Vayikra 17:3-11 (Aharei Mot)– Blood and demons

17:3,4 record, "Every man of the house of Israel who slaughters a bull or a sheep or a goat in the camp or who slaughters outside the camp, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to bring it forward as an offering to Lord before the Lord's mishkan, it shall be counted as blood for that man- he has spilled blood- and that man shall be cut off from the midst of his people" Alter translation, 2004, pp. 616, 617. The end of 17:4 is unclear: What can be the connection between spilling blood and the place where the sacrifice is offered?

Hoffmann (1953, p. 321) suggests that the spilling of blood referred to in 17:4 means that killing an animal was considered murder unless it was brought as a sacrifice. Milgrom (1991, p. 711) expands upon this idea, and claims that the bringing of a sacrifice is a way of atoning for the murder of the animal and this is the khapparah referred to 17:11. Therefore, as the sacrificing to the satyrs was not an acceptable sacrifice it was considered spilling blood.

N. Leibowitz (1980, pp. 51-56; 1976, pp. 74-78) also follows this vegetarian approach. She quotes from Rav Kook that really mankind was not intended to eat meat, but after the flood it was a temporary dispensation since according to this logic the allowance to kill animals was to stop people from killing people. However, the dispensation was only for eating meat, but no permission was given for eating blood since this was considered the soul of the animal. In addition, because really it is wrong to kill animal, the blood had to be covered to hide the shame of the people for having killed the animals.

This "vegetarian" approach is difficult. It is clear that killing an animal is not murder since there is no prohibition to kill animals in the Torah. On the contrary there are many commandments that involve killing animals. How could G-d command the animal sacrifices, if really it was wrong to kill animals? There could only have been grain sacrifices. Many of the animal sacrifices are not eaten, so why have an obligation to kill an animal if G-d disapproves of killing animals? Why should one be obligated to eat the Passover offering if it is "wrong" to eat meat? Why would G-d approve of Hevel’s animal sacrifice more than Cain’s grain sacrifice (Bereshit 4:3,4) if killing an animal is immoral? The non-eating of blood does not limit the extent of the "murder," as the animal is dead whether the blood is eaten or not. Furthermore, 17:13 permits the killing of animals without blood being offered on the altar, the only proviso being not to eat the blood. If the sprinkling of blood is an expiation for killing the animal, then let a person not bring the sacrifice, and not need the expiation.

It is true that Bereshit 1:29 refers to eating plants, and Bereshit 9:3 seems to imply that the eating of animals after the flood was something new that had previously been forbidden. Yet, as argued by Luzzatto on Bereshit 1:30, these verses do not show that vegetarianism is an ideal of the Torah. My understanding is that only in the Garden of Eden where the animals and the people were somewhat equals (Bereshit 2:20) was mankind forbidden to eat animals, see our discussion on Bereshit 1:29,30 "Is man meant to be a vegetarian?" Similarly, in the time of the flood, when literally Noah and the animals were in the same boat, then again there was a temporary prohibition of eating meat. Thus, after Noah left the ark, he was told that he could eat meat. There is no clue in the Torah that the permission to eat meat after the flood was only temporary. I do not understand the idea of the dispensation. I doubt that vegetarianism would lead people to kill humans since they could not kill animals. Yet, if the Torah allows the killing of animals, why is it forbidden to eat blood? I think to understand 17:4 we need to understand the next verses in the chapter, 17:5-14.

17:5-7 explain that the new law to bring the sacrifices to the mishkan (17:3,4) was to stop the people from offering sacrifices to goat demons, satyrs. How did these sacrifices relate to the idea of spilling blood in 17:4?

Afterwards, 17:10-12 records the prohibition of eating blood. This prohibition is also recorded in Bereshit 9:4, Vayikra 3:17, 7:26,27, and Devarim 12:16,23-25. Note that 17:10-12 is a short section, as 17:10,12, the outer verses of the section record the prohibition of eating blood and 17:11, the inner verse of the section, records the reason why it is prohibited to eat blood, AXA. Vayikra 17:13 then records that not only can blood not be eaten but also the blood of a haya or a bird, which were not brought as sacrifices, had to be covered. Vayikra 17:14 repeats to a large extent 17:11, but this verse is giving the reason for why a person had to cover the blood, while 17:11 records the reason why a person cannot eat blood.

Vayikra 17:11 records, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar” JPS translation in Levine, 1989, p. 115. What does it mean that the "life of the flesh is in the blood?" Also, what is the reference to expiation, khapparah in the verse?

