Vayikra 18:25, 28; 20:22 – The metaphor of the land of Canaan/ Israel vomiting in the book of Vayikra

Vayikra 18:25 records that due to the sins of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan/ Israel, the land vomited them out. 18:28 (also 20:22) continues this metaphor of the land being able to vomit like a person, and records a warning that the Jewish people should not sin since if they would, then they would be vomited out the land just like the land had vomited out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. What does the term vomit in reference to land mean? What is the meaning of the metaphor?

I believe the standard explanation of the phrase that “the land will vomit out its inhabitants” is that the people will go into exile (see for example, Rashi on 18:28, quoting the Sifra and the Targum). 18:25 and 20:22 are then warnings to the Jewish people not to sin since they would be punished with exile.

Threats of punishments for sins are recorded towards the end of the book of Vayikra 26:14-43, and one of these threats is that the people will go into exile if they sin, 26:33,34. I have heard (do not recall from whom) that the punishment of the land vomiting out people differs from the similar punishment of exile in chapter 26 that the punishment relating to vomiting is an automatic exile from the land, while the punishment of exile as recorded in 26:33,34 is dependent on G-d deciding to send the people into exile.

Does the metaphor of vomiting really correspond to the idea of people going into exile? Even if a person vomits immediately after eating, still around half of the food remains in the body. Thus, if a person wants to understand that the land vomiting means that the land will somehow force the people into exile (low agricultural productivity?), this can only mean that half the people will go into exile, which significantly reduces the warning not to sin. Note in this case in Vayikra, one cannot say that the land of Canaan had low agricultural productivity at this time since the spies brought fruit that was enormous, Bemidbar 13:21,27.

Another difficulty with the idea that the metaphor of the land vomiting means that the people will go into exile is that 18:25,28 seem to explain that the Canaanites were vomited out the land of Canaan, but the Canaanites were still living in the land, as the end of 18:24 records that the Canaanites will be sent out of the land when the Jewish people come to the land.

With regard to the last difficulty, the Ramban (end of comments on 18:25) explains that the vomiting can refer to going into exile and be referring to the Canaanites since once G-d had determined that the Canaanites were to be exiled, then it is like it already occurred. A variation of this idea is that a friend of mine, Ram Elboim, suggested that since the Jewish people were about to enter the land of Israel (if there had not been the sin of the spies), so then one can understand that 18:24,28 are saying that the Canaanites are being thrown out in the present, which would include the upcoming months.

David Hoffmann (1953, vol. 2, p. 23) notes that since the Canaanites were still living in the land of Canaan/ Israel when G-d was speaking to Moshe, then it cannot be that the metaphor of vomiting means that the people will go into exile. Instead, he notes that before people vomit, they feel uncomfortable, and then the idea is that the vomiting by the land is referring to a stage where the land is making the people on the land feel uncomfortable (again, low agricultural productivity?) prior to the people being thrown out of the land (or leaving on their own?).

A different idea is that the vomiting signifies a partial exile, like a partial spewing out of food, and a partial exile could mean that while the people were living in the land, they were not the legal owners of the land. With this idea, once Avraham captured the land from the four kings (Bereshit 14:14,15), he became the legal owner of the land of Canaan. The Canaanites remained in possession of the land and lived in the land (like squatters), but they were no longer considered the legal owners of the land. With this idea, the vomiting out of the Canaanites in the past would refer to the Canaanites losing their legal ownership of the land, and then the threat of the Jewish people being vomited out in the future is that they would lose ownership of the land, which would mean that they would be living under the control of other people and/ or living with an ever-present threat of being expelled. This threat is different than the threat of exile in chapter 26, and hence the Torah uses different terms to describe the different punishments.

A variation of this third approach with regard to the Canaanites is that for approximately three hundred years the Egyptians controlled the land of Canaan/ Israel, 1468 BCE to 1140 BCE (?). Thus, the Canaanites had been ruled by a foreign ruler for quite some time or were still being ruled by a foreign ruler depending on when chapters 18 and 20 were told to Moshe. This could be the reference to the Canaanites who had been vomited out in the past in 18:20,24, as in the past, from the perspective of the time when the book of Vayikra was told to Moshe, the Canaanites had experienced a partial exile of living under foreign Egyptian rule.

This idea also accords with another aspect of vomiting since when people vomit, they are not in control of themselves, as usually the body forces them to vomit, and if a foreign ruler has control of the land, then the people are forced to do what the foreign ruler decides. The warning to the Jewish people of being vomited out in the future would then be that they would sin in the future, then they would lose control of the land of Canaan/ Israel, even if they still would be living in the land of Canaan/ Israel. 

Also, this idea that the vomiting refers to the people losing control of the land is also a measure for measure punishment for the sins described in chapters 18 and 20, many of whom relate to a lack of sexual self-control.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (Germany, 1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Vayikra 16:7-10, 21, 22 – To azazel, to where?

Vayikra 16:7-10 record that as part of the service, avodah, on Yom Kippur, Aharon, the high priest, would take two goats and by lottery choose one for/ to G-d and one for/ to azazel. Afterwards, 16:21,22 record that Aharon would confess the sins of the people on the goat that was for/ to azazel, and the goat was then sent to the desert, possibly to die.  What does the term azazel mean? The term appears four times in the chapter, 16:8, 10(2), 26, but nowhere else in Tanakh. There are at least four definitions to the word, all of them educated guesses.

