THEY EVEN OFFER UP THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN FIRE TO THEIR GODS...
(Devarim 12:31)
BE CAREFUL TO OBSERVE ONLY THAT WHICH I ENJOIN UPON YOU: NEITHER ADD TO IT NOR TAKE AWAY FROM IT.
(Devarim 13:1)
"Neither add to it" - Five compartments in the tephillin, five species for the lulav, four blessings in the priestly benediction.
(Rashi ibid., ibid.)
The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Wants Life, and Is Not Interested In Human Sacrifice
"Neither add to it" - because you are liable to
add something which He abominates. Such would be the case were you to desire to
add forms of worship of the Blessed God, for sometimes the additional forms of
worship may be abominable to him, like the burning of the sons.
(S'forno, Devarim ibid., ibid.)
It is written "Neither add to it nor take away from it." Immediately preceding and adjacent to that we read "they even offer up their sons and daughters in fire to their gods". But with mitzvot in general, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, did not warn against adding laws in order to create barriers and restrictions for the protection of the Torah.
(Hizkuni, Devarim 4:2)
It is not sufficient that
you avoid worshipping their gods in these ways; it will be a transgression if
these forms of worship be directed to the one God, your Lord. For the
significance of worship of their gods is the complete opposite of what is
desirable to your God, just as the way of your God is the total negation of
their gods. Your God is the God of Life; their gods are gods of death. Their
gods of nonsense take pleasure from destruction; the desire of your God is
self-elevation and renewal of life.
(Rabbi Shimshon R. Hirsch,
ibid., ibid.)
The prohibition against the eating of blood
appears thrice in the Torah. Each time it is phrased as a severe prohibition,
basic and awesome - or, in other words, as a taboo. The prohibition appears
first in Parashat Acharei Mot (Vayikra
17:10-14). Four long verses are assigned, all expressing the severity of
the act, and of the mitzvot which are derived therefrom. So severe is the
consumption of blood, that The Holy One, Blessed Be He, threatens: "If
anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them
partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of
the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin." Scripture
provides the rationale: "For the life ['nefesh'] of the flesh is
in the blood". The prohibition is so severe that is later phrased as a
positive commandment: "And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides
among them hunts down an animal or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out
its blood and cover it with earth."
Twice
more, although with less detail, the prohibition is repeated in our parasha. The Torah commands (12:15) in
terms of exclusivity and warning: "Only the blood shall you not eat,
you shall spill it on the earth like water." Further on, the Torah
speaks with encouragement: "Be strong, and do not eat the blood," as
though special effort is needed to overcome the tremendous attraction to blood.
And again Scripture gives the reason: "For
the blood is the life" adding
a positive incentive: "You
must not partake of it, in order that it may go well with you and with your
descendants to come, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of the
Lord."
One gets the impression
that there is no other mitzvah which receives such severe formulation. Rambam was
aware of this, and in The Guide for the Perplexed (III,
46), writes:
"It
is prohibited severely, putting the same emphasis on this prohibition as on the
prohibition against idolatry. For He, may He be exalted, says, "I will set
my regard to him who gives of his seed to Moloch"... No such text occurs
regarding a third commandment other than the prohibition of idolatry and of
eating of blood..."
Why Is This Mitzvah So Severe - And Why The Numerous Reiterations In
The Torah?
I think that the answer
to this question is to be found in the attraction-rejection relation towards
the eating of blood, as described by our Sages. On the one hand, they pointed
out the natural disgust at eating blood. And so the hermeneutic of Rabbi
Shimon, son of Rebbi, on the passage, "Only be strong not to eat the blood": "If one receives
reward for refraining from the eating of blood - which arouses disgust in man's
soul, how much greater a reward will be given the person who refrains from
theft and licentiousness, which man desires and enjoys." (Makkot
24b). On the
other hand, however, Ramban presents an additional, contradictory explanation,
based on the words of Chazal on our passage: They craved it so strongly that
all these warnings were necessary." Ramban adds that "this is a very
beautiful and fitting drasha on the text." The literary sensitivity of
Chazal teaches that blood both attracts and repels simultaneously.
This pattern of
prohibition of a thing which is ostensibly unthinkable and repelling, along
with the severity of the prohibition, indicating that the thing is highly
desirable, is of course the pattern of the most primary and universal of taboos
- the ban against incest. As Freud discerned, the severity of the interdiction
against sexual relations with a mother and father is not an expression of a
powerful aversion to the act; it is an indication of the exact opposite, its
tremendous and basic attraction.
