D’var Torah for Parashat Re’eh
First Section: Devarim 11:26
- 12:28
Hertz: 799; Plaut: 1416; Eitz Hayim 1061
In Parashat Re’eh Moses continues to review the commandments that
the Israelites back then were supposed to follow, and that we today are equally
supposed to follow. One of those
commandments tells us not to eat blood, and that commandment will be the focus
of my d’var.
What does this prohibition entail, where did this prohibition come from,
and why is it so important? It is
certainly important, for it appears at least half a dozen times in the
Torah. According to Encyclopaedia
Judaica (comment on blood in Halakhah),
the prohibition is unique in two respects:
• It is not found anywhere else in the ancient Near East.
• Along with the prohibition on murder, it is the only legislation in ancient Israel that is explicitly imposed on all human beings, not just Jews.
The first inkling we have that there is something
special about blood appears just after Cain has killed Abel, and then denies
any knowledge of the whereabouts of his brother with the famous line (Ber 4:9), “Am I my brother’s keeper?” God then tells Cain that his brother’s
“bloods” (דמי אחיך) call out
from the ground. There is much
commentary as to why “bloods” is plural – the simplest is that all the
generations that Abel might have sired have also been wiped out – but clearly
blood is very important.
Concern about not eating blood appears just
after the flood, when, in a reversal of the
previous instruction that human beings are to be vegetarians (Ber 1:29; 2:18-19), God allows humans to eat meat (Ber 9:3), but then, in the immediate next verse (9:4),
adds:
You
must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it.1
We get no further explanation at ths
time, but the term “life-blood” – there are various translations of הוא בדם הבשר נפש and the like – will
play a great role throughout the Torah.
Next, in Chapter 3 of the Book of Leviticus, we learn repeatedly that,
in preparing sacrifices, blood from the animals is to be poured directly onto
the altar so that it is burned up. And
in the closing verse of the chapter (Vyk 3:17) that
the rule is enormously extended:
It is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood.
Evidently there are two separate but parallel
commandments: a positive one to pour the blood of sacrificial animals on the
altar so it can be burned up, and a negative one not to eat blood when
consuming non-sacrificial animals. We
also seem to have a parallel commandment not to eat fat, but it is interpreted
much more narrowly than the ban on eating blood. I have searched but found no explanation for
difference in the application of the two prohibitions. My guess: It derives from the fact that fat
is mentioned only in connection with sacrifices, whereas blood is mentioned in
many contexts.
Later in 7:26, the rule is repeated, but with an
important specification:
And you must not consume any blood, either of bird or of animal, in your settlements.
According to the principles of exegesis set by Rabbi
Ishmael (a tanna who lived in the first half of the
2d century CE), when a general rule is followed by specific applications, the
rule is limited to those applications.
Therefore, fish blood is not covered by the rule.
Still later in the Book of Leviticus, we get a
repetition of the rule that the blood of sacrificial animals must not be eaten
(17:6) and, almost immediately after (17:10-12), the first explicit linking of
the rule and the rationale:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation of your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation. Therefore, I say to the Israelite people: No person among you shall partake of blood, nor shall the stranger who resides among you partake of blood.
The somewhat antiquated word “partake” is used in English
to make it clear that the ban covers both eating and drinking. Further, the emphasis is clear that the blood
can help atone for human sins; as Hertz emphasizes, it is in no sense an
attempt to “bribe” (his word) God. In
verse 13, the instructions go on to tell us that, if an animal is killed by
hunting, its blood must be poured out onto the earth, as if to give the animal
a symbolic burial.
It is essentially those words in Vayikra
that Moses repeats to the Israelites in Re’eh,
today’s Torah portion. And he does so
twice: first, as a simple commandment
but emphasized by the phrase that they must “pour /the blood/ on the ground
like water;” and, then, with the rationale made even more explicit with the
words, “for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the
flesh.”
That is the background. The rule is absolutely clear, and
interpretation seems straightforward.
