The Intellectual Duty of the Great Sages
In our times, the duty of explanation falls upon the Great Sages of Israel to explain the principles of faith. They must prove how great the benefit is for our entire nation when we all return to observing the path of the Torah and its commandments. Furthermore, they must demonstrate clearly that within the intellectual foundations of the Torah—those dependent on ideas—there is nothing that acts as a barrier to the expansion of knowledge and the development of wisdom within our people. They must show how the fulfillment of the Torah does not burden life in any way, but rather sweetens and refines it.
Therefore, we must present many details and general principles of the Torah, in both thought and practice, showing how they broaden a righteous life and bring happiness to our nation. For instance, it is necessary to know the precious value of the Torah and commandments; since the virtue of "simple faith" (temimut) has already been lost to a large portion of our children, we must enter the path of intellect and research, for only through this will we succeed.
The Need for Inquiry in a Modern Age
It is true that for many years, a controversy existed among the Sages of Israel regarding this. On one side, many pointed out that the duty of Torah requires intellectual knowledge. On the other side, many argued that the path of inquiry is dangerous for the masses, who might not reach the ultimate conclusion and would remain confused, with some even becoming lawless and casting off all restraints.
However, this concern is no longer relevant in our generation, where lawlessness is already increasing, and heretical books are renewed every day, treading Torah and faith underfoot. If we do not "stand in the breach" to protect the people of God and answer our scoffers with the power of intellect and the investigation of truth, many will be corrupted. Therefore, this is not a time to be silent, but a time to speak.
The Aim of the Torah: Universal Harmony
Human culture, at its highest and most sublime peak, is undoubtedly the aspiration of the Torah. The Prophets spoke explicitly of what we hope for: eternal peace and true freedom—which will eventually extend beyond the boundaries of humanity to encompass all living creatures.
However, since these aspirations are hidden within the Torah, they were arranged with wondrous Divine wisdom. While the observance and study of the Torah will eventually bring these lofty goals to fruition, they require a "filter" or restraint so they do not break out before the time is ripe—when humanity is not yet prepared for them. It is a major principle that any idea far loftier than the current human sphere, if publicized prematurely, will not only go unheard but will cause practical harm and meet such opposition that its ultimate establishment in the world will be delayed for generations.
The Case of Vegetarianism
Let us take, for example, the moral aspiration not to kill any animal for human needs. It is impossible to deny the intuitive feeling in every heart that it is a general moral defect in the human species not to fulfill the noble sentiment of not taking the life of any living thing for one's own needs. It is inconceivable that the "Good God" would decree a permanent law in a "very good" creation that the human race cannot exist without violating its moral sense through bloodshed, even the blood of animals.
There is no doubt for any thinking person that when the Torah told man, "And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth," it did not intend the dominion of a tyrannical ruler who maltreats his subjects for personal gain. God forbid that such an ugly law of slavery should be the way of the Good God, who said, "The world shall be built on kindness," and whose ways we see are full of justice and mercy.
Indeed, the Torah itself clarifies this: Adam (the first man) was not permitted to eat meat. If so, what is the "dominion" over animals if not a dominion for the benefit of the lower creatures—to refine them, improve their state, and engage in their material and spiritual development?
The Temporary Permission of Meat
While meat was permitted after the Generation of the Flood, it was certainly not permitted to remain so forever. How could a moral state (vegetarianism) pass away and be nullified after it had already been practiced? We follow the rule: "We rise in holiness and do not descend." Rather, Divine wisdom saw that man had fallen from his moral level. Until the time comes when he awakens and reaches true moral recognition, he should not be burdened with what is beyond his capacity. If the killing of animals were prohibited now, while the general moral state is unrefined, it would cause many stumbling blocks. The animalistic lust for meat would grow so strong that it would no longer distinguish between animals and humans, and the eating of human flesh would become a frequent occurrence.
As long as we have not reached the state promised by the prophet—"I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts"—man still requires external teachers and many safeguards. Sometimes, it is necessary to waive a significant part of the moral path temporarily to prepare man for his ultimate high level. For if we advance that which should come later, we will lose everything.
For example, even after a person's moral state still hangs in the balance due to weakness, his brutish self-love might still overpower him, to the point where all the laws of morality and justice become mere playthings to him. It is therefore understandable that he must distance himself from the company of lowly animals, so that he does not come to feel that he is one of them. For then the brutish ways would imprint upon him, dragging his spirit down into the murky valley of worthless creatures, and he might abandon his human superiority and be reckoned among the beasts.
Now, if the duty of uprightness were arranged equally toward all other living beings, just as it is practiced between one person and another, then this would create an impression of fellowship and partnership between humans and all living things. And although for the noblest among people this would do no harm, for the masses it would greatly degrade their moral value.
