(כ) כִּֽי־יַרְחִיב֩ ה' אֱלֹקֶ֥יךָ אֶֽת־גְּבֽוּלְךָ֮ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבֶּר־לָךְ֒ וְאָמַרְתָּ֙ אֹכְלָ֣ה בָשָׂ֔ר כִּֽי־תְאַוֶּ֥ה נַפְשְׁךָ֖ לֶאֱכֹ֣ל בָּשָׂ֑ר בְּכָל־אַוַּ֥ת נַפְשְׁךָ֖ תֹּאכַ֥ל בָּשָֽׂר׃ (כא) כִּֽי־יִרְחַ֨ק מִמְּךָ֜ הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִבְחַ֜ר ה' אֱלֹקֶיךָ֮ לָשׂ֣וּם שְׁמ֣וֹ שָׁם֒ וְזָבַחְתָּ֞ מִבְּקָרְךָ֣ וּמִצֹּֽאנְךָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֤ן ה' לְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוִּיתִ֑ךָ וְאָֽכַלְתָּ֙ בִּשְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ בְּכֹ֖ל אַוַּ֥ת נַפְשֶֽׁךָ׃
(20) When the LORD enlarges your territory, as He has promised you, and you say, “I shall eat some meat,” for/because/when teaveh nafshecha to eat meat, you may eat meat. (21) If the place where the LORD has chosen to establish His name is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you, as I have instructed you; and you may eat bechol avat nafshecha content in your settlements.
~ What does the expression אַוַּת נַפְשֶׁךָ avat nafshecha mean? What approach/judgment/attitude is behind each of these translations?
"have the urge to / to your heart's content" [New JPS 1985]
"your soul desires to / with all your soul's desire" [JPS 1917]
"crave meat / according to the craving of your heart" [English Standard Version]
"your soul longs to / with all the lust of your soul" [King James Version]
"you crave meat / as much as you want" [New International Version]
~ How does Rabbi Yishmael understand our verse? Was eating meat allowed, and if so, in what circumstances?
~ How does Rabbi Akiva understand our verse? Was eating meat allowed, and if so, in what circumstances?
~ What has changed between the first human beings and Noach? Why is this permission given? Why was it not given in the beginning, in your opinion?
אמר רבא מדברי שניהם נלמד צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא
Rava says: From the statements of both of these tanna’im it can be learned that the requirement to prevent suffering to animals is by Torah law.
Commentary by Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (1194–1270), commonly known as the Ramban. It includes respectful criticisms of Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Rambam.
הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע לא הרשה לאדם ולאשתו להמית בריה ולאכול בשר, אך כל ירק עשב יאכלו יחדיו כלם. וכשבאו בני נח התיר להם בשר שנאמר (להלן ט ג) "כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה, כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל" — את כל כירק עשב שהתרתי לאדם הראשון התרתי לכם את כל. לשון רש"י. וכן פירש הרב במסכת סנהדרין (נט ד"ה לא הותר) "ולכל חית הארץ" לכם ולחיות נתתי העשבים ואת האילנות וְ"אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה". ואם כך יהיה פירוש "אֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב לְאָכְלָה" "וְאֶת כָּל יֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב" ואינו כן, אבל נתן לאדם ולאשתו "כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע" וכל פרי עץ, ולחית הארץ ולעוף השמים נתן "כל ירק עשב" לא פרי העץ ולא הזרעים, ואין מאכלם יחד כלם בשוה, אך הבשר לא הורשו בו עד בני נח כדעת רבותינו, והוא פשוטו של מקרא. והיה זה מפני שבעלי נפש התנועה יש להם קצת מעלה בנפשם, נדמו בה לבעלי הנפש המשכלת, ויש להם בחירה בטובתם ומזוניהם ויברחו מן הצער והמיתה, והכתוב אומר "מִי יוֹדֵעַ רוּחַ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם הָעֹלָה הִיא לְמָעְלָה וְרוּחַ הַבְּהֵמָה הַיֹּרֶדֶת הִיא לְמַטָּה לָאָרֶץ" (קהלת ג כא). וכאשר חטאו והשחית כל בשר את דרכו על הארץ, ונגזר שימותו במבול ובעבור נח הציל מהם לקיום המין נתן להם רשות לשחוט ולאכול כי קיומם בעבורו. ועם כל זה לא נתן להם הרשות בנפש ואסר להם אבר מן החי. והוסיף לנו במצות לאסור כל דם מפני שהוא מעמד לנפש כדכתיב (ויקרא יז יד) "כִּי נֶפֶשׁ כָּל בָּשָׂר דָּמוֹ בְנַפְשׁוֹ הוּא, וָאֹמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: דַּם כָּל בָּשָׂר לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ כִּי נֶפֶשׁ כָּל בָּשָׂר דָּמוֹ הִוא", כי התיר הגוף בחי שאינו מדבר אחר המיתה, לא הנפש עצמה. וזה טעם השחיטה. ומה שאמרו (ב"מ לב) "צער בעלי חיים דאורייתא", וזו ברכתנו שמברך "אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על השחיטה", ועוד אדבר בענין המצוה בדם בהגיעי שם (ויקרא יז יא-יד) אם גומר השם עלי.
