Re’eh: Meat Matters

׳׳כִּי יַרְחִיב ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר’

׳׳רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין הַרְבֵּה דְבָרִים אָסַר אוֹתָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחָזַר וְהִתִּירָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר׳׳

Many of the Pessukim in Parshas Re’eh speak about the new reality that would confront Klal Yisroel after the entered Eretz Yisroel, including a Halacha known as “Basar Taiva ”. The Torah tells us that within Eretz Yisroel, one who expressed a desire to eat meat, “וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר” could do so to his heart’s content: “בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר”.

The Medrash, here, makes a surprising statement in relation to this Mitzvah: “הַרְבֵּה דְבָרִים אָסַר אוֹתָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחָזַר וְהִתִּירָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר”. There are many things, explains the Medrash, that Hashem did not allow in one place, but allows in another. Explains the Medrash: “אָסַר הַקָּב׳׳ה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁחֹט וְלֶאֱכֹל עַד שֶׁיְבִיאֶנוּ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד”, originally the Torah forbade anyone from eating meat unless it was part of a Korban brought in the Mishkan , as the Passuk in Parshas Achrei Mos says: “וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא יְבִיאֶנוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת אֹתוֹ לַה׳ וְנִכְרַת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעַמָּיו”. Upon entering Eretz Yisroel, however, the Halacha changed, “וְכָאן חָזַר וְהִתִּירוֹ לָהֶם”, and one is allowed to eat meat even if it is not part of a Korban.

How are we to understand the initial statement made by the Medrash? Why, indeed, is it true that “הַרְבֵּה דְבָרִים אָסַר אוֹתָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחָזַר וְהִתִּירָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר”? If there was an Issur, in the Midbar , to eat Basar that didn’t come from a Korban why was it allowed in Eretz Yisroel?

Now, there seems to be a very simple answer to this question, as Rashi later explains: “לֹא תּוּכַל לָבֹא וְלַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלָמִים בְּכָל יוֹם כְּמוֹ עַכְשָׁו שֶׁהַמִּשְׁכָּן הוֹלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם”. While in the Midbar , the Mishkan was readily accessible, and one could reasonably be expected to bring a Korban Shlomim when he wanted to eat Basar. In Eretz Yisroel, however, when it was not always possible to bring a Korban, the Halcha was changed. The Din of Basar Taiva , then, seems to be a practical matter. If so, however, why does the Medrash seem to paint this in a different light, as something that HKBH first made Assur and later changed? It wasn’t the Din itself, or even the actual Basar, that changed status, but rather pragmatic considerations—why then does the Medrash say “הַרְבֵּה דְבָרִים אָסַר אוֹתָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחָזַר וְהִתִּירָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר”?

The way that the Medrash frames this Mitzvah, as something other than a practical adaptation, raises another question. Is the suppression of Taiva not a central focus of our Avodas Hashem? Why does the Torah create a Mitzvah, indeed changing the status of the Basar as from Issur to Heter, as the Medrash notes, just so that we may be able to enjoy Basar “בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ”. It seems from the Medrash that Basar Taiva was itself Assur, and HKBH changed the Din, only because of the Taiva that we might experience. Why? Wouldn’t it have been better to maintain the Issur that was in place in the Midbar , allowing us to ear Basar only if it was part of a Korban, thereby discouraging Taiva ?

What is the meaning of this Medrash, and by extension, this Mitzvah?

The truth is that even the way this Medrash explains the Passuk is a matter of discussion.

The Gemara in Chulin cites the words of this Passuk, “כִּי יַרְחִיב ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבוּלְךָ”, and brings two opinions as to their meaning. R’ Yishmael says: “לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְהַתִּיר לָהֶם בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה”, the Passuk is coming to allow Basar Taiva . As we see in the Medrash, R’ Yishmael holds “שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה נֶאֱסַר לָהֶם בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה”, in the Midbar we were not allowed to eat Basar unless it came from a Korban, but this changed: “מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ הֻתַּר לָהֶם בְּשַׂר תַּאֲוָה”.

R’ Akiva, however, argues, explaining the Passuk as follows: “לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לֶאֱסֹר לָהֶן בְּשַׂר נְחִירָה”. There is a process called Nechira , which differs from Shechita, and that was allowed during the years in the Midbar . This is what changed, according to R’ Akiva: “מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָאָרֶץ נֶאֱסַר לָהֶן בְּשַׂר נְחִירָה”.

It emerges that the Medrash here can only be understood according to R’ Yishmael, for according to R’ Akiva, there was never an Issur of Basar Taiva in the Midbar —a point made by the Ramban in Parshas Achrei Mos. The Gemara also brings to light the Chiddush of the statement made by the Medrash, “הַרְבֵּה דְבָרִים אָסַר אוֹתָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחָזַר וְהִתִּירָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר”. The Passuk need not be explained in this way—indeed R’ Akiva understands it differently—yet the Medrash makes this point specifically.

It is also important to note that the Sifri , on this Passuk, brings the Machlokes between R’ Yishmael and R’ Akiva, but adds a third opinion: “רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל אָדָם בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא לְתֵאָבוֹן”. R’ Elazar holds that the Passuk is telling us something different: by instructing us to eat Bassar “בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ”, the Torah is telling us that one should only eat Bassar if he has a specific desire and appetite to do so.

What does this mean? Why is there a specific Mitzvah to eat Basar “בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ”, but only if one has a craving for it? Here too we see a Mitzvah that seems out of alignment with the way we ought to approach Gashmius .