Before reviewing the various definitions of the word azazel, we need to review the reason why this goat is part of the ceremony of Yom Kippur altogether. The point of the ceremony of Yom Kippur was to le-taher, purify, the ohel moed/ mishkan, 16:30, see our discussion on 16:3-34, “The avodah on Yom Kippur.” This means that all the elements of the ceremony were to contribute to this taharah, purification, process. With regard to the goat that was sent to azazel, 16:22 records that the goat was to carry the sins of the people to eretz gezerah in the desert, which seems to refer to a remote desolate place in the desert. Clearly, the goat could not literally carry away sins, but even symbolically, how is this carrying to be conceived? The goat “received” the sins from Aharon’s confession, but could Aharon really confess the sins of other people he did not even know? Instead, the problem on Yom Kippur of the sins of the people is that they caused the ohel moed/ mishkan to be tamei. The goat was then “carrying” away the tumah that derived from the sins of the people, and since this tumah is symbolic, the whole process of Aharon placing the sins of the people on the goat and the goat carrying away the tumah from sins works on the symbolic level. This process parallels the sending away of the bird in the purification ceremony of the person with tsara’at that the bird carried away the tumah of the person with tsara’at, 14:7. (The parallelism between these cases has been noted by many people.)

Indeed, the purification process of the person with tsara’at with two birds is exactly the same as the process with the two goats on Yom Kippur but on a lower level since the person with tsara’at generated less tumah than the sins of the people. Thus, on Yom Kippur a goat was used to send away the tumah, while by the person with tsara’at, a bird was sent away. Also, while the bird was sent out on the field, the goat was sent to a remote desolate region (16:22) since it encompassed more tumah. In both cases, the animal can take away the tumah since tumah is a symbolic concept and symbols can be “moved.”

To return to a review of the various definitions that have been proposed for the word azazel. One definition is based on the goat's destination. Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 16:8,10) suggests that azazel refers to the name of a mountain in the region of the people. Ibn Ezra (the beginning of his comments on 16:8) adds that maybe this was a name of a mountain near Mount Sinai, which was a mighty peak, and then this became the name for the goat even if the name was not relevant in future generations. Similarly, Rashi (on 16:8, based on Yoma 67b, also Bekhor Shor on 16:8) explains that azazel means a mighty peak that the goat was to be sent to a mighty peak. Milgrom (1991, p. 1020) quotes a variation of this idea that according to this approach, the term azazel means "a rough and a difficult place," without any reference to a peak or mountain. With this approach, the preposition lamed before the word azazel means to, to the mountain or to a remote and desolate place.

These explanations are based on the phrase, eretz gezerah in 16:22, since this phrase, eretz gezerah, can be understood as a synonym for azazel. Notwithstanding this textual support, still the lottery is then between G-d and a place, which is not parallel. Possibly to answer this question, Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 16:8,9) writes that when the Torah records that the lottery was to G-d, this was to the house of G-d. With this understanding, the two possibilities in the lottery are both to places. We will return to this approach since it has the most textual support of any of the other suggestions.

The second interpretation of the term azazel is that the term refers to the act of sending away the goat that the term azazel means the one or the animal to be sent away. This explanation can be found in the Septuagint, corresponds to the term in the Mishnah (Yoma 6:2) sair ha-mishtalleah, the goat that is sent away, and is the basis for the term scapegoat in English translations. However, this interpretation is difficult since it is not clear what the lamed, the preposition to/ for, before the term azazel means unless, the lamed is part of the word, and the term should be lazazel.

The third explanation, which is mentioned by Ramban (on 16:8), Hizkuni (on 16:8) and maybe by Ibn Ezra (end of comments on 16:8, though see alternative explanation of Ibn Ezra’s cryptic comment by R. Isaac Mehler, quoted by Klein, 2005, p. 194) is that the term azazel is a name of a demon that the goat was sent to a demon. With this idea, the preposition lamed can mean for, for the demon. However, Hertz (1960, p. 481) notes that once 17:7 denounces sacrifices that were offered to satyrs, goat demons, how could something, even if not a sacrifice, be given to demons as part of the service on Yom Kippur?

Maybe one can vary the third approach and argue that the term azazel was an anachronism even in the time of the Torah. The idea is that while people once believed in demons, the term had already lost its original meaning to the people in the desert, but by using the term the people could easier understand the idea of sending tumah away, see Luzzatto on 16:8, quoted in Bulah, 1992, footnote 11 on chapter 16. The problem with this explanation is that in 17:7 we see that some people still believed in demons, so if azazel refers to a demon, it was not an anachronism to all the people living at that time in the desert.

Or, maybe the idea of referring to a demon on Yom Kippur was to deny the powers of demons indirectly. Yehezkel Kaufmann (1972a, p. 114, quoted by Jacobson, 1986, p. 130) argues that the sending of the goat to azazel was a transformation of a pagan ritual. He claims that the original pagan ritual was an expulsion of the satyr azazel to the desert, but in the Torah, “the Azazel of chapter 16 is not conceived of either as (being) among the people or as the source of danger or harm; he plays no active role at all. He is merely a passive symbol of impurity, tumah… The world of old gods has become transformed into the desolate haunts of dancing satyrs who keep company with wild animals. All decisive power, divine and demonic, has been taken from them and given to the messengers of G-d.” The idea here is that while the term azazel might refer to a demon, the Torah gives azazel no power since azazel just receives the goat sent to it. This idea could accord with our explanation of Shemot 20:3 that the Torah does not prohibit belief in other gods, as it only prohibited to believe that they are equal or greater to G-d, see our discussion on Shemot 20:3, "Forces and gods."