"Behold, I have given to you all of the herbs that gives seed:" "He did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its meat; only every green herb were they all permitted to eat together. And when the Children of Noach came, He permitted them to eat meat, as it is stated (below 9:3), 'Every creeping thing that is alive, for you is it to eat, like the green herb have I given to you every thing' Like the green herbs, which I permitted to the first man, I have given you everything." [These are] the words of Rashi. And so [too] did [Rashi] explain in Tractate Sanhedrin 59b (s. v. lo hutar), "'And to all the animals of the land' - to you and to the animals have I given the herbs and the trees, and 'the green herbs to eat.'" And if so, the explanation of "all of the green herbs to eat" would be [that it is a continuation of the previous idea as follows]: and all of the green herbs. And it is not like this, but [rather] He gave to Adam and his wife, "every herb that gives seed" and all the fruit of the trees; and to the animals of the field and the fowl of the skies, He gave "every green herb" - [but] not the fruit of the trees and not seeds; and their food is not equally for all. However meat was not permitted to him until the Children of Noach, as per the opinion of our Rabbis, and that is the simple meaning of the text. And [the original prohibition to kill animals to eat their meat] is because moving souls have a bit of stature to their souls: they resemble intelligent souls and seek their [own] benefit and their food and run away from pain and death; and the verse states (Ecclesiastes 3:23), "Who knows the spirit of man whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goes downward to the earth?" And when they sinned and all flesh corrupted its way upon the earth and it was decreed that they would die in the flood, and because of Noach, He saved some of them for the preservation of the species, He gave them permission to slaughter and eat [animals] since their existence was for [man's] sake. And in spite of all this, He did not give them permission with regards to the soul and forbade them a limb from a living animal. And He added commandments for us to forbid all blood since it is the support of the soul, as it is written (Leviticus 17:14), "Since the soul of all flesh, its blood is in its soul; and say to the Children of Israel, 'the blood of all flesh do not eat, since the soul of all flesh, it is the blood.'" [This is all] because He permitted the body of an animal that does not speak but not the soul itself. And this is [also] the reason for ritual slaughter (shechita) - and for what they said (Bava Metzia 32b), "[the prohibition of causing] pain to living animals is from the Torah" - and this is our blessing for it: "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us on ritual slaughter." And I will speak more about the matter of the commandment of blood when I get there (Leviticus 17:11-14) if God permits it to me.
Mishneh Torah - Composed in Egypt (c.1176 - c.1178 CE) by Maimonides (1137 - 1204 CE)
(א) מִי שֶׁפָּגַע בַּחֲבֵרוֹ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּבְהֶמְתּוֹ רוֹבֶצֶת תַּחַת מַשָּׂאָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ מַשָּׂא הָרָאוּי לָהּ בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ יוֹתֵר מִמַּשָּׂאָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה מִצְוָה לִפְרֹק מֵעָלֶיהָ וְזוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג ה) "עָזֹב תַּעֲזֹב עִמּוֹ":
(1) If, on the road, one meets a person whose animal is lying helpless under its load, he must help to release the animal whether or not the load is more than it can carry. This is a positive command, as it is written: "You must help him" (Exodus 23:5).
