The law regarding ordinary meat ("meat of desire," i.e., meat that is eaten because of physical appetite, rather than in the context of a sacrifice, is one of the most complex halakhic units in the Torah. While there are units that involve a greater number of details, this one is unique in that it deals with one single issue which is elaborated upon at great length, including repetition of various details without any apparent order. For example, the obligation to bring sacrifices is mentioned no less than five (!) times in our parasha (possibly even more), including some word-for-word repetition – as in chapter 12, verses 6 and 11:
And to there you shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill-offerings, and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock. (Devarim 12:6)
Then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there – to there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which you vow to the Lord. (12:11)
Aside from the extensive repetition, the parasha also presents a problem on the level of content: at the beginning of the command regarding consumption of "ordinary meat," the Torah emphasizes that this unit is meant for "when the Lord will expand your boundaries" (12:20) – i.e., following additional conquest, after Bnei Yisrael have conquered the western side of the Jordan. A similar expression appears in the unit on the cities of refuge (19:8), but it is not clear why the Torah makes the license to eat ordinary meat (as opposed to sacrificial meat) dependent on expansion of the borders. Moreover, verse 10 states explicitly that ordinary meat will be permissible even prior to such expansion, as soon as Bnei Yisrael are safely settled in the Land.
The last problem we will raise for now involves the following verses:
If the place is too far for you…you [may] slaughter of your cattle or flock that God gave you, as I have commanded you, you [may] eat [it] in your gates as much as your soul desires. Nevertheless, as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so shall you eat it; the impure and the pure alike may eat it. (12:21-22)
Verse 21 stipulates that one may eat ordinary meat "as much as your soul desires," and then verse 22 states that, "Nevertheless…may eat it." The word "nevertheless" seems out of place: verse 22 does not contrast with or contradict verse 21, but continues and complements it; if we are permitted to eat ordinary meat to our heart's desire, then obviously that meat may be eaten "as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten"!
Dividing the parasha
In order to understand the unit on eating meat, we need to divide it into three smaller units (with some overlap): verses 4-12 ,verses 13-25, and verses 20-28.[1]
The first unit includes just one law: the obligation of bringing sacrifices to the Temple. It is formulated in the plural and has nothing to do with eating ordinary meat. As noted previously, the same expression that occurs near the beginning of the unit (v. 6) repeated again at its end (v. 11), about bringing "your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices…" to "the place that God will choose."
The second unit includes three laws: the prohibition against bringing sacrifices anywhere else; the obligation to bring sacrifices to the Temple; and the prohibition against eating blood. Aside from the prohibition of blood (which we will discuss below), the unit is formulated in the singular. It can be further divided into two sections that draw a distinction between burnt offerings and other types of sacrifices: the first section (vv. 13-16) discusses the burnt offering, and the second (vv. 17-25) deals with the other sacrifices. Each section has the same structure, referencing four topics in the same order: the prohibition against offering sacrifices wherever one chooses (13; 17); the obligation to bring it to one single place (14; 18); the license to eat ordinary (non-sacrificial) meat (15; 20); and the prohibition against eating blood (16; 23-25). Here, too, we find expressions that appear in both sections; for example, "as much as your soul desires" (15, 20, 21) and "you shall not eat [blood]; you shall pour it on the ground like water" (16, 24).
The third (overlapping) unit opens with the license to eat ordinary meat (20-22), mentions the prohibition against eating blood (23-25), and concludes with the prohibition against slaughtering animal sacrifices outside of the Temple (26-28). This unit too, like the second one, draws a distinction between the burnt offering and other types of sacrifices (26-27).
Slaughtering sacrifices outside the Temple
The prohibition against offering sacrifices outside of the Temple was mentioned already in Parashat Acharei Mot (Vayikra 17:1-5), and there are many points of comparison and contrast between the two sources. In our parasha, the Torah explains that the other nations used to worship and sacrifice to their gods "under every leafy tree" (Devarim 12:2); we are forbidden to worship God in this way, but must instead bring all our sacrifices to one place. In Parashat Acharei Mot, the Torah prohibits the slaughter of animals anywhere but the Mishkan, explaining: "And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs, after whom they go astray" (Vayikra 17:7).
