Difference between revisions of "Prohibition of Blood/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
<li>R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Netziv,<fn>As many of the other sources here also point to multiple reasons for the prohibition of blood, they might agree.</fn> though, concede that this reasoning cannot account for the prohibition regarding non-domesticated animals and suggest that they are prohibited for other reasons.<fn>R"y Bekhor Shor suggests that they are forbidden because it is inappropriate to eat the life force of an animal, while Netziv points to the detrimental affects that eating non-domesticated animal blood have on human nature.</fn></li> | <li>R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Netziv,<fn>As many of the other sources here also point to multiple reasons for the prohibition of blood, they might agree.</fn> though, concede that this reasoning cannot account for the prohibition regarding non-domesticated animals and suggest that they are prohibited for other reasons.<fn>R"y Bekhor Shor suggests that they are forbidden because it is inappropriate to eat the life force of an animal, while Netziv points to the detrimental affects that eating non-domesticated animal blood have on human nature.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Spilling vs. covering blood</b> – These sources explain that since the blood of non-domesticated animals is not sprinkled on the altar, it was necessary to institute a different reminder that it is prohibited to eat of it and thus it is covered. No such reminder is necessary for domesticated animals eaten for pleasure, since those animals are associated with sacrifices and it is known that their blood in general serves to atone on the altar (even if in this particular instance the animal is being eaten).  Ramban adds in the Wilderness period, eating meat for pleasure, not as part of a sacrifice, was prohibited, so the scenario never arose.</point> | + | <point><b>Spilling vs. covering blood</b> – These sources explain that since the blood of non-domesticated animals is not sprinkled on the altar, it was necessary to institute a different reminder that it is prohibited to eat of it and thus it is covered. No such reminder is necessary for domesticated animals eaten for pleasure, since those animals are associated with sacrifices and it is known that their blood in general serves to atone on the altar (even if in this particular instance the animal is being eaten).  Ramban adds that in the Wilderness period, eating meat for pleasure, not as part of a sacrifice, was prohibited, so the scenario never arose.<fn>Ralbag suggests that the desire to eat blood was stronger in the first generation that left Egypt, as they had been accustomed to such practices in Egypt.  By the time the nation arrived in Israel and eating meat for pleasure was permitted, there was less of a lust for blood and so less of a need to make a reminder.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Prohibition to Noach</b><ul> | <point><b>Prohibition to Noach</b><ul> | ||
<li>No prohibition then - Most of these sources follow Bavli Sanhedrin 59a and assume that the prohibition to Noach was not regarding eating blood but rather eating a limb from a live animal (אבר מן החי). </li> | <li>No prohibition then - Most of these sources follow Bavli Sanhedrin 59a and assume that the prohibition to Noach was not regarding eating blood but rather eating a limb from a live animal (אבר מן החי). </li> | ||
Version as of 14:35, 11 December 2019
Prohibition of Blood
Exegetical Approaches
Blood is the Soul
Blood is prohibited from consumption since blood is the source or symbol of the animal's soul and life force. This position subdivides regarding why this is problematic:
Sacredness of Life
Refraining from eating blood, representative of an animal's vitality and soul, reminds one of the sanctity of all life. Eating it would be repugnant and both demonstrates and invites cruelty.
Mixing of Animal and Human Nature
Sanctified to Hashem
Since the blood of animals is thrown on the altar and sanctified to Hashem, it is not fit for human consumption.
Sources:Ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,12 Ramban #1, Ralbag #2, Abarbanel #1, R. Avraham Saba, Netziv, R. David Zvi Hoffmann
"וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם" – This verse forms the basis for this approach, but commentators focus on different aspects of it, leading to two related, but somewhat distinct understandings of the prohibition:
- Apportioned to Hashem – According to Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ramban, the crucial point of the verse is that the blood is dedicated to the altar.13 In other words, the blood is off limits to man because it is Hashem's portion of the sacrifice (חלק גבוה).
- Role in atonement – Ralbag, Abarbanel and R. Hoffmann, instead, focus on the blood's role in atonement.
- R. Hoffmann explains that if the animal's blood is supposed to represent and substitute for the sinner's soul, being sacrificed in the sinner's stead, it is inappropriate for it to be consumed.14
- Ralbag adds that Hashem wanted to ensure that man recognize the atoning powers of blood so that he feel that his sacrifice was effective in achieving penance. As such, Hashem prohibited its consumption, highlighting its unique role.15
"כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ" – According to this approach, this phrase comes to explain not why it is prohibited to eat blood, but why blood was chosen to serve as atonement and is sprinkled on the altar. Since blood represents or is the source of the animal's soul, it can represent man's soul and act as its substitute on the altar.
Why is blood of non-sacrificial meat prohibited? As only the blood of domesticated animals being offered as a sacrifice is sanctified to Hashem and used for atonement, this approach must explain why blood of "בשר תאווה" and non domesticated animals and birds are also prohibited:
- Ramban suggests that this is simply a safeguard to ensure that no one err and eat the blood of animals which can be sacrificed.
- R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Netziv,16 though, concede that this reasoning cannot account for the prohibition regarding non-domesticated animals and suggest that they are prohibited for other reasons.17
Spilling vs. covering blood – These sources explain that since the blood of non-domesticated animals is not sprinkled on the altar, it was necessary to institute a different reminder that it is prohibited to eat of it and thus it is covered. No such reminder is necessary for domesticated animals eaten for pleasure, since those animals are associated with sacrifices and it is known that their blood in general serves to atone on the altar (even if in this particular instance the animal is being eaten). Ramban adds that in the Wilderness period, eating meat for pleasure, not as part of a sacrifice, was prohibited, so the scenario never arose.18
Prohibition to Noach
- No prohibition then - Most of these sources follow Bavli Sanhedrin 59a and assume that the prohibition to Noach was not regarding eating blood but rather eating a limb from a live animal (אבר מן החי).
- Blood sacred even then - One could have alternatively suggested that the simple reading of the verses do refer to blood itself and that from the very first sacrifices brought by man, blood was already allotted to Hashem and not to man.
Similarity to fat – These sources assume that the two prohibitions share asingle explanation - both fat and blood are Hashem's portion and thus prohibitted to man. It is for this reason that the two prohibitions are often mentioned together.