It would appear that this
model can also illuminate the ban against consumption of blood. The prohibition
against intercourse with one's mother is both prohibition and the impossibility
of return to the source. An infant's love for its mother is the endless and
full love in which the separateness between subject and object is non-existent;
it is a love of total and perfect joy. The taboo against incest attests to the
intense longing to return to that complete and lost source, simultaneously
transforming it into a prohibition, an impossibility. It becomes an object of
primal yearnings which must undergo transformations and sublimation which lead
man through his life's ways.
The ban against eating
blood is similar. The blood as 'nefesh' is understood as the beginning and the source of
life itself. As such, it presents a powerful enticement to imagine that it
might be possible to reunite with the source, as though by swallowing - the
most radical form of domination and identification - one can grasp and unite with
that primal source of life. The attraction to blood, exactly like the
attraction to the mother, is the attraction to the source of the complete - and
lost - happiness.
This temptation to return
to the primeval purity - to the source of life itself, to the point predating
the frictions of intelligence and society, to the point above politics, that
organic and undamaged whole - this is an attraction of incomparable danger.
Some of the most murderous myths of modern times, such as "Blood and Earth",
"purity of the blood" are evidence. Therefore the Torah commands us
not to attempt to "absorb" the blood, but rather: "You shall
spill it on the earth, like water." How sad, shameful, and, most of all,
dangerous, it is that the representatives of religious Judaism are returning
today to this mythological world, seeking to establish settlements on the basis
of the purity of blood!!!
Ramban sees the danger of
blood attraction connected to additional dangers mentioned in our parasha. In
the footsteps of Rambam in the "Guide" (ibid.), he links the prohibition
against eating blood to a certain type of idolatry - the worship of demons ("sheidim"): "And that worship
included the drinking of blood, for they would collect blood for the demons,
and they would eat over the blood and of it, as though the demons had invited
them to dine at their table, and they become attached to them... and they would
prophesy and foretell the future. Therefore the Torah warned that if one should
hear a future told by a blood-eater... let his heart not be tempted... for this
is all humbuggery... of the sort warned against in relation to the false
prophets..."
Ramban connects the blood
enticement, a fantasy of total unification with the source, with the false
prophet who provides omens and portents. His warning reminds me of people who
preach the idea of complete unification - organic and erotic - of the Jewish
people with its land (as a source), which necessitates disappearance of the
non-Jewish inhabitants of the land. As with the view of the false prophets, the
world-view of this "sheidim" prophecy tells miracle tales about Alaskan
bears who surrender to the man who stands erect. As if there were really no
conflict in the world. In his bear blood, the bear also understands the
hierarchy of relations between him and man.
What, then, is the Torah's attitude to blood?
The answer is to be found
in the paradoxical wording of the mitzvah: "For blood is the nefesh [life]... you shall
pour it on the earth like water." On the one hand, the passage assigns blood a
special status - it is the nefesh, the most primal and holy basis of life. Therefore
it is not be eaten together with the flesh. The mystery and sanctity of life is
not be mixed with the physical processes of eating and pleasure. In this sense,
the Torah sanctifies blood. But at the same time, the Torah commands the very
opposite: the blood is to be spilt "like water." This means to
neutralize the blood of all holiness and to relate to it as to a completely
common, neutral, liquid. The blood of the slaughtered animal is to be poured
out just as one pours water from a bucket, a pitcher, or a cup. But if this be
so, if blood is indeed just water, why are we forbidden to drink it?! If the
profanation has succeeded, why can it not be realized by actual eating of the
blood? This, then is the paradoxical formulation which holds: Do not relate to
blood as to a common liquid (it is the nefesh), and therefore relate
to it as to a common liquid (it is water).
The Torah commands a
thing and its opposite. It commands to sanctify the blood, and, with the same
movement, to profane it. It is a mitzvah to resist the temptation to return to the source
of life; it is forbidden to drink the blood. The Torah recognizes the
tremendous mythical power of the blood, but at the same time, charges us to
treat it as water.
It is a mitzvah, then, for a world
in which paradox and division exist from creation; it alerts us to the terrible
dangers which may evolve from attempts to erase them.