Yet, if azazel refers to a powerless demon, why is it mentioned altogether? Maybe the idea is that it is better to acknowledge demons but to make them powerless since some people believed in them, than to leave demons to people’s imagination. Thus, maybe azazel is mentioned for those people who think demons exist that they should know that the supposed demons are powerless. I used to follow this idea, but from the actions with regard to the goat to azazel in the service on Yom Kippur, we see that the goat that was for/ to azazel was also to/ for G-d. This point was made by Rav Shmuel ben Hofni, the Gaon of Sura from 998 to 1012, quoted by Ibn Ezra on 16:8.

Firstly, the point of the lottery is that either goat could be for G-d or azazel, so then if azazel refers to a demon, then this would be making G-d equivalent to the demon and not making the demon powerless. Secondly, even after the goat was selected for azazel, 16:10 records that the goat was to stand before G-d, which shows that it too was to/ for G-d. Thirdly, the two goats work together. The blood of the goat that was selected to/ for G-d was sprinkled in the mishkan/ ohel moed to le-taher the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the goat that was selected to/ for azazel carried away the sins that caused the tumah which had to be purified. If the mishkan/ ohel moed was just sprinkled with the blood of goat to/ for G-d, then the problem of tumah would have remained if the sins of the people had not been carried away (symbolically) by the goat for/ to azazel. Fourthly, by the sprinkling of the blood by the goat selected to/ for G-d, and the carrying away of the sins by the goat selected to/ for azazel, the Torah uses the exact same words, 16:16,21, which shows that the goats are a team, and cannot be separated, as both are for/ to G-d.

A fourth definition of the term azazel is quoted by Hertz (1960, p. 481, also Hoffmann, 1953, p. 305 and Hartom, 1999, p. 53) that the term is based on the purpose of the sending away of the goat, and means "dismissal or entire removal." Hertz explains that the word azazel "is the ancient technical term for the entire removal of the sin and guilt of the community, that was symbolized by the sending away of the goat into the wilderness." The problem with this explanation is that it is an odd word to signify destruction and the term is not parallel with G-d by the lottery.

In the end, my guess is to slightly vary the first approach that the term azazel means a desolate forlorn place based on the phrase eretz gezerah in 16:22, but it was not a specific place. Anywhere in the desert which was particularly desolate and lacking any possibility of life would be called azazel.

The idea of the lottery is that the goat which would be for/ to G-d symbolized/ represented taharah since its blood was sprinkled in the inner room of the mishkan/ ohel moed, and the goat which was for/ to azazel, symbolized/ represented tumah due to the sins of the people being “placed” upon it. Both tumah and taharah are symbolic concepts and both are determined by G-d. Thus, both goats are before G-d in 16:7,9,10, and either goat could have been chosen to symbolize or represent the two concepts. The randomness of the lottery shows that G-d decides who and what are considered tamei and who and what are considered tahor. The goat which symbolized/ represents taharah goes to G-d since being tahor is a symbolic movement towards G-d, while the goat that symbolized/ represented tumah goes to a forlorn place, eretz gezerah, since tumah is a symbolic movement away for G-d to nothingness.  The parallelism of the lottery is a movement towards G-d or a movement away from G-d, but both goats remain symbolically before G-d, just a question of how distant. A variation of this idea is, following Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon, that the preposition, lamed, both in reference to G-d and azazel by the lottery, 16:8, means to a place, either a place associated with G-d, the Holy of Holies, by the goat which symbolized taharah, or to a place that is associated with desolation or nothingness by the goat which symbolized tumah.

My son-in-law Yuri Lubomirsky has pointed out to me that if azazel is referring to a specific place (like some of the proponents of the first definition claim), then the Torah should not have used the preposition lamed, before the term, and instead should have written azazelah, like midbarah in 16:10,22 and Sedomah in Bereshit 19:1, see Rashi on Bereshit 32:3. Also, he claims that when something is sent to a place, then there is no need for a preposition at all. However, if azazel is not a defined place, but a description of any forlorn place that occurs in the desert, then the preposition lamed could be appropriate. The idea being that the person who took the goat to azazel was to search in the desert to find a particularly remote and desolate area, azazel, in the desert to release the goat, 16:10,22.

Bibliography:

Bulah, Menachem, 1991, 1992, Vayikra: Da'at Mikra, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Hartom, E. S. 1999, Commentary on Vayikra, Tel Aviv: Yavne Publishing House.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Kaufmann, Yehezkel (1889-1963), 1972, The Religion of Israel, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Tel Aviv: Dvir Co.

Klein, Alexander, 2005, The law of the scapegoat, in in Professors on the Parashah: Studies on the weekly Torah readings, edited by Leib Moskowitz, Jerusalem: Urim Publications.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Vayikra 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra

When the Jewish people were living in the desert/ wilderness for forty years they constructed a special building which contained cultic furniture and had a surrounding courtyard. The Torah generally uses three terms to refer to the building and complex, the mikdash, mishkan and the ohel moed. I believe that most (all?) people understand the terms mishkan and ohel moed as being synonyms, which sometimes refer to just the special building and sometimes to the entire complex. In our discussion on Shemot 25:8,9: 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” I argued that in the book of Shemot, the term mikdash refers to special cultic furniture, the term mishkan refers to the walls of the special building and the first and maybe second covering of the walls, and the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex. I will now try to show that this identical distinction exists in the book of Vayikra.

The book of Vayikra begins, 1:1, by recording that G-d called to Moshe from the ohel moed. This verse continues the end of the Shemot 40:34,35 that the cloud of G-d filled the ohel moed, and my understanding is that the cloud of G-d was in the entire special complex. 1:1 then means that the voice of G-d called out to Moshe from the complex, and Moshe heard this voice when he was outside the entire complex. Possibly Moshe entered the complex after hearing G-d’s voice, but this is not recorded.

