Halakhah do Rodzaju 7:23

Albo does not explain why the generations after the flood drew the correct conclusion and were not prone again to commit the error of Cain. Rather than recognizing the inherent superiority of man that is reflected in the dispensation granted them to partake of the flesh of animals, they might have concluded that violence against man is similarly justified because men and animals are coequal. It was precisely this conclusion that Cain drew from God's acceptance of animal sacrifice. It may, however, be possible that, at that juncture of human history, the possibility of drawing such a conclusion was effectively obviated. Genesis 7:23 declares that during the period of the flood God destroyed not only man but also every living creature. The Gemara, Sanhedrin 108a, queries, "If man sinned, what was the sin of the animals? Rabbi Joshua the son of Korḥah answered the question with a parable: A man made a nuptial canopy for his son and prepared elaborate foods for the wedding feast. In the interim his son died. The father arose and took apart the nuptial canopy declaring, 'I did nothing other than on behalf of my son. Now that he has died for what purpose do I need the nuptial canopy?' Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'I did not create animals and beasts other than for man. Now that man has sinned for what purpose do I need animals and beasts?' " Those comments serve to indicate that the extermination of innocent animals in the course of the Deluge must be regarded as proof positive of the superiority of man over members of the animal kingdom. Animals could be destroyed by a righteous God only because the sole purpose of those creatures was to serve man. Hence, if man is to be destroyed, the continued existence of animal species is purposeless. Thus the basic principle, i.e., the superiority of man over members of the animal kingdom, was amply demonstrated by the destruction of animals during the course of the flood. No further demonstration of the relative status of man and beasts was necessary. Permission to eat the flesh of animals was then required only as a means of explicitly negating the residual notion that animals are somehow endowed with rights and that man's obligations vis-a-vis animals are rooted in such rights rather than in a concern for the possible moral degeneration of man himself.⁴See R. Ben-Zion Firrer, Panim Ḥadashot ba-Torah (Jerusalem, 5735), I, 45.