Amos Goldberg is writing
a doctorate on the subject of the Shoah, and works in Yad Va'Shem (and is
therefore very aware of the grave dangers inherent in blood)
The Connection Between "Expansion of
Boundaries", Distancing of "the Place", and the Appetite for
Meat
"When the Lord enlarges your territory, as He has promised
you, and you say, "I shall eat some meat" - teaches
that man yearns [to satisfy] his appetite only upon excess expansion, "The
lion does not roar unless he has a vessel full with meat" (Berachot 32). Therefore He said: "When the Lord enlarges your territory" - this
will lead to the tearing away of the mask of shame from your face to the point
where you outspokenly declare "I shall eat some meat".
This is somewhat similar to the throwing off of the
yoke of heaven and to investigate the place of sacrifices. The reason for all
this is "the place where the Lord
has chosen to establish his name is too far from you" - the
closer one is to God's sanctuary, the greater is his fear of the Kingdom of
Heaven, as is written, "And you shall be in awe of
My sanctuary." This means that the sanctuary
will be the source of your awe of the Kingdom of Heaven. "The place... is too far from you" distances
God from your inner organs, and therefore you will constantly have a voracious
appetite, and you will not be ashamed to say "I shall eat
some meat", so I permit it to you, and "you may slaughter from your cattle... as I have instructed
you" - not at all times, but only occasionally, when the
appetite is overwhelming.
(Kli Yakar, Devarim 12:21)
Why Did the Torah Not Specify the Holy Site?
... In my opinion, there
is also no doubt that the place singled out by Avraham in virtue of prophetic
inspiration was known to Moses our Master and to many others. For Avraham had
recommended to them that that place should be a house of worship, just as the
translator [Onquelos] sets forth when he says: Avraham worshipped and prayed in
that place and said before the Lord: Here the generations will worship, etc.
The fact that this place is not stated explicitly when mentioned in the Torah,
but only hinted at by means of the words "Which the
Lord shall choose..." is due in my opinion to three
wise considerations. The first- lest nations hold fast to the place and fight
for it with great violence, knowing as they do that this place is the final
purpose of the Law on earth. The second- lest those who then owned the place
ravage and devastate it to the limit of their power. The third, and the
strongest,- lest every tribe demand that this place be within its allotted
portion and seek to conquer it, which would lead to conflict and sedition, as
happened with regard to the priesthood. Therefore the command was given that
the Chosen Temple will be built only after the elevation of a King, so that
only one would be qualified to give commands and quarrels would cease...
(Rambam, Guide for the
Perplexed, III, 45)
…It is true that only after the establishment of the monarchy in
Israel, and King David's conquering of Yerushalyim from the Jebusites, did he
decide, on the basis of his considerations to establish it as the chosen place,
to order that the Bet Hamikdash be erected there.
The deciding factor in this case was the royal command. Had the Torah
decreed at the outset that the temple was to be built in the portion of a
specific tribe, it might have led to quarrels and bloodshed because of tribal
envy. Therefore the Torah refrained from setting aside and specifying which
would be the tribe in whose portion the Bet Hamikdash was to be constructed.
(Y. Leibowitz, Seven Years of
Discussions on the Weekly Parasha, pp. 828-829)
Dangerous and Bloody Religious Wars
"Kayin said to Hevel when they were in the
field..." - what were they
talking about? They said: Come let us divide up the world - one took land, the
other, all movables. One said, You are standing on my land. The other said, you
are wearing what is mine. This one says: Undress, and the other said: Fly away.
During the argument, "Kayin rose up against Hevel his brother and
killed him."
Rabbi Yehoshua of Sachnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Both took
land, and both took movables. What were they arguing about? This one said: The
Bet Hamikdash will be built on my property, and the other said it will built on
my property, as is written (Micha) "Zion will be plowed as a field".
Subsequently, "Kayin rose up against Hevel his brother and killed
him."
(Bereishit Rabba 22)
Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator),
Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein
Translation: Kadish Goldberg
This weekly publication was made possible by:
The Moriah Fund, the Tisch Foundation and private donors
To our readers:
We will be happy to have you actively participate in "Shabbat Shalom" by:
· Letters to the editor
· Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)
For details, contact Miriam Fine (053-920206 or 02-6730196)
If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.
Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.
US or British tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.
Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.
New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)
New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA
New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom (British tax exemption)
P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA
About us:
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.
9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.
Oz
Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society.
Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of
peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue
with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with
Palestinians.
Our activities are funded by donations and one part time employee.
OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom Tel./Fax 972-2-5664218
Pob 4433 Email: ozshalom@netvision.net.il
Jerusalem 94310, Israel www. netivot-shalom.org