I was thinking about the symbolism of the Lord’s supper:
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Now obviously its strictly forbidden to eat a human being’s flesh or consume any living beings blood, in Maimonides list of commandments, it is negative commandment no: 184.
184. Not to consume blood, as [Leviticus 7:26] states: “Do not consume any blood.”
And needless to say Jesus does not mean one should literally consume his blood but only symbologically. Yet I wonder whether this kind of symbolical language is common in Rabbinic Literature. I cant say I really looked out for it so might have overlooked it but dont remember any analogy or symbolical language in which the forbidden was used to make a point.
Any thoughts or insights?
First of all you have to look at the context. Yeshua is not talking about the Lord’s Supper since that has not happened yet. Only later interpretations read back into that passage.
The idea of eating the bread of heaven is synonymous with eating (i.e studying) the Torah. Dan Lancaster writes: ” In the Torah and Midrash from Mekilta eating the bread from heaven is symbolically understood as the study and incorporation of Torah. So, too Messiah is compared tomanna, eating the manna which is Messiah is symbolically understood as “coming to him, looking to him, and beleiveing in Him.”"
Rebbe Yitzchak Isaac Zhiditchover related in the name of the Holy Apter Rav, in the name of the holy Rebbe Reb Elimelech, that the Tzaddik even leaves a mark on the food he eats and therefore his sherayim, his leftovers, contain his tzurah,form,and are holy.
The Komarna Rebbe, in Heichal HaBerachah (Miketz), related in his discourse of the verse “He served them portions that had been set before him”(Bereishis 43:34): “Once, the Rebbe Reb Zisha of Hanipoli saw his brother Rebbe Elimelech’s tzurah in his home. He asked the servant, ‘What is it that you are carrying there?’ The servant showed him the sherayim from his brother’s meal. Reb Zisha saw that the Tzaddik had left his mark on them and that they contained his tzurah. This is ‘masos me’eis panav’- literally, ‘portions from his face,’ alluding to his mark that had been left on the food.”
(Eser Tzachtzachos 73) Sefer Noam Elimelech Parshat Pinchas pg. 258
I believe a kal v’chomer would be appropriate at this point in that the very bread the master touched, how much more is it that the portions he gave would be from himself, literally ‘portions of his body’.
Bill
While I do think John is the one reading back later ideas in his Gospel, for the sake of argument lets take Matthews account:
I think Daniel Lancaster is referring to Midrash Kohelet where it says that where eating and drinking is spoken of approvingly this refers to Torah study and good works. But the problem is that in Ecclesiastes this refers to normal eating and drinking and theres no reference to eating a human being’s body or drinking his blood. And thats what my question centers around, using the forbidden to make a point, was that common among the Sages.
Jeff
Interesting stuff, but still Im wondering whether symboligically using an action that is forbidden to point to a good action is or was common.
Blessings,
Daniel
Daniel,
The Mishnah of Talmud Bavli, Avodah Zarah 44b gives the account of R. Gamaliel bathing in the (public) bath of Aphrodite. A son of a philosopher questions why Gamaliel is doing this as it is forbidden to derive any benefit from an idol (based on Deuteronomy 13:17/English, 13:18/Hebrew). Gamaliel gives two explanations regarding his actions.
First he says; “NOBODY SAYS, THE BATH WAS MADE AS AN ADORNMENT FOR APHRODITE; BUT HE SAYS, APHRODITE WAS MADE AS AN ADORNMENT FOR THE BATH.”. In other words, this particular bath was originally constructed as a public bath and not built with the purpose of dedication to Aphrodite. Instead, a statue of Aphrodite was added to the public bath as decoration. Secondly, Gamaliel points out that the bath is a place where nude unclean men come and also where a sewer (used for urinating) is near the statue of Aphrodite and therefore all people urinate in her presence.