~ What is the approach of these sages regarding eating meat? How often should one do it, and why?
~ Why shouldn't you buy meat in the market?
~ What is the connection between food and health?
(יז) כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא נִצְטַוּוּ בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַחֻלִּין אֶלָּא הָיוּ נוֹחֲרִין אוֹ שׁוֹחֲטִין וְאוֹכְלִין כִּשְׁאָר הָאֻמּוֹת. וְנִצְטַוּוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר שֶׁכָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִשְׁחֹט לֹא יִשְׁחֹט אֶלָּא שְׁלָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יז ג) "אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ד) "וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ה) "לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא יז ה) "וְזָבְחוּ זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים לַה'" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל הָרוֹצֶה לִנְחֹר וְלֶאֱכל בַּמִּדְבָּר הָיָה נוֹחֵר:
When Israel was in the desert they hadn't received any rules regarding kosher slaughter, they were killing through stabbing or other means just like the other nations. And in the desert they were commanded to slaughter only sacrifices of well-being, as it says " if anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox [or sheep or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp]... and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting [to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people] This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices [which they have been making in the open—that they may bring them before the LORD, to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and offer them as] sacrifices of well-being to the LORD (Leviticus 17:3-5). But those who wanted to stab and eat, while in the desert, did so.
~ How does Maimonides understand our text? Did we eat meat in the desert, according to him? What was the process of killing the animals? Why?
The Guide for the Perplexed was composed in Fustat (1190 CE). Written by Maimonides (Rambam, 1137 - 1204 CE), contains the author’s philosophical views.
My opinion on this principle of Divine Providence I will now explain to you. In the principle which I now proceed to expound I do not rely on demonstrative proof, but on my conception of the spirit of the Divine Law, and the writings of the Prophets. The principle which I accept is far less open to objections, and is more reasonable than the opinions mentioned before. It is this: In the lower or sublunary portion of the Universe Divine Providence does not extend to the individual members of species except in the case of mankind. It is only in this species that the incidents in the existence of the individual beings, their good and evil fortunes, are the result of justice, in accordance with the words, "For all His ways are judgment." But I agree with Aristotle as regards all other living beings, and à fortiori as regards plants and all the rest of earthly creatures. For I do not believe that it is through the interference of Divine Providence that a certain leaf drops [from a tree], nor do I hold that when a certain spider catches a certain fly, that this is the direct result of a special decree and will of God in that moment; it is not by a particular Divine decree that the spittle of a certain person moved, fell on a certain gnat in a certain place, and killed it; nor is it by the direct will of God that a certain fish catches and swallows a certain worm on the surface of the water. In all these cases the action is, according to my opinion, entirely due to chance, as taught by Aristotle. Divine Providence is connected with Divine intellectual influence, and the same beings which are benefited by the latter so as to become intellectual, and to comprehend things comprehensible to rational beings, are also under the control of Divine Providence, which examines all their deeds in order to reward or punish them. It may be by mere chance that a ship goes down with all her contents, as in the above-mentioned instance, or the roof of a house falls upon those within; but it is not due to chance, according to our view, that in the one instance the men went into the ship, or remained in the house in the other instance: it is due to the will of God, and is in accordance with the justice of His judgments, the method of which our mind is incapable of understanding. I have been induced to accept this theory by the circumstance that I have not met in any of the prophetical books with a description of God's Providence otherwise than in relation to human beings. The prophets even express their surprise that God should take notice of man, who is too little and too unimportant to be worthy of the attention of the Creator: how, then, should other living creatures be considered as proper objects for Divine Providence! Comp. "What is man, that You take knowledge of him?" (Ps. 144:3); "What is man, that You take notice of him?" (ibid. 8:8). It is clearly expressed in many Scriptural passages that God provides for all men, and controls all their deeds--e.g., "He fashions their hearts alike, he considers all their works" (ibid. 33:15); "For Your eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways" (Jer. 32:19). Again: "For His eyes are