The conspicuous difference between these two units relates to the license to eat ordinary meat. Parashat Acharei Mot allows slaughtering and eating animals only at the Mishkan, as a korban; "ordinary meat" is forbidden. This was the rule throughout the period of wandering in the wilderness. Our parasha, in contrast, permits slaughtering animals in order to eat ordinary meat without any connection to the Mikdash or sacrifices. This became permitted only when Bnei Yisrael reached Eretz Yisrael.
What is the reason for the prohibition? In Parashat Acharei Mot, the Torah portrays the slaughter of animals outside the Mishkan as comparable to murder:
Any man of the house of Israel who kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or who kills it outside the camp, and does not bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Mishkan of the Lord – blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people. (Vayikra 17:3-4)
This formulation teaches us that someone who slaughters an animal merely for food transgresses a prohibition that is comparable to murder. We can then understand that the entry into Eretz Yisrael represents a descent to a lower level, as in Parashat Re'eh, it is permitted to slaughter animals even for food.[2] The entry into the Land may indeed be seen to be a "descent" of sorts: God was present in the wilderness, accompanying the camp, while in Eretz Yisrael (although "God's eyes are upon it from the beginning of the year to the end of the year"), the intensity or proximity of the Divine Presence is lower.[3]
Ordinary meat vs. animal sacrifices
In our parasha, the Torah emphasizes the lack of any deeper meaning when one consumes ordinary meat (as opposed to the meat of a korban): "as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so shall you eat it; the impure and the pure alike shall eat it." It similarly emphasizes the lack of any importance in the blood of that meat: "you shall pour it on the ground like water." As we saw above, in Parashat Acharei Mot, it was forbidden to slaughter animals outside of the Mishkan, so that there would be no appearance of sacrifice to satyrs. It seems that in our parasha, the Torah wants to emphasize that there is no sanctity in the blood or flesh of ordinary meat, so that no one will imagine that someone who slaughters an animal outside of the Mishkan is sacrificing to satyrs.
We find a similar idea with regard to a firstborn animal that is unfit to offer as a sacrifice:
And if there is any blemish in it – lameness or blindness, any ill blemish whatsoever – you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God. You shall eat it within your gates; the impure and the pure may eat it alike, as the gazelle and as the hart [is eaten]. Only do not eat its blood; you shall pour it out upon the ground like water. (Devarim 15:21-23)
Unlike a healthy firstborn animal, a firstborn that has a blemish is not a sacrifice, and it is therefore permissible to eat it (just as one might eat a gazelle or hart); its blood has no special status but is poured on the ground like water, and eating its meat outside of Jerusalem is not a matter of sacrificing to satyrs.[4]
However, it may be that there is a greater need to emphasize the lack of importance of slaughtering animals for ordinary consumption in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah draws an explicit parallel between the laws of eating such meat and the laws of a sacrifice: we are commanded to slaughter the animal "as I have commanded you" (12:21),[5] although nowhere does the Torah present the laws for slaughtering meat except within the framework of sacrifices. This suggests that the slaughter of an animal for ordinary consumption is similar, in a certain respect, to the slaughter of an animal for sacrificial purposes.[6]
Two points support this idea:
The Torah commands that certain portions of every slaughtered animal are given to the kohanim, just as portions of the peace offering are given to them. The portions given from the peace offerings are, of course, invested with sanctity, so it may be that the portions given from animals slaughtered for ordinary meat likewise have some degree of sanctity.[7]
Sefer Shmuel (14:33-35) describes how, after the people slaughtered animals and ate meat together with the blood, Shaul put up a great stone and slaughtered many animals on it, and that stone later became the foundation of an altar. If there were no connection between the slaughter of animals for ordinary meat and the world of sacrifices, it would be hard to understand why the altar was established on that same stone. According to the above proposal, however, slaughter for meat also has a certain aspect of sacrifice, and therefore the same stone upon which animals were slaughtered for consumption later became the foundation of the altar.
We might also present the connection between ordinary meat and sacrificial meat another way. Because of the inherent problem of slaughtering animals for food, the Torah permits it only in the context of a mitzva. In the wilderness, slaughtering animals was permissible only in order to offer them as sacrifices, while in Eretz Yisrael, they may be slaughtered for food as well, for the slaughter itself is a mitzva. Somehow, every animal that is slaughtered has a dimension of being offered to God.
