HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash"
To:            yhe-intparsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       INTPARSHA -25: Parashat Tzav

                    YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
         ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
**************************************************************

               INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

                      by Zvi Shimon


                      PARASHAT TZAV


               The Prohibition of Eating Blood


The prohibition of eating blood, appears several times in
the Torah, one of them being parashat Tzav:

"If anyone eats the fat of animals from which offerings
by fire may be made to the Lord, the person who eats it
shall be cut off from his kin. And you must not consume
any blood, either of bird or of animal, in any of your
settlements. Anyone who eats blood shall be cut off from
his kin" (7:25,26).

The severity of the prohibition is attested to by the
punishment awaiting the transgressor. He who eats blood
receives the punishment of 'karet'- thus being cut off by God
from his people. In addition to laws governing the proper
'shechita' (slaughtering) of animals, Jewish law prescribes an
intricate process for ridding the meat from blood, either
through soaking and salting it or by broiling it. The
commentators offer different reasons for the prohibition of
eating blood. However, I would like to preface their analysis
with some general statements about how to approach searching
for the rationale behind the commandments.

The Torah rarely reveals the reasons behind commandments.
The commentators' suggestions are, on the whole, speculative.
Hence, it is common to find varying and even contradictory
explanations. The most important point to be kept in mind
while dealing with the rationale of the commandments is that
the performance of the commandments is in no way contingent
upon their rationale. The underlying reason behind the
commandments is the will of God. The search for the rationale
behind the commandments is an attempt to understand God's
aims and objectives in commanding us. However, the
commandments are, of course, binding irrespective of the rationale
suggested.

Let us now turn to the reasons offered by the
commentators for the prohibition of eating blood. We will
begin with the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, Egypt, 1138-
1204):

"Although blood was very unclean in the eyes of the
Sabeans, they nevertheless partook of it, because they
thought it was the food of the spirits, which join him
and tell him future events, according to the notion which
people generally have of spirits.  There were, however,
people who objected to eating blood, as a thing naturally
disliked by man; they killed a beast, received the blood
in a vessel or in a pot, and ate of the flesh of that
beast, whilst sitting round the blood.  They imagined
that in this manner the spirits would come to partake of
the blood which was their food, whilst the idolaters were
eating the flesh; that love, brotherhood, and friendship
with the spirits were established, because they dined
with the latter at one place and at the same time; that
the spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them
of coming events, and be favorable to them.  Such ideas
people liked and accepted in those days; they were
general, and their correctness was not doubted by any one
of the common people.  The Law, which is perfect in the
eyes of those who know it, and seeks to cure mankind of
these lasting diseases, forbade the eating of blood, and
emphasized the prohibition exactly in the same terms as
it emphasizes idolatry: "I will set My face against that
soul which eateth blood" (Lev. 17:10).  The same language
is employed in reference to him "who giveth of his seed
unto Molekh"; "then I will set My face against that man"
(ibid., 20:5).  There is, besides idolatry and eating
blood, no other sin in reference to which these words are
used.  For the eating of blood leads to a kind of
idolatry, to the worship of spirits."  (Guide for the
Perplexed, part 3, chapter 46)

This explanation is consonant with the Rambam's general
approach of explaining many commandments as a counteractant
to the customs and beliefs of idolatry. In our discussion of the
meaning of the sacrifices in parashat Pekudei we saw that the
Rambam offers a similar explanation for the sacrifices.
According to the Rambam, the worship of God by the offering of
sacrifices is not the preferred form of worship. The Torah
commands us to perform sacrifices only in an attempt to curb
idolatry. Here too blood is prohibited in order to combat the
skewed belief in spirits and that one can unite with them
through the eating of blood. Previously we saw that the Ramban
(Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, Spain, 1194-1274) outright rejected
the Rambam's explanation of the sacrifices. What is his
opinion of the Rambam's explanation of the prohibition of
eating blood? After summarizing the Rambam's approach the
Ramban evaluates it as follows:

"Though this explanation is plausible, it is not borne
out by the Scriptures which emphasize the reason as
being, 'For the life of all flesh is in the blood'
(17:11)."

This time, the Ramban is not so critical of the Rambam.
He regards the Rambam's explanation as being logically sound
and raises reservations solely of a textual nature. Why is the
Ramban so adamantly opposed to the Rambam's explanation of
the sacrifices and yet somewhat receptive of this approach in
relation to the prohibition of eating blood? (Take a few
moments to think about the question.)

