Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ron Rhoades <rrhoades AT hiscs.org>]

Greetings all,

I have a question concerning the grammar of Lev.17 which I would like to
some help on. In verses 3-7 we have the command to bring sacrificial
animals to the tabernacle and use their blood on the altar. In verse 10
we have the prohibition against eating the blood of sacrificial animals.
In verses 11 and 12 we have the reason given for the commands.

   11 "For [KiY] the life of the flesh is in the blood; and [W:] I have
given it for you upon the altar to make atonement by reason of the life;
for (KiY) it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.
12 For this reason [(aL-KeN] I have said to the sons of Israel, ‘No
person among you shall eat blood.'"

The question I have is: Do we have here two reasons given for the
commands, just one, or one reason with two elements? I am especially
interested in the use and functions of the conjunctions. I see KiY
definitely signifying the cause for the injunction as being the "blood
represents life" principle repeated from Gen.9:4. However, what is the
force of the conjunction W? Does it include the placing of blood on the
altar as part of the reason or is it only re-stating the result? The use
here of colons, semi-colons and commas is interesting in various
translations.

We also have KiY appearing twice in verse 14 giving the reason that
blood from game animals must not be eaten and must be poured on the
ground. A parallel is found in Deut.12:23ff where Kiy again introduces
the "blood represents life" as the only reason and the use on the altar
as only a result. 

From my own reading of the text I had concluded that "blood being the
soul/life" was the only reason. However, after referring to several
commentaries I'm wondering if I should modify my view and concede that,
although debatable, it is possible to understand two reasons here for
the laws on blood.

It seems commentators have recognized either two reasons, one reason and
a basis for that reason, or one reason with two elements: 1.) The
sanctity of blood as life repeated from Gen.9:4, and 2.) the use of
blood for atonement sacrifices.

Keil and Delitzsch comment:

"In vers. 1-14 the prohibition of the eating of blood is repeated...and
after a more precise explanation of the reason for the law, is
supplemented by instructions for the disposal of the blood of edible
game...The reason for the command in ver. 11, "For the soul of the flesh
is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an
atonement for your souls," is not a double one, viz. (1.) because the
blood contained the soul of the animal, and (2) because God had set
apart the blood, as the medium of expiation for the human soul, for the
altar. The first reason simply forms the foundation for the second: God
appointed the blood for the altar, as containing the soul of the animal,
to be the medium of expiation for the souls of men, and therefore
prohibited its being used as food....The purpose of the command was to
prevent the desecration of the vehicle of the soulish life...Because the
distinguishing characteristic of the blood was, that it was the soul of
the being when living in the flesh."

I still lean to there being only one reason being indicated, but I don't
know if two reasons can be ruled out by grammar. So, as my understanding
stands now I can only say that *if* we have two reasons, they cannot be
equal since the text seems to make it clear that the "blood equals life"
principle is clearly given as the reason blood was used in sacrifices.
Therefore, blood's use on the altar could only be understood as a
*secondary* reason for the laws. If this is the case, then I would have
to say that the "cause" or "basis" for the law was the "blood equals
life" principle while we have an additional "reason" for the Mosaic
prohibition.

Any comments or discussion would be appreciated.


Yours,

Ron Rhoades