1:3 then records that the first stage in bringing a cow as an olah sacrifice is to bring the cow to the petach ohel moed, the entrance to the ohel moed. Which entrance? There are two possibilities. One, the opening to the courtyard from the special building, which is the popular opinion, or two, the opening to the courtyard from the area outside the complex. Note the opening to the courtyard from outside the complex is referred to as shaar ha-hatzer in Shemot 38:31 and Shemot 40:33, but this is the actual line that marks the opening, while the petach ohel moed would have some depth from the entrance towards the courtyard. While some verses, Shemot 26:36, Shemot 38:30 and Bemidbar 3:25, 4:25, suggest that the opening is from the special building to the courtyard, I think that Bemidbar 25:6 and 27:2 refer to the entrance from outside the complex.  In our discussion on the terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot, we concluded that this entrance can refer to both places depending on the context. It is not clear which possibility is being referred to here in 1:3. An additional question, with regard to both of these possibilities, is how far into the courtyard from either direction does the term, entrance, refer to?

1:5 then refers to the outer altar that was petach ohel moed, and again this phrase could be referring to either of the two possible entrances mentioned above on 1:3. Note, since it is likely that the altar was in the middle of the courtyard (see picture in Sarna, 1986, p. 192), then the two possible entrances would be roughly equal distance from the altar.

3:2 refers to this entrance, petach ohel moed, by the slaughtering of a cow that is brought as a shelamim sacrifice. Again, this entrance could be either of the two places discussed on 1:3, though here my inclination is that the reference is to the entrance to the courtyard from the outside since otherwise there would numerous animals being killed immediately before the special building.

3:8,13 then refer to a new area, lifnei ohel moed, by the sheep and goat shelamim sacrifices. This area is most likely different than the petach ohel moed since it is labelled differently. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10 we see that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside the courtyard of the ohel moed, and that the phrase lifnei ha-Shem means in the courtyard. I agree with his point about the term lifnei ohel moed, but I think the phrase lifnei ha-Shem is not only the area in the ohel moed, but also the area near the ohel moed, as in 3:7. (One can even say that the whole world is considered as being lifnei ha-Shem.) Similarly, the phrase lifnei ohel moed in Bemidbar 3:7,38 seem to refer to the area outside the courtyard of the ohel moed.

4:4 records that when a priest, who had been anointed, accidentally sins, then he brings a bull to the petach ohel moed, which again can be the two possibilities we discussed on 1:3. 4:5,6 then record that the blood from the bull was to be brought to the ohel moed, where the priest would dip his fingers in the blood, and then sprinkle the blood on the parokhet within the special building. This bringing of the blood to the ohel moed, might imply that the ohel moed was just the special building, but if the ohel moed is the entire complex, then it includes the special building. Once 4:6 refers to the parokhet then we know where in the ohel moed, the entire complex, the priest was to sprinkle the blood. Note, it could be that the priest dipped his hands outside the special building and then entered the building with bloody fingers to sprinkle the blood. With either possibility of where the priest was to dip his fingers in the blood, the phrase to ohel moed in 4:5 is a movement from the petach ohel moed, that the priest moved either from the entrance to the special building to the special building or from the entrance to the complex to the main area in the courtyard or to the special building.

4:6 notes that the incense altar, which was in the special building, was located in the ohel moed, as the ohel moed refers to the entire complex. The verse ends by referring to the altar which was petach ohel moed, and this is similar to 1:5.

4:14 records the law when the entire congregation sinned by accident that the people are to bring a bull, lifnei ohel moed. As in 3:8,13, lifnei ohel moed is outside the complex, and this is very appropriate in this case since this would give more people the ability to see the elders, the representatives of the people, when they would lean on the bull, 4:15. 4:16 then records that the blood of the bull was to be brought to the ohel moed, which is similar to 4:5, though here the movement is more obvious since one is coming from the area outside the complex to the ohel moed, either to the special building or to the courtyard. 4:18 has two references to the ohel moed and is similar to 4:6.

The next reference is 6:9, which records that Aharon and his sons should eat the matzot of the minhah sacrifice in the courtyard of the ohel moed. The ohel moed is the entire complex, and the Torah is specifying where in the complex the matzot should be eaten. Similarly, 6:19 records that the priest who does the korban hatta’t eats part of the sacrifice in the courtyard of the ohel moed.

6:23 records that a hatta’t, whose blood is brought to the ohel moed to le-khapper the kodesh, cannot be eaten. This verse seems to refer to some of the cases of the hatta’t from chapter four. While one can understand the term ohel moed here as just referring to the special building, it can also be understood as referring to the entire complex, that a hatta’t, whose blood is brought into the complex to be used le-khapper the kodesh, i.e., to be sprinkled on the parokhet, cannot be eaten.

The next mention of one of the three terms is in 8:3,4 by the initiation of the priests, that the ceremony is to begin by the petach ohel moed, the entrance to the ohel moed. Again, as by 1:3, this could mean two different areas. My guess is that here the reference is to the entrance to the entire complex since the entire nation is to gather around the entrance and this could not be if the petach ohel moed is the entrance to the special building.

8:10 records the first mention of the mishkan in the book of Vayikra, as the verse records that Moshe anointed the mishkan and everything that was in it. This means that Moshe anointed the walls, and maybe the ceiling covering the walls of the special building. The phrase “everything that was in it” refers to the special cultic ritual items that were located within the walls of the special building.

