Was Adam a Vegetarian?
Mara Judd

Interpretation           

Moses ben Maimon (popularly known as Maimonides) was ahead of his time in many ways; one of the most unique ways was his take on animal rights.  Had PETA been around in the 13th Century, they may have had an animal-loving Jewish philosopher among their ranks.

In the Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides is critical of the animal sacrifice in Temple times, claiming that it was God’s way of weaning the Jewish people off of pagan animal worship.  While historians may refute this point, it is clear that Maimonides had questions regarding humane treatment of animals.  In Guide for the Perplexed, part three, chapter 48, he maintains that animal cruelty is a mark of idolatry.  Maimonides does concede, though, that from a medical point of view, the consumption of meat is necessary for the human diet.  Thus, he advocates a moral approach to animal slaughter and ingestion.

Jewish texts are filled with respect for God’s creations.  In Psalm 145, line 9, it sings, “The Lord is good to all, and God’s mercy is upon all God’s works.”  The final word here is ma’asav, literally, “His created things.”  The word could have been peoples, children, or any of the words for humanity we usually see, but here it is open to everything, every living creature.

What actually constitutes God’s goodness to all God’s works? In Psalm 145, God is “gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in kindness.”  This kindness and compassion is translated as protection.  The guardian hand of God is God’s ultimate gift.  As it turns out, this is extended to animals too.

When God creates the sea animals and birds in Genesis 1:20-22, it is the first time that God not only sees that God’s creation is “good” but that God also blesses the creation.  God speaks to the animals directly (also a first) by saying, “Be fertile and increase…”  This commandment is repeated verbatim to the humans.  Also note another animal/human similarity: land animals (cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts) are created on the same day as humans, day six of creation.

After this, the definition of sustenance for humans and animals is clearly outlined, “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon all the earth, and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food.  And to all the animals on land, to all the birds of the sky, and to everything that creeps on earth, in which there is the breath of life, [I give] all the green plants for food” (Genesis 1:29-30).  There is no mention that humans may kill and consume the animals, it only says, “…fill the earth and master it; and rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the living things that creep on earth” (Genesis 1:28).  Here, human beings are explicitly told to consume plants (just like the animals).  They are also told explicitly to rule the living things on earth, yet without specifically saying to eat them.

Actually, humans aren’t given the ability to consume flesh until chapter nine of Genesis!  Only after the flood of Noah are humans told, “The fear and dread of you shall be upon all the beasts of the earth and upon all the birds of the sky – everything with which the earth is astir – up on all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hand.  Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I give you these” (Genesis 9:2-3).  This statement of the animal/human relationship is much harsher, more dominating and violent.  Why the sudden change in association?  Why did God’s mind change regarding human food consumption?

Rav Kook, the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the British Mandate for Palestine and well known scholar, believed thoroughly in vegetarianism because of this sudden change in God’s policy. He believed that “the permission to eat meat was only a temporary concession” and he felt that “a God who is merciful to His creatures would not institute an everlasting law permitting the killing of animals for food” (Schwartz, Richard H. Judaism and Vegetarianism. New York: Lantern Books, 2001).  Modern writer Richard Schwartz finds that God’s ideal was for humans not to eat meat, but as we know, we do not always live up to God’s ideals (Schwartz, Judaism and Vegetarianism).  When God concedes to letting humans consume flesh after the Flood, God admits people’s weakness and compromises with it.

So in the modern era, Jews may, for theological reasons, choose vegetarianism.  Yet, for those that grow up in modern culture, meat is still an acceptable human concession.  Thus, the laws of Kashrut become of living relevancy.  We’re supportive of meat consumption, yet at the same time we’re moral about it.  We thank God for the opportunity to eat our food by blessing it.  We protect God’s animal creations by humanely hunting and preparing meat.  We take to heart Maimonides’ idea that animals too feel pain.  We can’t necessarily be like Adam and the early humans.  We are the people after Noah’s time, living in an imperfect world where we have human needs and cravings.  Thus as Jews, we try to mollify our human desires with proper thanks and forethought, choosing the most moral middle ground.

Questions for consideration

1. Is it better to accept that we cannot “live up to God’s ideals,” and find a moral alternative, or is it better to pursue it, even if we fail?
   
   
2. What sense do you make of the fact that God did not originally allow animal consumption but it turns out the protein in meat is necessary for allowing the human body to work properly?