English translation — בראשית ב

A.

After the Torah tells about the creation of the beasts of the earth and the creation of Adam and his wife on the sixth day of Maaseh Bereishis,

including the speech of the Most High to Adam and Chavah¹

"And He blessed etc. be fruitful and multiply etc. and have dominion over the fish of the sea etc." — there stand in the Torah two verses²

in connection with the food of Adam and the animals etc.:

"And God said, Behold I have given you every seed-bearing herb etc. to you it shall be for food.

And to every beast of the earth and every bird of the heavens etc. every green herb for food."

Rashi quotes in his commentary the conclusion of the first verse together with the beginning of the second — "to you it shall be for food and to every beast of the earth" — and explains: "He equated for them beasts and animals for food,

and He did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and eat meat,

but every green herb they shall eat together, all of them."

Simply, one learns,

that that which "He equated for them beasts and animals for food" comes to teach that Adam and his wife were forbidden in eating meat.

As the Gaon of Vilna explains: "Just as beasts and animals eat only grass, so too man, his eating is grass and vegetables and nothing else."

It is however

(as the Levush asks)

at first glance,

difficult to explain thus:

a)

How can one from "He equated them with beasts and animals" derive that man may not eat any meat,

when one sees

In actuality that so many of the "animals" are predatory animals that eat the flesh of animals etc.?

that Rashi holds like the approach<sup>3</sup>

that before the sin there were no predatory animals in the world

(but <b>afterwards </b>through the sin their nature <b>changed </b>)

— because such a great wonder Rashi would have had to say somewhere in his commentary on the Torah,

or at least hint at it<sup>4</sup>].

The Ra”am learns the plain meaning in “the comparison”

(from man to animals etc.),

that just as “it was not permitted to animals to eat ..

the <b>man </b>..

so it was not permitted to man ..

to kill a creature to eat its flesh”.

It is however forced to learn that this is the intention of Rashi,

because then “the main point is missing from the book” — Rashi would have needed to mention the prohibition of animals “to eat ..

the <b>man</b>".

b)

And on the other hand

(as the question of the G”a)

: why does one need to come to the analogy

(“the comparison etc. to food”)

in order to learn that man and his wife are forbidden in eating meat — we know this from the implication of the <b>plain </b>meaning of the verse: the verse says “behold I have given to you every herb etc. to you it shall be for food”,

the Almighty <b>permitted </b>the eating of herb vegetation<sup>5</sup>

to Adam the first"],

d.

e.

That "herb of the field" is "I permitted,"

but not something else — meat<sup>7</sup>?

c)

In any case — and the main point: the subject of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is to explain the <b>simple meaning </b>of the verse — what is difficult in the <b>simple meaning </b>of the verse that Rashi comes to answer with his commentary "He equated for them beasts and animals for food etc."?

2.

Also there are several precise points in the language of Rashi:

a)

Why does Rashi use here an unusual language: "ולא הרשה כו'" — a narrative style — and does not write in his usual style "אבל בשר אסור" and the like.

b)

Rashi adds and specifies that the prohibition on Adam and his wife is — "to kill a creature and eat flesh"

(and not briefly and generally: and He did not permit Adam and his wife to eat flesh),

from which it is implied,

at first glance,

that "eating flesh" from a carcass is permitted⁸

— what is the compulsion for this in the plain meaning of the verse?

c)

Why does Rashi need to over-

Chazal <b>and at length </b>— "But every green herb <b>they shall eat together, all of them</b>"?

After Rashi had already spoken earlier about the prohibition of eating meat,

And especially since in the verse it explicitly states that "green herb" is "for food" both for man and for the beast of the earth — what adds to the aforementioned length?

3.

Further, Rashi continues: "And when the sons of Noah came, He permitted them meat,

as it is stated<sup>9</sup>

Every creeping thing that lives etc. like the green herb that I permitted to the first man, I have given you everything."

The reason why Rashi needs to <b>immediately in our parshah</b> safeguard that the sons of Noah were permitted to eat meat — is understood: as discussed several times,

that although Rashi does not answer in his commentary a difficulty that will arise when learning a <b>later</b> verse

(in the Written Torah),

and certainly not a matter in the Oral Torah

there is no necessity that this must be in accordance with the conclusion of the matter for halachah]

— but when Rashi interprets the verse for a five-year-old studying Scripture,

he must reckon with the <b>reality</b> as it is seen by the five-year-old studying Scripture.

Therefore Rashi must <b>immediately</b> safeguard,

that in the later generations they permitted eating meat; for the interpretation

(that "He did not permit etc.")

is in contradiction to the <b>reality</b> that the five-year-old sees,

that they slaughter an animal etc. and they eat its meat.

