Pensamento Judaico sobre Gênesis 9:3

כָּל־רֶ֙מֶשׂ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוּא־חַ֔י לָכֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָ֑ה כְּיֶ֣רֶק עֵ֔שֶׂב נָתַ֥תִּי לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־כֹּֽל׃

Todo réptil que é vivo será para vós como alimento; como a verdura das plantas, Eu vos dei tudo.

Akeidat Yitzchak

Since the nourishment provided for the various species of the universe is commensurate with their respective needs, it is axiomatic that the most advanced species are provided with the most advanced form of nourishment available. Normally, the type of food provided for a species is on a level that is one degree lower in the order of life than the species to be fed by it. Since we have stipulated elsewhere that the order of creation proceeded from the simple towards the more sophisticated, it follows that the lowest form of life derives its food supply from primordial matter. This would be immediately below it in the order of creation. After all, the lowest form of existence is primordial matter. Next would be the four basic elements, all of which rank equal in the scheme of created matter. Therefore, air, fire, earth and water act respectively as nourishment for plant life, the latter being of a more sophisticated nature than the basic elements. If plants need rain or water to sustain them, this is in accordance with such natural order as we have described. On the other hand, development, growth of the inert form is possible only through the infusion of an amalgamation with any or all of the basic materials contained in primordial matter. When a creature of a certain level in the world of matter receives its nourishment, or part of it, from a category more than one rung lower than itself, this is a curse. When we are told that the serpent in addition to feeding on plants, also feeds on earth, a lower form of created matter, this is a curse. (Genesis 3,14). Also man,-as long as he had been restricted to a vegetarion diet- (Genesis 1,29) was not yet at the elevated level where his food supply was only one category lower in the scheme of things than he himself. Possibly, the verse (Genesis 1,28) "and have dominion over the fish in the sea, over the fowl in the air and over every living thing that creeps on the earth," was in fact permission to also feed on an animal diet. The fact that such an animal diet was withheld till after the deluge, could have been the result of the original sin. The gradual decline of animals into becoming carnivorous beasts, is merely a form of corruption paralleling the corruption of man during the period preceding the deluge. This is why Isaiah predicts in chapter eleven, that all these carnivorous beasts will undergo a change of nature in the post messianic era. Since the Jewish people have attained the stature of am segulah, "precious nation," their nourishment does not only include the category immediately below them in the world of matter, but even part of their own category. G-d describes this in Deut.7,16, when the Torah says "you will consume all the nations the Lord your G-d gives you, your eyes shall have no pity on them." This refers to our having been granted permission to ensure our continued existence and well being at the expense of gentile nations worshipping idols and practicing other perversions. When we find that the Talmud Pessachim 49, states that the ignorant is not permitted the consumption of meat, this may mean that any person who has not qualified to be a member of the human race "in good standing," is not allowed to use the immediately lower category of life to serve as the material that satiates his appetites. To make indiscriminate use of creatures only a single category less sophisticated than ourselves, we must first prove that we ourselves live up to our own destiny, are intelligent creatures, chay ha-medabber.. Both Bileam (Numbers 24,8), Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14,9) describe Israel as "consuming" its enemies. There are humans whose way of life places them sufficiently below us that they may serve as our life sustainers. Food, after all, is an aspect of life sustaining matter. On the other hand, food too far below our rank would drag us down to its level; therefore, insects etc. are forbidden. Since cannibalism is prohibited as despicable, the references above refer to our right to dispose of these nations as we see fit. A human being may fit into one of three categories. 1) He may be so ignorant that he has difficulty putting thoughts into words. 2) He may be capable of putting his thoughts into words, but his thoughts are so banal and mundane, that he only achieves basic purposes such as union with a mate, ("he shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh") 3) He may belong to the select group who use the power of speech to express lofty thoughts, whose ideas are capable of standing on their own without physical sustenance. Of this group it is said "if he will live, he will die, but if he will die, he will live." (Yalkut Shimoi Bereshit 14) Dilution of the spiritual with the physical is apt to impair the spiritual to the point of death, whereas refinement of the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical, will result in life eternal. People of that category require two kinds of nourishment, one for the physical part of their beings, the other for the spiritual part. Our rabbis refer to this as "two tables." The physical part can be nourished successfully by a vegetarian diet, meat being forbidden to it, since it derives from the same level of creature. In such a type of person, the spiritual part is not considered integral to the total personality. Their intellect, being of the world of the spirits, does not require physical sustenance just as none of the spirits require this. This is the reason such individuals as Chanina survived on as little as a kav (6 eggs' volume) of carobs from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. (Taanit 24) This indeed may have been G-d’s wish when He created original man in whom the spirit, intellect reigned supreme before the fall. The food par excellence for people of such stature would be bread, (compare Proverbs 17,1, "better dry bread than meat obtained in an environment of strife") Concerning the "second table," the substance required by the spiritual part of such men is the product of his good deeds. In the words of Isaiah 3,10, "hail the just man for he is well off; he shall eat the fruit of his works." The meaning is allegorical, just as in Psalms 128,2, "you who eat the fruit of your labours," namely the good deeds you have performed sustain you into the hereafter, into kingdom come. When the Lord provided Manna for the Jewish people in the desert, it had been hoped that everyone would qualify as belonging to the highest category of person outlined above. If that had been so, the physical part of the Manna would have sustained the reduced needs of their bodies. Since the quality of that food was such that it could be completely assimilated by their bodies, none of it having to be excreted, only a small' quantity would have been needed. The spiritual part of their personalities would have been sustained by the many lessons to be learned from the composition, the quantity, the manner of delivery, by the time at which the Manna was to be gathered etc. The fact that G-d did provide meat in answer to the request of the Jewish people, but in a manner much less gracious than the way in which the Manna was provided, leads one to believe that the supply of the quail was a one time occurrence. It was merely meant to demonstrate that it was indeed G-d who had taken the people of Israel out of Egypt, not Moses and Aaron, as the Israelites had been complaining. The very fact that the people are once more reported as having demanded meat, (Numbers 11,4) proves that meat had not been part of their diet all along. Further proof that meat was a exceptional provision, lies in the fact that it came unaccompanied by such ordinances as the manner in which it had to be slaughtered, specific quantities for each person, how long it could be preserved etc., all details that had been spelled out about the Manna. When the Torah talks about "bread," and uses Manna as proof that "man does not live by bread alone, but by all that issues from the mouth of the Lord," (Deut.8,3) bread is a synomym for nourishment, and the lesson is that nourishment of a physical kind is solely for our physical parts, (elevated man category three) Observance of the instructions (motza pee hashem ) accompanying such food are the nourishment for our spiritual part. It will be shown that this too was the nature of the food supplied to Adam in the garden of Eden.
Perguntar a um rabinoBookmarkShareCopy