Chapter eight concludes that Aharon and his sons were to cook and eat meat and bread from the sacrifices by the petach ohel moed and that they had to remain by the petach ohel moed for seven days, 8:31,33,35. While this phrase could be referring to the entrance to the special building since Aharon and his sons would have had to sleep in that spot this strikes me as not being respectful to the special building, and then my inclination is that the area being referred to in the verses is the entrance to the entire complex, which is where Aharon and his sons would have slept.

9:5 has the phrase, penei ohel moed, which is the first time this phrase appears in the Torah (also later in Bemidbar 17:8 and 19:4), and means in the direction of ohel moed, from outside of the entire complex. This cannot be referring to the courtyard of the complex since the entire congregation were standing in this place and they could not all fit in the courtyard.

9:23 then records that during the special ceremony of the eight day, Moshe and Aharon went into the ohel moed and then they came out. To understand this verse, one must ascertain where Moshe and Aharon were before they came into the ohel moed. Previously, Aharon had been in the courtyard working on the sacrifices, and then 9:22 records that he blessed the people. Was this blessing in the courtyard? If yes, then 9:23 must mean that Moshe and Aharon went into the special building. However, since the people were outside of the complex (see above on 9:5), it is more likely that when Aharon blessed the people, he went outside the complex to bless them, and then 9:23 means that Moshe and Aharon went into the courtyard area of the ohel moed, see our discussion on 9:22,23, “The double blessings by the ceremony of the eighth day.”

10:7 records that after the tragic deaths of Nadv and Avihu, Moshe told Aharon, Elazar and Itamar to remain in the petach ohel moed, which is similar to the law in 8:33,35.

10:9 then records that G-d told Aharon that he and his sons cannot drink wine when they are in the ohel moed. If a person thinks that the ohel moed means only the special building, then the priests would be permitted to drink wine in the courtyard of the ohel moed. This would seem to contradict the point of 10:10, the following verse, that the wine should not cause a priest to make a mistake by something which is kodesh. Rashi (on 10:9), who follows the idea that the ohel moed is just the special building, is uncomfortable with this implication that a priest could drink in the courtyard, and hence he quotes a drasha to negate this implication with regard to the outer altar. On the other hand, 10:9,10 accord very well with the understanding that the term ohel moed means the entire complex, and then the priests could not drink wine in any area in the complex.

12:4 records for the first time in the book of Vayikra, the term mikdash, that a new mother, cannot go in the mikdash even when she has tahor blood. I believe that the term mikdash means the collection of special cultic furniture, and then 12:4 is forbidding the new mother for going amongst these items. Maybe, the Torah did not use the word ohel moed since she was forbidden for going amongst these items, even if for some reason they were not being housed in the special complex.

12:6 then records that after the period of tahor blood is completed, the new mother is to bring a sacrifice to the petach ohel moed, which could refer to either of the two possibilities discussed on 1:3.

The phrase petach ohel moed appears next by the sacrifices of the metsora, 14:11,23, and then again by the sacrifices of the zav and zavah, 15:14,29. Again these verses can refer to either of the two possibilities discussed above on 1:3. However, my inclination is that there would be a goal to limit the number the people standing right in front of the special building, and then the reference to petach ohel moed in these verses would be to the entrance of the special complex from the outside.

The end of chapter 15, 15:31 records that the Jewish people were to be careful not to make G-d’s mishkan tamei. This is referring to the walls and covering of the special building and the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling. The fact that the verse does not refer to the ohel moed indicates that the crucial problem of tumah in the complex is with regard to the special building and not to the courtyard.

The phrase petach ohel moed next appears by the selection of the goats in the ceremony on Yom Kippur, as the goats were to be brought petach ohel moed, 16:7. Again, this phrase could refer to either of the two possibilities discussed on 1:3.

Later in the ceremony, 16:16 records that Aharon was to kipper (purify?) the ohel moed. If one understands that the ohel moed refers just to the special building, then the verse means that Aharon was to sprinkle blood within that building, while if the term ohel moed means the entire complex, then 16:16 can mean that he was to sprinkle blood in the courtyard, see our discussion on 16:16-20, “Was the outer altar or the inner altar or both purified on Yom Kippur?”

The following verse, 16:17, records that no person was to be in the ohel moed when Aharon was in the kodesh, the inner room of the special building. If one believes that the ohel moed means just the special building, then 16:17 is stating that no one could be in the outer room of the special building when Aharon was in the inner room of the special building. I think this is obvious. Was a person going to be following Aharon when he was bringing the coals and blood into the inner room from the outer room? Also, with this understanding people could be in the courtyard when Aharon was going in the inner room, but then maybe a person in the courtyard could see the aron in the inner room when Aharon was going in, which is very dangerous, see Bemidbar 4:20. Instead, it is simpler to understand that when Aharon was in the inner room of the special building, no one could be in the entire complex until he completely finished needing to be in the inner room. This would remove the small possibility that a person could have seen the inner room from the courtyard when Aharon was going into the room. This would also mean that the people/ person watching the goat to be sent to Azazel would leave the complex until Aharon would need the goat in 16:20.

16:20,33 record that on Yom Kippur, Aharon’s action was to me-khapper the kodesh, the ohel moed and the altar. Depending on how one defines the term ohel moed in 16:16 determines how one understands the term ohel moed in these two verses, either the outer room of the special building or the entire complex.

16:23 then records that Aharon went to the ohel moed to change his priestly clothing. It is incredible to think that Aharon changed his clothing within the special building. Instead, Aharon had gone towards the exit of the complex or even left it to accompany the sending away of the goat to Azazel, and then in 16:23, he was to go in the courtyard in a relatively hidden place to change his clothing. 

