Kommentar zu Wajikra 17:14

דמו בנפשו הוא means its blood represents its life (במקום הנפש), in as much as its life is depending on it.

THE BLOOD THEREOF IS ‘B’NAFSHO’ (ALL ONE WITH THE LIFE THEREOF). “Its blood represents its life, since life is dependent upon the blood.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct.²⁰⁵From the language of Rashi it would appear that the substance of the blood is identical with the life of the animal, and that is not correct in Ramban’s opinion, since they are really two separate substances, and the blood of the animal is merely the “carrier” of its life. Hence Ramban will present other interpretations of the verse. Rather, it is possible to explain that the word b’nafsho here means “in its body,” Scripture thus stating, “for as to the life of all flesh, it is the blood in its body.” Similarly [we find the word nefesh meaning “body” in these verses]: ‘Nafsho’ (his person) was laid in iron;²⁰⁶Psalms 105:18. seventy ‘nefesh’ (persons);²⁰⁷Exodus 1:5. he [the Nazirite] shall not come near to a dead ‘nefesh,’²⁰⁸Numbers 6:6. meaning “a body,” since “the body” of anyone that is possessed of a nefesh (soul) is also called nefesh.
In my opinion Scripture mentioned three expressions with reference to blood, which constitute but one reason. First it stated, For the life of the flesh is in the blood.²⁰⁹Verse 11. Then it changed and said [in Verse 14 before us], For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof, meaning to say that the blood is the life, and the life is in the blood, as both are mixed together, similarly to wine when diluted with water, in which case the water is in the wine and the wine in the water, and each one is “in” the other. Afterwards it explained [in the second half of Verse 14 before us, stating for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof], that the blood is the very life, meaning to say that both have become one inseparable substance, so that you can never find blood without life nor life without blood, as is known of the air²¹⁰The sense here is clearly “the force of the heart beat” pumping the blood. In Medieval learning it was explained as the element of air which originates in the heart, and which in turn supplies the blood and sustains the person. which originates in the heart, that it is the hyly²¹¹A Greek term indicating the primary matter created by G-d (see Vol. I, p. 23), and here used in a wider sense as the force in the heart which is the primary organ of life. from which proceed all dispositions [of man], supplying the substance which gives nutrition and makes blood, and it is the blood which in turn creates it and sustains it. [The relationship between life and blood is thus] like that of matter and form in all physical creatures, where the one cannot be found without the other. Now our Rabbis interpreted the three punishments of excision which Scripture mentioned with reference to blood²¹²Above, 7:27; 17:10, and 14. in the following way:²¹³Kerithoth 4 b. “One verse prohibits the eating of that blood with which life escapes [when cutting the throat of the offering, since it has been given for atonement upon the altar]; one verse prohibits the eating of blood which escapes when slaughtering [an ordinary, unconsecrated animal], and one verse prohibits the eating of blood, that [of a fowl or wild animal, which when slaughtered] must be covered.” This saying of the Rabbis explains why the punishment of excision was mentioned three times, but the reason for the different Scriptural expressions concerning the life and the blood [of the animal] is as I have explained.

כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא, “for the life-force of all living creatures is its blood” [or contained with its blood. Ed.] (a reference to the way the author described such an almost invisible essence in the blood in his commentary on verse 7).

דמו בנפשו, its blood is bound up with its essence. The meaning of this expression is that the blood is equivalent to its life-force [the life-force being something abstract. Ed.]. Here the Torah has provided us with the reason why we have to cover i.e. "bury" the blood of the above-named categories of animals. Seeing that the blood is its life-force, it is a matter of showing some respect for that life-force. The Torah also commanded that the remains of a human being be buried only as a demonstration of respect for the life (or life-force) of a human being.

