In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Blood Taboo Leviticus 17:10–16 c h a p t e r f i v e To the question whether we can give any explanation of this peculiar concern for blood, the simple answer is that we do not know. Such commendable honesty notwithstanding, I would hope that the following remarks might make sense of the blood taboo. The taboo appears in Lev 17:10–16, in rules concerning the human consumption of meat: And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, no soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten: he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn [by a beast], whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity. eating blood In his commentary on the book of Leviticus, Jacob Milgrom claims that the priestly class in ancient Israel rated above the Ten Commandments the prohibition against ingesting the blood of an animal when consuming its flesh. The Decalogue was for Israel, but the blood prohibition was for all of humankind (Lev 17:10–16; Gen 9:1–7). He also attaches considerable weight to the fact that the blood prohibition is a major theme of an entire chapter of Leviticus (17) and that within five verses the prohibition occurs five times. “Such staccato repetition is unprecedented in law; it betrays the strident alarm of the legislator lest this fundamental principle be violated .”1 To highlight what he thinks is the centrality of the rule in the biblical scheme of things, Milgrom further claims that its remarkable character is thrown into sharper relief when we note that there is nothing comparable in the Near Eastern background. Blood plays no significant role in the cults of Israel’s neighbors. The biblical notion that the life-force resides in the blood is without parallel, and the prohibition against eating it is quite unique. The Arabs, for example, until Mohammed ’s time, partook of blood.2 Milgrom concludes: “Life is inviolable; it may not be treated lightly. Mankind has a right to nourishment, not to life. Hence the blood, the symbol of life, must be drained, returned to the universe, to God.”3 For Milgrom, and other scholars, the blood prohibition points to the major religious character of biblical and Jewish law. I first wish to raise some questions about Milgrom’s assessment. What does it actually mean to ingest meat with the blood still in it?4 It is plainly the case that any meat that is consumed will contain blood. Even the later refinements introduced into Jewish law with a view to upholding the biblical injunction recognize that blood remains in the meat. The Talmud, for example, limits the prohibition to the expulsion of blood from the arteries. Recognizing that the prohibition cannot mean the removal of all the blood from the animal, scholars typically resort to the claim that Israel’s neighbors must have consumed raw flesh and blood together with no attempt to remove the blood. The biblical injunction is consequently aimed against a foreign practice. No evidence is forthcoming, however, to support the claim.5 The standard interpretation might...

Share