An interesting lesson on Kashrut started me thinking about Vegetarianism in a new way (Elana, this one is really for you).
In Genesis 1:28 it says:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ־לֹהִים 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:
In English: G-d says, “Behold, I have given you every seed bearing herb, which is upon the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed bearing fruit; it will be yours for food.”
Man is allowed to eat all plants and vegetation but there is no mention here of man being allowed to eat animals.
In this week’s Parsha (Noah), 9:3, it says, כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל
This time, when Noah and his family come off the ark and begin to start life in a new world, G-d says that “Every moving thing that lives shall be yours to eat; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything.”
It is therefore only after the flood that man is permitted to eat animals. But does this mean that everyone was vegetarian before the flood? I don’t think so. Remember, G-d is destroying the world for a reason: “The Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time.” (Gen. 6:5). It appears that although man was not allowed to eat animals, he did anyway. After the flood, G-d sees that man was unable to be moral enough to not eat animals, therefore, G-d changes the qualifications—you can still be good and eat animals (Kosher laws make this a little more complicated by saying what animals you can and cannot eat and how you can kill them—Kashrut in some ways is selected vegetarianism)
I think this implies two ideas about the morality of vegetarianism. The first interpretation is Rav Kook’s. He says that before the flood, man was struggling with moral issues such as killing other human beings. Thus, the idea to lower the standards of morality expected of humanity would be to not overwhelm or confuse us which would allow us to maintain a sense of morality even if we are eating animals. If we were still prohibited from eating animals, then when we had the desire to eat meat, there would be no real distinction between eating animal and eating (or killing) man. If you break one law, it becomes easier to break the next law—especially when meat and flesh are so similar. What I glean from this analysis is that man is allowed to eat animals because we are not good enough to be vegetarians. Not everyone is moral enough to overcome the desire to eat meat. In Deut. 12:20, it says If “you desire to eat meat,” you have to kill it in a particular way… This seems to imply that if you cannot overcome the desire to eat meat then at least kill the animal in a moral way, again lowering moral expectations.
However, I don’t think this is the full picture (and I think many vegetarians would agree with me). I don’t think the connection between eating an animal and killing a person is the only type of morality to concentrate on. I think the problem arises with killing and eating animals too. If the idea of morality before the flood was based on the idea that killing any animal was bad, man before the flood was immoral not only because he killed his fellow human but because he killed animals as well. This means that by all ideas of original morality, killing animals is wrong. However, the Noah story shows that man is not good enough to not eat animals; we give into the inclination to eat meat.
But does making something legal make it right? I don’t think this is always the case. I am by no means a vegetarian but I also don’t pretend to have a moral argument for eating meat. I eat meat because I enjoy it—it is not moral to eat meat but it is not so bad to eat it every now and then if you need to. I think there is a fine line between need and desire and I think if you are conscious of this line when eating meat it is not so immoral. We’re not all good enough, rich enough, or healthy enough to not eat meat.
