"Take the staff and gather the congregation together... and bring out water from the rock for them, and give the congregation and their cattle drinking."

(Bemidbar 20:8)

When [Rivka] finished giving [Eliezer] to drink she said, "I will also draw [water] for your camels, until they have finished to drink."

(Bereishit 24:19)

Rav Huna and Rav Chisda were once sitting together when Genniva passed by... They said to him, "Why don't you have a bite with us?" He replied, "This is what Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: It is forbidden for a person to even taste food ("Lit'om") until he has fed his animal, as it says (Devarim 11:15), `I will put grass in your fields for your *animals*, and *you* will eat and be satisfied' -- first your animals should eat, and only afterwards may you eat."

(Gemara Gittin 62a)

Similarly, in the story of Avraham's servant, Eliezer, we read that when Eliezer travelled to Charan, Rivkah gave him to drink and only afterwards attended to his camels. This, too, seems to contradict Rav's rule! Why didn't Rivkah pour the water for the camels first? And why didn't Eliezer himself delay his own drinking until his camels were finished drinking?

These discrepancies were noted by Rav Yehudah HeChasid (14th cent. Germany) in his Sefer Chasidim ("Book of the Pious"). He comments:

When it comes to *thirst*, a man should be served first, and then his animal, as it says, "When [Rivka] finished giving [Eliezer] drinking she said, `I will also draw [water] for your camels, until they have finished to drink.' " And it says furthermore, "Bring out water from the rock for them, and give drink to the congregation and their cattle." But when it comes to *eating*, animals come first, as it says (later in the same story of Rivkah and Eliezer - Bereishit 24:32-33), "Rivkah's brother gave straw and fodder to the camels" and only then "he placed food before Eliezer to eat," and as it also says, "I will put grass in your fields for your *animals*" and only afterwards, "and *you* will eat and be satisfied."

(Sefer Chasidim #531)

But this reasoning would seem to apply equally to drink and to solid foods. What, then, is the basis for the Sefer Chasidim's distinction between eating and drinking? Several later commentators have indeed attempted to explain the reasoning behind the Sefer Chasidim's words, but most of the explanations offered are forced (See Gan Raveh in section "Divrei Chanoch" to Parshiot Noach and Behar; Pardes Yosef, Bereishit 24:19; Mekor Chesed by Rav Reuven Margoliot, to the Sefer Chasidim ad loc.).

Perhaps we may suggest the following explanation. There is a rule (Shabbat 9b; Shulchan Aruch O.C. 232) that a person should not begin to eat a meal in the afternoon before he has said the Minchah prayer. This is because the meal may become drawn out and he may forget about Minchah altogether. We do not find, however, that taking a *drink* before Minchah is forbidden. It is not usual for a person to become so preoccupied with his drink that he will forget Minchah. It is the nature of food, and not drink, to cause one's attention to be diverted from other matters.

This may offer an understanding of the Sefer Chassidim's words concerning feeding animals. The distinction made by Rav Yehudah HeChasid between eating and drinking does not have to do with a difference between the eating habits versus the drinking habits of the *animal*, but rather with those of man. A person should not begin to eat before attending to his animals, because eating often becomes a drawn out process and may lead to neglecting the animal. However, he may drink before his animal, because a drink is not likely to divert his attention from his animal's needs. (According to this, perhaps the drinking of wine or other spirits may indeed be forbidden before attending to one's animals, as these may certainly lead to negligence of the animal's needs.)

Another difficulty remains, however, with the words of the Sefer Chassidim. The Gemara which stated Rav's rule about "animals first" said, "It is forbidden for a person to even taste food ("Lit'om") until he has fed his animal." The Gemara in Shevuot (22b) states that the word "Lit'om" (lit., to taste or have a snack) covers *both* eating and drinking! If so, when Rav said that one should not "Lit'om" before feeding his animals, how can R. Yehudah HeChasid say that this applies only to eating and not to drinking! (NOTE: The words of Tosefot in Shevuot loc. cit., s.v. Lit'om, may offer a solution to this problem _MK.)

This is a logical distinction for two reasons. Firstly, the host has no obligation to feed this animal as it is not upon him that this animal is dependent for sustenance. Secondly, although the concept of showing concern for animals is an important moral lesson, the slight to a guest's feelings which might result from giving precedence to his animal is an even more important consideration.

