Difference between revisions of "Permission to Eat Meat/2/en"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
<point><b>Why was meat originally prohibited?</b><ul> | <point><b>Why was meat originally prohibited?</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Saved for later</b> – According to Radak, there was no fundamental reason for the original prohibition.  Hashem simply wanted to save meat as a future reward for Noach.<fn>Radak does not explain why Hashem decided to save this food source as a reward rather than compensating Noach in some other fashion.</fn></li> | <li><b>Saved for later</b> – According to Radak, there was no fundamental reason for the original prohibition.  Hashem simply wanted to save meat as a future reward for Noach.<fn>Radak does not explain why Hashem decided to save this food source as a reward rather than compensating Noach in some other fashion.</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li>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.</li> | + | <li><b>Equal status</b> – 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.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Why the change?</b> | + | <point><b>Why the change?</b> While Radak views the permission to eat meat as simply compensation for Noach's labor and good deeds, R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ramban suggest 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.</point> |
<point><b>Evaluation of eating meat</b> – This position maintains that there is nothing wrong with eating meat.  In fact, according to Radak, it would seem that Hashem considers it, rather than vegetables, the more worthy 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, since man is superior to animals, he has the right to kill them.</point> | <point><b>Evaluation of eating meat</b> – This position maintains that there is nothing wrong with eating meat.  In fact, according to Radak, it would seem that Hashem considers it, rather than vegetables, the more worthy 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, since man is superior to animals, he has the right to kill them.</point> | ||
<point><b>Sacrifices before the flood</b></point> | <point><b>Sacrifices before the flood</b></point> | ||
Version as of 12:37, 12 September 2015
Permission to Eat Meat
Exegetical Approaches
Never Prohibited
Meat was permitted from the beginning of time and even Adam was always allowed to eat animals.
"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.
"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 ability 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
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:Rashba, 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 - "וְגָר זְאֵב עִם כֶּבֶשׂ" – 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.
"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה" – According to these sources, this statement limited man's intake to vegetation.15
"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה" – 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." As such, the verse is speaking about all animals and represents a new command, permitting what had before been prohibited.
"כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל" – 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.16
- 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.
Why the change? While Radak views the permission to eat meat as simply compensation for Noach's labor and good deeds, R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ramban suggest 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.
Evaluation of eating meat – This position maintains that there is nothing wrong with eating meat. In fact, according to Radak, it would seem that Hashem considers it, rather than vegetables, the more worthy 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, since man is superior to animals, he has the right to kill them.
Sacrifices before the flood
Were animals always carniverous
Permission was a concession
After the flood, mankind was allowed to eat animals as a concession to human frailties.
Sources:Midrash Aggadah (Buber), R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, R. Yosef Albo, Abarbanel, Seforno, R. A"Y Kook, U. 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?
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.