The prohibition involves eating, so the application involves kashrut. Indeed, the
essay on dietary laws in Eitz Hayim calls the prohibition against ingesting blood
“the most basic eating rule in the Torah.”
It is applied in several ways: First, all animals that themselves ingest
blood are designated as non-kosher.
Second, hunting is only permitted if the animals are trapped so that
slaughtering can be done correctly.
Third and most important, all mammals and all fowl intended for food
must be kashered by a process that is called sh’chitah and that involves draining blood from the carcass
and then salting, soaking and rinsing the meat to remove as much remaining
blood as possible. The rules of sh’chitah are designed that they can be applied anywhere
that Jews live. They became necessary
when sacrificial slaughtering was centralized in Jerusalem and local religious
slaughtering was no longer permitted.
The rules are elaborated in the Talmud and codified in the Shulchan Aruch.
The Jewish interpretation of the rule may seem logical
to us, but it is not universal.
Jehovah’s Witnesses also take the prohibition on not eating blood
seriously, but their interpretation has nothing to do with eating. Instead it prohibits blood transfusions, a
view that has never occurred to Jewish commentators and that does seem strained.
Even the Jewish interpretation has some
qualifications. Meat that will be
broiled on an open grill is exempt from this procedure as the blood will drip
onto the fire. Liver must be cooked this
way as the blood cannot be soaked out of it.
If one swallows the blood from a cut in the mouth or a pulled tooth, no
penalty is incurred. Should, however,
the blood fall on a piece of bread, the bread would have to be discarded. More interesting to me, the prohibition on eating
blood does not extend to other uses. Encyclopaedia Judaica
(ibid.) notes that Mishnah Yoma 5:6 states that the
sacrificial blood which flowed into the brook of Kidron
was collected and sold to gardeners as fertilizer.
Despite these exceptions, the tough question is not
the interpretation of the prohibition on partaking of blood but the reasoning
behind the prohibition – why it is
so strongly emphasized in Torah. One can
not take the easy way out and say that the prohibition stems from some ancient
regional or cultural taboo. If that were
the case, it is very unlikely that the prohibition would be unique to
Israel. Nor can one say that it is one
of the Hukkim, laws for which there is no logical
explanation. After all, this is the one
dietary law for which we do have an explanation, even if it is
ambiguous.
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who was the first Ashkenazai Chief Rabbi of Israel and who was himself a
vegetarian, has suggested that the
prohibition on eating blood is the other side of the concession given to human
beings when they were given permission eat meat instead of being vegetarians
(see note to Dev 12:20 in Eitz Hayim). Eating meat is allowed, but under restrictive
conditions. This view can be seen as
merely shifting the question to what is so special about meat, but I think it
does point us in the right direction. If
I extend his reasoning somewhat, burying the blood of non-sacrificial animals
in the ground and using the blood from sacrifices for fertilizer take acts that
have involved animal death and ensure that new life – albeit, vegetable life –
will be created in its place.
In my view, those apparently ambiguous statements that
say that blood is the life force, the source of life, or any other translation
you prefer, mean just what they say.
Even primitive people could see that when people lose blood, they
die. The soul may be the eternal element
of our being, but it is blood that gives the soul operational ability. The soul may exist, but blood can be seen. Therefore, it is the blood for which we incur
an element of guilt and for which we must atone.
Life and death are taken very seriously in
Judaism. Death contaminates the
individual ritually. Murder contaminates
the whole society. There is no monetary
equivalent for taking a life, not even if it is manslaughter rather than
murder. Theologically, our life is in
God’s hands, and in a few months during Rosh HaShanah
we will all be praying that we be inscribed in the Book of Life for another
year. Eating meat inherently involves
death in a way that no other ordinary human activity does, and therein lies its
special importance in rabbinic theology.
Judaism is a very life-affirming religion, and human acts that diminish
life are therefore inherently questionable.
Shabbat shalom.