The moral spur—which has always been the tool of the sages of ethics to awaken the ignorant among the people to rise to a higher human level—would be greatly weakened. The verse “Do not be like a horse or mule that has no understanding” (Psalms 32:9) would no longer find such acceptance in the heart of the common person, who prefers to sink into the ways of beasts in order to escape many moral reckonings and to enjoy coarse, tangible pleasures of the moment.
Therefore, one cannot imagine how much good the idea has brought to the world—that it severed humanity from all other living beings in terms of any relational bond. And all this needed to be completed by exempting him from many moral duties toward them, and permitting him to fulfill his desires even at the cost of their lives—so that he would deeply recognize his superiority over them. This would enable his soul to rise toward the lofty moral aspirations that will ultimately lead to the complete victory of absolute moral truth, which is truly the knowledge of God, until a person no longer needs such concessions.
If moral duties were abundant between humans and animals, then in a time when moral perfection is lacking, they would cause much harm to humanity. For the feeling of goodness in a person seeks to satisfy its hunger, and sometimes you will find a wicked man choosing to perform charity in order to quiet the pangs of his conscience over the injustice in his hands. In any case, the criminal will feel within himself that it is all falsehood poured out, for the moral picture teaches him that doing good to a human being is the true good—and what harm would it do him if he performs charity, if he stretches out his hand to oppress the widow and afflict the brokenhearted?
But if the moral aspect of kindness toward animals were widely publicized, then many who abandon morality would choose for themselves the profession of moral goodness toward animals—at least there is no jealousy from that side, and they will never encroach on his honor or his position. False opinions would find a place to take root in many hearts: that it is also possible to bring a person to sacrifice himself for the success of animals, especially when he sees wickedness in a human being that he does not see in animals. Then the short-sighted would conclude that it is indeed fitting to sacrifice human good as a ransom for animals—and there is no limit to the chaos, distress, and perversion of justice that would arise from such agreements.
Therefore, divine wisdom—which probes the kidneys and the heart—deemed it necessary to sever the connecting thread between humans and animals. This was so that the center of human morality could focus on humanity's unique good, and thereby ultimately succeed in bringing true happiness in the end of days. Once humanity achieves its happiness and freedom, it will naturally also recognize the proper moral relationship toward animals—one that stems from pure morality, without needing concessions or permissions born of necessity. The Torah spoke only against the evil inclination, not as an absolute ideal path of good.
This is the foundation of the Genesis creation narrative in the Torah. In truth, the Torah came only to teach us paths of life—how to conduct ourselves in an upright way that leads a person to achieve the heights of his perfection. The essence of the Genesis story is not the narrative itself, but the profound moral program that emerges from it. Divine wisdom prepared these images so that human morality would be forever sweetened and ready to ascend to the perfection of its level.
Just as, for human moral perfection, one must contemplate the image of creation in six days and the Sabbath rest—so that Sabbath observance connects with the general enlightenment of the knowledge of God and the practical morality of resting beasts and slaves—likewise, in particular, there must be the image of severing humanity from the boundary of animals, through the fact that "for Adam there was not found a helper corresponding to him."
It also appears that there was a divine step to connect humanity in fellowship with all living things. This would indeed be fitting from the side of divine perfection, for ultimately a person will yearn for the supreme moral emanation and demand of himself his duty toward all creatures, his fellows in creation and life. However, from the human side, "no helper corresponding to him was found." A person is not capable of acquiring his humanity if he desires to form an image in himself that there is fellowship and brotherhood with lowly animals beneath him. Therefore, he was severed from them in that, through the deep sleep, it was revealed to him that his marital partnership is also distinct from all animals. The small fellowship he had with the nakedness among animals caused the moral fall of humanity, until salvation came through placing enmity between the species: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed."
However, when the Torah's permission for eating meat came—"when your soul desires to eat meat"—it was set as a boundary, meaning: as long as your natural morality does not abhor eating the flesh of animals, as you abhor human flesh. Therefore, the Torah did not need to explicitly prohibit human flesh, for humanity had already acquired a correct natural concept regarding it, and no warning is needed—just as there is no need to enumerate the good and bad traits that are innate and known. But when the state of morality arrives to abhor meat due to the moral revulsion in it—then "your soul will not desire to eat meat, and you will not eat."
To impress the moral outcome for the end of days, the commandments related to the slaughter of animals were permitted only for those animals that are mostly found at a person's table and are, in any case, the most fitting—so as not to corrupt human nature by resembling predators in cruelty, as the early sages already noted. Yet the covering of the blood of fowl and wild animals is like a protest against the permission—meaning, there is shame in the matter. It is fitting to cover human shame for not yet having reached the level worthy of him, to understand that it is not proper to destroy a living soul for one's needs. Nevertheless, these actions prepare the moral groundwork that can emerge when the time comes.