However, there is a conspicuous difference between the slaughter of ordinary meat and slaughter for sacrifices. We are told in our parasha that the blood of the animal should be poured upon the earth like water, while in Parashat Acharei Mot, we are told that one who kills a wild animal or bird should "pour out its blook and cover it with dust" (Vayikra 17:13). The obligation of covering blood is easy to understand: we have seen that there is a problem with slaughtering an animal for food, and covering its blood is thus an expression of shame.[8] It seems that the Torah seeks to create a distinction between slaughter for sacrifice and slaughter for food, and therefore commands that the blood of the latter should be poured out rather than covered.
The prohibition against eating blood
The Torah offers two reasons for the prohibition of eating blood (Vayikra 17:11): firstly, because it is to be brought to the altar, and secondly, because "the blood is the soul." The first reason tells us why we may not eat the blood of a domesticated animal, while the second explains why even the blood of birds and of wild animals (which is not brought to the altar) may not be eaten. In contrast to the blood, the Torah gives only one reason for the prohibition to eat chelev (forbidden fats) – because it is offered on the altar (Vayikra 7:25). Hence there is no problem with eating the chelev of a wild animal, since its blood is not offered on the altar.
Actually, there is another difference between chelev and blood: it is permissible to derive benefit from the chelev of an animal that died without slaughter (nevela), while deriving benefit from its blood is forbidden. In view of the above, the reason seems to be that there is another reason for the prohibition of eating blood: "for the blood is the soul." This might imply that we are required to pour out the blood in order to preclude its use.
The prohibition against eating blood appears in our parasha twice: first in relation to the burnt offering, and then in relation to other sacrifices. In the latter context, the Torah repeats the prohibition three times, each with a different reason: the first time, blood is prohibited because "the blood is the soul" (Devarim 12:23); the second time (v. 24), the Torah stipulates that the blood must be poured out on the ground like water (again, this relates to the fact that the blood of a sacrifice is brought to the altar); and the third time, the Torah addresses the very license to slaughter animals for food, which is permissible only in fulfillment of a commandment (the commandment of slaughtering meat): "for you shall do that which is upright in the eyes of God" (v. 28).[9]
The units comprising the parasha
Now that we have discussed the foundations of the three topics that appear in our parasha (where offerings may and may not be brought, the permission to eat ordinary meat, and the prohibition against eating blood), we can identify the three units and discover the subject of each.
As we have seen, the Torah commands that sacrifices be brought to the place which God will choose as a counterweight to idolatry ("And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs, after whom they go astray" – Vayikra 17:7). The multiplicity of pagan gods necessitated a variety of places of worship; in contrast, although God's presence is everywhere, His uniqueness is highlighted by His choice of a single site for worship. There is only one place where sacrifices may be offered to Him. We might say that there are two reasons why sacrifices have to be brought specifically to the Temple. One relates to the place: bringing a sacrifice to the Temple expresses the uniqueness of that site in relation to everywhere else. The other reason relates to the sacrifice: the sacrifice is accepted by God only at the place where the Divine Presence is at its greatest intensity.
The first unit we identified within Devarim 12 deals with the obligation to bring sacrifices to the Temple because of the uniqueness of the place. Here, there is no distinction between different types of sacrifices, since the obligation is the same for all of them: to bring the sacrifice to the Temple. This unit is formulated in the plural[10] because bringing a sacrifice to the Temple fulfills a public obligation (to set the Temple aside from everywhere else), not just the individual obligation of the person who is bringing it. The license to eat meat is not mentioned in this unit since, to some degree, it undermines the centrality of the Temple. The prohibition of eating blood is connected neither to the choice of the Temple nor to the issue of eating ordinary meat as opposed to sacrificial meat, and therefore it does not appear here.
