Does "Kol Remes Asher Hu Chai..." mean that HaSh-m permitted Noach to eat only vermin?
Rashi and Ramban: Not at all! The word "Remes" here refers to all living creatures (even fish), as we find earlier (Bereishis 1:21).
Why did HaSh-m now permit Noach to kill animals and to eat them (something that He did not allow Adam to do)?
Ramban (in Bereishis 1:29): Because "all flesh corrupted its way on the land," and it was only due to Noach that they were saved, 1 HaSh-m handed them to Noach to slaughter and eat them.
Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 164, to Sanhedrin 59b): Some attribute the prohibition at the time of Adam, to the animals not being blessed at their creation to be fruitful and multiply (due to the snake among them). If men were to trap and eat animals, they would diminish in number. Now that all the animals were blessed after the Flood, they became permitted. 2
Maharal (Chidushei Agados ibid.): Adam was named for Adamah, earthly physicality, and in this respect he was no better than the animals, so he was not permitted to consume them. 3 Noach is called an '"Ish ha'Adamah - a master over the earth" (Rashi to 9:20). Because he was on a higher level, he was permitted to consume animals.
In spite of the fact that the individual animals that were saved were not themselves guilty of interbreeding.
Maharal asks, if so, fish should have been permitted to Adam, as they were blessed at Creation?
He adds that according to this approach, even an animal that died naturally was forbidden to Adam, unlike the opinion of Tosfos (Refer to 9:3:1.1:1*). See also Nesivos Olam (Nesiv ha'Torah, Ch. 15, p. 64) regarding why Adam was on a more material level than Noach. (EK)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "Just as I made green plants freely available to Adam...." This comparison seems to be unnecessary, for the verse has already told us "All living creatures shall be for you as food."
Gur Aryeh #1: I might have thought that only an animal that died naturally was permitted to Noach, but not to slaughter animals and eat. The comparison is therefore made to vegetables, which may be eaten in all circumstances. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: If permission to eat vegetables was not re-stated here, I might have thought that now only meat was permitted to them, and that vegetables were now forbidden.