דמו בנפשו, “its blood represents its life.” According to Rashi, the meaning of this expression is that the blood of such an animal [that is not equipped with a soul, נשמה, is its life-force Ed.], acts in lieu of a soul. When deprived of its life it dies. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s interpretation is not correct, but that it is possible to understand the meaning of the word נפש as an alternate word for גוף, body. We find something analogous in connection with Psalms 105,18 where the words ברזל באה נפשו, normally translated as “an iron collar put on his neck,” may be understood as describing a strong body as equivalent of a life force. [In the context there when Joseph’s encounter with Mrs Potiphar is described as Joseph trading “irons” for a “sword,” i.e.. he came close to being executed, losing his נפש, for allowing himself almost to be seduced by that woman, seeing he had provided her with that opportunity by being alone in the house with her. Ed.] Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I think that the Torah has provided us with three meanings for the term דם, seeing that each time the penalty of karet is mentioned alongside. This teaches that unless we kept in mind all three parts of the definition we could not properly understand the subject.

For the soul depends on it. Not that a person’s blood depends on his soul, but rather his soul depends on his blood.

כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא“ for the life of any flesh is all one with its blood;” the verse has been somewhat abbreviated, and should really have read בדמו נפשו, “its life is inextricably bound up with its blood.” Another example of a similarly abbreviated verse would be Psalms 65,5: היכלך, apparently: “Your Sanctuary,” but in reality: “the Sanctuary of Your holiness.”

כי נפש כל בשר דמו הוא means the life is (is identical with) the blood; דם and בשר are masculine, נפש is feminine.

בנפשו, including this invisible life-force contained therein. This is because the blood contains something almost intangible. Seeing this ingredient is the closest to anything completely intangible in this terrestrial universe, it is an ideal nutrient for the demons and for those who consort with them. The Torah says:

The soul is the blood. Rashi is answering the question: Since flesh and blood are words of the male form, why then does the verse write היא [the female form]. He answers: “The soul is the blood,” and the word היא refers to the soul, which is a word of the female form.

The reason the Torah did not use the same syntax when it described the free-roaming animals as it did when it referred to the pure domesticated mammals where the Torah described the blood as דמו בנפשו, may be because the "pure" domesticated animal possesses a "soul," something which has been placed in its blood, whereas in the case of free-roaming animals or fowl the blood itself is in lieu of the "soul" G'd provided for the "pure" domesticated animals. This explains why such free-roaming animals and fowls are not suitable as sacrifices on the altar to achieve atonement for their owners with the exception of the pigeon and the turtle-dove. Even in the case of the latter, their blood is not sprinkled on the altar, seeing it does not represent the "soul" of the bird but its blood, i.e "soul" equivalent has been removed when the priest pinched the neck of the pigeon instead of slaughtering it.

ואמר לבני ישראל, this line must be understood as: ואמר הבר לבני ישראל, “as I have already said to the Children of Israel.”

ואומר לבני ישראל, although I have permitted the gentiles the consumption of such lifeblood, I have prohibited it to the Children of Israel already in Leviticus 7,26 seeing that the life essence of living creatures is contained in it while the animal was alive and it is liable to transfer some of these animalistic characteristics kind to the persons ingesting it as food. The Torah wants to protect the Jewish people from absorbing more animalistic tendencies than we already possess.

כי נפש כל בשד דמו היא, for the life-force of all flesh is its blood. The Torah explains that the reason it forbade us to eat the blood of such animals is not that it is used to attain atonement for our own souls, i.e. the life we had forfeited by our sin, in which case there would have been a reason to distinguish between the blood of those animals which are fit as a sacrifice and those which are not. Rather, the reason is that we are not to consume the essence of such an animal.