16:33, a summary verse to the Yom Kippur ceremony, records that in the ceremony, the mikdash ha-kodesh was kipper. The term mikdash would refer to the aron, the special cultic furniture in the kodesh, inner room of the special building, as on Yom Kippur the high priest was to sprinkle blood on the kapporet, the cover of the aron and the base for the keruvim.

17:4,5,6,9 refer to the petach ohel moed, and again these verses could mean either possibility discussed on 1:3. 17:4 also refers to the mishkan, and here the idea is to the tent of G-d, which I understand means the walls and ceiling of the special building.

19:21 refers to the bringing of the asham sacrifice to the petach ohel moed, and, again, this could be referring to either possibility discussed on 1:3.

19:30 records that a person should fear G-d’s mikdash, and this means to fear (respect?) cultic items dedicated to G-d.

A reference to G-d’s mikdash appears in 20:3, and again it refers to the cultic furniture that is dedicated to G-d.

The next reference is that 21:12 records that a high priest cannot leave the mikdash to mourn for relatives since if he left, this would profane the mikdash. This means that he cannot leave the area where the special cultic furniture is situated since this would profane this furniture. A similar idea occurs in 21:23 which records a law not to profane G-d’s mikdash, and two of the special cultic items are mentioned in the beginning of the verse.

Skipping some chapters, 24:3, records that the menorah was to be lit outside the parokhet in the ohel moed. This designation outside the parokhet informs us where in the ohel moed, the entire complex, the menorah was to be lit, namely in the outer room of the special building.

Towards the end of the book of Vayikra, 26:2 refers to the mikdash of G-d, which again is to the cultic furniture, that people should fear the special furniture relating to G-d, similar to 19:30.

26:11 refers to G-d’s mishkan, as in 15:31, but here the verse appears to be referring to a future mishkan and not to the mishkan in the desert.

26:31 records how G-d will destroy the mikdash of the people if they sin, and here the reference is to the cultic furniture that the people made.

This concludes our review of the three terms, mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra, and we need to continue examining the terms in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim.

Bibliography:

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Sarna, Nahum, (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Vayikra 16:16-20 – Which altar was purified on Yom Kippur: the outer altar, the inner altar or both?

As part of the instructions for the avodah, service on Yom Kippur, 16:16 records that Aharon was to do the same thing to the ohel moed as he did to the inner room of the mishkan. This means that he was to sprinkle blood in the ohel moed, but where exactly was he to sprinkle the blood? 

Rashi (on 16:16) explains that 16:16 means that Aharon was to sprinkle blood on the parochet, which was the veil that separated the two rooms of the mishkan, when Aharon was standing in the outer room of the mishkan. This explanation follows the idea that the ohel moed is the same area as the mishkan.

16:17 then records that no person was to be in the ohel moed when Aharon was in the kadosh (the inner room of the mishkan) until he left and that Aharon was to me-khapper for himself, his family, and the entire nation. Why were these instructions for the people not to be in the ohel moed recorded at this point in the description of the worship of Yom Kippur?

16:18 then records that Aharon was to purify (sprinkle blood on) the altar on Yom Kippur, but there were two altars in the ohel moed, the inner altar in the outer room of the mishkan, and the outer altar in the courtyard of the mishkan. Which altar is being referred to in 16:18?

Ibn Ezra (on 16:18) writes that 16:18 is referring to the altar in the courtyard of the mishkan. He does not provide a reason for this comment, but there are two possible reasons for this understanding. One 16:12 uses the same phrase the "altar before G-d" as in 16:18, and in 16:12 many claim that the reference is to the outer altar (see Rashi on 16:12). However, this reason is not conclusive since it could be that in 16:12, the verse is referring to the inner altar.  Also, since both altars could be considered as being before G-d, then it could be that 16:12 is referring to the outer altar, while 16:18 is referring to the inner altar.

The second reason for understanding that 16:18 is referring to the outer altar is much more convincing. 16:18 records that Aharon was to go out to go to the altar, and the implication is that he went out of the mishkan, which means that he went out to the outer altar which was situated in the courtyard of the mishkan. If the altar being referred to in 16:18 was the inner altar, then 16:18 would have stated either that Aharon was to go into the mishkan or the verse did not have to refer to any movement from Aharon.

Notwithstanding this apparent proof from the phrase in 16:18 that “Aharon was to go out,” Chazal argue that 16:18 is referring to the inner altar, see Mishnah Yoma 5:5, Rashi on 16:18, David Hoffman on 16:18, 1953, p. 309, and Levine, 1989, p. 105. 

Chazal understand that the instructions for Aharon to go out in 16:18 was for him to move from the curtain that separated the two rooms in the mishkan, the parokhet, to the side of the inner altar that was near the entrance of the mishkan since then Aharon was in the process of going out of the mishkan, even if he did not actually leave. The reason why they understand 16:18 in this manner is because of Shemot 30:10, which records that the inner altar was to be purified on Yom Kippur. There is no other reference to purifying an altar in Vayikra chapter 16, hence, 16:18 must be referring to the inner altar. With this understanding, only the inner altar was purified on Yom Kippur, and not the outer altar.

