JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

lood-avenger
(see *Sacrifices), it purges ritual impurity (see *Atonement;
*Day of Atonement). It may also serve this purgative function
in the initial rites of purifying the leper (Lev. 14:4–6, 18–29;
cf. verses 49–53; see *Leprosy), and in consecrating the priest
(Ex. 29:20–21, 33). When dashed upon the side of the altar,
as in the case of animals sacrificed for food (see above), its
purpose is to expiate sin (see *Kippur). It also operates as
an apotropaic to ward off future harm, e.g., by smearing the
paschal blood on doorposts and lintels (Ex. 12:7, 13, 22–23).
This usage may also underline the rites of covenanting (dam
berit; Ex. 24:6–8) and circumcising the Israelites (Ex. 4:24–26;
Ezek 16:6).
[Jacob Milgrom]
In Halakhah
The prohibition of blood enjoined in the Bible is defined by
the Talmud as referring to the blood of cattle, beasts, and fowl,
and prescribes the punishment of *karet for the consumption
of the minimum amount of the volume of an olive (Ker. 5:1).
The blood for which one is so liable is “the blood with which
the soul emerges,” i.e., the lifeblood, but not the blood which
oozes out subsequently, or blood in the meat. Blood of all
other creatures, fish, locusts, and human blood, is permitted
according to the rabbinical interpretations of biblical law, although
according to one source (Tanna de-Vei Eliyahu Rabbah,
15) human blood is equally forbidden by the Bible. All
authorities agree, however, that it is forbidden by rabbinic law
(Maim. Yad, Ma’akhalot Asurot, 6:2). The Talmud uses the peculiar
phrase “bipeds” (Ker. 20b), and although all the halakhic
authorities regard this phrase as a synonym for humans (Sh.
Ar., YD 66: 10), J.S. *Bloch, in answer to the *blood accusation
whose fomenters quoted this passage in support of their allegation,
put forward the intriguing suggestion that it actually
refers to simians. Although the content, which enumerates
“blood of bipeds, the blood found in eggs, the blood of locusts
and of fish” would appear to lend some support to this view,
it must be regarded as belonging to the realm of apologetics.
Nevertheless, the repugnance felt by Jews for blood caused an
extension of the prohibition even of permitted blood “because
of appearances” if it were collected in a vessel. Thus it is permitted
to swallow the blood from one’s bleeding teeth and suck
one’s bleeding finger, but should a piece of bread, for instance,
be stained by blood it must be discarded. Similarly the blood
of fish collected in a vessel is forbidden (Ker. 21b).
The prohibition of blood is confined to its consumption;
it is, however, permitted for other uses, and the Mishnah
(Yoma 5:6) states that the sacrificial blood which flowed into
the brook of *Kidron was collected and sold to gardeners as
fertilizer. For the most extensive prohibition of blood, the
need for its removal from meat before it is fit for Jewish consumption,
see *Dietary Laws.
[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]
Menstrual Blood
The biological reality that women regularly menstruate is central
to biblical and rabbinic constructions of the female. Pro-
hibitions against male contact with menstrual blood, deeply
rooted in the cultures of the ancient Near East, appear in Leviticus
11–15, where the niddah, the menstruating or postpartum
woman, is listed among a number of threats to male ritual
purity. Leviticus 18:29 specifies sexual contact with a niddah as
among those sinful acts punished severely by karet, or extirpation
from the community. In Leviticus 18:9 and 20:18 such
contact is part of a list of prohibited sexual unions that has
nothing to do with ritual purity. Even when the purity system
lapsed after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.,
the prohibition of union with a menstruant endured.
Menstrual blood, an indication of the failure of fertility
in women’s natural cycle of fruitfulness, is strongly linked
with death in rabbinic Judaism. In a religious system which
likened ritual impurity to a state of spiritual extinction, periodic
female flows of blood were repugnant to men both
as a potential source of ritual pollution and as a reminder
of women’s supposed responsibility for human mortality.
Several aggadic passages suggest that women menstruate as
punishment or atonement for spilling the blood (dam) in perpetuity
of Adam (adam), who is designated “the blood of the
Holy One, blessed be He” or “the blood of the world” (ARNB
9, 42; Gen. R. 17:8, Tanḥ. Noah 1).
[Judith R. Baskin (2nd ed.)]
Bibliography: J. Milgrom, in: Interpretation (July 1963),
288–301; E. Isaac, in: Anthropos, 59 (1964), 444–56; J. Grintz, in: Zion,
31 (1966), 1–17; D.J. Mc-Carthy, in: JBL, 88 (1969), 166–76; M. Greenberg,
Understanding Exodus, 2 part 1 (1969), 110–22. IN HALAKHAH:
ET, 7 (1956), 422–40ff. Add. Bibliography: J.R. Baskin, Midrashic
Women (2002); S.J.D. Cohen, “Menstruants and the Sacred in Judaism
and Christianity,” in: S.B. Pomeroy (ed.), Women’s History and
Ancient History (1991), 273–99; H. Eilberg-Schwartz. The Savage in
Judaism (1990).
BLOOD-AVENGER. A person who is authorized by law, or
who is duty-bound, to kill a murderer is called go’el ha-dam –
usually translated as an avenger of blood, but more accurately
to be rendered as a redeemer of blood (cf. Lev. 25:25; Ruth
3:12; I Kings 16:11). By putting the murderer to death (Num.
35:19, 21), the avenger expiates the blood shed on the polluted
land (Num. 35:33). Originally private revenge was legitimate
in Israel, as in other ancient civilizations, not only for homicide
but also for mayhem (cf. Gen. 4:23–24) and rape (Gen.
34:25–26); and the restrictions on the avenger’s rights and their
legal regulation marked the beginnings of a system of criminal
law (see B. Cohen in bibl.). It was stipulated that only murder
with malice aforethought (Num. 35:20–21; Deut. 19:11–13) or
committed with a murderous instrument (Num. 35:16–18; for
further examples, see Maim., Yad, Roẓe’aḥ u-Shemirat Nefesh
6:6–9) gave rise to the avenger’s right (see Mak. 12a, Sanh.
45b); the unintentional manslayer was entitled to refuge from
the avenger (Num. 35:12, 15; Deut. 19:4–6) and was liable to be
killed by him only when he prematurely left the city of refuge
(Num. 35:26–28). It may be considered a concession to human
nature that avenging was not wholly prohibited, but only re-
772 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3