Leviticus - Unclean animals

[ThomasMT]

In Genesis, God beholds His creation and everything in it. He regards it all as “good.” In Leviticus, all but a narrow range of animals are regarded as unclean or abomidable, and can be a source of defilement. Can someone offer a quick reconciliation of this seeming discrepancy? Thank you.

 

[Thom18]

The prohibition against the consumption (or mere touching) of certain animals, I think, is a reflection of the chasm between Gentile and Jew. Pork, for example, was a staple of the Gentile diet, and to emphasize that the Israelites were set as a people apart from the Gentile race, they were forbidden from consuming some of the same foods as them (in addition to being forbidden from participating in their religious rituals)

 

[Vico]

In Genesis, God beholds His creation and everything in it. He regards it all as “good.” In Leviticus, all but a narrow range of animals are regarded as unclean or abomidable, and can be a source of defilement. Can someone offer a quick reconciliation of this seeming discrepancy? Thank you.

Proper behavior is specified for humans. Generally the land or air animals that eat other land or air animals are unclean. Also blood is not to be eaten, per Leviticus 7:26.

 

[kapp19]

Humans can also be unclean.

The clean/unclean distinction is about being “in between” the world of life and the world of death. Some of that is now obscure to us because of our distance from the context of the ritual purity laws, but some of it is more obvious (like leprosy, corpses, etc.).

 

[otjm]

it is also possible that some of the laws may have originated in real world issues. Pigs are subject to carrying trichinosis if they are not properly raised - but it can come form any other raw meat if the animal had contracted it. Other tribes may have had better husbandry, or cooked their meat more thoroughly and it became another means of separating off from the pagans.

I am not a wonk on dietary laws; it seems to me there was also a prohibition on eating shellfish? Similar issue, as they can go bad if not eaten shortly after harvest.

 

[White_Tree]

In Genesis, God beholds His creation and everything in it. He regards it all as “good.” In Leviticus, all but a narrow range of animals are regarded as unclean or abomidable, and can be a source of defilement. Can someone offer a quick reconciliation of this seeming discrepancy? Thank you.

Your confusion stems from the assumption that the story of Genesis is describing the creation of animals. It is not. The “animals” in the first chapter of Genesis are different types of human beings. See this explanation from the rabbis in the Zohar:

The words: “And every living creature that moves” (Genesis 1:21) refer to Yisrael, who are surely the Nefesh of Chayah. They are therefore called “one nation on the earth” (II Samuel 7:23). The words “which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind” (Genesis 1:21) refer to those who occupy themselves with Torah. The words “And every winged bird after its kind” (Genesis 1:21) allude to the righteous among them, and for this reason, they merit the Nefesh of Chayah. According to another interpretation, the words, “every winged bird,” refer to the angels, worldly messengers, of whom we have already spoken.

Rabbi Aba said that the words, “living Nefesh” refer to Yisrael, because they are children of the Holy One, blessed be He, from whom their holy souls originate. He asks, From where do the souls of idolatrous nations originate? Rabbi Elazar said: Their souls come from the forces of the left, which defile them. Therefore, they are all impure and convey impurity to those who come close to them.

“And Elohim said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures…’” (Genesis 1:24). These words refer to the rest of the Chayot, [apart from Yisrael], each and every one receives according to its kind. Rabbi Elazar added, This supports our statement that “living Nefesh” refers to Yisrael, who are holy supernal living souls. The words “Cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth” (Genesis 1:24) refer to the idolatrous nations, which are not living souls. Rather, they are, as we have said, [drawn from the forces of the left, which defile them]. – Zohar, Bereshit B, 169-171

And also:

Rabbi Shimon continued the discussion saying, “And out of the ground Hashem Elohim formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the air” (Genesis 2:19). Woe to [the people of] the world whose hearts are closed, whose eyes are shut and who do not look into the secrets of the Torah and perceive that the “beast of the field” and the “bird of the air” allude to the ignorant . Even those who have a living Nefesh [soul], are of no service to the Shechinah in exile or to Moses who is with Her. For all the time that the Shechinah is in exile, Moses did not move away from Her. – Zohar , Bereshit A, 274

But the prohibition against eating certain types of animals in Leviticus (usually) refers to actual, physical animals. That prohibition is in place because of the effect that eating those animals has on the psychology.

So you’re comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[whatistrue]

Can someone offer a quick reconciliation of this seeming discrepancy?

“Good” means that it is fit for the purpose that God created it for. It does not necessarily mean that it is fit for human consumption. Granite is good but desiring to eat it is a mental issue.

 

[ThomasMT]

21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

---

I can certainly appreciate that type of interpretation, but It seems from above, that these are fairly clearly animal animals.

 

[ThomasMT]

Granite is good but desiring to eat it is a mental issue.

That may be true, but one wouldn’t be defiled by mearly touching it. To be fair, granite is know to release radon so perhaps, in a sense one could be

 

[White_Tree]

I can certainly appreciate that type of interpretation, but It seems from above, that these are fairly clearly animal animals.