Akeidat Yitzchak

The very idea of Israel's selection as G-d’s pilot project is based on the fact that it is the part of the human species which has preserved more of the original tzelem elokim, Divine image, than any other section of humanity. G-d has described the relative standing of the Jewish people among the nations, as similar to the standing of humans vis a vis the animal kingdom. In other words, the nations of the world are aware of our dominance and are afraid of us. This is so at least as long as Jews deserve such status due to their moral superiority. We are described as treating our Canaanite adversaries as if they were "our bread" to be consumed by us (Numbers 14,9). Prior to tackling Goliath, David explains to the startled Saul that his experiences with the lion and the bear, both of which he had slain, convinced him of his chance against the uncircumcised blasphemer (Samuel I Chapter 17). David rejected armour and sword, since his victory over the beasts had also not been due to external weapons. David's enquiry about the type of reward the slayer of Goliath would receive is based on the assumption that killing an uncircumcised blasphemer such as Goliath cannot in itself be much of a heroic deed, since the "laws of nature" almost guaranteed victory to any good Jew, and the risk involved was not of the kind which would call for a major reward. The reputation acquired by such deed should in itself suffice as reward. Obviously, David's companions did not understand his meaning, as seen from their response to David's enquiry. However, Saul's advisors sensed David's meaning when David said "let no adam have fear of him." The adam David referred to was the kind of a person who had preserved his tzelem elokim, Divine image. Such a person would not have reason to fear the Philistine. Baba Metzia 114 teaches, "Israel is referred to as adam; the nations of the world do not qualify for such appellation." Upon being challenged by Saul, David detailed past events in his life as proof for his confidence. He attributed his success to G-d, and was confident that the same G-d would grant him success against Goliath. "The Philistines will be no better than one of those beasts." To emphasize our point, the book of Samuel relates that David rejected the armor, to show that his superiority did not stem from such sources, but was in the nature of things. After the battle (Samuel I 17,55), Saul wanted to know, "Who is this lad?" a strange request indeed, since his family status etc. had been common knowledge. David had performed as a regular harpist at Saul's Court (Samuel I 16,19). At that time, Saul had begun to wonder about David's ultimate destiny. In view of the fact that his own son Jonathan had performed deeds of valor of a similar nature previously, we can understand the love and mutual attraction that existed between David and Jonathan. The two shared the distinction of being adam in the full sense of the word. This is what our sages call "a love which is not based on something tangible, something material" (Avot 5, 16). The love is for the basic qualities in the other person. When the Torah says "Love your fellow man like yourself," the "yourself" referred to is that same human quality (Leviticus 19,18).
Perguntar a um rabinoBookmarkShareCopy

Akeidat Yitzchak

In the directive telling man what kind of food to consume, man is allocated the two advanced forms of vegetation, whereas the more simple, i.e. grass, is reserved for the animals. We observe in this directive the ownership relationship being defined. Man, in order to survive, has ownership claims on plant life. The reason the consumption of meat was not permitted at this stage, will be explained in Parshat Noach. The expression "it was good," is not used with respect to the creation of man, since until his death, the issue remains in doubt. Depending on his lifestyle, his existence may turn out to have been worthwhile (good), or otherwise. We have read in Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Toldot, that "G'd does not associate His name with the living," meaning that while alive, one cannot be certain that a person will maintain his moral plateau, will remain a tzaddik. Rabbi Meir, on the other hand, says that "death" is good. What he means is that only after death is it possible to know whether someone's life has been "good." The Psalmist expresses it by saying (Psalms 116,15) "the death of the righteous is precious in the eyes of the Lord." We do not agree that the reasons advanced for omission of the "He saw that it was good" following the report of the creation of man are adequate. Since the Torah reports that man was indeed created betzalmo in the image of G'd, his creation was obviously good since one cannot ascribe any deed to G'd that is other than successful, ergo "good." Why else would G'd have invested so much effort in man's creation personally? On the contrary, since even the creation of the animals had been termed "good," the creation of man surely was no less?
Perguntar a um rabinoBookmarkShareCopy