Likkutei Sichos Vol. 20 – Bereishis 2
1. After the Torah tells of the creation of the beasts of the earth and the creation of Adam and his wife on the sixth day of Creation, including G‑d's words to Adam and Chavah, "And He blessed them… 'Be fruitful and multiply… and rule over the fish of the sea…'"[1], there are two verses in the Torah[2] concerning the food of man and of the animals:
"And G‑d said, 'Behold, I have given you every seed-bearing herb… it shall be yours for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens… every green herb for food.'"
In his commentary, Rashi quotes the end of the first verse together with the beginning of the second — "it shall be yours for food, and to every beast of the earth" — and explains: "He made cattle and beasts equal to them with regard to food, and He did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and eat meat; rather, all of them together were to eat every green herb."
The simple understanding is that "He made cattle and beasts equal to them with regard to food" comes to teach that Adam and his wife were forbidden to eat meat. As the Gur Aryeh explains: "Just as cattle and beasts eat only herbs, so too man's food is herbs and greens and nothing else."
But (as the Levush asks) it seems difficult to explain it this way:
(a) How can one derive from "He made cattle and beasts equal to them" that man may not eat meat, when we plainly see that many "beasts" are predators that eat the flesh of animals, and so on?
[It is very forced to say that Rashi follows the view[3] that before the sin there were no predatory animals in the world (and only afterward, through the sin, did their nature change). Such a great novelty Rashi would have had to state somewhere in his commentary on the Torah, or at least hint at[4].]
The Re'em explains the "equating" (of man to the beasts, etc.) to mean that just as "a beast was not permitted to eat… man… so man was not permitted… to kill a creature to eat its flesh." But it is forced to say that this is Rashi's intent, for then "the main point is missing from the book": Rashi would have had to mention the prohibition on beasts "to eat… man."
(b) On the other hand (as the Gur Aryeh asks): why do we need the comparison ("He made… equal… with regard to food") to learn that Adam and his wife were forbidden to eat meat? We already know it from the plain sense of the verse. The verse says, "Behold, I have given you every herb… it shall be yours for food": G‑d permitted the eating of green herbs[5] [and in Rashi's words at the end of his commentary: "like the green herb, which I permitted[6] to the first man"]. That is, green herbs are permitted, but not anything else — meat[7].
(c) In any case, and this is the main point: the purpose of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is to explain the plain meaning of Scripture. What difficulty is there in the plain meaning of Scripture that Rashi comes to resolve with his explanation, "He made… equal to them…"?
2. There are also several points of precision in Rashi's wording:
(a) Why does Rashi use an unusual expression here, "and He did not permit…" — a narrative style — rather than writing in his usual style, "but meat is forbidden," or the like?
(b) Rashi adds and specifies that the prohibition on Adam and his wife was "to kill a creature and eat meat" (and not simply and generally, "and He did not permit Adam and his wife to eat meat"). This seems to imply that eating the meat of an animal that died by itself was permitted[8]. What in the plain meaning of Scripture compels this?
(c) Why does Rashi need to repeat at length, "rather, all of them together were to eat every green herb," after he has already spoken of the prohibition on eating meat — especially since the verse states explicitly that "green herb" is "for food" both for man and for the beasts of the earth? What does this lengthy wording add?
3. Rashi then continues: "But when the children of Noach came, He permitted them meat, as it says[9], 'Every moving thing that lives… like the green herb, which I permitted to the first man, I have given you everything.'"
Why Rashi needs to point out already in our parshah that the children of Noach were permitted to eat meat is understandable. As has been explained several times, Rashi does not, in his commentary, resolve a difficulty that will arise only when one studies a later verse (in the Written Torah), and certainly not a matter in the Oral Torah [moreover, since Rashi's commentary on the Torah follows the plain meaning of Scripture, there is no need for it to agree with the final halachic conclusion]. But when Rashi explains a verse for a five-year-old beginning Chumash, he must take into account reality as the five-year-old sees it.
Rashi must therefore point out at once that in later generations eating meat was permitted, because the explanation (that "He did not permit…") contradicts what the five-year-old sees: that an animal is slaughtered and its meat is eaten.
