For Leviticus 17 I find the New International Version to be the most understandable translation. Here goes.
Note the awkward attempt to maintain the fiction that this was presented while the people were camping out in the desert. "Goat idols" is translated in other versions as satyrs or devils. In any case the point is that this command transfers from the tent of the meeting to the second temple.17 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: ‘This is what the Lord has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox,[a] a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord—that person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; they have shed blood and must be cut off from their people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the Lord the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the Lord, at the entrance to the tent of meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. 6 The priest is to splash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols[b] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.’
8 “Say to them: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the Lord must be cut off from the people of Israel.The prohibition against eating blood has been presented before. Here it gets it strongest and lengthiest emphasis. Blood is not commonly eaten in North America, although blood sausage and puddings and other preparations are part of some European peasant cuisines. The rationale given for this prohibition isn't very coherent -- what does it matter if "the life of every creature is its blood" since you have just killed it. (There is of course residual blood in meat which is a major reason why it was difficult to create a convincing plant based meat substitute, so Jews have always eaten blood.)
10 “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[c] 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”
13 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”
15 “‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean. 16 But if they do not wash their clothes and bathe themselves, they will be held responsible.’”So it's okay to eat carrion, as long as you take a bath. Whatev.
Footnotes:
- Leviticus 17:3 The Hebrew word can refer to either male or female.
- Leviticus 17:7 Or the demons
- Leviticus 17:11 Or atonement by the life in the blood
2 comments:
I guess the carrion is dead already, so it's okay to eat it? But does it have to be kosher carrion? Can you get carryout carrion?
Now, about living in the desert: the passage does say "tent of meeting" more than once. I would have interpreted that as meaning the portable ark that they carried around with them. But as I read your commentary, it seems you're saying this was a thinly veiled fiction. Please expatiate on that ... thanks. It's not obvious to me.
Right. The idea is that in fact, the Egyptian captivity, the exodus, the exile in the desert never happened. This is all fiction. Josiah's priests are using this national origin story to legitimize the law they want to impose on people who are actually settled, living in cities and agricultural hinterlands. The Temple in Jerusalem inherits the ritual role of the portable tabernacle.
It does appear from the legends that at least some subset of Israelites were at one time pastoral nomads, and they may have had some sort of portable shrine. That may be the origin of this story, and the inspiration for the first temple. However, that would not have happened in the Sinai desert but in Canaan itself, since the Israelites were in fact indigenous to that land, they didn't enter it from elsewhere. We will never know for sure.
Post a Comment