Halakhah su Levitico 11:46

And it is necessary that you consider well that human beings’ food should have been only plants from the earth, such as grain produce and fruit, not animals. For animals have a soul of that gives them independent movement, which is similar in some of its activities to the soul of intellectual beings, and this is kinship which motivates us to keep away from what is harmful. Accordingly, a soul that can move itself ought not to be a food for the human soul. Therefore, Adam was originally commanded that his food and sustenance be grain produce and fruits, the point of what was written: “Behold I have given to you every grass and seed-producing plant…”⁷⁰Gen 1:29. But at the time when all flesh went bad, and all animals deserved annihilation and would not have been saved were it not for the merit of Noah, it was permitted to eat them [the meat of animals], just as the greens and grasses had been before. At that time the souls that could move themselves were permitted to wait upon the intellectual soul, who waited upon the Creator. And if so, this is not to demean the soul that can move itself, but rather a mark of respect, status, and merit, and accordingly our sages taught, it is forbidden for an am-ha-aretz to eat meat, as it is written, ‘This is the Torah of the beast and fowl.’⁷¹Lev. 11:46. All who engage in Torah are permitted to eat the meat of beasts and fowl, and all who do not engage in Torah are forbidden to eat beast and fowl. The explanation of this among the enlightened is – when we set aside a soul for a soul, this is nothing other than the soul that can move itself that we annihilate for the sake of intellectual soul. But because one is an am ha-aretz and has no intellectual soul, you have it that he is forbidden to eat meat, since [in him] we have nothing to set aside and annihilate the soul that can move itself, since he is someone who has no intellectual soul, and understand this.

(1) The Gemara, Pesaḥim 49b, declares that an ignoramus ought not to partake of meat: " 'This is the law of the animal … and the fowl' (Leviticus 11:46): whoever engages in [the study of] the Law is permitted to eat the flesh of animals and fowl, but whoever does not engage in [the study of] the Law may not eat the flesh of animals and fowl." This text should certainly not be construed as declaring that meat is permitted only to the scholar as a reward for his erudition or diligence.¹This text has also been understood homiletically as underscoring the lesson that man was created to study Torah and that, should he fail to do so, he remains in a spiritual state analogous to that of lower animals. Since such a person has not developed his unique spiritual potential as a human being, he should not regard himself as endowed with superiority vis-a-vis members of the animal kingdom. See R. Isaac Arama, Akeidat Yiẓḥak, Parshat Bashalaḥ, sha’ar 41, and R. Moses Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, Ḥoshen Mishpat, II, no. 47, sec. 1. Cf., Maharal of Prague, Netivot Olam, chap. 15. Shevet Mussar, chap. 36, adduces this text in support of his contention that only the pious are superior to animals and hence only the pious are entitled to partake of the flesh of animals. Maharsha indicates that this text simply reflects a concern for scrupulous observance of the minutiae of the dietary code. The ignoramus is not proficient in the myriad rules and regulations governing the eating of meat, including the differentiation between kosher and nonkosher species, the porging of forbidden fat and veins, the soaking and salting of meat, etc. Only the scholar who has mastered those rules and regulations can eat meat with a clear conscience. Indeed, an earlier authority, Rabbenu Nissim, citing R. Sherira Ga'on, explains that an ignoramus is advised to refrain from eating meat because he is ignorant of the proper method of performing ritual slaughter and of examining the internal organs. A similar interpretation is advanced by R. Moses Isserles, Teshuvot Rema, no. 65, who remarks that the ignoramus is not proficient in the laws of ritual slaughter. Maharsha notes that this stricture applies only to the eating of the flesh of land-animals but places no restriction upon the eating of fish, even though reference to fish is also made in the very same biblical verse. The reason for this distinction is that the dietary code pertaining to consumption of fish is relatively simple and can be mastered by everyone, while preparation of animal meat is governed by complex regulations requiring diligent study. Historically, there certainly have been individuals who, depending upon circumstances of time and place, did deny themselves meat, not because of the ethical implications of a carnivorous diet, but because of their concern for inadvertent transgression of provisions of the dietary code. For example, during the early part of the twentieth century, many pious immigrants to the United States declined to eat meat because of the lax standards of kashrut supervision then prevalent in this country. Such individuals adopted vegetarianism as a life-style, but did so because of concern for observance of the technicalities of religious law rather than because of moral considerations.

And even though the verse only mentions cattle and flocks, we have known that [wild] animals are included in [domesticated] beasts, since Scripture compares them, as it is written about [domesticated beasts] disqualified from [having been] consecrated (Deuteronomy 12:22), "But as you eat the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it" (Chullin 27b). And birds also require slaughter (Chullin 27b), since it is compared to a beast, as it is written (Leviticus 11:46), "This is the law of the beast and the bird." Yet the sages [further] made an exacting inference, and the tradition supports them, that since Scripture places the bird between the beast that requires slaughter and the fish which has no slaughter - as it is written, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - it is enough for you with one benchmark (siman, either the esophagus or the windpipe). And from where did they learn to say that there is no slaughter with fish? As it is written about them (Numbers 11:22), "if all of the fish of the sea were collected for them" - just with collection, whether they are collected alive or even dead. And so [too,] all species of locusts do not have slaughter (Keritot 21b), as the expression, collection, is written about them as well - as it is written (Isaiah 33:4), "the collection of the locusts." And also the verse (Leviticus 11:46) mentions them after the fish at the end of the Order of Bayom Hashmini, as it is stated, "This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters" - these are the fish - "and of any soul that swarms upon the earth" - these are the locusts. And also because they have scales on their bodies like fish.