Deuteronomy 14:21---a pandemic perspective

[Athetotheist]

"You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.. .."

With the recent increase in our understanding of how dangerous it is to come into contact with wild animals----even living ones----due to the risk of viral transfer for which our immune systems are unprepared, what are we to think of this Biblical sanctioning of foisting dead animals----which died of who-knows-what----onto other human beings? Do we really think this is a practice God would condone? What would a Bible believer think of any other religion which allowed this same practice?

[Miles]

"You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.. .."

With the recent increase in our understanding of how dangerous it is to come into contact with wild animals----even living ones----due to the risk of viral transfer for which our immune systems are unprepared, what are we to think of this Biblical sanctioning of foisting dead animals----which died of who-knows-what----onto other human beings?

Ah yes,

Deuteronomy 14:21
21 “Don’t eat any animal that has died by itself. You may give the dead animal to the foreigner in your town, and he can eat it. Or you may sell the dead animal to a foreigner. But you yourselves must not eat the dead animal, because you belong to the Lord your God. You are his special people.

Pretty standard Yahweh fair, like treating Hebrew slaves better than goy slaves. OR requiring a foreigner to repay you, but canceling any debt another Israelite owes you. OR charging a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite.


.

[Overcomer]

The dietary laws were meant for the Israelites at that time and in that place. They were given, sometimes for health reasons, sometimes to set them apart from the pagan cultures around them and their ungodly rituals.

God had ordered the Jews NEVER to eat blood. I won't explain why because it's long and complicated, having to do with sacrifice, atonement, expiation, etc. But it's important to know that they weren't allowed to do so to understand this verse. An animal that died on its own would not have been bled properly and, therefore, would not have been kosher. That's why they couldn't eat it themselves.

It doesn't not mean, however, that the animal was contaminated or not fit to eat. These people weren't stupid. They could tell good meat from bad. They had eyes. They had noses. They had a sense of taste. Foreigners didn't live according to the dietary laws of the Israelites. Therefore, the fact that the animal hadn't been bled according to Jewish rules wouldn't bother them at all. It would be perfectly fine for them to eat the animal.

[Athetotheist]

The dietary laws were meant for the Israelites at that time and in that place. They were given, sometimes for health reasons, sometimes to set them apart from the pagan cultures around them and their ungodly rituals.

God had ordered the Jews NEVER to eat blood. I won't explain why because it's long and complicated, having to do with sacrifice, atonement, expiation, etc. But it's important to know that they weren't allowed to do so to understand this verse. An animal that died on its own would not have been bled properly and, therefore, would not have been kosher. That's why they couldn't eat it themselves.

It doesn't not mean, however, that the animal was contaminated or not fit to eat. These people weren't stupid. They could tell good meat from bad. They had eyes. They had noses. They had a sense of taste. Foreigners didn't live according to the dietary laws of the Israelites. Therefore, the fact that the animal hadn't been bled according to Jewish rules wouldn't bother them at all. It would be perfectly fine for them to eat the animal.

Yes, they had eyes and noses, but what they didn't have was knowledge of microbiology. As we know from recent experience, even an animal perfectly healthy in its own environment can carry organisms deadly to humans. A dead animal certainly isn't going to be a better bet, especially in a world without refrigeration. Wouldn't it have been wiser to just dispose of such an animal to make sure that no one would be harmed?

[JehovahsWitness]

DEUTERTONMY 14:21 NWT

“You must not eat any animal that was found dead.+ You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.

Even today most people are not vegetarians, so I cannot see why the biblical permission to eat dead animal flesh, would of itself be raised as something worthy of criticism except by vegetarians or meat-eating hypocrites.

That said, I presume the implied criticism in the OP is of the permission given under the Mosaic law to give or sell animals found dead ONLY to foreigners.

My response would be that the law did not mandate foreigners ACCEPT the offer. Then (as in now) nobody was under any obligation to accept any food source. If a foreigner was informed by a meat merchant or a farmer (or whoever was offering the meat) that it was, what essentially amounted to "roadkill" he was entirely free to decline.

Native israelites were under a law prohibiting the consumation of blood that would not allow them to eat such meat.

Any foreigner that valued the religious benefits of such a law, was free to voluntarily observe the contraint.

The law does not explicitly or implicity deal with rotten or putrifying meat, so there is no reason to assume that it represented disregard for the principals of good health*.

Wouldn't it have been wiser to just dispose of such an animal to make sure that no one would be harmed?

Possibly, and that remained an option (it was not an ORDER to sell it or give it away). Still, humans have had contact with dead animals from the beginning to time and even today in the middle of a pandemic there has been no directive by health experts to avoid all contact with animal flesh. In other words, short of mandating veganism, which arguably would have limited health benefits, encouraging good hygiene* (and good food preparation) might be seen as a more balanced approach than prohibiting human contact with dead animals. Few people choose to eat their meat raw and risk the dangers of doing so but if someone in bible times did chose to do that , that would be his or her choice alone.


