Meat or Murder?

Is eating meat murder, or is it a mitzvah? While current Jewish practice might support the latter possibility – at least in the context of Shabbat and holiday meals, an examination of the laws in the Torah might lead in the opposite direction. As a matter of act, the Torah’s treatment of meat consumption – stretching from Genesis chapters 1–9 – contains significant tensions, enough to cause indigestion to the earliest Jewish commentators. Before we can properly address these difficulties, we must begin our story from the beginning (of the universe).^[1]

A Vegetarian Start

According to the opening of the Torah, although the first humans were blessed to be fruitful, multiply and dominate the earth, they were not given free rein to eat whatever they wanted. In fact, they were commanded to be vegetarians (Gen 1:29):

^{בראשית א:כט} וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כָּל עֵשֶׂב זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כָּל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ פְרִי עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה.

^{Gen 1:29} God said: See, I have given to you all types of seed-bearing plants that are on the face of the earth and all of the trees that have seed-bearing fruits – (only) they shall be to you for consumption.

That this command was intended to prohibit meat eating becomes clear from the new world order established with Noah after the flood. After restoring the blessing to be fruitful and multiply on Noah and his progeny (the future population of the earth), God retracts his prior prohibition on meat consumption (Gen 9:3–4):

^{בראשית ט:ג} כָּל רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל. ^ט:ד אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ.

^{Gen 9:3} Every moving thing that lives shall be yours for consumption. Like the green grass, I have given you everything. ^9:4 However, you may not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

^ט:ה וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ מִיַּד כָּל חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו אֶדְרֹשׁ אֶת נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם. ^ט:ו שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם.

^9:5 But for your life-blood I will demand a reckoning; I will demand a reckoning from the hand of every creature, and from the hand of man. ^9:6 From the hand of the man’s brother, I will demand the life of the man. The one who spills the blood of man, by man his blood will be spilled, for He made man in the image of God.

Against the blanket prohibition against meat consumption implied by Gen 1:29, these verses permit all creatures for food, provided that the flesh is not consumed together with its blood.^[2] The following verses add additional conditions which serve to clarify the rationale of the original restriction. Though humans may now legitimately shed animal blood, the opposite is not the case. God will personally avenge any innocent human blood spilled, whether by animal or by another human.

Spilling the Blood of an Animal

As the context indicates, the prohibition of ingesting blood is related to blood retribution. This passage and others (Lev 17:11, 14; Deut 12:16) which deal with consuming blood stress that blood contains a person’s “vital spirit” (נפש). On the simplest level, this awareness stems from the observation that the loss of blood leads to death. But this identification of blood with the spirit is part of a more comprehensive biblical conception according to which spilled blood demands retribution. This idea is vividly represented in the image of Abel’s blood crying out to God for vengeance against Cain (Gen 4:10).

More commonly, however, the Bible refers to an invisible blood stain left after unjustified killing (e.g. Deut. 21:1-9, 2 Sam 3:28–29; 1 Kgs 2:5, 33). This conception also underlies the notion of the “blood redeemer” (גאל הדם), the relative of the deceased who by taking vengeance against the murderer frees the blood of the murdered from its state of distress.^[3] Taken together, this series of conditions in Genesis 9 demonstrates that the reason for the original restriction on meat (in Genesis 1) was in fact related to a concern for the unjustified shedding of animal blood.

How are we to explain God’s apparent change of heart? Some commentators have suggested that the slaughter of animals for food offers a preferable channel for the human tendency for violence than the inter-human violence which took place before the flood.^[4] In any case, a comparison of the initial restrictive approach of Gen 1 with the permission granted in Gen 9 indicates that the latter is clearly a concession, a less than ideal state.

Sacrificial Meat Only!

This point becomes even sharper in Leviticus 17, where a further set of restrictions are imposed on Israel as part of the Sinai covenant. Aside from other dietary laws such as those found in Leviticus 11, this chapter emphasizes that the domestic animals eligible for sacrifice (cattle, sheep, and goats) may only be consumed in the sanctuary as part of sacrificial offerings.

Practically speaking, for an Israelite camped in the wilderness and yearning to grill up a “manna-burger,” the only available option would be to bring a “well-being” offering ^[5](שלמים). Whereas other sacrifices are entirely burnt on the altar or permitted exclusively to the priests, the well-being offering allowed the offering person and his family to partake in the meat. This point is emphasized in v. 5: “so that the Israelites will bring their offerings (זבחיהם) …to the Tent of Meeting to the priest and to slaughter well-being offerings (זבחי שלמים) to the Lord from them.”