How can we understand this Mitzva and the way it is framed by the Medrash?

The Shem M’Shmuel , in Parshas Va’era , offers an insight into the concept of eating that can perhaps allow us to answer these questions and explain the Divrei Chazal.

There are two words used in the Torah to describe eating. The most common is Achila, as is found in many Pessukim throughout Chumash. The other term is found only once, in Parshas Toldos : “וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אֶל־יַעֲקֹב הַלְעִיטֵנִי נָא מִן־הָאָדֹם הָאָדֹם הַזֶּה”. Esav used the word “הַלְעִיטֵנִי “ instead of a word related to Achila. Similarly, the Gemara in in Bava Kama uses the term “הַלְעִיטֵהוּ לָרָשָׁע וְיָמוּת” in reference to someone who eats Orlah, which is Ma’achalos Asuros .

We see from here, explains the Shem M’Shmuel , that there are two types of eating: that of a Tzaddik is called Achila, as the Passuk in Mishlei says, “צַדִּיק אֹכֵל לְשֹׂבַע נַפְשׁוֹ”, and that of a Rasha, called Le’itah , as in “הַלְעִיטֵנִי נָא מִן־הָאָדֹם הָאָדֹם הַזֶּה”. There is, of course, a difference beyond the words used to describe these two types of eating.

The Shem M’Shmuel explains that the ultimate purpose of eating is to sustain a person, so that they can carry out their Avodas Hashem and other responsibilities in this world. In truth, then, HKBH could have created a world in which all food tastes and looks the same, and we need only ingest whatever is needed to survive. The Chovos HaLevovos explains, however, that if that were the case, we may become distracted by everything around us and forget to eat. Hunger and appetite, therefore, are a Chessed that HKBH put into this world to ensure that we, in fact, remember to eat, so that we may be sustained.

Accordingly, taste, aroma and other aspects of food are what the Shem M’Shmuel calls “Siba V’Hachana ” for the Tachilis or

Ikkur , which is to sustain a person. A Rasha is fixated on the secondary, attendant aspects of his food, becoming focused on the Siba V’Hachana instead of the Tafkid . The Tzaddik, however, in only concerned that he be sustained—he is concentrated on the Ikkur and Tachlis . This is the difference between Achila and Le’itah : Achila connotes a focus on the Ikkur , and Le’itah on everything but.

With this in mind, perhaps we can understand the Din of Bassar Taiva in a different light.

As Moshe Rabbeinu spoke to his beloved nation, a change was in the offing: they would soon enter Eretz Yisroel, experiencing the reality of “כִּי יַרְחִיב ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ “, and inhabiting a much wider area than they had until now. This would have an impact far beyond a change in physical space.

Whole in the Midbar , we lived in close proximity to the Mishkan , this meant that anyone, at any time, could bring a Korban Shlomim , as Rashi notes. Even if someone did not choose to bring a Korban, however, they lived in that milieu, with the resting place of the Shechina always in sight, always in mind. Now they were to leave that cocoon, entering a land in which some would live days away from the “מָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר...לָשׂוּם אֶת־שְׁמוֹ שָׁם”. This was no doubt frightening: how could they maintain a level of Keduash worthy of their role as the Am HaNivchar while living so far from the Shechina ?

The answer is found in this Passuk: “וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר”. If we approach our Taivos correctly, understanding that their role is secondary, the Siba V’Hachana for the Ikkur , then we accomplish Kedusha in our own homes. We don’t need the Basar of Korbanos for our eating to be elevated; we need only to strive for the ideal of Achila and stay away from base L’eita . This is what the Torah is telling us with this Mitzvah. Indeed, Taivos

are part of the Briah, but we need to approach them responsibly: “בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר”. There will always be “אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ “, but we must confront these urges with true Achila and not fall victim to a mindset of “הַלְעִיטֵנִי נָא מִן־הָאָדֹם הָאָדֹם הַזֶּה ”

This is the message of the Medrash: “הַרְבֵּה דְבָרִים אָסַר אוֹתָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְחָזַר וְהִתִּירָן בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר”. While in the Midbar , there was no need to address the concept of Basar Taiva because we lived on a different plain. Living near the Mishkan rendered Le’itah a purely foreign concept—if one could easily partake in Basar Kodshim , there was no question that he lived in the world of Achila. As we entered Eretz Yisroel, however, there was a need for a change, bringing about the Din of Basar Taiva . This Halacha was not rooted in practicality, but in the Derech of Avodas Hashem required in our new circumstance. By creating a way to address natural Taivos , we were taught how to lead lives of Kedusah even far from the source.

This is the message of R’ Elazar ben Azaria as well: “לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל אָדָם בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא לְתֵאָבוֹן”. As we saw from the Chovos HaLevavos , the Teiavon itself is a Chesed from HKBH, allowing us to accomplish to the Ikur of Achila. The Mitzvah of Basar Taiva is meant to keep this relationship in perspective: the Taiva is there so that we may accomplish Achila.

We cannot always achieve the level of Tzaddikim, eating only for Avodas Hashem, but as with many things in life, there is a spectrum. If we train ourselves to stay closer to Achila, and further from Le’itah , we will bring further Kedusha in our lives. Even as we yearn to return in person to the “מָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר...לָשׂוּם אֶת־שְׁמוֹ שָׁם”, we can lead lives of “בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר”, turning our base temptations into an impetus for Kedusha, bringing closer the day of “כִּי יַרְחִיב ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ “.