Deut 14:21 & Lev 17:15

by kicky 3 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  kicky

  		Jun 14, 2007
  	Question: I am trying to understand Deut 14:21 and Lev 17:15. It seems to me Lev 17:15 is referring to a case where someone (Jew or alien) in hunting finds an already dead animal...is this correct? His eating in this case merely resulted in uncleanness. Deut is talking about simply an animal that dies of natural courses- not in the course of hunting but perhaps an animal owned by a resident. In this case the Jew can not eat it but can sell it. Is this correct?
• 

  The Fancyful and Decried Slave

  Deut 14:21 and Lev 17:15 are both related to the uncleanness of corpses (nothing to do with the blood by the way, since the "life in the blood" was not a killed one). Only the Jews and proselytes were under obligation to observe such regulations.
• 

  moggy lover

  Right on both counts.

  Lev 17 may be divided into two sections with regard to the prohibition of eating animal blood. [No consideration is given to the consumption of human blood] Vss 1-12 involve the blood of sacrificial animals, ie those that were clean, and had cost the sacrificer something. Game that was hunted was not acceptable since it did not cost the sacrificer anything.

  Vss 13-16 involve the blood of non-sacrificial animals which were acquired as a result of a hunt, these would include: 1 wild animals, which may be eaten if the blood had been drained 2 Wild animals killed by other wild animals. Eating the second class was permissible, evidently because it served as a source of food, but the remembrance of having violated a ritual code, brought about an awareness of being unclean. The Mosaic code was if not, pragmatic in its sanctions. Incidentally, the animals hunted still had to be "clean" beasts. Wild boar for instance could never be eaten, but antelopes could, even if torn by other wild animals

  Deut 14:21 involved domestic clean animals that had died of themselves. Again pragmatism dictated that, rather than waste the valuable source of food, those outside the liturgical code of Yahweh could be granted access to it. Guests, "alien residents" were to be given this meat free, while the worshiper of Yahweh may sell it to a stranger.

  Cheers
• 

  The Fancyful and Decried Slave

  I see nothing in Lev 17:15-16 that would involve blood.

  There was a "Question from Readers" article on Deut 14:21 in w 83 4/15. It contained this sentence:

  “If guilt resulted only if blood was from a creature killed by man, then Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 22:31 would not have forbidden Israelites to eat unbled flesh from animals that were not killed by man.”

  Think for a minute, and you'll see the mistake. Actually, If guilt resulted only if blood was from a creature killed by man, then Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 22:31 would have forbidden Israelites to eat that flesh anyway, because it was ceremonially unclean.

  That's not the only error in that article. The whole point was to answer a serious challenge to the Society's view on the prohibition against blood. The Governing Body and Writing Department are prefectly aware of those errors, but chose to turn a deaf ear.

  Incredibly irresponsible, considering the consequences. If you get to read that 1983 "Question from Readers", look at the general tone as well. Revealingly aggressive.