Berashit answers

Beraishit 5722
Alef.

1.  The problem is that according to v. 28, man is entitled to “rule” over animal life, yet according to v. 29, this does not seem to include killing and eating animals.

בראשית פרק א

(כח) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:

(ל) וּלְכָל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ וּלְכָל עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה וַיְהִי כֵן:

2.  a. Sanhedrin 59a: Everything but animal flesh.

   b. RaShI: Green grasses.

c.  RaMBaN: Man is to eat specifically those things that contain seeds from which new   plants and trees can be grown.

d.  ShaDaL: not only grasses and fruits, but animal meat as well.

3.  RaShI: Since Noach is told that animal meat is not like “Yerek Eisev”, that means that until that point, all “Yerek Eisev” was designated as food for man.

   RaMBaN: The Tora text  explicitly mentions grasses that have seeds from which to grow new plants and fruits that have seeds from which to grow new trees, to the exclusion of plain grasses that do not have seeds.

4.  1) Noach was given permission to use animal meat because otherwise the human species would have died out since all plant life had been destroyed in the flood.

   2) Even once animal meat is permitted, it is only the flesh and not the “soul”=blood of the animal. Consequently, Shechita allows most of the blood that sustains the animal’s life to drain out.

5.  According to ShaDaL, the terminology “U’Redu” (rule) means that the animals can be eaten.  He claims that the fact that this is only explicitly stated with respect to Noach, but not Adam HaRishon, can be explained by noting that “U’Redu” is an explicit granting of permission to eat animals.  The weakness of this interpretation is that it seems that “Ikar Chaser Min HaSefer”, i.e., something as fundamental as permission to eat animal meat should be explicitly stated rather than subtly hinted at.  ShaDaL states that the fact that it was not explained explicitly to man was an Attempt on God’s Part to discourage/limit man’s blood-thirsty tendencies. However, once the world was filled with violence to the extent that God Decides to bring a Flood to destroy it, there is no fear that discussing killing animals will engender an increase in overall violence.

6.  It would seem that the text would be counter to the interpretation of ShaDaL, since if God has to explicitly tell man what he can eat, and eating meat is left out, then it is difficult to claim that it was permitted at this point. It would seem that RaMBaN reads the verses most closely when he draws a distinction between the fruits and vegetables that man is allowed to eat (those that bear seeds) in contradistinction to what animals are allowed to eat (only those that do not bear seeds).

Beit.

1.  Perhaps being a vegetarian corresponds to a higher spiritual plane that mankind demonstrated it was not on not only due to the sin in the Garden of Eden, but also throughout all of the generations leading up to the Flood. In the same manner that RaMBaM says in the Guide that man had to be gradually weaned from animal sacrifice, and Jonathan Sacks, based upon the 2008 book by Thaler and Sunstein entitled “Nudge”  (http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1726 ) claims that man had to be gradually weaned from the concept of slavery, so too perhaps man could not immediately live as a vegetarian, but had to gradually come around to the idea.

2.  The proof from Yechezkel is in order to demonstrate that no “good” goes unrewarded, even if the perpetrator of the good is generally a reprehensible individual. Therefore in exchange for Noach’s exceptional efforts regarding saving the species of animals so that the different lines could survive the Flood and begin again to inhabit the world, he as a representative of all human beings was given the right to consume animal flesh. But does it follow that an entire species should be given an eternal benefit over a collection of other speci for an action that a particular ancestor performed? Furthermore, for a particular area of the world to be included as part of an emperor’s empire  does not appear comparable to a significant change in how species overall interact with one another.

3.  It would seem that RaDaK is following RaMBaN’s lead, when the latter wrote, “because Noach saved some of them (the animal world) for the sake of preserving their species, permission was granted to people to Shecht and eat because their preservation was due to him.”

Gimel.

1.  RaShI is trying to reconcile verses 28 and 29:

כח) וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹקים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹקים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ:

(כט) וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה:

If man is to rule over the animal world, why can he not eat animals? RaShI therefore emphasizes that as far as eating is concerned, at this point in time, prior to the Flood, man and animals are equal in that they must both be vegetarians.

In the Alon HaDeracha, Nechama quotes a Machloket between the MaHaRaL and the Levush regarding whether the second “Lachem” in 1:29 causes RaShI to make his comment. The above would then follow the Levush’s train of thought.

2.  From RaShI’s formulation it is implied that man is restricted from killing animals in order to eat them—the Noachide prohibition of Ever Min HaChai (taking the limb from a living animal) is considered in Sanhedrin 56b to have originated already in the Garden of Eden, predating Noach himself by ten generations—but if an animal would die either from natural causes or due to the aggression of another animal, then meat would be permitted to man already prior to the Flood.

3.  In light of 2 above, perhaps the converse, i.e., if a person would die of natural causes (this assumes that prior to the sin in the Garden of Eden man was still mortal, the view of RaMBaM, as opposed to RaMBaN who posited that prior to the sin, man was immortal, precluding the possibility at this point in time that a human being would die) animals were still not permitted to consume a human carcass.

4.  The end of Beraishit  9:3, “KeYerek Eisev”,  confirms RaShI’s interpretation  that prior to the Flood, man essentially was restricted to being a herbivore, and it was only post-Flood that animal meat became as permitted as grasses.