upon the ways of man, and He sees all his goings" (Job 32:21). In the Law there occur instances of the fact that men are governed by God, and that their actions are examined by him. Comp. "In the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them" (Exod. 32:34) "I will even appoint over you terror" (Lev. 26:16); "Whosoever hats sinned against Me, him will I blot out of my book" (Exod. 32:33); "The same soul will I destroy" (Lev. 23:30); "I will even set my face against that soul" (ibid. 20:6). There are many instances of this kind. All that is mentioned of the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a perfect proof that Divine Providence extends. to every man individually. But the condition of the individual beings of other living creatures is undoubtedly the same as has been stated by Aristotle. On that account it is allowed, even commanded, to kill animals; we are permitted to use them according to our pleasure. The view that other living beings are only governed by Divine Providence in the way described by Aristotle, is supported by the words of the Prophet Habakkuk. When he perceived the victories of Nebuchadnezzar, and saw the multitude of those slain by him, he said, "O God, it is as if men were abandoned, neglected, and unprotected like fish and like worms of the earth." He thus shows that these classes are abandoned. This is expressed in the following passage: "And makes men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them. They take up all of them with the angle," etc. (Hab. 1:14, 15). The prophet then declares that such is not the case; for the events referred to are not the result of abandonment, forsaking, and absence of Providence, but are intended as a punishment for the people, who well deserved all that befell them. He therefore says: "O Lord, You hast ordained them for judgment, and O mighty God, You have established them for correction" (ibid. ver. 12). Our opinion is not contradicted by Scriptural passages like the following: "He gives to the beast his food" (Ps. 147:9); "The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God" (ibid. 104:2 1);" You open Your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing" (ibid. 145:16); or by the saying of our Sages: "He sits and feeds all, from the horns of the hart to the eggs of insects." There are many similar sayings extant in the writings of our Sages, but they imply nothing that is contrary to my view. All these passages refer to Providence in relation to species, and not to Providence in relation to individual animals. The acts of God are as it were enumerated; how He provides for every species the necessary food and the means of subsistence. This is clear and plain. Aristotle likewise holds that this kind of Providence is necessary, and is in actual existence. Alexander also notices this fact in the name of Aristotle, viz., that every species has its nourishment prepared for its individual members; otherwise the species would undoubtedly have perished. It does not require much consideration to understand this. There is a rule laid down by our Sages that it is directly prohibited in the Law to cause pain to an animal, and is based on the words: "Why have you smitten your donkey?" etc. (Num. 22:32). But the object of this rule is to make us perfect; that we should not assume cruel habits: and that we should not uselessly cause pain to others: that, on the contrary, we should be prepared to show pity and mercy to all living creatures, except when necessity demands the contrary: "When you soul desires to eat flesh," etc. (Deut. 12:20). We should not kill animals for the purpose of practicing cruelty, or for the purpose of play. It cannot be objected to this theory, Why should God select mankind as the object of His special Providence, and not other living beings? For he who asks this question must also inquire, Why has man alone, of all species of animals, been endowed with intellect? The answer to this second question must be, according to the three afore-mentioned theories: It was the Will of God, it is the decree of His Wisdom, or it is in accordance with the laws of Nature. The same answers apply to the first question. Understand thoroughly my theory, that I do not ascribe to God ignorance of anything or any kind of weakness; I hold that Divine Providence is related and closely connected with the intellect, because Providence can only proceed from an intelligent being, from a being that is itself the most perfect Intellect. Those creatures, therefore, which receive part of that intellectual influence. will become subject to the action of Providence in the same proportion as they are acted upon by the Intellect. This theory is in accordance with reason and with the teaching of Scripture, whilst the other theories previously mentioned either exaggerate Divine Providence or detract from it. In the former case they lead to confusion and entire nonsense, and cause us to deny reason and to contradict that which is perceived with the senses. The latter case, viz., the theory that Divine Providence does not extend to man, and that there is no difference between man and other animals, implies very bad notions about God; it disturbs all social order, removes and destroys all the moral and intellectual virtues of man.
