Prohibition of Blood/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
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 both demonstrates and invites cruelty.
Sources:Jubilees, Josephus, Ramban #2,1 Sefer HaChinukh,2 Abarbanel #3,3 Keli Yekar, Shadal,4 R. D"Z Hoffmann #2,5 R. Kook
"כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ" – These sources point to this phrase as the basis for the prohibition.6 They offer a variety of explanations as to the import of the fact that "blood is the soul":
- Similar to murder – Jubilees, drawing off the juxtaposition of the prohibitions regarding blood and murder in Bereshit 9, repeatedly links the two commands,7 implying that the former is prohibited because it, too, is similar to taking a life. Eating of the animal's blood, representative of its soul, is like destroying its very vitality.8
- Equal status of all souls – Ramban explains that it is not proper for a "soul to eat a soul" for all souls are somewhat equal9 and belong to Hashem. Though man has dominion over animals, this is true only so far as its flesh is concerned, not its soul.
- Similar to eating of a living being – Abarbanel likens the prohibition to that of אבר מן החי, suggesting that eating flesh and blood is like eating of an animal while it is still alive. Shadal similarly suggests that the prohibition is aimed at preventing man from eating blood when it is still hot and flowing from the animal, "an act of immense cruelty".
"וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם" – According to this approach, these words do not comprise the reason for the prohibition, but rather serve to complement it. The principle of the sanctity of life mandates that one not only refrain from eating blood, but also that one try to elevate any blood that has been spilled. As such, the blood of sacrificed animals is sprinkled on the altar and used for atonement.10
Covering blood – When it is not possible to sanctify the blood, as when a non-domesticated animal not fit to sacrificed is killed, Hashem commands that the blood be covered instead. In covering the blood, one shows a degree of discomfort with the killing and a recognition that though the deed is permitted, it should not be flaunted.11 It is not clear, according to this reasoning, why there is no obligation to also cover the blood of domesticated animals eaten for pleasure.12
Scope of the prohibition – According to this approach, it is logical that the prohibition extends to all animals. In fact, the Dead Sea Sect and Karaites maintain that even the blood of fish is prohibited.
Prohibition to Noach – Jubilees, Josephus, and Ramban all understand the prohibition to Noach of ""אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" to refer to eating blood.13 As soon as Hashem allowed consumption of animals, he simultaneously added the restriction that though the flesh may be eaten, the blood, symbolic of the soul, may not.
Context of Vayikra 17 – According to many sources,14 the first part of Chapter 17 mandates that, in the Wilderness period,15 slaughtering animals for food was permitted only if the animal was brought as a sacrifice. Transgression of this directive is considered "spilling blood". According to this reading, then, both halves of the chapter revolve around restrictions put on animal slaughter due the sanctity of animal life. Though an animal can be killed for food, wherever possible this must be done in a way that sanctifies the life taken, with the animal being offered as a sacrifice and its blood sprinkled on the altar.16
Repetition and severity of the crime – Torah's manifold warning against eating blood and the severity of the punishment is understood in light of this position's viewing it as akin to murder.
Connection to fat – According to this approach, despite the juxtaposition in the verses, the reasons for the prohibitions of fat and blood are distinct.
"לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ" – R. D"Z Hoffmann points to this reward as evidence that the prohibition is connected to prevention of cruelty. He notes that the reward of "לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ" is found by only three specific commandments,17 the prohibition regarding blood, the directive to honor one's parents, and the obligation to send away a mother bird before taking her chicks. Since the latter two cases involve acts of kindness and giving to another, R. Hoffmann suggests that there must be an element of kindness or preventing of cruelty in the fulfillment of the prohibition regarding blood as well.
Biblical parallels
"לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם" – Bavli Sanhedrin learns an assortment of laws form this verse, including that one can eat of even a properly slaughtered animal until its breath has totally departed. If the Sanhedrin sentences someone to death, they may not eat on the day of the execution. Similarly, the relatives of someone who had been killed for a capital crime do not eat a סעודת הבראה , the traditional meal eaten after the burial.
Permission to eat meat – Abarbanel and R. Hoffmann view the permission to kill animals for food as somewhat non-ideal, pointing out that before the flood originally man was not allowed to kill living creatures at all.
Mixing of Animal and Human Nature
Ingesting an animal's blood/soul introduces animal-like characteristics into the human soul.
Sources:Ibn Ezra,18 Ramban #3, Sefer Hachinukh,19 Ralbag #3,20 Abarbanel #2,21 Seforno,22 Or HaChayyim, R. Hirsch, Netziv23
"כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ" – These sources point to this phrase as the basis for the prohibition.
"וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם"
Scope of the prohibition
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,24 Ramban #1, Ralbag #2, Abarbanel #1, R. Avraham Saba, Netziv, R. David Zvi Hoffmann #125
"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.26 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.27
- 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.28
"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" (meat eaten for pleasure) and non domesticated animals and birds are also prohibited:
- Safeguard – Ramban suggests that this is simply a safeguard to ensure that no one err and eat the blood of animals which can be sacrificed.
- Distinct prohibition – R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Netziv,29 though, concede that this reasoning cannot account for the prohibition regarding non-domesticated animals and suggest that they are prohibited for other reasons.30
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).31
Prohibition to Noach – If the prohibition of blood is related to the sacrificial service and atonement, one might question why Noach was already commanded, "אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" (Bereshit 9:4), centuries before the service was instituted:
- Different prohibition – Most of these sources follow Bavli Sanhedrin 59a and assume that the prohibition to Noach did not refer to eating blood but rather to eating a limb from a live animal (אבר מן החי).