It doesn’t seem like that to me at all.

From what part of those verses do you conclude that these are physical animals?

I ask because there is a lot to unpack in each of the verses you quoted, and explaining all of them would take many posts, which I don’t have time for at the moment. (When my teacher was explaining them to us, for instance, he gave a two 2-hour lectures on each of the seven days of Genesis. And you just quoted a day-and-a-half right there.)

If you could zero in on the parts you believe are suggestive of “animal animals” that could help.

 

[whatistrue]

one wouldn’t be defiled by mearly touching it.

Then how about poison ivy, or pond scum, or even excrement? All part of God’s plan, but not food for humans and additionally not healthy to touch.

On another note, I seem to recall a rabbi writing (no, I don’t recall who or where, but the idea stuck with me) that the reason for not eating pork for a Jew is not because of trichinosis or other health reasons. It is “Because God said not to”. So whatever the underlying reason, when God said not to touch these animals, that was that. Perhaps the “defilement” and “abomination” bits were there for emphasis rather than being strictly descriptive of objective qualities of the animals themselves.

 

[kapp19]

If you could zero in on the parts you believe are suggestive of “animal animals” that could help

The burden of proof lies with you - not with the one saying the text means what it says… I find the rabbis’ explanation a bit absurd, and also contrary to Catholic doctrine regarding original sin (indirectly).

 

[kapp19]

Here’s a helpful point… Sacred vessels are purified after use, so that the Eucharist is no longer in them. What sense does the word “purify” make? Is the Lord impure? Is a thing impure for touching Him?

It’s about knowledge… we purify in order to clarify “what a thing is.”

Christ takes all kinds of “in between-ness” and “contradictions” into Himself and His public ministry… He is the true Manna - the “what is it”…

 

[ThomasMT]

If you could zero in on the parts you believe are suggestive of “animal animals” that could help.

[21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth​

By virtue of the pattern of categorization we see here, I think it’s fair to say that “animal animals” are included. Even if one seeks to argue that the deep ocean trenches are full of Angel’s and other types of men, and God is referencing them, this reference would still include all the creatures within this category, even animals as we think of them

Same goes with the following…

[25]And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Among the things that creepeth are some of the creatures that my post refers to.

Sorry about the obnoxious bold… cant edit

 

[ThomasMT]

All part of God’s plan, but not food for humans and additionally not healthy to touch.

No dispute there.

It is “Because God said not to”. So whatever the underlying reason, when God said not to touch these animals, that was that.

Agreed.

Perhaps the “defilement” and “abomination” bits were there for emphasis rather than being strictly descriptive of objective qualities of the animals themselves.

And there it gets a little fuzzy, IMHO. Because God said not to should be sufficient reason for us. We are both speculating but while we are at it, I suspect that the fall and the entering of sin into the world after creation could be what changes components of creation and how some of them are regarded by our Lord.

 

[whatistrue]

Because God said not to should be sufficient reason for us.

Yep. But we all know that some people are just hard headed, and likely just as hard headed (or more) back then, so a little extra encouragement to follow the rules might have been slipped in by the scribe. Just a notion, no basis to claim it as fact. Of course, a change due to the Fall is a good notion as well.

 

[White_Tree]

[21] And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth

It’s stated in multiple places in the Zohar that the whale in that verse refers to the Leviathan. The waters in Genesis are the waters in man. There are many different waters within the human being. This verse is referring to the sexual waters; the Leviathan is a force within those waters.

“Living creature” refers to the Nephesh Chaiah [נפש חיה], or “living soul.” It’s the vitality of the physical body.

The burden of proof lies with you - not with the one saying the text means what it says… I find the rabbis’ explanation a bit absurd, and also contrary to Catholic doctrine regarding original sin (indirectly).

That’s not how “burden of proof” usually works. In every instance that I can think of, the burden of proof is determined by power or necessity, not by the statement being proven. (Please correct me if you know of a counterexample.)

For instance, a scientist or other academic making a fantastical claim has the burden of proof for that claim, because his livelihood depends on convincing his peers of its accuracy and getting it published.

However, if your boss walks in and asks you to do something based on his own confused or warped understanding of the world, the burden of proof for refuting that ridiculous understanding falls on you, not your boss.

In each case, the burden of proof falls on the one with less power, not on the one making the ridiculous claim.

In religion, there is no burden of proof. There is a burden of understanding. It is similar to a student learning at the college level. The obligation to understand the professor is on the student. If the professor is convoluted or confusing, that is the student’s problem, not the professor’s. If the student does not grasp the material, he will fail the class, or will leave the university without the skills he needs to succeed in his career.

Jesus spoke in parables, many of which he did not explain. He made claims about his own divinity that were considered blasphemous by the religious authorities. Jesus was under no obligation to explain those parables, nor to back up his claims. The way religion works is we “get it,” and we correctly apply that understanding, or we fall into the abyss. The burden is on us to understand the Word of God, not on God to make it understandable.