Violation of this requirement – the killing of these domestic animals outside of the tabernacle – is explicitly equated with murder (3–4):

^{ויקרא יז:ג} אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז בַּמַּחֲנֶה אוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה. ^יז:ד וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ לְהַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן ליְ־הוָה לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכַּן יְ־הוָה דָּם יֵחָשֵׁב לָאִישׁ הַהוּא דָּם שָׁפָךְ וְנִכְרַת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מִקֶּרֶב עַמּוֹ.

^{Lev 17:3} If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox, a sheep or a goat in the camp, or slaughters outside the camp, ^17:4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of YHWH, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that person – he has spilled blood; that person shall be cut off from among his kinspeople.

The following verses add an additional rationale, that the slaughter of these animals in the open field is equivalent to the worship of goat demons. For our purposes, however, the important point is that the slaughter of the sacrificial animals without presenting their blood on the altar is equivalent to their murder.^[6] This law is stated to be an “eternal statute” (חוקת עולם), involving the punishment of “cutting off” ^[7](כרת).

Together these laws reveal a deep concern for the value of animal life. As in Gen 9, the prohibition of consuming blood is based on the awareness that it is the blood, identified with the vital spirit (nefesh), which demands accountability for unjustified killing. But Leviticus 17 takes this view a step further in imposing an additional restriction on Israel. Specifically, sacrificial animals first must be offered as well-being offerings before they can be eligible for private consumption. Disobedience to the divine command is tantamount to bloodshed.

So it appears that Moses preceded Wendy’s in asking: “Where’s the beef?” According to Leviticus 17, the answer had better be “at the entrance to the Tabernacle.” So granted Jews must answer to a higher authority when choosing their hotdogs, but the question remains: Assuming the cow was not presented in the Temple (which is presently impossible), can they eat hotdogs at all?

Leviticus Versus Deuteronomy

Tensions emerge from a comparison of Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12, which the earliest commentators sought to resolve. In this debate, what is at stake is nothing less than your steak.

Deuteronomy 12 is known as one of the most far-reaching biblical laws, establishing the centralization of worship at the place “that the Lord will choose to place his name.” Israelites are commanded to bring all of their sacrifices, priestly gifts and votive offerings to the single central sanctuary. This legislation is similar in its aims to that of Leviticus 17, only that here the requirements are transferred from the wilderness sanctuary to the future settlement in the Land of Israel.

Like Leviticus 17, the point of departure of Deuteronomy 12 is the assumption that sacrificial animals can only be consumed as part of a sacrifice, i.e. that there is no secular consumption of these animals. Deuteronomy 12 seeks to address the problematic future situation that these sacrifices will be offered at local altars throughout the land of Israel.^[8] Though providing a convenient place to offer these sacrifices, the multiplicity of altars poses the danger of worshipping multiple gods (see Lev. 17:7). In its effort to restrict these offerings to the central sanctuary, Deuteronomy 12 is led to the following concession:^[9]

^{דברים יב:כ} כִּי יַרְחִיב יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבוּלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר. ^יב:כא כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְ־הוָה לְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ בְּכֹל אַוַּת נַפְשֶׁךָ.

^{Deut 12:20} Should YHWH your God, expand your territory as He has said to you, and you say, ‘I will eat meat,’ because you have a desire to eat meat, as much as you desire you may eat meat. ^12:21 Should the place that YHWH, your God, chooses to set his name there be too far from you, you may slaughter from your cattle and flock that YHWH has given you as I have instructed you, and you will eat within your settlements as much as you desire.

^יב:כב אַךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֶת הַצְּבִי וְאֶת הָאַיָּל כֵּן תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ הַטָּמֵא וְהַטָּהוֹר יַחְדָּו יֹאכְלֶנּוּ. ^יב:כג רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְלֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר. ^יב:כד לֹא תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם.

^12:22 Indeed, just as the deer and the ram are eaten, so you will eat it, the impure together with the pure will eat it. ^12:23 But take care not to consume the blood, because the blood is the spirit, and you may not eat the spirit together with the flesh. ^12:24 Do not eat it! On the earth you shall spill it out, like water.

