I saw that Nechama Leibowitz quotes Rav Kook about the reason that Hashem allowed people to eat meat after the flood. The basic understanding is a wonderful psychological realization of the need to sublimate man’s thirst for violence and bloodshed into this desire for barbecue. Absolutely brilliant. And then I thought further that this provides an explanation of why Hashem found the sacrifices that Noach offers so pleasing, which is problematic from an anthopomorphic standpoint to begin with, so this would be very satisfying (no pun intended). This would mean that Hashem was “pleased”, meaning satisfied with Noach’s actions as a favorable use of the permission to eat animals by sublimating it into giving them back to Hashem in the form of a sacrifice.
Okay, nice, but…
Then I realized that Noach was not the first person on record to offer animal sacrifices to G-d. That was Hevel, and we know what happened to him. This brings up a really big problem, though, since, if eating animals was not permitted until after the flood, can we assume that killing them, even for sacrifices (with the understanding even that they were not eaten but completely given to G-d, whatever that means), should not have been allowed? And if that is true, why would it be that Hashem favored Hevel’s animal sacrifices over Kayin’s more PC offering of grains?
I have not looked into this yet at all; just thinking about how much I don’t know at all. This article (that I got to by reading the previously mentioned Monday Morning Memo) also references our
Curse of knowledge: The blinders that come with expertise.
More to come.