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 13: | Line 13: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Speaking of the majority</b> – R. Saadia explains that Hashem mentioned only grasses and fruits because these are mankind's major food source while meat is a luxury eaten much less often.</li> | <li><b>Speaking of the majority</b> – R. Saadia explains that Hashem mentioned only grasses and fruits because these are mankind's major food source while meat is a luxury eaten much less often.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Description rather than command</b> – Ralbag asserts that these words are not a command to man at all but rather a further description of man's creation and nature.<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | + | <li><b>Description rather than command</b> – Ralbag<fn>See Philo similarly, "perhaps the present expression has no reference to eating food, but rather to the possession of the power to do so".</fn> asserts that these words are not a command to man at all but rather a further description of man's creation and nature.<fn>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.</fn> 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.<fn>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.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"And you shall rule over the fish"</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn>  Thus, it is clear that Hashem had no issue with man killing animals for utilitarian purposes.</point> | + | <point><b>"And you shall rule over the fish"</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn>  Thus, it is clear that Hashem had no issue with man killing animals for utilitarian purposes, and even commanded it.</point> |
<point><b>Why not mention meat explicitly?</b><ul> | <point><b>Why not mention meat explicitly?</b><ul> | ||
<li>According to R. Saadia, often people highlight the majority, and make no mention of a minority even though they do not mean to exclude it.</li> | <li>According to R. Saadia, often people highlight the majority, and make no mention of a minority even though they do not mean to exclude it.</li> | ||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
<point><b>Philosophical motivations</b> – 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.<fn>Ralbag notes that one might argue that when Hashem later prohibits the Israelites form 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.</fn></point> | <point><b>Philosophical motivations</b> – 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.<fn>Ralbag notes that one might argue that when Hashem later prohibits the Israelites form 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.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Evaluation of eating meat</b> – This position does not set up 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 set up vegetarianism as an ideal and sees no problem with killing animals for food.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Sacrifices before the flood</b></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Were animals always carnivorous?</b> According to this approach, animals too were always allowed to eat meat.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Prohibited After Adam's Sin Until the Flood | <category>Prohibited After Adam's Sin Until the Flood | ||
<p>Adam was initially allowed to eat meat but after sinning in the garden, he lost this privilege until the flood atoned for his sins.</p> | <p>Adam was initially allowed to eat meat but after sinning in the garden, he lost this privilege until the flood atoned for his sins.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="שותהרשבאהחדשותמכתבידשסז" data-aht="source">Rashba</a><a href="שותהרשבאהחדשותמכתבידשסז" data-aht="source">Responsa 367</a><a href="R. Shelomo b. Aderet (Rashba)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo b. Aderet</a></multilink>, Tzeror Hamor #2</mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="שותהרשבאהחדשותמכתבידשסז" data-aht="source">Rashba</a><a href="שותהרשבאהחדשותמכתבידשסז" data-aht="source">Responsa 367</a><a href="R. Shelomo b. Aderet (Rashba)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo b. Aderet</a></multilink>, Tzeror Hamor #2</mekorot> | ||
+ | <point><b>"הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כׇּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע ... לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – According to this position, this statement was first said to Adm after he sinned by eating of the Tree of Knowledge in the garden.  Originally he was permitted to eat meat but after the sin Hashem limited man's food to vegetation.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Why the change?</b> 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 them and no longer superior to them he lost the privilege of killing them to serve himself (altough he was till permitted to sacrifice of them for Hashem).<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></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה"</b> – Since the flood served to atone for Adam's sin, aftew  rads Hashem renewed permission to eat meat.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Permitted After the Flood | <category>Permitted After the Flood |
Version as of 02:31, 10 September 2015
Permission to Eat Meat
Exegetical Approaches
Never Prohibited
Meat was permitted from the beginning of time. Even Adam was never prohibited from eating 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 grasses 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 nature.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
"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, and even commanded it.
Why not mention meat explicitly?
- According to R. Saadia, often people highlight the majority, and make no mention of a minority even though they do not mean to exclude it.
- 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.
- 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.
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.6
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 approach, animals too were always allowed to eat meat.
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, 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. Originally he was permitted to eat meat but after the sin Hashem limited man's food to vegetation.
Why the change? 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 them and no longer superior to them he lost the privilege of killing them to serve himself (altough he was till permitted to sacrifice of them for Hashem).7
"כׇּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה" – Since the flood served to atone for Adam's sin, aftew rads Hashem renewed permission to eat meat.
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.
Permission was a concession
After the flood, mankind was allowed to eat animals as a concession to human frailties.
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.