כל אוכליו יכדת, anyone eating it will be cut off. I have explained already why this penalty is appropriate. The reason the Torah writes the word אוכליו in the plural whereas the penalty יכרת is in the singular is to alert us to the effect of the penalty. כרת means the withdrawal of the life-sustaining connection with the soul's celestial root. Seeing that all the Jewish souls have a common root, any reference to that root is in the singular. The reason the Torah describes the people consuming such blood as אוכליו, i.e. in the plural is, that there are many who derive some satisfaction of what a single person eats. The source of physical vitality attached to the celestial root contains a variety of preparatory steps to enable it to be absorbed successfully by bodies which have become fused with a soul. Although the body is essentially a material phenomenon G'd has created a force called נפש whose nature it is to develop liaison with material forces and which develops an urge to participate in the experiences a body finds pleasant. G'd created this force so that the soul would be able to function harmoniously within the body. The corresponding force, i.e. a somewhat diluted version of the purely spiritual soul, נשמה, is known as רוח, spirit; it is called thus because just as the wind is a phenomenon on earth but remains intangible, so this phenomenon we call רוח, spirit, performs both a physical and a spiritual function. When man eats, i.e. when the body eats, these other parts of the human personality also receive their sustenance from the food absorbed first by the body. This is why the Torah speaks about multiple אוכליו, "beings which eat of the blood." We may perceive of the following as all partaking of the nourishment a human being absorbs in ascending order. The body, the animalistic life-force נפש; the רוח, and finally the נשמה. As to the element subject to the כרת penalty, this is applied only to the חוט החסד, the "umbilical cord of love" connecting the נשמה to its celestial root. When this cord is severed from its root all other parts of the spiritual side of man will dry up and wither automatically..

We may also understand the verse on the basis of Torat Kohanim which explained on the word בנפש in verse 10 that the penalty applies to an individual eating and not to a community eating blood as the animalistic life-force contained in the blood is not powerful enough to destroy the fabric of the collective souls of such a community. This is alluded to here when the Torah refers to a number of people who eat but to the destruction of only a single soul.

I have tried to understand why G'd commanded that the blood of free-roaming animals or fowl has to be buried whereas the blood of pure domestic animals which have not been offered as a sacrifice does not need to be covered with earth. It is understandable that when the blood has been offered on the altar that no further procedure is needed; however, seeing that even when the Temple was standing most animals which were slaughtered were not offered as sacrifices, why did the blood of such animals not enjoy burial? Seeing we have explained that the "soul" of such a בהמה טהורה is superior to the life-force G'd supplied to free-roaming animals and fowl, why do we appear to discriminate against the בהמה טהורה by pouring away its life-blood instead of according it the honour of burial? Our question is reinforced by the fact that G'd rejected all free-roaming animals and almost all birds as unfit to serve as a sacrifice?

When we consider that I have explained that the blood of the free-roaming beast is itself its "soul" i.e. its life-force, as distinct from the pure domestic animal whose life-force is separate from its blood though carried by its blood, it emerges that G'd commanded only blood which is at the same time the essence of the vitality of the creature to be buried. Any blood which does not represent the essence of the creature does not need to be accorded such a symbolic funeral. Although the blood of the pure domestic animal contains its life-force, its "soul," the fact remains that its blood and its "soul" are not identical. Covering of the blood is required only for the מורגש, the tangibly peceptible, not for the היולי, that which is perceived only in the abstract, in its potential.

I wish to pursue the thought of why G'd decided to create the categories of the pure domestic animals as being so essentially different from the free-roaming beasts, animals which at first glance appear to have so much in common. We will understand the reason better if we first appreciate the factors which enable G'd's various creatures to fulfil their overall purpose and function on earth. Inasmuch as G'd is the source of all life in its various forms, He has made sure that all His creatures are equipped with the wherewithal to function in nature. He made all living creatures as composites of four basic raw materials, i.e. fire, air (spirit), water, and dust. The origin of these four raw materials is something that has not been made accessible to us, it is (at least partially) spiritual in nature and is described in kabbalistic literature as the "four legs of the throne of the Almighty," Ezekiel describes four carriers of this throne as creatures with the faces of four different animals including man in the opening chapter of his book as carriers of G'd's throne. There are also four angels who correspond to this basic "foursome" of creation, i.e. Gabriel, Rafael, Michael, and Nuriel. These three "foursomes" may be perceived as providing providing the background to the creation of a physical universe, the gradual reduction of pure spirit to something material. Each "foursome" is a preparatory level to a lower level of spirituality, something closer to the physical material world. The "foursome" described as part of G'd's throne in Ezekiel are the four categories of creatures which form the basis of life on earth. The face of אדם refers to the human species; the face of the ox refers to the pure domestic animals; the face of the lion refers to the free-roaming beasts on earth; and, finally, the face of the eagle refers to the fowl. Just as there are four categories of life on earth [living creatures containing blood Ed.] so there are four categories of inert beings, i.e. fire, wind, water, and dust. All creatures are composites of these four elements. Even amongst the intangible souls or life-forces G'd has created we find "foursomes." The highest of these are the celestial lights G'd has created which are almost part of the essence of G'd Himself. In every single sphere of creation we find the active, the dispenser, the male on one hand, and the passive, the recipient, the female. In the final analysis even the most inert component of our physical universe is the recipient of celestial input, i.e. from the region of the throne of G'd.