Ramban (on 17:11) first writes that blood is prohibited because it is sprinkled on the altar. This would be similar to the prohibition of eating fat, which also seems to be because the fat of a sacrifice is burnt on the altar (see our discussion above on 3:16,17, "Eat no fat! I"). However, the Ramban notes that this rationale is difficult since it implies that only the blood of animals that are sacrificed should have been forbidden. Ramban answers that maybe there is a desire to keep people away from blood so all blood was forbidden.

However, apparently the Ramban is not happy with this answer since he proceeds to discuss three other reasons for the prohibition. One, from the Rambam (Moreh, 3:46) is that the prohibition of eating blood was because this practice was an element in idolatrous worship, and the Torah wanted to keep people away from any possible idolatry. Ramban rejects this rationale since the Torah repeatedly mentions that the prohibition is due to the fact that blood represents the soul, which seems to have nothing to do with idolatry. Instead, Ramban suggests the vegetarian approach that as the blood represents the soul of the animal it is not right to eat the animal’s soul since all souls belong to G-d. Ramban continues and suggests another rationale that by eating the animal’s blood the person is joining his soul with the soul of the animal, and it is wrong to mix these different types of souls.

I think the Ramban’s last rationale for the prohibition of eating blood is correct, that there is problem of mixing the soul of the animal with the soul of a person. I know this sounds mystical, but once the Torah writes that the blood is the soul of the being, then the Torah has declared that this is a case of mysticism.

This rationale is supported by the first mention of the prohibition. The prohibition of eating blood is mentioned in conjunction with murder in Bereshit 9:4-6. What is the connection between these laws? Bereshit 9:6 explains that it is wrong to kill since man was created in G-d’s image. The idea is that murder diminishes the divine element since there is one less person. Mankind is different than animals since animals do not have this divine element, and hence they can be killed. (This does not necessarily mean that one can be cruel to animals, just that it is not considered murder to kill an animal.) If the blood of the animal represents the soul of the animal, then the eating of the blood mixes a being without the divine element with man who has the divine element. This co-mingling diminishes the divine element within man, and then the eating of the blood is a form of murder, as both diminish the divine element of mankind. This idea that eating blood is a form of murder could explain why the prohibition is recorded several times. Also, this idea might explain why the term eating is used instead of drinking because eating indicates this comingling more than the term drinking.

17:11 should be understood as presenting two reasons for why blood cannot be eaten (see Bekhor Shor on 17:11). The beginning phrase, “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” is the first and primary reason for the prohibition. The phrase harks back to the rationale from Bereshit, that one cannot mix the soul of the animal with the divine element of mankind. The second half of the verse, “and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” is presenting a second reason for the prohibition. The reference to expiation is to all the sacrifices that are offered on the altar since the sprinkling of the blood is the crucial element in the sacrifices. The reason why this secondary reason is stated is because if one cannot understand the mystical reason, then one should know that eating blood is still forbidden simply since the blood was reserved for the altar.

This double message of 17:11 answers the initial question of the Ramban, why is all blood forbidden? According to the rationale that the blood was brought on the altar, then the blood of animals that were not brought on the altar should have been permitted. Yet, there remains the primary reason of the mixing of the soul of the animal with the divine element in man, which applies to all blood from any animal. Thus, Devarim 12 which allows meat to be slaughtered outside of the mishkan, requires the blood to be spilled on the earth, in order that the blood would not be eaten, Devarim 12:16,24.

Now we can understand 17:4. The sacrifices to the satyrs (17:7) were not only a form of idolatry, but evidently also involved the eating/ drinking of blood. Thus, the people had to offer their sacrifices in the mishkan (17:3-6) in order that the blood would be put on the altar and not eaten. 17:4 then means that if one does not bring a sacrifice to the mishkan, it is feared that one has offered a sacrifice to a demon, which entails drinking blood, and from our discussion above, drinking blood was a form of shedding blood since it diminished the divine element in man.

Note it might seem odd to modern man that people ate/ drank blood, but it seems this was a common practice in olden times. MacGregor (2012, pp. 41,42) in a discussion of four clay models of cattle in Egypt from 3500 BCE, suggests that the cattle were “walking blood banks.” He writes:  "It seems more likely they were tapped for blood, which if it is drunk or added to vegetable stews, provided essential protein. This is something we find in many parts of the world, and it is still done today by the nomadic peoples in Kenya.”