The major difference between the two is that the
sacrifices are positive commandments while the prohibition of
eating blood is a negative commandment (a prohibition). The
Ramban was willing to accept the curbing of idolatrous
behavior as the rationale for a prohibition but not for a
positive commandment. The idea that a positive commandment is
not necessarily desirable action but rather an attempt at
minimizing undesirable phenomena is problematic. Another
difference between the sacrifices and the prohibition of
eating blood is that the sacrifices comprise a whole complex
of commandments spanning many chapters in the Torah while the
prohibition of eating blood is one commandment. While the
attempt to cancel idolatrous behavior might be the rationale
behind one commandment, the Ramban found it difficult to
accept this as the rationale behind such a large number of
commandments. According to the Ramban, there must be a more
positive and constructive idea behind the sacrifices.

As stated, the Ramban rejects the Rambam's explanation of
the prohibition of eating blood on textual grounds. Scripture
itself states the reason for the prohibition:

"For the life of all flesh is in the blood, and I have
assigned it to you for making atonement for your lives
upon the altar..."(17:11).

The Ramban elucidates this reason as follows:

"'For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have
given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your
sons.'  The sense of this verse is to state that He
forbade us [to eat] blood because He has given it to us
to be upon the altar and to effect atonement for our
souls, and it is therefore the part dedicated to God,
just as is the case with the forbidden fat."

The blood belongs to God and is therefore not to be
consumed by man. It is reserved for the altar. The Ramban
brings support for this explanation from the fact that the
prohibition of eating blood appears together with the
prohibition of eating the fat of animals from which offerings
may be made (see 3:17; 7:24-27). Both the fat and the blood of
animal sacrifices are always offered on the altar. Since they
belong to God, it is forbidden to eat them. According to this
explanation, the blood's function in the offering of
sacrifices makes it forbidden for consumption. The Ramban also
offers a second explanation for the prohibition of eating
blood:

"It is proper to explain the reason for the prohibition
against eating blood by saying that God created all lower
creatures for the purpose of man, since only he amongst
all of them recognizes his Creator.  Nonetheless, He did
not at first permit man to eat anything except for
vegetation, but no living creatures at all, just as is
stated in the Chapter of Creation where it is said,
'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed etc.
for food' (Genesis 1:29); but when the flood came and
they [the lower creatures] were saved by the merit of
Noah, and he brought offerings from them to God which
were acceptable before Him (ibid. 8:21), He gave man
permission to slaughter [and eat them], just as He said,
'Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for
you; as the green herb have I given you all' (ibid. 9:3),
since their existence was because of man.  Thus He
permitted man to use their bodies for his benefit and
needs because their life was on account of man's sake,
and that their soul [i.e., blood] should be used for
man's atonement when offering them up before Him, blessed
be He, but not to eat it, since one creature possessed of
a soul is not to eat another creature with a soul, for
all souls belong to God.  The life of man just as the
life of the animal are all His."

According to this second explanation of the Ramban, there
is an intrinsic reason for the prohibition of eating blood. It
is not only that blood has a special function of being offered
on the altar and atoning for man's sins. Blood is the soul and
the life of the animal. Man was permitted to eat flesh but the
"life" of the animal is still prohibited. It is simply
improper for one soul to eat another. Flesh is for consumption
but the "soul" is not to be used for nutrition.

The Ramban states his final reason for the prohibition of
eating blood:

"Now it is also known that the food one eats is taken
into the body of the eater 'and they become one flesh.' 
If one were to eat 'the life of all flesh,' it would then
attach itself to one's own blood and they would become
united in one's heart, and the result would be a
thickening and coarseness of the human soul so that it
would closely approach the nature of the animal soul
which resided in that which he ate, since blood does not
require digestion as other foods do, which thereby become
changed, and thus man's soul will become combined with
the blood of the animal!"

According to this explanation, blood is prohibited
because it is likely to have a negative effect upon he who
eats it. The Ramban gives a biological explanation for this.
The blood which is consumed from an animal is directly
absorbed and mixes with the blood of the person who eats it.
Consequently, this blood has a negative effect on the person
who consumed it. The blood of the animal comprises a lower
soul, a lower spirit which lacks the rational aspects of the
human spirit. When one eats animal blood he absorbs its soul
and therefore begins taking on animal traits and loosing his
elevated human characteristics.

While we might find it difficult to accept the biological
components of the Ramban's explanation we can still accept the
basic idea. The idea behind this explanation is that "you are
what you eat". The type of food one consumes directly effects
his character. It is not, as believed in past periods, that
blood carries with it certain personality and character
traits. Rather, the actual act of eating the blood effects the
human being. Blood represents life. The loss of blood
represents death. The eating of blood is tantamount to the
eating of life, and therefore equated to killing. The act of
eating blood is likely to breed viciousness and cruelty. It
will lead to violence, aggression and a loss of an
appreciation for the sanctity of life. Man was originally not
permitted to kill for the sake of eating. Only after the
destruction of the world in the flood was man permitted to
slay for the sake of eating. However the Torah forbids the
eating of blood in order to prevent man from being negatively
effected by the eating of animals. Blood, the embodiment of
life, is not to be eaten. The Torah desires to mold a refined
human being fully sensitive and appreciative of the sanctity
of life. The history of the Jewish people is evidence of the
inculcation of these characteristics. Jewish communities are
renowned for being violence-free. The Jewish people have never
been an aggressive warrior people. They do not have the
warlike attributes characteristic of many of the surrounding
nations. This is perhaps due to appreciation of the sanctity
of life cultivated and preserved, by the prohibition of eating
blood.