Most likely, in response to the need to find the fulfillment of Shemot 30:10 in Vayikra 16, Ibn Ezra (on 16:16) writes that the phrase in 16:16 "and (Aharon) will also purify the ohel moed" means that the high priest would sprinkle blood on both the curtain in between the two rooms of the mishkan, the parochet, and on the inner altar which was in the ohel moed. Maybe Ibn Ezra's understanding is that the phrase "and the high priest will also purify the ohel moed" in 16:16 means that just as the high priest was to purify the central item on the inner room of the mishkan, the aron, so too he was to purify the central item of the outer room of the mishkan, the inner altar. According to Ibn Ezra, both of the altars were sprinkled with blood on Yom Kippur.

I do not like either approach for several reasons. One, Ibn Ezra seems to be correct that the term going out in 16:18 means that Aharon was to leave the mishkan or some area and not just for him to go towards the exit. On the other hand, I doubt that the sprinkling of the blood in 16:16 is the fulfillment of Shemot 30:10 since due to Shemot 30:10 this was an important part of the service. This sprinkling should have been mentioned explicitly but it is not mentioned at all in 16:16.

In addition, I think the term ohel moed refers to the mishkan and the courtyard of the mishkan (see our discussions on Shemot 25:9, 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and the ohel moed in the book of Shemot” and on 1:1 “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra”), the entire complex, and then 16:16 means that Aharon was to sprinkle blood on the courtyard of the mishkan to purify the courtyard. This could have been on the outer altar, or the curtains on the outside of the courtyard or even symbolically on the ground in the courtyard of the mishkan. 16:17 is then a warning that nobody, including priests, who usually could be in the courtyard of the mishkan, to be in the courtyard of the mishkan and certainly not in the mishkan itself, when Aharon was purifying the inner room of the mishkan.

With this understanding, when Aharon fulfilled the instructions of 16:16 to purify the ohel moed, he was not in the outer room of the mishkan to move either towards the exit or to sprinkle blood on the inner altar.

My guess is that after Aharon was to sprinkle blood in/on the courtyard of the mishkan, as recorded in 16:16, he was to go back inside the inner room of the mishkan to take out the pan with the burning coals, where he had left them in 16:13. It is never recorded when the coals were removed from the inner room of the mishkan since this was not a major part of the service, the cleaning up, but the coals had to be removed at some point since the burning coals were a fire hazard because if they were left in the inner room then a wind could cause the aron with the luchot and the mishkan to burn. It should be remembered that the mishkan was a tent structure made of wood and cloths, which could burn easily, and many times there are very strong winds in the desert, which could cause the coals to start a fire even if the structure was sturdy enough to withstand the winds. Aharon could not have removed the coals before 16:15 since he needed the coals to make a smoke cloud when he went into the inner room of the mishkan to sprinkle the blood from the hatta’t of the people. When were the burning coals removed?

According to Chazal (Mishnah Yoma 7:4), this action of removing the coals occurred after Aharon sent away the goat to Azazel, and offered his olah and the olah of the people, meaning after 16:24. With this understanding, Aharon had to switch twice into the special simple clothes for Yom Kippur since he was only able to enter the inner room of the mishkan, where the coals were located, with the special simple clothing, 16:3,4. However, the simple reading of chapter 16 is that Aharon only put on the special simple clothes once on Yom Kippur. More likely, he was to remove the burning coals before he was to remove his special clothes, which is recorded in 16:23.

My guess is that the removal of the burning coals occurred after the sprinkling of blood in 16:16, and this is hinted to in 16:17, which records that nobody should be in the ohel moed from when Aharon was to purify the inner room of the mishkan until Aharon left the inner room of the mishkan. Independent as to how one defines the term ohel moed, still this reference to Aharon leaving the inner room of the mishkan is recorded in 16:17 after Aharon had left the inner room of the mishkan to purify the ohel moed in 16:16. Why was he leaving the inner room of the mishkan again? Evidently, Aharon entered the inner room of the mishkan after he purified the ohel moed, and my guess is that this entering was to get the pan with the coals.

This understanding gives a simple explanation of the term “going out” in 16:18. The going out in 16:18 is that Aharon left the inner room of the mishkan with the coals, went to the altar in the outer room of the mishkan (and maybe put the coals on this altar), and purified the inner altar as recorded in Shemot 30:10. Later the coals could have been removed from this altar or from the room. The going out in 16:18 is then the same going out referred to in 16:17, Aharon leaving the inner room of the mishkan. The point of 16:17 is then to tell the people not to be in the ohel moed until after Aharon left the inner room of the mishkan for the last time, which was to take the coals out. Even if this action was a minor part of the ceremony of the day, nobody could be in the ohel moed until Aharon was no longer going to be in the inner room of the mishkan. With this understanding, on Yom Kippur, Aharon was to purify the inner altar of the mishkan, and maybe also the outer altar of the mishkan depending on where he sprinkled the blood in 16:16. 

Vayikra 16:20 concludes the three types of sprinkling blood: First in the kodesh, the inner room of the mishkan, then in the courtyard of the mishkan/ the ohel moed and then the altar, which I believe was the inner altar in the mishkan. Possibly, the inner altar in the mishkan was purified last since the instructions to build this altar (Shemot 30:1-10) are recorded after the instructions to build all the other parts of the ohel moed, Shemot chapter 25-27, and it might have had a different purpose than the rest of the ohel moed, see our discussion on Shemot 30:1-10, “The barriers arise.”   A different possible reason is that from 15:31 we see that the crucial problem of tumah in the special complex was in the mishkan, the special building, and with the order of purification suggested here, this was purified first, the kodesh, and last, the inner altar, while the courtyard was purified in between. Thus, the process of purification both began and ended with the more important areas.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society

Vayikra 16:3-34 - The purpose of the avodah on Yom Kippur

Vayikra 16:3-34 records the avodah, service, of the high priest on Yom Kippur. The high priest first offered a hatta`t sacrifice, 16:6,11, and then made a special incense to allow him to enter the Holy of Holies, 16:12, where he would sprinkle blood from the hatta`t on the kapporet (the cover of the aron), 16:14. Afterwards, he would offer another hatta`t, sprinkle the blood from this sacrifice on and in front of the parokhet (the screen that separated the Holy of Holies from the remainder of the mishkan proper), 16:15, and then take the blood from both hatta`t sacrifices to sprinkle on the altar, (Rashi – the inner altar, Ibn Ezra – the outer altar) 16:18,19, see our discussion "Was the outer altar, or the inner altar or both purified on Yom Kippur?" After finishing the sprinkling of blood, he would send away a goat to Azazel, 16:21, and then offer two olah sacrifices, 16:24.