Due to the potentially large distance between the various Israelite settlements and the central sanctuary, Deuteronomy 12 invents what is clearly a new concept: non-sacral slaughter (בשר תאוה). Underlying this concession is the assumption that the Israelites cannot be expected to confine their meat consumption to periodic pilgrimages to the Jerusalem Temple. In response to this practical reality, not only may Israelites partake of God’s blessing at a distance from the sanctuary, they need not fear being accountable for the death of the animal. They may spill out its blood “like water.”

While such a resolution might have been expected to evoke tribulation among throngs of carnivorous Jews, the remarkable fact is that the earliest commentators were clearly uncomfortable with the gap between the strict ideal laid out by Leviticus 17 and the down-to-earth pragmatism of Deuteronomy’s dispensation. Moreover, they were apparently bothered by the fact that the “eternal statute” of Lev 17:7 was essentially null and void within Moses’ lifetime. The attempts to alleviate these tensions are found in early biblical manuscripts and translations, the Qumran scrolls and even as a fundamental disagreement between R. Akiba and R. Ishmael in the Talmud (b. Hullin 16b–17a; Leviticus Rabbah 22).

Two approaches: R. Ishmael and R. Akiba

Let us begin with the rabbinic sources. R. Ishmael understands Deuteronomy 12 as permitting non-sacrificial meat (בשר תאוה), which was forbidden by Leviticus 17. Indeed, the relationship between the two chapters as presented above is essentially identical with this view. R. Akiba’s understanding is quite different. According to his view, Leviticus 17 only deals with sacrificial offerings, specifying that these must be brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle. It does not address private meat consumption (בשר תאוה), which was entirely permissible. The innovation of Deuteronomy 12 is to require that Israelites slaughter animals through kosher slaughter; previously they were allowed to kill the animals through stabbing (נחירה).

We find a parallel to R. Akiba’s interpretation of Leviticus 17 in the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), which is essentially the same as that found in the Qumran fragment 4QLevd and the translation found in the Septuagint (LXX). The following is a comparison of this version with the Masoretic Text (MT) at vs. 4:

The significantly longer SP version takes pains to emphasize that the point of the legislation is to prohibit sacrificial offerings outside the Tabernacle.^[10] One might infer from here, as does Rabbi Akiba, that non-sacrificial meat was completely permissible. Indeed, the specification of “burnt offerings” together with “well-being” offerings rules out the possibility that we are dealing with private meat consumption, since burnt offerings are burned entirely on the altar.

In defense of R. Ishmael’s position, we should point out that this addition contradicts v. 5 which does, in fact, focus on well-being offerings, since these are permissible to lay Israelites: “so that the Israelites will bring their offerings…to the Tent of Meeting to the priest and to slaughter well-being offerings (זבחי שלמים) to the Lord from them.” Furthermore, it is very difficult to understand the dispensation of Deuteronomy 12, particularly verses 20–24, according to R. Akiba’s view, that these verses only come to require proper slaughter. If so, why are these verses concerned with the distance from the temple? Rather, it appears that we must follow R. Ishmael in acknowledging a basic tension between the Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12.^[11]

A Non-Harmonistic Reading

Though traditional interpreters usually seek to harmonize contradictions, the acknowledgment of inner-biblical tension is meaningful. To be more precise, a non-harmonistic reading enables each passage to speak for itself without its voice being stifled by the other. As we have seen, Leviticus 17 emphasizes that the sacrificial animals belong to God, requiring that they be presented as offerings. Any Israelite who violates this command will be held accountable for the animal’s spilled blood. In contrast, Deuteronomy 12 recognizes that such an ideal is incompatible with the conditions of mundane existence.

The vegetarian ideal presented in Genesis 1:29, and modified in Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17, invites us to cultivate attentiveness to the strict conditions according to which God offered his creatures for human consumption. The tension between this ideal and the more permissive approach offered by Deuteronomy 12 is nothing less than the tension between the sacred (קודש) and the profane (חול). The conditions of practical life may require a more permissive approach – the freedom from obligation designated as חול, but the attachment to God and his sanctity (= otherness) can only be achieved by adherence to the strictures of the divine law.^[12]

This indissoluble tension lies at the base of Jewish existence. While Deuteronomy 12 teaches us the necessity to consider human limitations when translating the Torah’s dictates into reality, this pragmatism cannot – and should not – cause us to lose touch with the higher potential demanded of us.