To summarize, the Rambam explains the prohibition of
eating blood as an attempt to cancel the beliefs and customs
of idolatry. The Ramban proposes three reasons. The first
reason is that blood belongs to God and is reserved for the
altar. The second reason is that blood is the embodiment of
life and as such is forbidden to consume. The final reason is
that the eating of blood has a detrimental effect on
character.

These explanations are not mutually exclusive. A
commandment may have several rationales. In fact one can find
textual supports for most of the explanations. In Leviticus 17
which deals with the laws of slaughtering animals during the
Israelite's sojourn in the desert and the prohibition of
eating blood, three rationales appear. Verse 7 states the
reason for the laws of slaughtering as follows: "That they may
offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons after whom
they stray...". The Rambam must have interpreted this verse
also in relation to the prohibition of eating blood which
follows in verse 10. The Ramban cites verse 11 as his source:
"For the life of all flesh is in the blood, and I have
assigned it to you for making atonement for your lives upon
the altar...". This verse seems offers two reasons for the
prohibition of eating blood. "For the life of all flesh is in
the blood" prohibits blood since it is the embodiment of life.
The end of the verse, "and I have assigned it to you for
making atonement for your lives upon the altar" grounds the
prohibition in the fact that blood is reserved for the altar.
The different rationales alluded to by the text and brought by
the commentators are complimentary. The Torah might have
indeed been attempting to eliminate certain idolatrous customs
from the nation of Israel. However the Torah's opposition to
these customs is not only because they stemmed from idolatrous
culture. Rather, the Torah opposes these customs due to their
inherent baseness. It opposes the consumption of the substance
which embodies life. As such, the Torah relegates it for usage
in the Temple. The Torah's opposition to the consumption of
blood might not only be due to the intrinsic nature of blood
but also to the effects which its consumption has on the
character of man. We are not obligated to choose one rationale
for the prohibition of eating blood. There is room to accept
the explanations of both the Rambam and the Ramban.

**************************************************************

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

****************************************************************

From:          "Ohr Somayach" <ohr@virtual.co.il>
To:            weekly@vjlists.com
Subject:       Torah Weekly - Tzav

* TORAH WEEKLY *
Highlights of the Weekly Torah Portion
Parshat Tzav
For the week ending 18 Adar II 5760 / 24 & 25 March 2000
================================


HAFTARAH PARSHAT PARAH: Yechzkel 36:16-38

This year, accompanying Parshat Tzav is the haftarah of Parshat Parah,
the third of the four special Parshiot.

Just as Parshat Parah concerns the laws of spiritual purity, so too
its haftarah contains the words "and I will sprinkle upon you the
waters of purity."  Its prophecy consoles the exiled Jewish people,
relating to the reasons of the exile and to the future restoration and
establishment in the Land of Israel.  In the future, spiritual purity,
together with a "new heart and new spirit," will be bestowed from
above upon those who return to the Torah.

A NEW HEART

"And I will remove the heart of stone from within you and give you a
heart of flesh." (36:26)

When a person transgresses against the Torah, he actually harms
himself; his suffering soul introverts within his conscience, his
feelings become numb and his emotions phlegmatic.  This state not only
hinders spiritual elevation but lures him to deepen his depression
with additional sin.  This is the meaning of the statement "a sin
motivates a sin," (Pirkei Avot 4:2) as the spiritual harm caused by
the first decision to sin strengthens his desire for future sin.

Our Sages compared this situation to a thirsty sailor drinking salt
water; the more he drinks the more he thirsts.

Nevertheless, when a person is determined to return to the Torah path,
Hashem removes his heart of stone and furnishes him with a new,
sensitive heart of supple flesh, enabling him to embark on a new
beginning.

================================
Ohr Somayach International
22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
Jerusalem 91180, Israel
================================
(C) 2000 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.

**********************************************************************

From: Judean Voice [mailto:jsid@dorsai.org]
To: Judean Voice
Subject: Parashat Tzav


PARASHAT  TZAV

EZEKIEL 36 - A DAGGER IN THE HEART OF CHRISTIANITY
(by Binyamin Zev Kahane)

It is not clear whether or not the Pope deliberately chose to visit
Israel on Purim - "the very day on which the enemies of the Jews had
expected to overpower them, the opposite happened, and the Jews
overpowered their enemies". (Esther 9:1) What is clear is that had his
advisors called his attention to the fact that on the Shabbat that he
will be in Israel, Jews throughout the world will read the 36th
chapter of Ezekiel, he probably would have chosen for himself another
date...