Of course, one may still question this answer. Although it is proper the host to *offer* food or drink to his guest before his guest's animals, the guest himself should follow Rav's rule and decline the food (or drink) before attending to his animal. We may answer that once a host is permitted to offer food to his guest before his guest's cattle, then that guest should, in the interest of civility, accept it for the purpose for which it was given to him. (See also Pri Megadim O.C. 167; Chatam Sofer -- in Torat Moshe on Parashat Chayei Sarah, and quoted in Teshuvot K'tav Sofer, O.C.32; She'elat Yaavetz, #110 -- who all suggest the same approach as the Eliyahu Rabba.)

In any event, the distinction suggested by Eliyahu Rabba also solves both difficulties. In the case of Rivkah and Eliezer, it was someone other than the owner of the animals who was providing the drink, and it was thus proper that Eliezer was served first. In the case of Moshe and the congregation, too, Moshe was told to "give drink" to the congregation. Since he was serving them, it would again be permitted to give the congregation before their cattle.

There is, however, a glaring difficulty with this approach. The very case described in the Gemara in Gittin in connection to which Rav's rule was applied, was a case involving a third party offering food to the owner of an animal! How, then, can the Eliyahu Rabba (et al.) say that Rav's rule does not apply when the giver of the food is not the animal's owner?!

Furthermore, as the Sefer Chasidim pointed out, when Eliezer came to Rivkah's house, the camels were fed before food was given to Eliezer. According to the Eliyahu Rabba this was not the proper thing to do in this situation! How can the difference between Rivkah's feeding of Eliezer first, and her brother's feeding the camels first, be accounted for -- unless the Sefer Chasidim's distinction between food and drink is true?

The logic behind this distinction is obvious. The reason we are instructed to feed our animals before ourselves is not because animals are more important than humans, but rather to ensure that we do not ignore the animals totally, out of negligence, while indulging our own appetites. If a person is in pain or discomfort, however, human needs come before animal needs. We are always more interested in the well-being of humans than in that of their animals! The gesture of showing concern for one's animals is therefore subordinated to meeting an urgent human need.

When Eliezer met Rivkah, he had just arrived from a lengthy journey from the land of Canaan. He was undoubtedly in great discomfort when he begged for a cup of water from the local water-drawers. Rivkah was thus justified in quenching his thirst before that of his animals. However, later on, when Eliezer was invited to Rivkah's house, his initial weariness from the journey had already been addressed. His camels were thus fed before him.

Similarly, when Moshe supplied water for the congregation, they were very weary and drained from their travels in the desert. The sudden loss of their water supply threatened them with death from thirst (Bemidbar 20:4). It was thus also correct for Moshe to give them water before their animals!

We may add that perhaps the Ohr HaChaim's approach is not in contradistinction to that of the Sefer Chasidim, but is rather in harmony with it. Perhaps when the Sefer Chasidim distinguished between food and drink, he was using these only as examples. Actually, what he had in mind was the approach of the Ohr HaChaim. Even when a person is extremely hungry, he can usually put the hunger that he feels out of his mind until a more appropriate time arises. Extreme thirst, however, tends to be a more urgent need. It can cause fainting or loss of consciousness at any moment. Thus, when the Sefer Chasidim said that Rav's rule does not apply to drink but only to food, he meant that the rule applies only to cases of moderate need (as hunger for food usually is), but not to cases of great urgency (as thirst for drink usually is) -- just as the Ohr HaChaim maintains! Such an understanding of the Sefer Chasidim is even suggested in the wording of his thesis. He does not say "When it comes to liquids (or drinks) a man should be served first," but rather, "When it comes to *thirst*...." The word "thirst" (Tzima'on) implies a situation of urgent need.

If we understand the Sefer Chasidim in this way, the difficulty we mentioned before from Shevuot is also resolved. We showed that the word "Lit'om" includes both eating and drinking, and asked how the Sefer Chasidim could limit Rav's prohibition of "Lit'om" before one's animals, to eating only. But now we are suggesting that the Sefer Chasidim agrees that Rav's rule applies to both eating and drinking. It is only when a person is thirsty *to the point of major discomfort* that the rule does not apply!