The second unit addresses this obligation from the perspective of the laws pertaining to the sacrifices. Since there are differences among the laws governing different sacrifices, it is necessary to differentiate the different types. The Torah mentions the obligation of bringing a burnt offering to the Temple, and then separately mentions the obligation of bringing other sacrifices to the same place.[11] In this context, in contrast to the sacrifices that must be brought to the Temple, the Torah mentions the license to eat ordinary meat, which involves no obligation to bring the animal to the Temple. The prohibition against eating blood appears, since it belongs to the laws of eating meat. We also see that the Torah elaborates on the laws of ordinary meat in greater detail specifically in the second half of this unit, dealing with the sacrifices that are eaten, and not in the first half, which deals with the burnt offering. Since the first half relates to the burnt offering, there is a clear contrast between the sacrifice – which is not eaten – and ordinary meat, which may be eaten. In the second half, where the Torah sets forth the laws of sacrifices that are eaten, there is room to elaborate and explain the difference between sacrifices and ordinary meat. This part is formulated in the singular, since the obligation to bring a sacrifice to the Temple applies to the individual who brings it, not to the nation as a whole.[12]
With regard to the third unit: As explained above, the meat of an animal slaughtered for food also has some degree of sanctity. For this reason, it would have made sense for there to be a distinction between Eretz Yisrael and everywhere else, with the rule of "the place that God will choose" applying only in Eretz Yisrael;[13] outside of the Land, it would be permissible to bring sacrifices outside the Temple, and the license to eat ordinary meat would apply only inside Eretz Yisrael, since elsewhere there would be no need for it. To counter this way of thinking, the Torah reiterates twice the obligation that the sacrifice be brought to the Temple: once to emphasize that it is permissible outside of Eretz Yisrael to slaughter animals for food, and again to establish that the obligation of bringing sacrifices only to the Temple applies even outside of the Land.
(Translated by Kaeren Fish; edited by Sarah Rudolph)
[1] Verse 26 follows the second section but cannot serve as the beginning of the third section; it opens with the words, "Only (or 'But') your holy things…," which shows clearly that it is still related to the previous section.
[2] As we noted with regard to the parashot of the Mishkan, the further inside the Mishkan one goes, the fewer fabrics and materials are of animal origin.
[3] There is a similar descent when Adam and Chava are expelled from the Garden of Eden. In the Garden, Adam was prohibited from eating meat; he was only permitted to bring an animal sacrifice (as did Noach, and perhaps Hevel). Eating meat was permitted to man only after the Flood, when he was already on a lower level. In the wilderness, meat could be eaten only in the context of a peace offering, where it is as if the person eats from God's table.
[4] However, according to halakha, a firstborn animal that is unfit for sacrifice still possesses a degree of sanctity.
[5] The Rishonim cite this verse as a refutation against the Karaites.
[6] The Acharonim debate whether slaughter of kodashim is the same as slaughter of ordinary meat, but I wish to suggest the opposite: that slaughter of ordinary meat is similar, in some respects, to the slaughter of sacrificial animals.
[7] According to halakha, ordinary slaughter is a mitzva; this makes more sense if all ordinary meat possesses an aspect of kodashim.
[8] There may be special significance to slaughter, and therefore covering the blood is required specifically for slaughter but not for killing an animal by other means. Our discussion has not addressed the question of whether the law of pouring out the blood here applies only to domesticated animals, or also to wild animals and to birds.
[9] Similarly, with regard to shiluach ha-ken (sending away a mother bird before taking the eggs or chicks from a nest), the fact that the mother bird is sent away at God's command is what makes it permissible for us to take the chicks; therefore, "One who says, 'May Your mercy reach to a bird's nest' is to be silenced" (Mishna Berakhot 5:3).
[10] In the second unit, the prohibition against eating blood is formulated in the plural so as to connect it to the first unit, since the prohibition applies within the context of the Temple as well.
[11] Actually, the Torah mentions only the sacrifices in which eating meat plays a central role. This applies to tithes and firstborn animals, but also offerings: the owners' eating of the meat, along with the kohanim and the altar, represents the forging of a covenant between them. There is more to say, but I shall not elaborate further here.
[12] In the first unit we learn that God will choose a place "from among all your tribes" (mi-kol shivteikhem), while in the second unit we find "in one of your tribes" (be-echad shivteichem) (and based on this Chazal teach that the Temple belongs to all the tribes). This disparity, too, reflects the difference between the communal obligation and the obligation of the individual.
[13] In King Shlomo's speech at the inauguration of the Beit Ha-Mikdash he notes that even in exile Am Yisrael will pray via the Temple. The two tribes on the eastern side of the Jordan build an altar there, and many years later the Temple of Onias is established in Egypt. We see, then, that in practice there was a distinction between Eretz Yisrael and the areas outside of it with regard to the Divine Presence.
No comments:
Post a Comment