Parashat Aharei Mot includes a series of verses that discuss the obligation to slaughter animals in the Tent of Meeting (the Mishkan), and we find a dispute among the commentaries regarding how to understand them. A simple reading would seem to indicate that the only slaughter that was permitted was in the context of sacrifice:
If anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD’s Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people. This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making in the open—that they may bring them before the LORD, to the priest, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and offer them as sacrifices of well-being to the LORD (Vayikra 17:3-5).
The Ramban suggests that these verses refer to all animals that were to be slaughtered – both sacrifices and ordinary meat. Rashi, on the other hand, understands that these restrictions relate only to sacrifices. He believes that only animals that were consecrated by their owners for sacrifice need to be brought to the Mishkan and cannot be slaughtered outside of the precincts of the Mishkan. This is the source for the negative commandment forbidding the slaughter animals consecrated for sacrifice outside of the Temple.
In Sefer Devarim, in Parashat Re’eh, the Torah clearly states that we must distinguish between sacrificial animals that cannot be slaughtered outside of the Temple and ordinary slaughter of animals for meat that can be done “in any of your settlements.” That is to say, animals that have not been consecrated for sacrifice can be slaughtered and eaten anywhere:
Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place you like, but only in the place that the LORD will choose in one of your tribal territories. There you shall sacrifice your burnt offerings and there you shall observe all that I enjoin upon you. But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat in any of your settlements, according to the blessing that the LORD your God has granted you. The unclean and the clean alike may partake of it, as of the gazelle and the deer (Devarim 12:13-15).
Rashi, following the Sifra, does not see evidence of any contradiction between these two sets of laws, since the verses in Vayikra refer only to the slaughter of animals that were consecrated for sacrifice. According to the Ramban, however, these two sets of laws do seem to contradict one another. He reconciles them based on change in time and place. While in the desert, the Israelites were permitted to eat meat only if the animal was sacrificed. Once they entered the Land of Israel, however, the law changed and they were allowed to slaughter and eat ordinary meat, even if it had not been brought to the Temple as a sacrifice.
For although ordinary meat was permitted to them once God broadened their boundaries and they were no longer close to the Temple, this was not permitted in the desert – even outside of the encampment – since they were not far from the altar as they were to be once they entered the Land. Only then was ordinary meat permitted to them (Ramban, Parashat Aharei Mot).
The Ramban believes that his understanding is inherent in the verses in Parashat Re’eh, where the Torah clearly states that the reason ordinary meat was permitted was because the people became dispersed throughout the Land of Israel.
When the LORD enlarges your territory, as He has promised you, and you say, “I shall eat some meat,” for you have the urge to eat meat, you may eat meat whenever you wish (Devarim 12:20).
In the Israelite encampment in the desert it was possible to insist that all meat had to be brought to the Mishkan before it was eaten. Once in the Land of Israel, such a requirement would have made it virtually impossible for most people to eat meat. The source for the Ramban’s approach is a midrash in Devarim Rabbah that also suggests that the verses in Aharei Mot should be read as applying specifically to the time when they were taught – when the Israelites were in the desert. This rule was changed, however, once they entered the Land of Israel, when ordinary meat became permitted, as is taught in Sefer Devarim. The Midrash appears as follows:
The Rabbis taught –
There are many things that the Holy One blessed be He forbade, but He then permitted them in another place.
A proof: The Holy One blessed be He forbade the Israelites from slaughtering and eating without bringing the animal to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting…
But here He then permitted it to them, as it says: But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat… (Chapter 4:6).
It is important to focus on the different approaches of the commentaries and the midrashim upon which they are based, and try to understand the underlying reasons for them. Why does one choose to note the contradiction and leave it intact, while the other tries to blur the differences in order to limit the gap between the different verses? While it is possible to attribute this to differing approaches of the commentaries themselves, it is likely that we have evidence of a basic disagreement about the consumption of meat. These two approaches present two different positions about the relationship between ordinary meat and meat that is the product of sacrifice. According to Rashi, eating meat was always permitted, either from a sacrifice or by means of ordinary slaughter. According to the Ramban, eating ordinary, non-sacrificial meat was a later concession, which became permitted only when the distance to the Temple in a large country made it impossible to bring a sacrifice every time someone desired to eat meat.
This dispute relates to the basic question of meat consumption – to Rav Kook’s “Vision of vegetarianism and peace” – but it also relates to how we understand the concept of sacrifice in the Temple.
According to Rashi, we are faced with a choice of the mundane or the holy. A person can choose whether he or she wants his or her actions to remain simple and prosaic, even as the option always exists to sanctify the ordinary – even to sanctify the act of eating meat.
The Ramban has a different approach. He believes that sacrifice is the only recommended method of eating meat. There is a certain etiquette that is required before every meat meal – the main course must first be brought to the Temple, just as fruits must first have tithes separated from them. This is less an issue of sanctity, and more a question of appropriate behavior. We must always be aware that everything we eat and every act that we perform has certain norms of behavior that must be done. Entering the Land of Israel, widening the boundaries of life, living further from the Temple – all of these offer a positive element of convenience and independence. At the same time, they also contain a certain release from the bonds of conventions – even from religious conventions. It is easier to sin when you are outside of Israel; it is easier to experiment with drugs in India; it is easier to drink straight from the bottle and to eat with your hands when you are away from home. The process of dispersion – of drawing away from the core – includes the need to release stress. Here we find recognition of the need to adapt to the new Jewish religious consciousness.
An opposing approach to understanding the Ramban is based on a Gemara in Massekhet Zevahim (107b). The issue discussed there is whether someone who sacrifices an animal in contemporary times when there is no Temple will be liable for slaughtering a consecrated animal outside of the Temple. The Gemara brings a disagreement between two sages – Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish – and explains that the point of dispute is whether the area of the Temple still retains its holiness or if its holiness was abrogated with its destruction. All agree, however, that if there is no longer any holiness there, then there can be no prohibition against sacrificing an animal outside of the Temple precincts. After all, there is no longer any concept of “in the Temple” and “outside the Temple.”
The disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish presents the possibility that even eating outside of the Temple might be considered an act of holiness. With the destruction of the Temple, the entire word can be viewed as platform for holiness. Perhaps this is what the Ramban hints to – eating non-consecrated meat in the expanded borders of the Land of Israel can be seen as eating in the expanded courtyard of the Temple. Proper slaughter and consumption of meat can raise the mundane act of eating to the level of sacrifices brought in the Temple at the time when it stood.