Tzav | The Meaning of Blood

 

     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 last of 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.