The teachings I shared from those rabbis were intended to be helpful in cutting through the obscurity of a very dense and difficult passage in the Torah, which is notorious for being misinterpreted, by millions of people, all over the world. But if you did not find them useful, you are free to disregard them.

 

[ThomasMT]

It’s stated in multiple places in the Zohar

Ok, that’s some interesting stuff… I’ll grant that for sure, but tell me this… where then in the Genesis account of creation are we to find references to the birds and animals and fish in the literal sense, as we know them? Surely somewhere in Geneses they are mentioned as well, when describing creation.

 

[CRM_Brother]

Can someone offer a quick reconciliation of this seeming discrepancy?

If one looks at many of the prohibitory laws within the Pentateuch, a pattern arises. They can be generally grouped into one of three categories: the law prohibits an evil act; the law prohibits an act which indirectly infringes upon a good act, or the law prohibits an act which, although not evil in itself, is done for an impure reason which leads the one committing the act away from God.

The prohibition of unclean animals fall within this third category. The eating of the animals is not unclean in and of itself. Instead, it is Israel’s intention in eating these animals which is unclean.

The key word which is not always translated correctly in English lies at the very end of each prohibition. The uncleanliness is only “for you”. The animals are not unclean in themselves.

Going through the list, here is the reasoning why each of the types of animals are unclean for the Israelites.

1. Cud-chewing animals without cloven hooves. These animals were some of the primary domesticated animals which the Egyptians feasted upon. This was because nearly all of the rest of the domesticated livestock was sacred to one Egyptian god or another. This is why pork (and Egypt’s fleshpots) were so tempting to the Israelites. This was one of their primary sources of meat during slavery.
2. Fish which do not have scales and fins. Catfish and Carp were some of the primary fish available to the poor Israelites in Egypt. The scaled fishes represented the poverty of Israel. Non-scaled or non-finned fishes (like eels) and other forms of seafood (like shellfish) were delicacies to the Egyptians and Israelites alike. For an Israelite to afford these, they needed to rise above their ethnic clansmen and become ‘Egyptian’ through trade, commerce, and land ownership. These other types of fish represented an Israelite abandoning his culture and people for wealth.
3. Birds of prey, carion eaters, and fish eaters. These animals were avoided because of the Egyptian practices associated with their slaughter and harvesting. They were closely associated with magic and fortune-telling. Traditionally, when these birds were slaughtered, their entrails were examined and burned in an attempt to tell the future. Their uncleanliness for the Israelites surround these practices.
4. Creeping things. These animals, primarily invertebrates and snakes, were another uncleanliness for Israel because the animals were commonly used in other forms of Egyptian magics. The fact that Moses’ staff turned into a serpent before Pharaoh and then reverted to a staff was showing the Egyptian magicians that even their so-called ‘magic’ was as worthless as a walking staff in the eyes of God and the power of the Almighty. It was for these practices of magic that the creeping things were unclean for the Israelites.

Hope this helped,
Ben

 

[White_Tree]

Ok, that’s some interesting stuff… I’ll grant that for sure, but tell me this… where then in the Genesis account of creation are we to find references to the birds and animals and fish in the literal sense, as we know them? Surely somewhere in Geneses they are mentioned as well, when describing creation.

Nowhere that I’m aware of. That was the original point I was trying to make.

The stories in the Torah were given to us for our own spiritual development, to guide us on the path to God. God’s creation of physical animals has no bearing whatsoever on our own spiritual progress. It would be pointless to discuss it except as an allegory for something else.

Many people attempt to make the Bible into a history or science textbook. If that’s all it is, then it has no value. It is full of (historical and scientific) inaccuracies and contradictions, but that’s because it was not intended to be (historically or scientifically) accurate. The prophets and evangelists did not deliver us this priceless treasure so we could fill our feeble and forgetful minds with concepts. The Bible is meant to instruct us on the way to approach God so we can see and know Him for ourselves, and partake in the Divine Life.

Now, is there some sense in which the creation story refers to physical creation? Yes, to the degree that the spiritual creation of man is archetypically analogous to the physical creation of the universe. The forces and principles that act in creation are universal, and thus are similar on both the macrocosmic and microcosmic level. But the first chapter of Genesis is a tale about the elaboration of spiritual archetypes. As a story about physical creation, it is completely nonsensical. God created day and night before the sun, moon, and stars? No, that’s ridiculous. There were plants before there was a sun to feed them? Obviously not.

If we try to read it as a story about physical creation, we run into absurdities, because that’s not what the story is about. It is about the spiritual creation of man, the birth in the spirit that Jesus talked about in John chapter 3. That is spiritually relevant, and is something that would be important to know. And, as Jesus pointed out to Nicodemus in John 3:10, it is a doctrine that was already present in Judaism, which Nicodemus, as a master of Israel, should have already known… because it’s right there, at the beginning of the Torah.