Illuminating Leviticus: A Study of Its Laws and Institutions in the Light of Biblical Narratives

4 The Slaughter of Animals: Leviticus 17:2–9

The Slaughter of Animals Leviticus 17:2–9 c h a p t e r f o u r I think I ought to express my admiration and wonder that so much argument has been used in this case, excellent argument, beautifully put, but nothing to do with the case at all. In this chapter I wish to take issue with a problem that has played a major role in the study of the Old Testament. The rule in Lev 17:2–7 has been understood by conventional scholarship to provide crucial support for a theory that makes a distinction (in time and character) between Leviticus and Deuteronomy in regard to the slaughter of animals. I argue that the rule provides no such support. It reads: Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, and unto all the sons of Israel, and say unto them: This is the thing which Yahweh hath commanded, saying, What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, And hath not brought it unto the door of the Tent of Meeting, to offer an offering unto Yahweh before the tabernacle of Yahweh; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: To the end that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them unto Yahweh, unto the door of the Tent of Meeting, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto Yahweh. And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of Yahweh at the door of the Tent of Meeting , and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto Yahweh. And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto goat demons, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. The rule in Lev 17:2–7 is commonly understood to require that meat can only be consumed in a cultic context. Critics adhering to this view only differ as to whether there is but one recognized sanctuary or a number of them. In any event, the rule supposedly prohibits nonsacrificial, profane eating—all killing of domestic animals must be carried out within the confines of sanctuary life. Deuteronomy 12, on the other hand, is understood to demand centralized worship at one sanctuary, and if a person wishes to eat nonsacrificial, profane food without bringing it to the sanctuary , he may do so. He can slaughter it independently, as he would game animals. Judgments about the differences between the alleged stances of D and P/H redactions in this matter of eating meat have especially determined how scholars date the two documents.1 The rule in Lev 17:2–7 has proved difficult to interpret. Indeed, as critics have enumerated them to date, the difficulties are distressingly abundant, but this is so, I shall argue, because of a major misunderstanding. There is a host of problems. First, the initial statement about the killing of a domestic animal has been understood as a blanket statement that covers killing of any kind, whether for sacrificial or for ordinary eating purposes. The problem is the well-recognized one that it is utterly impractical to expect a person who wishes to cook and eat meat first to take the animal to a sanctuary to have it slaughtered under the supervision of priests. Second, to avoid this difficulty and to reconcile Leviticus with Deuteronomy, one proposed solution is to take the rule as referring only to animals that are intended for sacrificial purposes, the intent being to ensure that sacrificial animals are brought to the (or a) legitimate sanctuary.2 A major problem with this proposal is that the rule renders the following one in Lev 17:8, 9 redundant, because the latter explicitly requires that all animals for sacrifice be brought to Yahweh’s sanctuary.3 Third, if the statement in Lev 17:3 is an all inclusive one, namely, that all domestic animals for slaughter must be brought to the sanctuary, it is remarkable to find no reason proffered for such an extreme requirement—why must meat for ordinary eating require priestly supervision at a sanctuary? Fourth, it is bewildering to find that killing the...