An answer to the first of these questions is found in Gan Raveh (in the name of Yalkut Gershuni), and in Pardes Yosef (in the name of the Gerer Rebbe). The two great commentators point out that the verse that instructs us to feed our animals before ourselves, refers to feeding the animals animal fodder ("grass in your fields for your animals"). It does not mention feeding them *human* food. Indeed, it is generally not permissible to degrade food that is fit for human consumption by "wasting" it on animals (Ta'anit 20b). If a person then has only human food at his disposal, it stands to reason that he must eat first. Only his leftovers, which are no longer designated for human use, can be used to feed his animals.

In Vayikra 25:6 the Torah is referring to "the produce of the field", which is to be eaten by people and animals. Accordingly, it is the people who must eat first, until the produce no longer has a function for humans. Only at that point may the animals eat from it. (See also Rambam in Hilchot Shmittah 5:5, who clearly understands the verse to be referring to human food. The words of the Torah in Shmot 23:11 also seem to bear out this interpretation: "The poor of your people shall eat of the produce [during the sabbatical year], and then the beasts of the field will eat *what is left over*.")

Perhaps we may suggest that the same approach can be used to answer the second question (regarding Noach's ark) as well. When Noach was commanded to take all kinds of food into the ark, foods which were fit for human consumption were included in the command. When these rotted, they would be fed to the animals that thrive on decay, such as rotten fruits for insects and worms, etc. Thus, it was entirely appropriate that at times the humans in the ark would eat before the animals -- that is, when the food in question was first fit for human consumption, and only afterwards became suitable for animal consumption!

The question is compounded further by the fact that Sefer Chasidim (in the continuation of the section cited above) quotes this verse to show that one should feed his animal *before* himself! Where did he see anything in this quote to suggest that animals come before people, when the order mentioned in the verse is the exact opposite of this? The commentators on Sefer Chasidim have a difficult time indeed with this "proof"!

To the first question, we may suggest the following simple solution. It is obvious that Rav's rule applies only to animals that one owns and is responsible for, as explained above. Rav certainly did not mean that a person must put out a bowl of food for all the wild cats of the neighborhood, or bread for all the pigeons in town, before he begins his own meal! The verse quoted here specifically mentions the "beasts of the field" and the "birds of the heavens" -- wild animals, who do not depend on any human being to supply them with their needs. These animals certainly are not fed before man! Thus, the verse is totally irrelevent to Rav's rule, and does not constitute a contradiction to it.

As to how the Sefer Chassidim can "prove" from here that animals come first, we may suggest the following. When the Torah describes man's food in this verse, it speaks of "vegetation" ("Esev"). This word is in fact usually used in connection with animal fodder -- for example, "I will place vegetation in your field for your *animals*" (Devarim 11:15 -- see also Torah Temimah, Bereishit 3 note #26.) If so, why does Hashem say that He will give vegetation to *man* to eat? Perhaps we may interpret the verse to be referring not to the food that *man* is to eat, but to the food that he is to use for feeding his *animals*. The phrase "Behold, I have given over to you all the "vegetation" which grows seeds..." refers to food Hashem grants man to use for his *animals*. The continuation of the verse, "And all trees which have fruits with seeds in them, for *you* to eat," refers -- as it says explicitly -- to food to be *consumed* by man. Then the next verse adds a third category of food: "for all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the heavens and all the creeping creatures... all the green vegetation for eating." This third category deals with *wild* animals, and is irrelevant to the discussion of Rav's rule, as explained above. From the first two categories of food discussed in the verse, however, we see that the food used by man to feed his animals is mentioned before the food he uses for his own consumption. Hence, the Sefer Chassidim saw in these verses a further proof for Rav's rule -- "animals first!"

Incidentally, this new reading of the verse solves another difficulty which Rashi points out later in Bereishit. In Bereishit 3:18, Rashi asks, in what way could Hashem's pronouncement that Adam would have to eat "the vegetation of the field," be considered a curse? Wasn't this his designated food all along, as it says in the verse we were just discussing (1:29)?

According to our interpretation of verse 1:29, though, Rashi's question is answered. When Hashem gave to man "the vegetation of the field," it was not in order to be used as man's own food. It was to be used as fodder, for feeding his animals. Adam was later cursed to eat the same food as his animals!

In either case, our reading of the verse clearly supports the conclusion of Rav. When sitting down to eat, remember -- pets first!