~ Maimonides holds that humans are particularly important in creation. Why?
~ How does he look at God's presence in the world?
~ Why do we have the laws of kosher slaughter, according to the Rambam?
~ According to the Rambam, could someone be a vegetarian? Why or why not?
“and you will say: “I want to eat meat;” This verse teaches the lesson that only economically well-situated people should indulge in a meat based diet; this is why the paragraph is prefaced by the words “when the Lord expands your borders, etc.”
“you may eat meat to your heart’s desire.” The Torah permits consumption of non-sacrificial meats with the people’s entry into the Holy Land. As long as the people had been in the desert, meat was basically the meat of the peace-offerings.
~ Can you be a vegetarian, according to Rabbeinu Bahya? What would that imply?
~ Is eating meat a commandment?
And you say: “I wish to eat meat” (other than sacrificial meat) from this verse we see that one should not eat without first having prepared it. [You do not eat meat as you eat an apple or a pear. Ed.]
~ Is it a commandment to eat meat, according to the Chizkuni?
It also seems that there was also a divine step taken to connect humanity with all other living things. This was indeed the best thing from the standpoint of divine perfection, that in the end, man will yearn for the highest ethical nobility, that he will demand of himself his obligation towards all creations, his friends in creation and in life. But for man [himself], he could not find a companion opposite him. Man is not prone to actualize his humanity if he has an urge to understand that he has a partnership and brotherly connection with animals that are more lowly than him. Therefore, he was disconnected from them through that slumber, where it was revealed to him that his bond of companionship is different than all other living things, and the small bond he had with the most devious of all animals [the snake] caused man a moral downfall to the point that he would only be saved from it through the placing of animosity between the two species, (Genesis 3:15) “I will place animosity between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring.” But when the Torah gave permission to eat meat, it when on at length, (Deuteronomy 12:20) “When your soul desires to eat meat...” as a boundary, as if to say, "When your natural ethical state does not abhor the eating of living things like you would abhor the eating of human meat..." That’s why the Torah doesn’t have to explicitly prohibit cannibalism, for [man] has already acquired the correct natural idea in this, and the Torah doesn’t need to give an exhortation, just like it doesn’t need to specify good and bad character traits, which are embedded, and familiar. But when the time comes of an ethical state of disgust for meat because of a natural repulsion to it, there will be no “urge of your soul to eat meat”, and it would [theoretically] be prohibited to eat.
In order to make an impact towards the ethical result for the End of Days, the commandments regarding the ritual slaughter of animals were only permissible for animals that rely generally on humans for food, and any others are anyway more appropriate to prevent man from damaging his nature turning into a cruel hunter, as medieval sages have made well known. However, covering the blood of a bird or an undomesticated animal is like a protest against the permissibility of eating meat, as if to say that there is shame in this behavior, that it is proper to cover up the shame of humanity that they have not yet reached the level that is appropriate for them, to understand that it is something unsavory to take the life of a living thing for one’s needs. However, the ethical preparation is done by our actions, so that it can emerge when the time comes.
~ How does Rav Kook understand our verse?
~ What does the permission of eating meat point to, according to Rav Kook?