This too is in the scales of justice: the blood of a domestic animal that is sustained by its owner—the person is not yet worthy even to recognize full shame in slaughtering it, since he feeds it and cares for its needs. If covering applied also to domestic animals, the moral awakening would be excessive beyond the measure. It suffices for us with the prohibition of eating blood, which at least arouses that shedding blood is not a fitting moral measure for a person, in any case. If shame began to be impressed even in the slaughter of domestic animals, it would lead to habituating oneself to transgress the inner moral feeling more than it would prevent it in the end. Certainly, not all lofty moral feelings come at once, but gradually, rung by rung. And if a person first ascends to the level of recognizing that taking the life of a living creature not dependent on his table for his needs is injustice, he still would not yet reach the feeling to sustain even the living creature dependent on him—even in its old age, when it can no longer work—due to moral duty. Therefore, the impression cannot be equal in the slaughter of mostly hunted wild animals and fowl as in the slaughter of a domestic animal at its trough, which its owner provides.
The prohibition of cheilev [fats] is also to remind, at least, that it is not fitting to kill even an animal sustained by its owner for luxuries. Therefore, the most flavorful part is forbidden, since it is certainly possible to strengthen the body without it. However, for hunted wild animals and fowl, where there is a more piercing reminder to refrain from killing them through the commandment of covering the blood—the covering of human shame—there is no need for the reminder of the cheilev prohibition; therefore, their cheilev is permitted.
חיוב ההסברה מוטל על גדולי ישראל בימינו להסביר את עקרי האמונה, ולהוכיח עד כמה גדולה היא הטובה לכלל עמינו כשנשוב כולנו לשמור את דרך התורה והמצוה. גם להראות גלוי שאין ביסודי התורה המושכלים התלויים בדעות, שום דבר שישים מעצור להרחבת הדעת והתפתחות החכמה בעמנו, ואיך שקיום התורה אינו מעיק בשום אופן על החיים, כי אם עוד מנעים את החיים ומעדנם. על כן עלינו להראות הרבה פרטים וכללים בתורה, בדעת ובמעשה, איך שהם מרחיבים את החיים הישרים ומאשרים את כלל עמנו. כדי שיהיה, למשל, לדעת את יקרת הערך של תורה ומצות, כיון שמעלת התמימות של פשטות האמונה אבד כבר חלק גדול מבנינו, על כן עלינו להכנס לדרך השכל והמחקר;
כי רק בזה נצליח. אמת הדבר, שהיו ימים רבים שנפלה על זה מחלוקת בין גדולי ישראל. מעבר מזה העירו רבים שחובת התורה דורשת הידיעה השכלית, ורבים מעבר מזה טענו להראות את הצד המסוכן שיש בדרך המחקר לרבים שלא יוכלו להגיע עד הקצה וישארו נבוכים, ומהם גם כן שיפקרו וינתקו מוסרות. אבל אין שייך חשש זה בדורינו שההפקרות הולכת ומתרבה, ספרי מינים מתחדשים בעוה״ר בכל יום, ונותנים את התורה והאמונה למרמס. ואם לא נקום בפרץ להגן על עם ד׳ להשיב חורפינו דבר בכח השכל וחקירת האמת, ישחיתו רבים ועצומים. על כן לא עת היא לחשות כי אם לענות דבר.
כבר נשאלה השאלה בבית מדרשו של חופש הדעות בעמנו, שלא ידע כל גבול, להעיר על תכלית התורה אל מה תשאף. ואנו חייבים להשכיל ולבאר, כפי אשר תשיג ידינו, ערך החכמה והשאיפה הרמה שיש לתורתנו, ואיך שאי אפשר שנבא לה כי אם על ידי שמירתה בפועל. ואם נעמול ונחקור ולא נתירא בזה ממכשול עון, כי עת לעשות לד׳ היא, ודאי נשכיל ונצליח, ונמצא את אשר נבקש. ומקרא מלא דבר הכתוב ״כי לא דבר רק הוא מכם״, ופירשו חז״ל ברור, ״ואם רק הוא מכם הוא, בשביל שאין אתם יגעים בה״, הא אם נתיגע בחכמתה של תורה ודאי נמצאנה.
התרבות האנושית לפי רום מעלתה היותר רוממה היא ודאי שאיפתה של תורה, כאשר מלאו הנביאים בפירוש על מה אנו מקוים, על שלום עולמים, על החופש האמיתי, שאמנם עוד יסוב דרכו למעלה מגבול האנושות ויקיף גם את כל החי.