It is however not understood:

a)

In order to preserve the detail,

is

Enough to say only the law— "וכשבאו בני נח התיר להם בשר כדלקמן"

(or similar)

; what is the practical difference to know here the exact source of the law in the verse?

b)

And if Rashi finds it necessary

(for whatever reason¹⁰)

to bring down the verse,

he should have copied

(only)

the beginning of the verse: "כל רמש אשר הוא חי לכם יהי׳ לאכלה",

from which it is clear that the Almighty permitted eating meat— why is Rashi

(a)

omitting

(the main point)

the words "לכם יהי׳ לאכלה"

(he only hints at them with a "וגו'"),

and

(b)

on the other hand does he add the lengthy phrase "כירק עשב — שהתרתי לאדם הראשון — נתתי לכם את כל".

4.

The explanation of all this:

With his commentary, Rashi intends to answer several questions in the verses:

a)

What place does it have at all to announce in the story of <b>Maaseh Bereishis</b>,

<b>What </b>people and animals may and can <b>eat</b>?

Seemingly it speaks here

(only)

about the general matter of <b>creation</b>,

and not about the needs of the creatures¹¹

The blessings "Be fruitful and multiply etc." are a part of <b>Maaseh </b>Bereishis — they explain how the creation has a continuation and existence

Until this day: they were created in a manner that they should be fruitful and multiply;

Also it is understood why the command "and have dominion over the fish of the sea etc." is included in the matters of <b>Maaseh</b> Bereishit,

because this gives a description of the manner of the creation of man¹²

— his distinctiveness from all created beings,

as it says "Let us make man <b>in our image after our likeness</b> and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea etc."

(which following this the verse relates: "And God created the man in His image etc. and He said to them etc. and have dominion etc.")

But when it comes to the verses that say what the man and the beasts of the earth should eat — it is not understood: what connection does it have to the act of Creation?

b)

Even if one were to find a reason why the command to Adam is relevant here,

it still remains not understood: why did the Almighty command Adam and his wife what will be the food of the beasts of the earth and the birds of the heavens?

that were created on the fifth day,

not eat until the aforementioned announcement?]

And one cannot answer,

that this comes in continuation of the command "And have dominion over the fish of the sea etc.": since the Almighty appointed them as rulers over the animal kingdom,

He therefore told them what the animal kingdom needs to eat — because,

at first glance,

this is not the content of "and have dominion".

5.

To answer these questions,

Rashi quotes from the verse the words "for you it shall be for food and for all the beasts of the earth",

which are <b>connecting</b> both

verses

(through a connecting vav),

and explains the meaning of the verse — "He equated for them beasts and animals for food": the intention of the conclusion of the first verse in connection with the second verse is not to state prohibitions,

not to let know what a person may eat and what animals need to eat; the verse is

(only)

to

(one thing)

emphasizing the <b>equality</b>

(the common aspect)

of humans and animals regarding their eating — for food¹³.

— the source of the prohibition of meat to man and his wife

("He did not permit etc.")

is indeed from

(the implication of)

<b>first</b> verse: from that which the verse permits only herbage it is proven by inference,

that meat is not permitted;

The Torah, however, immediately adds,

that herbage is also the food of "every beast of the earth and every fowl of the heavens etc.",

in order to emphasize the <b>equality</b> between man and animals and cattle¹⁴.

(not only the herb of the field,

but)

also meat — the comparison is from one side,

regarding the food of man,

that &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;food

(herb)

is the same as what beasts and cattle eat&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

; and therefore Rashi elaborates and repeats again the comparison — "but every &lt;b&gt;herb of the field &lt;/b&gt;they shall eat &lt;b&gt;together all of them&lt;/b&gt;").

6.

What is relevant in the account of &lt;b&gt;the creation &lt;/b&gt;of man to bring out the comparison of his food to the food of the beast of the earth etc.?

— It is understood:

Earlier the verse tells the superiority of man over all other creations — he was created in the image of God,

and consequently he rules and dominates over all other creations — "and have dominion etc."

Then following this the verse cautions,

that "&lt;b&gt;He made him equal &lt;/b&gt;to them, beasts and animals, for food": not looking at his superiority over the rest of the creations, he is a &lt;b&gt;creation&lt;/b&gt;,

whom the Most High created in such a way that in food,

upon which depends the existence of a living being,

he should be &lt;b&gt;equal &lt;/b&gt;to the beast of the earth etc.&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

— which reminds the man&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

that he is in this &lt;b&gt;same &lt;/b&gt;category as "beasts and animals"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.

It remains, however, not understood — the verse indeed says "and rule over them etc."?

Rashi continues "and He did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and eat meat": regarding killing a creature and eating its flesh, the power and permission to rule over animals and cattle was taken from them.¹⁹

And therefore Rashi is precise "He did not permit" — and does not say "they were forbidden"

(and the like)

— because the emphasis here is

(<b>not</b> on the <b>prohibition</b> of eating meat,

but)

on the explanation

(content)

of "ve-ridu",

that this does not include permission "to kill a creature and eat meat".