כי ירחיב ה' כו'. הנה היתר בשר תאוה נאמר למעלה ולמה חזר לאומרו עוד פעם שנית. ועוד אומר ואמרת אוכלה בשר מה בצע להזכיר אשר יאמר אוכלה בשר יאמר לנו אם יותר לנו לאכול בשר חולין ודיו. ועוד כי אחר אומר כי תאוה נפשך למה חזר ואמר בכל אות נפשך כו' ודאי כי כן הוא. ועוד אומר כי ירחק ממך המקום כו' וזבחת כו' ככל אות נפשך כי הלא זה הדבר האמור בפסוק הקודם מראש ועד סוף. ועוד אומרו מבקרך ומצאנך אשר נתן ה' לך שכל זה הוא מיותר והיה די יאמר וזבחת ואכלת. ועוד אומר ואכלת בשעריך מי לא ידע כי בשעריהם יאכלו. ועוד אומר אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי כו' הרי נאמר למעלה. ועוד אומר רק חזק לבלתי אכול כי גם זה נאמר למעלה וכן אומר על הארץ תשפכנו כמים הוא אמור למעלה:
And notice that the permission to eat meat that we have up in the text was repeated here, and why was it repeated? And more, why does it say "and you will say 'I will eat meat'? What is gained by reminding us that, given that we already have the permission to eat meat? And more, if it mentioned "when your soul desires" why does it repeat "with all of your soul desire"? It is obvious that this is the case! And it is repeating the same wording in the previous verse regarding the enlargement of borders. And it also says 'from your cattle, from your sheep' that God has given you - all these are extra words, and it would have been enough to say 'you shall make a sacrifice and eat'. And more, it says 'in your gates' - who wouldn't know that they eat in their borders? And it also repeats 'like the deer' etc, and it also 'make sure not to eat the blood' and 'spill the blood into the earth like water' like the previous verse.
אמנם יאמר גדולתו יתברך. כי ראה כי זה דרך האיש ללכת שובב בדרך לבו ע"כ דרכיו ראה ויתר טרם יעשנו באיסור. והוא כי הנה זה דרכו של היצה"ר שקו לקו מעט מעט כלה גרש יגרש את האדם מדרך ה'. והוא כי ראשונה בראות כי הרחיב ה' לו ואך רחוק יהיה בין המקום אשר יבחר ה' למקום אשר שם ביתו יאמר אליו לבו מי יתן והיית קרוב אל המקום אשר בחר ה' אל בית ה' תלך וזבחת שלמים ואכלת שם בשר אך מה תעשה ורב ממך הדרך. אך לעומת זה הלא יתחמץ לבבך לומר הייטב בעיני ה' אוכל בשר ואל פתח אהל מועד לא אביאנו. על כן סעיפי יצרך ישיבוך אל נא תאכל להנאת בשרך ולמלא כריסך כי אם למלא נפשך מתאוה לעשות רצון קונה. והוא כי תאמר הלא צדקה תחשב לנשמה לך כי תאכל מן הבקר ומן הצאן ותעלה במעלות כי תעשה מבהמה חלק אדם אשר נשמה באפו כי במה נחשב הבעלי חיים ההוא. ואתה עתה ברוך ה' כי תאכלנו יגדל זכותך כי תעלנו במעלה כנודע ליודעים חן באופן כי לזאת תקרא תאות נפש ולא תאות גוף כי הוא לשם שמים. והנה אם לא היה זה רק במקום הרחוקים מן המקום אשר בחר ה' החרשתי. אך עוד מעט ויהי' גם במקומות אשר אינך רחוק מן המקום כי אם מרוע לב כי אדרבא המקום קדושתו רחוק ממך וזהו כי ירחק ממך המקום. אך לא אתה ממנו. וגם שם אני מתיר לך עם היות שלא גרם לך זה כי אם רוב טובה שהשפעתי לך. וזה שיעור הכתובים כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך והנה הגמול אשר תשלם לו הוא כי ואמרת אוכלה בשר חולין בביתי ובכלל מאמרך הוא לאמר כי תאוה נפשך לאכול בשר כלומר כי לא להנאת גופך אתה עושה רק כי תאות נפשך שהיא תאות נפשך לעשות זכות לתת שלמות לבעלי חיים להעלותו אל מדרגת אדם בעל נפש קדושה. והנני מזהיר לך ואומר בכל אות נפשך לגמרי תאכל בשר ולא להנאת גופך. אך הנה עוד מעט תמשך שעם שלא תהיה במקום הרחבת הגבול כי אם שלהעדר כשרונך אדרבה ירחק ממך המקום כי המקום הקדוש יהיה רחוק ממך. וזה אמר כי ירחק ממך המקום כי אינך ברחוק