אמנם השאיפות הללו בהיותן גנוזות בתורה, נערכו בחכמה אלהית נפלאה, ששמירת התורה, אמונתה ושינונה, יוציאו את השאיפות הרמות אל הפועל. אבל כשם שהן צריכות כח מניע שיצאו אל הפועל בבא שעתן, כך הן צריכות מסך ומונע שלא יבקיעו לצאת בעוד שאין הזמן גרמא, באין שום הכשר לזה מצד האנושות. כי כלל גדול הוא שכל דעה רמה יותר מחוג האנושות הרבה כשתתפרסם בעולם, לבד מה שלא יהיה קול דברה נשמע, עוד תזיק בפרטים רבים וגם תמצא לה הרבה מתנגדים, שעל ידי כך ידחוה עד שלא תוכל להתכונן בעולם כל כך מהר, ויעברו דורות רבים בלא חמדה.
נציב, למשל, את השאיפה המוסרית שלא להמית שום בעל חיים לצרך האדם. אי אפשר להכחיש את המוחש בכל לב רגש, כי חסרון מוסרי כללי הוא במין האנושי במה שלא יקיים את הרגש הטוב והנעלה שלא לקחת חיי כל חי בעבור צרכיו. ואי אפשרי כלל, שהאל הטוב יחוק חק נצחי כזה בבריאה הטובה מאד, שלא יהיה אפשר למין האנושי להתקיים כי אם בעכרו את רגש מוסרו על ידי שפך דם, יהיה גם דם בעלי חיים. אין ספק לכל איש משכיל, כי התורה שאמרה לאדם "ורדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובכל החיה הרמשת על הארץ" לא כונה לרדיה של מושל עריץ שמתעמר בעמו רק להפיק חפצו הפרטי. חלילה לחק עבדות מכוער כזה שיהיה מדרכו של האל הטוב, אשר אמר ״עולם חסד יבנה״, ושאנו רואים כל דרכיו מלאות צדק ורחמים. והלא מספר התורה עצמו מבואר כן, שהרי לאדם הראשון לא הותר בשר לאכילה. אם כן, מהי הרדיה של כל החיה וכל הרמש, אם לא רדיה של טובת הירודים, לשכללם, להטיב מצבם ולעסוק בהתפתחותם החומרית והרוחנית. אמנם, אחרי דור המבול שהותר בשר לאכילה, ודאי לא הותר כדי שישאר כך לעד לעולם, כי איך אפשר שיהיה מצב מוסרי חולף ומתבטל אחרי שכבר היה נוהג, ומעלין בקודש ואין מורידין. אלא, שהחכמה האלהית ראתה שהאדם נפל ממצבו המוסרי, ועד שיבא הזמן שיתנער ויגיע לידי ההכרה המוסרית האמתית, אין להעמים עליו מה שאינו לפי ערכו.
והנה אין ספק בדבר שאם היה איסור הריגת בעלי חיים נהוג אצל בני אדם לעת עתה שאין המצב המוסרי מתוקן, היה הדבר גורם תקלות רבות. התאוה הבהמית לאכול בשר כשהיתה מתגברת, לא היתה אז מבחנת בין אדם לבהמה, כיון שעל כל פנים הכל היה עושה בדרך איסור, ואכילת בשר אדם היתה אז חזון מתמיד מאד.
גם כל זמן שאין ההכרה המוסרית עומדת במצב הברור, כל זמן שלא הגענו למדה הזאת שהובטחנו עליה ונתתי תורתי בלבם ועל לוח לבם אכתבנה, דהיינו שהמוסריות תהיה מורגשת בכל זהרה בלב בני אדם, ״ולא ילמדו עוד איש את רעהו ואיש את אחיו לאמר דעו את ד' כי כולם ידעו אותי למקטנם ועד גדולם״. ומהו דעת ד' כבר למדנו הנביא ״כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידע אותי כי אני ד' עושה חסד משפט וצדקה בארץ כי באלה חפצתי נאם ד'״. הרי המוסר הטבעי ברחב מובנו הוא הנהו דעת ד׳ באמת. וכל זמן שהאדם הוא צריך למלמדים מן החוץ אל חובת המוסר והיושר האנושי, הוא צריך גם כן לשמירות וסייגים רבים שלא יתקלקלו אצלו סדרי הנהגתו, גם שיהיה מוכשר לקבל ההדרכה הנאותה והרצויה. ולפעמים צריכים גם כן לותר חלק רשום מדרכי המוסר כדי שיהיה מכשיר את האדם למעלתו היותר גבוהה, שאלולי הקדמנו את מה שראוי לאחר, אז נאבד הכל.
