At the end of Ezekiel 44, verses 15–31, the prophet sets out laws that the Levitical priests, the descendants of Zadok, will observe in the future. The last verse concludes the list:
The priests shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself, or is torn, whether it be fowl or beast. (Ezekiel 44:31)
כָּל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִן הָעוֹף וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לֹא יֹאכְלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים. (יחזקאל מ"ד לא)
The Babylonian Talmud relates:
Nevertheless, that man should be remembered favorably, and his name was Hananiah son of Hezekiah. Were it not for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden away, since its words contradicted the Torah. What did he do? They brought three hundred jars of oil up to him, and he sat in an upper room and expounded them. (Shabbat 13b)
One contradiction Hananiah addressed may have concerned the prohibition of carrion and torn animals at the end of chapter 44. Ezekiel implies that, like the preceding laws, it is peculiar to priests. Yet the Torah addresses this prohibition to all Israel: “And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs” (וְאַנְשֵׁי קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ; Exodus 22:30), and “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself; thou mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner” (לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי; Deuteronomy 14:21).
But why complain about Ezekiel? Leviticus explicitly presents this prohibition as applying to priests alone:
What man soever of the seed of Aaron … That which dieth of itself, or is torn of beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith. (Leviticus 22:4, 8)
אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן… נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל לְטָמְאָה בָהּ. (ויקרא כ"ב ד-ח)
This is therefore no innovation first appearing in Ezekiel. Leviticus too applies the prohibition only to priests.
Furthermore, not only does Leviticus present it as a specifically priestly commandment, it omits it when addressing the matter in a broader context:
And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die, he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even. And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; he also that beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even. (Leviticus 11:39–40)
וְכִי יָמוּת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִיא לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָהּ יִטְמָא עַד הָעָרֶב. וְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת נִבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב. (ויקרא י"א לט-מ)
These verses imply that touching, eating, or carrying a carcass causes impurity, but do not prohibit eating itself, any more than touching or carrying.
We cannot say that the Torah discusses only impurity here and assumes the eating prohibition as obvious. Throughout this chapter it does not ignore dietary prohibitions; on the contrary, it discusses them alongside impurity from contact or carrying. Carrion is the sole case in which eating is said to impart impurity, like touching and carrying, without the eating itself being prohibited. This implies that it is not forbidden.
How, then, should we understand Leviticus and Ezekiel? Do they really permit ordinary Israelites to eat carrion and torn animals? If so, how can this fit one of the simplest and best-known laws, which applies the prohibition to all Israel, as Deuteronomy states?
In Menahot 45a, the Talmud’s sages discuss the Ezekiel verse. Does a prohibition for priests imply permission for Israelites? Rabbi Yohanan offers no solution, saying: “Elijah will expound this passage in the future.” Ravina argues instead that the verse teaches a law for priests. Since priests may eat a bird whose neck has been pinched off as part of Temple service – forbidden to Israelites, who must slaughter even birds – we might suppose that priests may also eat carrion and torn animals. The verse teaches otherwise. It does not permit Israelites to eat them but excludes the possibility that priests may do so.
Ravina’s explanation has problems. Although pinching is not slaughter, it is integral to offering a bird on the altar. The fear that permission to eat such a sacrificial bird might lead us to permit all carrion is implausible. Moreover, this can explain repetition of the prohibition for birds, which priests may eat following pinching, but not Ezekiel’s mention of animals, for which there is no permission to eat without slaughter. Finally, this explanation implies that without the verse priests could eat carrion while Israelites could not. It is unreasonable for priests, whose holiness is greater, to be subject to a more lenient rule.
In his commentary on Leviticus 22:8, Abraham ibn Ezra rejects Ravina’s explanation. He holds that neither Leviticus nor Ezekiel intends to prohibit priests from eating carrion, since this is already forbidden to everyone. Rather, a priest who violates the prohibition and eats carrion or a torn animal may not serve in the sanctuary. Ibn Ezra similarly addresses Leviticus 21:5: priests may not make bald patches, shave the edges of their beards, or cut their flesh. This sounds priest-specific, yet halakhah prohibits mourning cuts and bald patches to all Israel, as Deuteronomy 14:1 states. For Ibn Ezra, the Torah means that a priest who violates these general prohibitions may not serve in the sanctuary.