- Blood sacred even then – Ibn Ezra and Ramban, in contrast, understand that blood was already prohibited to Noach. If so, perhaps from the very first sacrifices brought by man, blood was already allotted to Hashem and not to man.32
Connection to fat – Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Ramban assume that the two prohibitions share a single explanation; both fat and blood are Hashem's portion and therefore prohibited to man. It is for this reason that the two prohibitions are often mentioned together.
Biblical parallels – R"Y Bekhor Shor compares the prohibition regarding blood to several other commandments which similarly stem from the fact that an object is sanctified to Hashem. He points to the prohibitions of making incense and the anointing oil or wearing wool and linen (a mixture reserved for priestly garments)33, pointing out that in all these cases "דהוה ליה כמשמש בשרביטו של מלך ואסור", it is as if one is using the scepter of the king and is prohibited.
General view of sacrifices
"לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם" – These sources suggest that this is a distinct prohibition and says nothing about not eating blood itself. Most, looking to the verse's immediate context of sorcery, relate it to idolatrous divination practices in which blood of an animal was spilled and a meal was eaten in the belief that this would invite demons who could foretell the future.
Distancing from Idolatry
Consuming blood is prohibited since it is related to idolatrous practices.
Connection between blood and Idolatry – Ramban explains that idolaters would eat blood, believing it to be the nourishment of demons and that by participating with them in a meal, the demons would divine the future for them.
"לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַל הַדָּם" – These sources suggest that the two prohibitions are intricately related. Rambam explains that those idolaters who found eating blood abhorrent would instead spill it into a vessel, eat around it, and invite the demons to the shared meal. Thus, it is prohibited not only to eat blood, but also to eat "on blood". The ending of the verse, "לֹא תְנַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְעוֹנֵנוּ", supports this reading as it too speaks of divination practices.
Context in Vayikra 17 – One of the advantages of this understanding is that it connects the two prohibitions of Vayikra 17, giving a common explanation for both. The first half of the chapter deals with the prohibition of slaughtering and sacrificing outside of the Mikdash, with the reason given being, "וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם לַשְּׂעִירִם", lest the people come to sacrifice to goat-demons. This is parallel to the reason for not eating blood, the subject of second half of the chapter.
"וְנָתַתִּי פָנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת אֶת הַדָּם" – Rambam points to the language of the crime's punishment, "וְנָתַתִּי פָנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת אֶת הַדָּם" (Vayikra 17:10) as further proof of his understanding. The phrase "וְנָתַתִּי פָנַי בַּנֶּפֶשׁ/ בָּאִישׁ" appears only by three prohibitions: blood, necromancy, and worship of the Molekh, implying that the three are related (all being idolatrous in nature).35
"וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם" – This approach suggests that there is nothing intrinsically positive about sprinkling the blood on the altar; this is simply the safeguard to ensure that it not be used for idolatrous purposes. Rambam further suggests that since idolaters viewed the blood as impure, Hashem wanted to disabuse people of this notion (and thus of blood's connection to demons). He, therefore, purified it and gave it a purifying role.36
Scope of the prohibition – According to this approach, it is logical that the prohibition includes the blood of both sacrificial and non-sacrificial animals as their blood, too, was used for idolatry.
Covering vs. spilling – The blood of non-domesticated animals is not only spilled but also covered to ensure that it is not used to invite demons.37 This is more necessary for their blood than for blood of animals eaten for pleasure since the latter were only permitted after arrival in Israel, at which point the lust for blood had mitigated somewhat.38 In addition, demons were believed to reside in the Wilderness and other barren areas, so it was more likely that non-domesticated animals killed in the wild would be used for such purposes than domesticated animals slaughtered in one's yard.
"כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ" – Ramban questions this approach,39 pointing out that in explaining the prohibition, the Torah emphasizes the connection between blood and the soul, which this approach ignores. The Ritva responds that these words explain why idolaters thought that blood was the food of demons to begin with. It was specifically because of the blood's connection to the soul that they thought that the quasi-spiritual (and basically non-corporeal) demons ate of it.
Prohibition to Noach – One might question this approach from Hashem's prohibition to Noach, "אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" (Bereshit 9:4), which appears to prohibit blood even in an era when no idolatry existed.40
- This position might respond that this prohibition is related to אבר מן החי rather than to eating blood.
- Ritva, instead, questions the assumption that there was no idolatry in Noach's generation. Even if previous idolators were wiped out in the flood, it would not be long before others took their place.
General view of sacrifices – Rambam's approach to this prohibition is in line with his understanding of the sacrificial service as a whole. According to him, sacrifices (like the prohibition of blood) have no inherent value and are commanded only as a means to wean the nation from idolatry. See Purpose of the Sacrifices for elaboration.
"רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם" – According to this approach there is a need to encourage the people to "be strong" and not eat of the blood since there was a real desire for it.41
Connection to fat – Rambam assume that the prohibition of fat is distinct from that of blood, and is related to health benefits rather than prevention of idolatry. The prohibitions might be linked in the verses only because they are both prohibited foods which happen to be sacrificed on the altar.42
Biblical parallels – Rambam is consistent in understanding many laws to be aimed at distancing the nation from idolatry. See, for instance, his understanding of sacrifices, the Mishkan, the laws of hybrids, and Orlah.
