Parashat Tzav: The Meaning of Blood

From: "Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com"
<Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com>
To: Parasha-Page List <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>, Weekly Torah List
<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: Parashat Tzav: The Meaning of Blood
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:49:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

From: Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
To: heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject: Parashat Tzav

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

INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

PARASHAT TZAV

THE MEANING OF BLOOD
by Rav Jonathan Mishkin

Many of Judaism's dietary laws are found in Sefer
Vayikra. While all of these Biblical restrictions can be
considered CHUKIM - laws whose reasons or logic is
unclear, there are several ordinances whose meaning is
all the more baffling for the apparent contradictory
messages in the Torah. Leaven for example is one of these
phenomena. Unlike the prohibition of certain animals like
the pig, or combinations of foods like milk and meat,
leaven products may be eaten most of the year. However,
during the week of Pesach these foods are anathemas. What
sudden transformation occurs to place breads beyond the
pale is a discussion for another parasha, but the
treatment of leaven is a curious example of the Torah's
dual attitudes towards some issues.

Parashat Tzav contains the following warning "And
any blood you shall not eat in any of your dwellings,
whether it be of fowl or of beast. Whosoever eats blood,
that soul shall be cut off from his people" (Leviticus
7:26-27). This prohibition appears several times in the
Torah. Earlier in this book we read this statement: "It
shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations
in all your dwellings, any fat, nor any blood you shall
not eat" (3:17). A bit more information is provided in
chapter 17 where verse 13 commands that the blood of a
slaughtered animal be covered, the next verse giving this
explanation: "For the life of all flesh - its blood is
its life. Therefore I say to the Israelite people: You
shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life
of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it
shall be cut off." This of course is a theme we have seen
much earlier in the Torah following the story of the
flood in Genesis chapter 9. The survivors of that ordeal
are given some preliminary laws for running a society,
among which are these statements: "Every creature that
lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I
give you all these. You must not, however, eat flesh with
its life-blood in it" (9:3-4).

But since the Torah does not ever suspend this
taboo, where is the contradictory attitude to the ban of
eating blood? What I mean by presenting blood as
containing a prohibited-permitted duality has to do with
its place in the sacrificial services. Following the
slaughter of the animal, a Kohen uses a large bowl to
collect the blood flowing out of the animal's neck. With
the full vessel, the Kohen walks around the altar where
he splashes blood first on the east and north walls and
then on the west and south walls. Clearly the usage of
blood shows that it is not something impure or repulsive.
Is there a connection between the prohibition on eating
blood and its acceptance as part of the sacrificial
rituals?

Several different theories have been offered to
explain the ban on ingesting blood. We quote first from
Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon 12th century) in his work
of philosophy Moreh Nevukhim (Guide to the Perplexed)
3:46, translated by M. Friedlander:

Although the blood was very unclean in the eyes of
the Sabeans (idolaters), they nevertheless partook
of it, because they thought it was the food of the
spirits; by eating it man has something in common
with 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
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 that eateth blood" (Leviticus 7:10). 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" (Leviticus 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.

Maimonides here is of course consistent with his
approach to the sacrifices. The philosopher believed that
the sacrifices held a general historical purpose that was
to wean the Israelites away from the pagan services they
were familiar with from the ancient world. By legislating
animal sacrifices and dictating precisely how to offer
them in the service of the Lord, the Torah aimed to turn
all forms of worship and ritual from meaningless idolatry
towards recognition that there is only one true God.
Since pagan diet and worship included offering animal
blood to the gods in the belief that they required
sustenance, both Jewish dietary law and religious service
had to exclude any blood intake. Therefore, all animals
offered to God had to be drained of blood, the body parts
were rinsed and salted before being taken up to the altar
for burning.

Why then was the blood of the sacrificial animal not
merely disposed? Why sprinkle it on that altar? Perhaps
in the public, symbolic display of splashing the blood on
the outside of the altar when the animal parts were
offered to God on top of the altar, a statement was being
made that God does not actually need the blood or indeed
any other animal part. The entire service was allowed
merely to satisfy the needs of the people for a form of
physical worship.

Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman 13th century)
criticizes Rambam on both his approach to sacrifices and
on his understanding of the blood prohibition. Ramban
focuses on the function of blood within a creature's
body. Since blood represents or contains the life force,
bringing that element of the animal into a person would
be inconceivable - "since the possessor of a soul may not
consume another soul, since all souls belong to God."
Perhaps Ramban is stating here that one body cannot
maintain two souls simultaneously.

When discussing the purpose for sacrifices Ramban
explains that an animal represents a stand-in for a
person who "deserves to have his own blood spilled and
his own body burned were it not for the grace of the
Creator who takes a substitute instead." According to
this idea it would seem logical that the animal's blood
should not be removed before burning but included in the
alternate punishment that is being exercised in the
destruction on the altar. What is the meaning behind the
separation of the blood for use in its own ceremony?

Perhaps wholesale burning of the sacrifice would
mislead the sinner into believing that indeed the animal
has taken his place entirely - by transferring his guilt
to the animal and burning it, man bears no further
responsibility for his past. That the animal's body and
soul - represented by the blood - are treated differently
illustrates that the person's own body and soul face
different fates. Physical torment or punishment may not
suffice in expiating sin; the soul cannot hide within the
body pretending that its atonement can be achieved in a
similar fashion. Repentance and commitment towards better
behavior in the future is the direction that the spirit
must take.

Interestingly, I believe we can appropriate the
understandings of these two philosophers to explain two
other contrasting usages of blood in the Torah. Surely it
is no coincidence that the first and lof the plagues
visited on Egypt involved blood - there is a message
lurking within this structure. In the first plague the
Nile, the river which had swallowed Israelite babies,
turned to blood. God is announcing His intention to exact
revenge for the souls of His people. In the last of the
punishments God does not use an intermediary like locusts
or hail to strike the Egyptians but kills them directly,
taking the life of the first-born sons. As if to
highlight the meaning behind this action, the Israelites
are commanded to mark their doorposts with sheep's blood
symbolizing that God is sparing the souls of the Jewish
sons.

From another perspective these two episodes
emphasize one of the lessons of the plagues which was to
illustrate God's dominion over nature. In contrast to the
Egyptian religion that assigned different powers to
various forms of nature, the Torah clearly teaches that
God created and controls all elements of nature. In the
first plague, the Nile, worshipped by the Egyptians as a
source of life is transformed into blood. God is
demonstrating that He is the source of life - He alone
allows water or blood to flow or dry up; the liquids
preserve life only at God's command. Similarly, by
smearing sheep's blood on their doorposts the Israelites
mocked the Egyptian belief that sheep were gods (see
Rashi to Genesis 46:34). Sheep hold no power and their
blood only gives them life because God commands it.

The prohibition of blood consumption is just one
detail in the Torah's list of dietary laws, but Ramban
clearly feels that avoiding blood is far different from
any of the other eating restrictions. While refraining
from certain animals and following exact rituals of
slaughter and food preparation may contain meanings of
their own, the message of blood is unique. Supported by
numerous verses in the Torah, Ramban believes that a soul
is not food.

From Rambam's perspective however, blood appears
quite similar to other elements on the Torah's forbidden
menu. The Jew may not ingest blood not because of its
inherent nature, but because God is trying to establish a
culture different from that of the nations in almost all
facets. When the Jew eats, the Torah wants the Jew to
recognize that he must make even this most basic activity
holy.

Chag kasher ve-sameach.

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

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