But his explanation is unconvincing. If the Torah wanted to say that a priest who ate carrion became impure and could not serve, it would not say that eating it is forbidden lest he become impure. It would explicitly state that a priest who ate carrion and became impure could not serve. It might, for example, formulate this on the model of Leviticus 21:21: “Any man of Aaron the priest’s descendants who eats carrion shall not approach to offer the LORD’s fire offerings; he is impure, and shall not approach to offer the food of his God.” This is a hypothetical formulation, not a biblical quotation. We should therefore choose the straightforward reading: the verse warns priests not to eat carrion so as not to become impure. This implies that Israelites, who were not commanded concerning this impurity, were not forbidden to eat it.
Priestly Prohibitions
Numbers Rabbah 10:11 contains a wonderful midrash praising the Nazirite:
“All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD”: come and see that whoever sanctifies himself below is sanctified above. Because he abstains from wine and imposes hardship on himself by not shaving, in order to guard against sin, the Holy One says: He is as important before Me as a high priest. Just as the high priest may not become impure through any dead person, neither may the Nazirite. Of the high priest it is written that the consecration of his God’s anointing oil is upon him (Leviticus 21:12); of the Nazirite, that God’s consecration is upon his head (Numbers 6:7). Of the priest it is written that Aaron was separated to be sanctified as most holy (1 Chronicles 23:13); the Nazirite too is called holy: all the days of his Naziriteship he is holy to the LORD (Numbers 6:8).
The midrash notes several parallels between the Nazirite and the high priest. The high priest is the only person forbidden to become impure through his father or mother because of his exceptional holiness. What does the Torah say about an Israelite who chooses to sanctify himself as a Nazirite? According to the midrash, it takes the prohibition against corpse impurity, including from one’s parents, which essentially belongs to the high priest, and applies it to the Israelite taking a Nazirite vow. By imposing this prohibition, the Torah raises him to the high priest’s level.
Perhaps this model of expanding the circle to which a prohibition applies can explain the Torah’s contradictions concerning mourning cuts and bald patches, and carrion and torn animals. I suggest these are essentially priestly holiness prohibitions. That is why in Leviticus, also called the Teaching of the Priests, and in Ezekiel, whose prophecies were delivered by a priest, they apply only to priests. Exodus and Deuteronomy, however, extend some priestly holiness laws, particularly these dietary and mourning prohibitions, to all Israel. This expresses Israel’s vocation as a holy people. The Torah plants its roots already in the introduction to Israel’s formative event, the giving of the Torah:
Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.’ (Exodus 19:5–6)
וְעַתָּה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ. וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ. (שמות י"ט ו)
Indeed, examining the sources that forbid carrion, torn flesh, mourning baldness, and cuts to Israelites reveals holiness as their sole stated rationale. Exodus emphasizes the prohibition’s role in imparting holiness to those commanded:
And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs. (Exodus 22:30)
וְאַנְשֵׁי קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ. (שמות כ"ב ל)
Deuteronomy likewise invokes holiness as the reason for both prohibitions:
Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be His own treasure out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 14:1–2)
…
Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself; thou mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner; for thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God. (Deuteronomy 14:21)
בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה' א-לֹהֵיכֶם לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ וְלֹא תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם לָמֵת. כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּבְךָ בָּחַר ה' לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. (דברים י"ד א-ב)
…
לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה' אלֹהֶיךָ… (דברים י"ד כא)
The dietary and mourning prohibitions are therefore essentially priestly holiness laws and, in that capacity, would leave ordinary Israelites permitted to do these things. This explains why Leviticus and Ezekiel son of Buzi the priest address them only to priests. Elsewhere, however, the Torah applies some priestly holiness laws to the whole nation. It thereby expresses the priestly, holy dimension of Israel as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. This is the ruling ultimately established in Jewish law.
