Throughout this chapter, it seems like a catch-22 is developing before our eyes. Obviously, the people ate meat as part of their regular diet (including ritual meals), but Leviticus 11 consistently forbids people from touching a dead carcass.
How are you supposed to eat meat if you can’t touch a dead animal?
The answer lies in how the animal died. If it died of natural causes or was torn apart by wild beasts, then the animal became unclean. If it was slaughtered and bled properly, then it was able to be eaten. No such prohibition was in place in that situation.
Although not expressly stated in this section, you can see in these two verses the same principle that has been stated before: The life is in the blood. If an animal is not bled properly, but rather dies a natural death or is killed by other animals, the blood is still in that animal. You can’t knowingly eat it or you’ll be guilty of consuming blood, also.
To our 21st-century minds, this all seems like a lot of requirements for something that shouldn’t really matter that much. After all, if you’re starving to death, wouldn’t you eat basically whatever you could find?
As it turns out, there is a Jewish concept called Pikuach Nefeshthat allows Jews to suspend (most) laws if it means the difference between life and death. For instance, a sick person may break a fast or someone may travel on the sabbath, if survival is at stake.
(For more insight into these types of Spiritual-meets-practical situations, check out Responsa From the Holocaust by Ephraim Oshry. It’s a collection of questions that were posed to him by Jews as to how to maintain their faith in the midst of Nazi persecution.)
The same principle can also apply to food. This seems to be at least a part of David’s argument in 1 Samuel 21 when he convinced Nob the priest to give him some of the consecrated bread. Life comes first.
On the flip side, this principle could also be abused to rationalize sin. In Daniel 1, the young Jewish exiles are given Babylonian food to eat as part of the King’s court. Although it’s possible others followed their example, the Text only records Daniel and his three friends as making the deliberate choice to “not defile themselves.”
It’s an interesting subtext of this entire story. Clearly, the intent is to create a people that are holy towards God (Leviticus 11:39). But what does that look like in certain extreme scenarios? The Law is the Law, but common sense needs to come into the picture as well.
Note: I am not a Jewish scholar, so if any Jewish scholar reads this and totally disagrees with what I’m saying, let me know at brady@coffeeandaBible.com. I’ll respond and make the appropriate changes.