But this is not understood:
(a) To point out this detail it would be enough to state the law alone — "But when the children of Noach came, He permitted them meat, as below" (or the like). What difference does it make here to know the exact source of this law in the verse?
(b) And if Rashi does find it necessary (for whatever reason[10]) to cite the verse, he should have quoted (only) its beginning, "Every moving thing that lives shall be yours for food," which makes clear that G‑d permitted eating meat. Why does Rashi (1) leave out (the main words) "shall be yours for food" (only alluding to them with "etc."), and (2) on the other hand add at length, "like the green herb, which I permitted to the first man, I have given you everything"?
4. The explanation of all this:
With his commentary, Rashi means to resolve several questions in these verses:
(a) Why tell at all, in the account of the work of Creation, what people and animals may and can eat? This passage seems to speak (only) about Creation in general, not about the needs of the creatures[11].
The blessings "Be fruitful and multiply…" are part of the work of Creation: they explain how Creation continues and endures to this day — the creatures were created in a way that they would be fruitful and multiply.
It is also understandable why the command "and rule over the fish of the sea…" is included among the matters of the work of Creation, for it describes the manner in which man was created[12] — his distinction from all other creatures, as G‑d says, "Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea…" (and following this the verse relates, "And G‑d created man in His image… and G‑d said to them… and rule…").
But when it comes to the verses that say what man and the beasts of the earth should eat, it is not understood: what does this have to do with the work of Creation?
(b) Even if one could find a reason why the command to man is relevant here, it is still not understood why G‑d told Adam and his wife what the food of the beasts of the earth and the birds of the heavens would be.
[In addition: did the birds of the heavens, created on the fifth day, not eat until this statement?]
One cannot answer that this follows on from the command "and rule over the fish of the sea…" — that since G‑d appointed them as rulers over the animal kingdom, He therefore told them what the animal kingdom must eat — because that, seemingly, is not what "and rule" means.
5. To resolve these questions, Rashi quotes from the verse the words "it shall be yours for food, and to every beast of the earth," which join the two verses (through a connecting vav), and explains the meaning of the verse: "He made cattle and beasts equal to them with regard to food." The purpose of the end of the first verse joined to the second verse is not to state prohibitions, nor to tell what a person may eat and what animals must eat. The verse (only) means (one thing): to emphasize the equality (the common factor) between people and animals with regard to their eating — "with regard to food"[13].
The source of the prohibition of meat for Adam and his wife ("He did not permit…") is indeed (the implication of) the first verse: since the verse permits only green herbs, it follows automatically that meat is not permitted.
But the Torah immediately adds that herbs are also the food of "every beast of the earth and every bird of the heavens…", in order to emphasize the equality between man and beasts and cattle[14].
[Beasts do in fact eat (not only green herbs but) also meat. The comparison is one-directional, concerning man's food: his food (herbs) is the same as what beasts and cattle eat[15]. That is why Rashi elaborates and repeats the comparison once more: "rather, all of them together were to eat every green herb."]
6. Why is it relevant, in the account of man's creation, to bring out the comparison between his food and the food of the beasts of the earth, etc.? This is understood:
Earlier the verse told of man's superiority over all other creatures: he was created in the image of G‑d, and therefore he rules and holds sway over all other creatures — "and rule…"
Following this, the verse cautions that "He made cattle and beasts equal to them with regard to food": despite his superiority over the other creatures, he is a creature, whom G‑d created in such a way that in food — on which the existence of a living being depends — he should be equal to the beasts of the earth, etc.[16] This reminds man[17] that he belongs to the same category as "cattle and beasts"[18].
But it remains not understood: the verse nevertheless says "and rule…"? So Rashi continues, "and He did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and eat meat": with regard to killing a creature and eating its meat, the power and permission to rule over beasts and cattle was taken away from him[19].
That is why Rashi is precise in saying "He did not permit," rather than "they were forbidden" (or the like): the emphasis here is (not on the prohibition of eating meat, but) on the meaning (content) of "and rule," that it does not include permission "to kill a creature and eat meat."
