meat.
- No – According to R. Saadia, animals, too, were originally prohibited from killing one another to ensure their survival.
- Yes – According to Hoil Moshe, from the beginning, animals were able to eat one another since they had no problem eating raw meat.35 As proof he points to Noach's sending of the raven outside the ark, which he assumes was for the purpose of finding carcasses to eat.