*NB: It is worthy of note that the Mosaic law stipulated that anyone touching a dead body (human or animal) was to was their body and observe a period of isolation.

RELATED POSTS

Why is there a biblical prohibition on the consumation of blood?
viewtopic.php?p=909886#p909886

Does the bible contain insights about sickness and disease prevention?
viewtopic.php?p=1032311#p1032311

Are there any examples of the bible agreeing with proven science?
viewtopic.php?p=1036526#p1036526

[Athetotheist]

My response would be that the law did not mandate foreigners ACCEPT the offer. Then (as in now) nobody was under any obligation to accept any food source. If a foreigner was informed by a meat merchant or a farmer (or whoever was offering the meat) that it was, what essentially amounted to "roadkill" he was entirely free to decline.

Then isn't it morally questionable for the law also not to mandate that the "chosen people" inform a trusting foreigner while out to make a buck off him?

Caveat emptor?

[JehovahsWitness]

My response would be that the law did not mandate foreigners ACCEPT the offer. Then (as in now) nobody was under any obligation to accept any food source. If a foreigner was informed by a meat merchant or a farmer (or whoever was offering the meat) that it was, what essentially amounted to "roadkill" he was entirely free to decline.

Then isn't it morally questionable for the law also not to mandate that the "chosen people" inform a trusting foreigner while out to make a buck off him?

Caveat emptor?

Good laws don't try to govern every aspect of human interaction; to do so would not only be oppressive to live under but would undermine the value of good sense and human conscience. There is no need to make a law to tell someone where food come from; There was already a law to love ones neighbour and be honest on ones business dealings, so Israelites were already under moral obligation to be open and honest about what they would have on offer.

Thereafter, the primary responsibility as to the safety about what one takes into ones own body remains with each individual. Only dogs, young children and village idiots don't seek information about what they are about to injest. As today under most legal systems, if someone believed a person had deliberately acted in a way that incurred bodily harm or loss (perhaps by lying ir witholding relevant information), they could take the matter to court and seek compensation.

LEVITICUS 24: 19, 20

If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he injured the other person, the same must be inflicted on him.

Both murder and manslaughter (indirect or unintentional murder) were capital offenses under the Mosaic law so there was already enough in place to give Israelites reason to be careful about the legal ramifications for their actions.

JW

[Athetotheist]

There is no need to make a law to tell someone where food come from; only dogs, young children and village idiots don't seek information about what they are about to injest.

There was already a law to love ones neighbour and be honest on ones business dealings, so Israelites were already under moral obligation to be open and honest about what they would have on offer. Thereafter, the primary responsibility as to the safety about what one takes into ones own body remains with each individual. As today under most legal systems, if someone believed a person had deliberately acted in a way that incurred bodily harm or loss, they could take the matter to court and seek compensation.

LEVITICUS 24: 19, 20

If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he injured the other person, the same must be inflicted on him.

Both murder and manslaughter (indirect or unintentional murder) were capital offenses under the Mosaic law so there was already enough in place to give Israelites reason to be careful about the legal ramifications for their actions.

JW

There was already a law telling them to love their neighbor and be honest, but it wasn't necessary to extend that law to telling the foreigner about the food they wanted to sell to him? How would that make sense? Do you not believe that the FDA should enforce full ingredient lists?

[JehovahsWitness]

There was already a law telling them to love their neighbor and be honest, but it wasn't necessary to extend that law to telling the foreigner about the food they wanted to sell to him?

LEVITICUS 19: 34

You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

EXODUS 12:49 NIV

The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you."

JW

[Kenisaw]

"You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.. .."

With the recent increase in our understanding of how dangerous it is to come into contact with wild animals----even living ones----due to the risk of viral transfer for which our immune systems are unprepared, what are we to think of this Biblical sanctioning of foisting dead animals----which died of who-knows-what----onto other human beings? Do we really think this is a practice God would condone? What would a Bible believer think of any other religion which allowed this same practice?

Just a couple of thoughts here:
1) The Wuhan flu pandemic has not given us an "increase in our understanding" about viral transfers from animals. We already knew that, and knew it quite well. Ebola, rabies, HIV, smallpox, most colds that we get, all the rotaviruses, SARS, Bird flu, MERS, etc. And it's mostly the live animals you really have to worry about getting you sick, not the dead ones.
2) The Wuhan flu most likely escaped from a lab and is not a natural transmission. Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein explains it better than I, but basically the Wuhan flu does horrible in sunlight, does VERY well when indoors, and comes from a virus that infects bats that live nowhere near Wuhan. It is not a typical animal to human transmission.