This also explains Rashi's reasoning that the prohibition of meat applies only "to kill a creature and eat meat." Since the basis of the prohibition is to take away from man (with regard to food) the "rule" over the beasts of the earth, etc., it clearly applies specifically to a case of "killing a creature and eating meat" — a way of eating meat that shows that he is the master and ruler over the animals, to the point that he may kill them in order to eat their flesh. But with an animal that "died by itself," this reason for forbidding the eating of meat does not apply.
7. This also explains the lengthy wording at the end of Rashi's commentary:
When Rashi points out that meat was permitted to the children of Noach, a difficulty arises: the prohibition "to kill a creature and eat meat" came to caution man not to forget that he is no more than a creature, as explained above. Do the children of Noach not need this caution?!
Therefore Rashi (elaborates and) quotes the verse in which the permission is stated, and in doing so Rashi (a) quotes the end of the verse, "like the green herb…," and (b) adds and explains, in the words of the verse, "(like the green herb) which I permitted to the first man."
With this Rashi indicates that the permission of meat to the children of Noach is not because the limitation of "and rule" (with regard to food) does not concern them[20]. Rather, it is a permission[21] for the same reason as the reason for which G‑d permitted "the green herb, which I permitted to the first man" — so that he may live and be healthy.
That is why Rashi leaves out the words "shall be yours for food": what matters here is not the permission to eat meat, but the reason for the permission — that it is "like the green herb, which I permitted to the first man…"
8. The lesson from this in the service of G‑d:
What was said above — that together with "and rule," a person must know and sense, must feel, that he is no more than a creature, etc. — is not only to guard against pride and undesirable things that can result from misunderstanding "and rule." Rather (and this too is essential), "and rule" itself depends on it:
When a person thinks that "and rule" means that he is the ruler, by his own strength and the might of his hand, then he cannot rule, because he is equal — a creature like all creatures. Only when he remembers the truth — that he is equal to all creatures and his power to rule comes only from G‑d — only then can he be a true ruler.
It is not his own rule; rather, "the L‑rd your G‑d, He gives you the strength to make wealth"[22]. Accordingly, the true rule and dominion is G‑d's — the Creator of man, who guides him.
As Rashi explains on "and let them rule over the fish of the sea…"[23]: "This word has the sense of ruling and of descending. If he is worthy, he rules…; if he is not worthy, he becomes lower than them, and the beast rules over him." The inner meaning of this is:
"Worthy" (zachah) is related to zikuch, refinement. When a person refines himself and is rid of the pride of self-importance, and goes forth with G‑d's strength, then he "rules over them." But when he is "not worthy" — he has not refined himself enough, he feels his own self and existence, he feels that his ruling comes from his own strength — then "he becomes lower than them": not only is he equal to all creatures, but more than that, he stands lower than they do.
It may be said that this is also the (inner) reason why G‑d, following the command "and rule…," said that "He made cattle and beasts equal to them with regard to food": so that through this, man would come to understand the proper way of "and rule," as explained above.
9. From this there is a lesson in our time as well:
Chazal said, "You are called adam"[24] — the (main) title "adam" (man) applies to the Jewish people[25].
And G‑d says to the Jewish people, "and rule…," as it is written, "Strangers shall stand and tend your flocks"[26] — the Jewish people will rule with regard to labor and so on. Even in the time of exile, when the nations are kings and princes, it is as the verse says[27], "Kings shall be your nurturers and their princesses your nursemaids."
Here lies the lesson: if a person relies on "my strength and the might of my hand" — even if he attributes it to his being "adam, 'I will be like the Most High'"[28], a person of great virtues, and these are his virtues, his strength and the might of his hand — then he is "not worthy," and "the beast rules over him." Not only do the nations not treat him with respect and so on (as befits one who rules over them), but on the contrary, he "falls" before them even in his own feelings, and before non-Jewish ways in general.
Only when he is "worthy" — when he refines himself and knows that "the L‑rd your G‑d, He gives you the strength to make wealth," and therefore does not go by his own "wisdom and understanding," but, by contrast, by G‑d's wisdom, the Torah (the Shulchan Aruch), conducting himself according to G‑d's instructions, going with the strength of the One who sent him — then he rules. Then one sees openly "Kings shall be your nurturers…" even in the time of exile, until we come to "Strangers shall stand and tend your flocks," with the coming of Moshiach.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, 5742)