Комментарий к Берешит 1:30

ולכל חית הארץ, however, meat would not be permitted as food for man until Noach, when G’d specifically told him (Genesis 9,2) that meat henceforth would serve him as food just as up until then when G’d had allocated a vegetarian diet for man.

ולכל חית הארץ, but to all the beasts on earth including the birds and the domesticated animals I have allocated את כל ירק עשב, different kinds of herbs which are not generating seed.

"And to all animals (chayat) of the earth:" It includes beasts (behama) to be in the category of animals [here].

And to all of the animals of the land, etc.: The verse placed "the animals of the earth adjacent to that which was stated proximately, "it shall be for you to eat, etc.," as it appears that He gives the food of people to animals in equal measure. And it finishes by stating, "to eat" a second time next to "green herbs" because it appears that the eating of the animals is only from the herbs of the field. The intention is that the only [thing] that God created for the animals and birds to eat was the herbs of the field. And lest you say, if there are no green herbs [available], then the animals will die, the verse comes to teach, "for you and for all of the animals of the earth to eat, etc." It comes out that we are saying that man will live from the fruit of the earth and from the fruit of the tree, and the animals and the birds from the herbs and vegetables, and if there is no sustenance from those, behold, their sustenance will come from the food of people. And there is a hint to this in its stating (Deuteronomy 11:15), "and I will give herbs in your field for your animal," and through this, "and you will eat and be satiated;" but without this, you will lack satiation, since the animals and the birds will eat it, since their food will be your food.

ולכל ..אשר בו נפש חיה, seeing that any creature possessing a life-force called nefesh chayah is superior to even the most advanced form of vegetation. It is a rule within this universe that inferior beings have been created to be made use of by more advanced types of beings.

את כל ירק עשב לאכלה, ויהי כן. “every green herb for food; it was so.” I was puzzled why at this point the Torah had to add the line ויהי כן, “it was so, or it remained so.” Seeing that in verse 29 G’d had already given these directives including the word ויאמר, it is obvious that His directive would be carried out .Why does the Torah need to confirm this? The answer is that in this instance no potential became an actual after G’d uttered the directive. G’d had only made sure that the plants in question would be suitable for man when he wanted to eat them. My sainted father the רא'ש, explained to me that the words ויהי כן, in this instance, mean that G’d caused man not to develop a craving for meat which would cause him to indulge in killing animals for food. Nowadays, man is sometimes even imbued with the wish to kill other human beings. Were it not for a natural tendency not to kill even animals, we would all kill one another at the slightest provocation.

"Which has a living soul in it:" The breath of life. See above, verse 20.

ירק עשב, the word ירק has been placed in the construct mode to the word עשב because generally עשב is not consumed totally, only the green part, ירק, is generally considered as attractive enough to serve as food as long as it is fresh.

"All green herbs (yerek esev):" The green of the herb, which means to say green herbs (or grasses), as below (Genesis 3:24) "the glow of the sword" [means] a sword that is glowing; and (Esther 10:3) "accepted by many of his brothers" [means] to his many brothers. And behold, He gave to man all seed bearing herbs and all fruit trees; and to the other animals only the green herbs, which grow without planting. And the intention of this is because man has the intelligence to plant, and this is not the case with other animals. And it should not be derived from this that fruit of trees were forbidden to animals, like the opinion of Grotius; or that [here] Moshe did not speak with exactitude like the opinion of Clericus, when, in fact, the language is very exact. Since He did not give control to other [animals] over seeds and the fruit of trees, as He did not give them intelligence to sow and plant in all places that they would want, like He did for man. And behold, one should ask why He didn't mention the eating of meat - not with man and not with animals. And many already believed that the slaughter of animals was not permitted before the flood. And this is very unlikely; since in his nature and the build of his body and the shape of his teeth, man is fashioned for the eating of both [plants] and meat as one; and if it was not the will of the Creator that he should eat meat, He would not have formed his body [in this way]. And it appears to me that the permission to eat meat is included in the expression, "and have dominion over the fish of the sea, etc." Since [in the case of] Noach (Genesis 9:2-3): after He said, "and your awe and dread will be upon all the animals of the earth, etc... into your hands are they given," He explained and said "every crawling thing that lives on the earth, for you shall it be to eat." But to Adam, He did not need to explain further, while with Noach; because it was necessary to warn him about the spilling of man's blood, he preceded [that warning] by saying that He was not forbidding the slaughtering of animals. And one can add that the proclamation, "have dominion over the fish of the seas," is a clear proof that the killing of animals was permitted - since, how is it possible to rule over the fish without their coming out of the water and [so] dying? And one cannot say that the intention is to make fish oil and use their teeth after they die, since dominion and rulership is not the use of something [when it is] dead, but to rule over a living body, whether to subjugate it or to kill it. And that which they said [to answer this question] (Sanhedrin 59b), "one used a goat and a mullet to lead [his chariot]," that is not something common [and hence not a good answer]. And my student, Shalom Shimon Modina answered (today, the 23rd of Tammuz, 5625) that there is no absolute proof from here that Adam was permitted to eat meat. Since it is nonetheless possible that the intention of the proclamation, "have dominion over the fist of the sea, etc." is that man should have dominion and rulership over the animals by preventing them from ruling over him and hurting him, and that their killing be permitted to save ourselves - but not to eat them. And even without the fish having to serve man and do his work, behold, that is called dominion over them, since it is in his hand to overpower them that they should not hurt him. And I say that we never find the root, reish dalet hey (have dominion) with this usage, but [rather] to indicate subjugation, and the rulership to force others to [submit] to our will and our pleasure, as in (Leviticus 25:53) "he shall not subjugate him with hard work in front of your eyes," and (Leviticus 26:17) "and the ones that hate you will subjugate you," and so [too] (I Kings 5:4), "Since he ruled over the entire bank of the river," and (Psalms 72:8) "And may he dominate from the sea to the sea:" their sense is control [over] them to take taxes. And at this point, it appears to me that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want to say to Adam explicitly that he had permission to kill living souls, so that he not accustom his hands to spilling blood. Rather, He said to him that he would rule and have dominion over all animals; and the permission to kill them for the sake of eating them 'was not explicitly said, but implicitly said.' But after the flood - after the earth was filled with violence and all flesh had corrupted its way and the spillers of blood proliferated - then did God explain to Noach and his children that they have permission to kill and eat animals, but they do not have permission for 'a man to kill his brother,' though they should kill murderers.

ויהי כן, each of the species G’d had created ate the kind of plant allocated to it as food by the Creator.