Pensée juive sur Samuel 2 23:17

In order to prevent the chance of someone offering a sacrifice to other deities, the Torah demands that the locale for all sacrifices that are either voluntary or mandatory be the central house of worship, the holy Temple or tabernacle prior to the permanent Temple. Also, such sacrifice must be performed by the priest, who will sprinkle the blood and burn the fat on the altar provided for that purpose. This is an "eternal statute for all your generations." (Leviticus 17,7) Even the slaughtering of the sacrificial animal outside the precincts of the Temple compound is an offence carrying the karet, penalty, (premature death at the hands of G'd) The burning of any of the remains of the animals in a place not designated for that purpose is eaually prohibited, (ibid verse 19) (1) So much for the spiritual aspect of the matter. (2) Then the Torah addresses itself to the physical aspects of the sacrifices, namely the eating of the blood of the animals that had been offered as sacrifices. Since blood represents the personality of the creature, its consumption would superimpose the animalistic personality on the person who consumes it. The result would be that that man who is always a blend of spiritual and material forces would become predominantly materialistic. His spiritual forces would lose the chance of gaining the ascendancy within him. The result would be the destruction of his personality, i.e. karet extinction. As long as Israel had been in the desert, all blood of animals to be eaten, had to be poured out on the altar as if to dedicate the animal's personality to G'd. Man must dedicate himself, -in this case his sacrifice, seeing it is his alter ego-, to the Lord. "Love the Lord your G'd with all your soul, personality." Many heroes of the Bible describe their endeavours in those terms. When David prepares for battle against Goliath, he voluntarily risks his life for the sanctification of G'ds name. Jonathan tells his father about David that "he has put his soul, his personality in his hand" in order to kill the Philistine. (Samuel I, 19,4) Yiftach expressed himself in similar terms before going into battle against the Bney Ammon. (Judges 11,30) When a person takes risks like the ones described, for a cause other than the glorification of the name of G'd, such as for the sake of personal glory and honour, he is merely making himself guilty of suicidal conduct. David refused to drink the water that had been obtained for him by three brave soldiers at the risk of their lives. (Samuel 11,23,14-17) (3) Instead, David tried to obtain atonement for the men who had mistakenly risked their nefesh, soul, life for such mundane matters, by making a drink offering to G'd of these waters. David would have considered drinking this water as not much less sinful than drinking blood. Since nefesh belongs to G'd, a Jew must not consume it. Since nefesh resides in the blood, blood must not be eaten. (5) On the one hand, blood as the carrier of nefesh, is like a vessel containing vital fluid. If the container leaks, the fluid will be lost. On the other hand, it is the fluid which enables everything to feed upon it. The body is diffused with it, nourished and sustained by it. They are inextricably interwoven, and the description by the Torah once as if blood is the primary agent, and on the other occasion as if nefesh is the prime factor, is quite apt. (4) This function of blood is also the reason that blood of animals that are not suitable for sacrifice is prohibited. Absorption of the animalistic life essence of the animal by man's body, would result in man himself becoming more animalistic, predominantly so. When G'd said to Cain "the voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me," (Genesis 4,10) He refers to the fact that the nefesh is in that blood. (6) In the case of the birds and free roaming animals, their blood being thinner, the contribution it makes to the essence of their being is somewhat smaller. Therefore, when the Torah states "for the life of the flesh is in the blood,” this is a one sided description. In that instance, the Torah does not describe the blood as being simultaneously the vessel of the animal's personality. Nevertheless, such blood is also forbidden, seeing that the blood as an agent of the life sustaining soul, carries this sustenance to all parts of the body. Without it, the animal would die.

The fourth trait listed by Aristo (Chapter 11) defines the true man of valor as someone who is not reckless, but weighs the dangers he exposes himself to in relation to the chance of success in battle. Being human, fear in varying degree is not alien to him. When facing certain death, he is aware of the advantages of life; when the cause is worthy however, he chooses death as being preferable to an unworthy life. Our sages, in Sanhedrin 74, have formulated three evils as the ones that are not fit to live with, and for the avoidance of which death is preferable to life (immoral sexual relationships, idol worship, and shedding inncocent blood). This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 83. The value of not endangering one's life frivoulously, is demonstrated in Samuel II Chapter 23, when David refused to drink water which three heroes had secured for him at the risk of their lives. They could easily have been killed by Philistines at Bethlehem. David compared the water they brought him to their own lifeblood. Since our lives are a sacred trust given to us by G-d for safekeeping, we are not at liberty to endanger it needlessly. Until the owner (G-d) claims His property back, we have to preserve it faithfully. Elijah was wrong in offering his life back to G-d. (Kings I19) Why did he flee from Jezebel who would gladly have taken his life, had he not known that it was his duty to preserve it? When the wife of Job (Job 2,10) exhorted him to curse G-d and thus deliver himself up to death either at the hands of G-d or through a human tribunal, she did so thinking he would be better off dead than alive. Job, however, answered her that anyone willing to accept the pleasant aspects of life must likewise be prepared to accept the unpleasant parts if and when they do occur. Flavius Josephus's own account of how he surrendered to the Romans rather than commit suicide, is a valid argument in favor of our position. How much did Jacob's sons err when they destroyed a city situated in the midst of a densely populated area, an action that was bound to be followed by retaliatory measures by the whole district, and which could ultimately have resulted only in their collective deaths? Jacob remonstrated with them, "You have troubled me to make me odious" (Genesis 34,30). Had it not been for "the fear of the Lord" which overcame the inhabitants of the neighbouring towns, the inevitable consequences would have ensued.