The Torah records that the purpose of the hatta`t, the sprinkling of the blood and of the two olah sacrifices was le-khapper, 16:6,11,16,18,20,24. Furthermore, in the conclusion to chapter 16, 16:30-34, the Torah repeatedly mentions that the ritual described in the chapter was le-khapper. This term is the basis for name of the day, Yom Kippur, but what does it mean?

The traditional translation of the word le-khapper is atonement, which would mean that the sacrifices and the sprinkling of blood both purified the mishkan/ ohel moed and led to atonement for the people. For example, Rav Soloveitchik (Peli, 1980, p. 57) explains that "Yom Kippur has a double function. The first is khapparah - acquittal from sin or atonement: (as it is written, 16:30), 'For the virtue of this very day shall acquit you of sin'… The second aspect of Yom Kippur is taharah – catharsis or purification. As it is written (16:30): 'For the virtue of this very day shall acquit you of sin, to cleanse you." Of these two aspects, the atonement has been understood as being the more important element (and after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, more pertinent), and hence Yom Kippur is called "The day of atonement."

Recently a different approach to understanding the avodah on Yom Kippur has been suggested. Milgrom (1991, pp. 255, 1079-1084) notes that the term le-khapper is used in reference to the mishkan, 16:16,33, but how could the mishkan/ ohel moed need atonement? He argues that the word le-khapper signifies wiping off or purging, and that it refers to tumah, that tumah is removed. With this understanding, the sprinkling of the blood purges the tumah from the mishkan/ ohel moed, which means the point of the day is only to purify the mishkan/ ohel moed. Thus, Milgrom (p.1011) translates 16:30, "For on this day, shall purgation be effected on your behalf to purify you of all your sins, you shall become pure before G-d," as only referring to removing tumah, and he calls Yom Kippur, "The day of purgation."

Both approaches agree that the service on Yom Kippur was to remove tumah from the mishkan/ ohel moed, i.e. to purify the mishkan/ ohel moed, only that according to the atonement approach it was also to bring about atonement. This removal of tumah explains the placement of chapter 16 in the book of Vayikra since the chapter continues the discussion of tumah from chapters 11-15.

The two approaches to understanding the word le-khapper are also applicable to understanding the sending away of the goat to Azazel. As noted by the Ramban (end of comments on 16:8), the goat removed tumah, which is why the person who took away the goat became tamei, 16:26. Furthermore, as noted by many commentators, the goat was similar to the birds by the metsora, 14:7, that as part of the purification process of the metsora, one bird is sent away to remove the tumah that had existed by the metsora. Thus, the sending away of the goat removed tumah but did it also bring about atonement? 16:22 records that the goat carried away the sins of the people. Why were the people's sins carried off? Was this to bring them atonement or was this too related to purifying the mishkan/ ohel moed?

Rambam (Moreh 3:46) writes “no one has any doubt that sins are not bodies that can be transported…but these actions are parables serving to bring forth a form in the soul so that a passion towards repentance should result: We have freed ourselves from all our previous actions.” The idea seems to be that by symbolically carrying off the sins, the goat allows a person to think of himself as starting with a “new slate” and to repent unhindered by previous sins. This understanding follows the atonement approach as with this approach the carrying away of the sins by the goat is part of the process of the people attaining atonement.

On the other hand, according to the purification approach, the sins also had to be removed, but for a different reason. The idea here is that it was the sins of the people that was causing the tumah, and hence as part of the process of purifying the mishkan/ ohel moed, the cause of the tumah, the sins also had to be removed. According to this approach, not only was the mishkan/ ohel moed purified by sending away the goat, but also the people were purified by this action, as indicated by 16:30,33,34.

The adherents of the atonement approach would argue that if the people are purified, then ipso facto, they must also have attained atonement. However, according to the purification approach, the people are purified in the sense that their sins would no longer cause the mishkan/ ohel moed to be tamei, but personal culpability for their sins would remain.

One curiosity with the sending away of the goat is that the Torah does not state that the people have to repent for their sins to be removed. It is true that the High Priest confessed the sins of the people on the goat that was sent away (16:21), but still there is no mention that the people also had to confess. This absence of repentance is difficult according to the atonement approach for how can the people be forgiven for their sins without requiring them to repent? (See Talmud, Shavuot 13a.) However, for the purification approach, the absence of repentance is understandable since the removal of sins with the goat was to stop the sins from causing tumah in the mishkan/ ohel moed. To purge the tumah from the mishkan/ohel moed, it was enough for the High Priest to confess for the people, but the people themselves did not repent since they were not being forgiven for their sins.

Bibliography:

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, 2000, 2001, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Pinhas, Peli, 1980, On repentance in the thought and oral discourses of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Jerusalem: Oroth Publishing House.

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.”