Let us now examine the nature of the celestial influences the foursomes in our world are exposed to. Inasmuch as the face of one of the foursomes in Ezekiel's vision is that of the ox, i.e. a pure domestic animal, it is reasonable to suppose that the pure domestic animals in our universe i.e. its counterpart in our regions, receive their spiritual input via their celestial counterpart. However, the face of the lion represents an impure free-roaming animal. It is reasonable therefore to assume that all free-roaming animals (including the pure ones) receive the kind of spiritual input from the celestial regions associated with their counterpart the lion and what it represents. They are therefore deprived of primary positive spiritual input. The same applies to the fowl, seeing that the face of the eagle in Ezekiel's vision is also that of an impure category of bird. We need to examine why the counterpart of these "faces on the throne of G'd" have not been granted positive spiritual input as did the pure domestic animals which are recipients of spiritual input from the ox in Ezekiel's vision? Furthermore what is the source of the criteria which enabled some free-roaming beasts such as the gazelle, etc. to be considered pure beasts, fit for consumption by Jews?

Remember that there are levels of perceptions which the recipient's mind is incapable of perceiving even if the source from which such perceptive powers emanate makes an effort to transmit such receptive power. Torah scholars are well aware of the fact that there are gradations of such perceptive powers and some of them are endowed with greater such powers than others. [I believe we can best describe what the author is trying to tell us when we imagine the receiver of a person equipped to handle a minimum of 5000 volt being bombarded from a transmitter which sends out impulses of 1000 volt maximum. The receiver in the hands of the person described would not be able to handle such transmissions. I shall continue to paraphrase the comments of our author as I feel that rendering them literally would not result in the reader's enlightenment. Ed.] The lion and eagle in our world are to be perceived as possessing such receivers having made efforts to exceed the natural receptive powers granted to them. As a result, the impulses emitted from their celestial counterparts are largely wasted on them and they are forced to stay outside the garden that G'd had intended for them to be part of seeing they have not achieved the spiritual goals they were meant to achieve. As a result of being under-achievers in G'd's overall scheme for His universe, He commanded the Israelites to keep a distance from such animals so as not to absorb any of their failings. We know from Deut. 4,11 that in order to remain both spiritually and physically alive one needs to maintain a close affinity to G'd and His commandments. We know from Job 14,4 that it is reserved for G'd alone to know by what devious paths purity can develop out of something that started with an impure base. If the original bird in Ezekiel's vision was the eagle, symbol of an impure bird, and so was the eagle in our world, this does not mean that amongst all the fowl some will not evolve which bear the mark of purity, such as the pigeons amongst the domesticated birds or the chickens, geese, turkeys, etc.. The same holds true for the free-roaming mammals. Although their archtype is the lion, this did not prevent certain categories evolving into pure free-roaming beasts such as the hart, the gazelle, and the roebuck. Due to their being cut off, or better, having caused themselves to be cut off from their celestial counterpart and not having received the required positive spiritual input from the source of their part of the celestial "foursome," the only level of "soul" these animals possess is their blood itself.