For the 36th chapter of Ezekiel is the very antithesis of
Christianity, and its actualization smashes the very foundations of
Christian faith.

The Background

A few decades before the destruction of the Second Temple, the
Sanhedrin sentenced the Nazarite to death (see Sanhedrin 43a in the
uncensored editions, such as Steinzaltz). The whole of Christianity is
predicated on the assumption that when the Jews rejected the Nazarite
as their "savior", God in turn rejected the Jews - and the Divine
choice was transferred to those who accepted that "savior".

And the Jews? According to Christian doctrine, the Jews have been
condemned to remain forever a humiliated people, a constant reminder
of their punishment for having the rejected the "messiah". The
destruction of the Temple a few decades later; the terrible defeat of
Bar-Kochba's revolt; the subsequent agony and degradation of the exile
- these were Christianity's most potent arguments for 2,000 years.
And naturally, the Holocaust - the pinnacle of Jewish degradation -
was the final, clinching, conclusive proof of the falsity of Judaism
and vindication of Christianity. (Hence, how ridiculous it is to
expect a sincere apology from the Vatican for its silence - and even
complicity in the Holocaust)

And then, just three years after the Holocaust, a dramatic change
suddenly occurred - the State of Israel arose. The Jews, whose
"eternal" humiliation served as the "vindication" of Christianity,
were ingathered from their exile. From the ashes of Aushwitz, a mighty
power arose before the eyes of an astonished world - and before the
eyes of a stunned and embarrassed Christianity.

The Christian Claim - Prophesized by Ezekiel

What makes this process amazing is that it was prophesized thousands
of years ago, in the 36th chapter of Ezekiel - a chapter which will be
read with special devotion on Shabbat Parah, precisely when the Pope
will be in Israel. In this chapter, Ezekiel describes the historical
process of exile and redemption, and its ramifications. He explains
that the gentiles will interpret the exile as proof that the God of
Israel doesn't exist - "and they caused my Holy Name to be profaned".
How?  "in that it was said of them, 'these are the people of the Lord,
 yet they had to leave his land. (verse 20). That is, the very
existence of the exile is a proof to the Christian claim that the God
of Israel is weak or does not exist. In the eyes of the gentile, it is
a sign that God abandoned the Jewish People. As the humiliation of the
Jew escalates, so does the desecration of God's Name. (as Rashi says
in Ezekiel 39, "the humiliation of the Jewish People is a desecration
of His Name, for they say to them: this is the people of the Lord, and
he is not able to save them.")

Redemption - To Counter the Christian Claim

And then, when the desecration of His Name reaches its pinnacle,
Ezekiel says that God "can't take it anymore". He decides to eliminate
the desecration of His Name, and to return to us without waiting for
us to return to Him: "I will sanctify my Great Name which has been
profaned among the nations - among who you have caused it to be
profaned.. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord." (verse 23)
How? "I will take you from among the nations and gather you from all
the countries, and I will bring you back to your own land" (24)  As we
mentioned, God does this not because we deserve it: "Not for your sake
will I act, O House of Israel, but for My holy name, which you have
caused to be profaned among the nations to which you have come. (22)

In other words, Ezekiel prophesized that the gentiles will view the
exile of the Jewish people not as a punishment for its sins, but
rather as a sign of the weakness of the God of Israel, and a
cancellation of His choice. This is why even if the Jewish People
don't do "tseuva", and the situation of desecration escalates
(crusades, inquisitions, holocausts), Hashem will have no choice, so
to speak, other than to redeem them. Not for our sakes, but for the
sake of His Holy Name

This chapter is a dagger in the heart of the Pope and the Church, for
it is a prophecy written years before Christianity even came into
being, yet depicts the ideological trap that Christianity set up for
itself and fell into. In their misguided thinking, they viewed the
exile as proof that they replaced the Jews as the Divine choice. In
their wickedness and arrogance, they did not grasp that the God of
Israel was only punishing His people, and not for a moment did He
leave them. And when God saw that the degradation of His people and
the desecration of His Name exceeded all bounds, He decided to shine
His countenance upon His people, despite the fact that we were
unworthy. This, by the way, is why the Pope cannot recognize Israel.
For to recognize Israel would be to acknowledge the falsehood of
Christianity.

Who Is Afraid of Magen David?

This Shabbat, we must shout the Haftorah from the rooftops of the
synagogues so that the Pope, the symbol of the denial of Jewish
destiny, and who is so frightened by the Magen David on our
ambulances, will hear and shudder in trepidation.

DARKA SHEL TORAH
Weekly Parsha by Binyamin Zev Kahane

*****************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.