מקום כ"א שהמקום הקדוש אשר בחר ה' לשום שמו שם רחוק ממך. ועכ"ז לא תשית לבך לומר אלכה אל המקום אשר בחר ה' ואעשה שלמים לה' כ"א וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך. כלומר לא תזבח מעט כי אם הרבה שיורה כי למלא כרסך אתה עושה. וגם זה יהיה מרוב טובה שהשפעתי לך וזהו אשר נתן לך ה' אלהיך וגמול אתה משלם לבלתי הביאו אל פתח אוהל מועד. ע"כ מה אעשה לך מוטב שאתיר לך ולא תעשה בזדון וע"כ אני מתיר ואומר לך ואכלת בשעריך כלומר בכל עיר אפילו בירושלים עצמה וכ"ש בסמוך אליה. אך עשה זאת שיהיה בכל אות נפשך שתכוון לשם שמים לאות נפשך ולא לאות גופך. אך הביטה וראה כי אשר חשבת למשפט לתת שלמות לבעל חי טעית בחשבונך כי הן אמת כי טוב לה אשר תאכלנה מאלו היתה מתה מעצמה אך ראה נא אשר חסרת ממנה באכילך אותו חולין ואל פתח אוהל מעד לא הבאתה כי הנה אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל הבלתי ראויים להקריב כן תאכלנו הטמא והטהור כו'. משא"כ אם היית מקריבה ע"ג המזבח שהיתה קונה שלמות רב ועצום מאוד כי היתה עולה במעלה והנאכל ממנה לאנשים היה בטהרה ולא כאשר עתה הטמא והטהור יחדיו יאכלנו. ושמא תאמר מה לה עוד שלמות מאשר אוכל אותה ואעלנה למדרגת אדם לא כן הוא כי הלא אינך אוכל רק הבשר אך והדם הוא הנפש אדרבה אני מצוה לך רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם שתתחזק להית זריז שלא לאכול עד תצא נפשה וכיוצא למה שהדם הוא הנפש. משא"כ אם היתה קריבה על מזבח ה' שגם הנפש הוא הדם היתה עולה במעלה גדולה שהוא עיקר הקרבן. אך אתה אינך נותן שלמות רק לבשר אך הדם אצ"ל שלא תאכלנו כ"א גם על הארץ תשפכנו כמים. וא"כ איפה ראה עד כמה אתה מחסיר משלימותה בערך אם היית מקריבה שלמים. ועם כל זה התרתי לך כי דרכיך ראיתי כמדובר:
[This is the answer] Indeed, let's talk about the greatness of the Blessed One. When God saw that this is the way of a person, to walk mischievously around one's heart, to find ways to permit what it knows to be forbidden. And this is the way of the Impulse to Evil, to go for murmur to murmur, slowly slowly, to separate a person from the ways of God. And this is that, in the beginning, it sees that the borders were enlarged by God, and then the way to the place where God put the Temple is far away, and it says 'if just you were close to the place that God chose, then you would make a sacrifice of well-being, and you would eat meat, but now what can you do, you're so far away.' And despite this, you would strengthen your heart and say 'would it really please God that I eat meat without bringing it to the tent entrance?' And as a sword the Impulse would pierce you to eat meat to satisfy your own flesh and to fill your belly rather than to do the will of your Maker. But this is what is meant: it would be a kindness [tzedakah] to the soul (of the animal) if you ate from the cattle and the sheep, and raise the soul as you make it part of a Human, that has a neshamah, since what could be said of that animal? And now your merit would be raised, and it is known, but this is "the desire of the soul" and not of your body, this would be for the sake of heaven. ... And only if you are doing this for the desire of raising the soul, to raise the soul of the animal to the higher levels of a soul that possesses holiness, and not for the sake of enjoying your body. And this is what I warn you against: it says 'with your soul desire' and not 'to please your body.'
~ Why does the Alshich think we should eat meat?