And based on this, the reasoning of Rashi is also understood,

that the prohibition of meat is only "to kill a creature and eat meat": since the foundation of this prohibition is to deny from the man

(regarding <b>for food</b>)

the matter of "ve-ridu" over the beasts of the field etc.,

it is understood,

that this applies specifically to a case of "to kill a creature and eat meat" — which such a manner of eating meat shows that he is the ruler and dominator over the animals etc. to the extent that he may kill them in order to eat from their flesh; but in the case of "metah me-aleha" this reason is not present to prohibit eating meat.

7.

According to this, the lengthy language of Rashi at the end of his commentary is also understood:

When Rashi warns how for the children of Noah meat became permitted,

it becomes difficult: the prohibition "to kill a creature and eat meat" came to protect the man,

that he should not forget that he is no more than a created being,

as above; then do the children of Noah not need this protection?

Therefore Rashi

(elaborates and)

quotes the verse where the permission is stated,

and thereby Rashi:

(a)

quotes the <b>end</b> of the verse "like the green of the grass etc.",

(b)

adds and explains in the language of the verse "

(like the green of the grass)

<b>that I permitted to Adam the first</b>" —

With this Rashi indicates,

that that which meat was permitted to the children of Noah,

is not because by them the re-

Boundary of "ורדו"

(Regarding food)²⁰

But it is a <b>permission</b>²¹,

From the same reason — similar to the reason that the Most High permitted "ירק עשב — that I permitted to Adam the first",

So that he should live and be healthy.

And therefore Rashi omits the words "לכם יהי׳ לאכלה" — because here the permission of eating meat does not apply,

But the <b>reason</b> of the permission,

That this is "like ירק עשב that I permitted to Adam the first etc."

8.

The lesson from this in the service of G-d:

the above,

that the man must together with the "ve'radu" know and feel,

feel that he is no more than a created being etc.,

is not only to protect from pride and undesirable matters that can arise from not correctly understanding the "ve'radu",

but

(and this is also the main point)

— on this depends the "ve'radu":

When a person thinks,

that "vardu" means that &lt;b&gt;he&lt;/b&gt; is the ruler,

by his power and the might of his hand,

then he cannot be a ruler,

because he is &lt;b&gt;equal&lt;/b&gt;,

a creature like all creatures; specifically when he remembers the truth,

that he is equal to all creatures,

and his power to rule comes only from Above,

specifically then can he be a true ruler,

It is not &lt;b&gt;his&lt;/b&gt; dominion,

but "Hashem your G-d is He who gives you strength to make wealth"&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

and consequently —

is the true dominion and rulership of the Supreme One,

the Creator of man and his Leader.

And as the commentary of Rashi on "and they shall rule over the fish of the sea etc."

— "there is in this expression language of dominion and language of descent,

merits, he rules etc., does not merit, he becomes low before them and the animal rules over him",

that the inner explanation of this is:

"Zachah" — from the language of refinement,

refined.

When a person refines himself,

he is stripped of pride of selfhood,

but he goes with his power from the Above — is "rodeh bahem"; but when "lo zachah",

he has not sufficiently refined himself,

he feels his self and existence,

he feels that that which he rules is from his power — then is "na'aseh <b>yarod </b>bifneihem",

not only that he is equal to all creations but more — he stands lower than them.

And it can be said that this is also the reason

(the inner)

why the Above, in continuation to the command "urdu etc." said that "hishvah lahem behemot vechayot lema'achal" — so that through this should come into understanding of the manner of "urdu",

as above.

9.

From this is the lesson also in our time:

Chazal said "You are called Adam"²⁴,

that the

(main)

title Adam is upon Jews²⁵.

And the Almighty says to Jews "and rule over them, etc.",

as it is written "and strangers shall stand

and feed your flocks"²⁶,

that Jews will rule regarding work etc.; until that also in the time of exile,

when the nations are kings and ministers — it is,

as it is said²⁷

"and kings shall be your nursemaids and their princesses your nurses".

So in this is the lesson: if a person will rely on "my power and the strength of my hand",

even if he will attribute it to that he is "man — earth to the upper one"²⁸

— <b>possessor</b> of great virtues,

that is <b>his</b> virtues,

his power and the strength of his hand — then "he did not merit" and "the animal rules over him": not only that the nations do not relate to him with honor etc.

(as for one who is very dominant and ruling),

rather the opposite — until that also in the feeling of <b>himself</b> "he falls down" before them,

and before gentileness in general.

Specifically when "he merited",

he purifies himself,

he knows that the Lord your God is He who gives you power to make wealth,

consequently he does not go with his "wisdom and understanding" etc. — rather,

to differentiate,

in his wisdom of the One above,

Torah

(Shulchan Aruch),

he conducts himself according to the instructions of the One above — he goes with the power of the sender,

then he is dominant,

and one sees openly the "and kings shall be your nursemaids etc.",

even during the time of exile,

until one comes to "and strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks",

with the coming of Mashiach our righteous one.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis 5742)