Gamaliel points out that the Torah (Deuteronomy 7:16, 12:2) speaks of idols as “their gods” referring to things that are treated and revered as deities. Because Aphrodite’s statue at the public bath is purely decorative and people show no regard for it as deity by urinating in its presence, it is therefore permissible to bath there. For the Torah forbids deriving benefit from idolatrous things that necessarily are treated as sacred (otherwise the definition of idol does not apply).
Although this is perhaps an example of what you are looking for in rabbinic literature I’m not sure if such examples are “commonly” found. Yet, the same holds true regarding the teachings of Yeshua who indeed did use an action forbidden in Torah to make a point and symbolize deeper truths but who did not use this method on a regular or common basis.
Obviously Yeshua is using sacrificial language in the passages you cited. In Torah, sacrifices on the altar were animals and not humans, although the possibility of G-d commanding a human sacrifice, and the legitimacy of this, is evident in the account of the Akeidah. The reason the blood of animals is forbidden to humans is because “the life of the flesh is in the blood”.
In various rabbinic commentaries I have read the “nephesh” (life) in the blood is most symbolic of the spiritual part of the human being and animal. Though our life force is similar to animals it is also very different. The human “nephesh” (life force) is driven by a godly soul which the animal nephesh does not have for animal life is driven by instincts, desires and emotions. For a human being to eat animal blood is to be sustained by a life force that is void of a godly soul, and therefore to be strengthened and nourished by a life force that is purely instinctual and emotional.
Rabbi David Lapin points out that the goal of sacrifices is to draw one close to HaShem (“korban”). This is accomplished by “elevating” the flesh and “dedicating” the blood (which is witnessed in every animal sacrifice). The flesh is burned and/or eaten (depending on the type of sacrifice) and therefore is elevated by being offered to HaShem and/or being consumed and providing physical sustenance to a person who is devoted to serving HaShem by performing mitzvot. The blood is not destroyed or buried but is sprinkled at the base of the altar in dedication. From this the Torah shows that the flesh can be handled/managed/manipulated and therefore disciplined but the blood (base drives and desires as represented by the blood of an animal) must be dedicated and submitted to G-d.
With this in mind we can perhaps understand why Yeshua would admonish us to drink his blood. Because his life (represented by the blood) was totally perfect and driven by the godly soul and in complete submission to G-d, by symbolically partaking of it we nourish and sustain ourselves on a like substance that is yet superior to us and which strengthens our inward selves (or souls/neshama). Therefore it is right and good for us to partake of Yeshua’s life (blood) through the elements of the L-RD’s Supper. And, this symbolism is not in disagreement with concepts presented in the Torah which forbids the ingestion of animal blood of any amount because of the animal “life” found there.
Shalom,
Paula
Hi Paula,
I don’t really see a connection between the way Jesus made use of symbolism in Mt. 26 and your example… as Gamaliel is simply defending his use of a public bath but not really using a forbidden practice to teach a lesson.
Your explanation on the deeper lesson embedded in the symbolism is very interesting and creative and probably captures the intent but I still don’t think you can say that his words were in agreement with the Torah as there is a prohibition on consuming any blood, but perhaps there was no other way of expressing more strongly the idea that his disciples should be filled with his inner-being and as such he chose this way.
Blessings,
Daniel
I might point out that a careful reading of Leviticus 7:26 in context reveals that the blood being referred to in this verse is that of fowl or of animals. From this Rashi understands that the blood of fish and locusts is not a prohibition and may be eaten. This would negate the understanding that you seem to be proposing; that “any” blood means the blood of “any living beings” as related in this verse.
Interestingly, in Talmud Bavli Kerithoth 21b, R. Shesheth says;
“In the case of human blood one is not even enjoined to refrain from it”
This is due to the fact that there is no actual commandment in Torah that prohibits ingestion of human blood, for the blood prohibition commandments are associated with fowl, flock and beasts. For more on this topic see the Jewish Virtual Library article on “Blood”.
With this in mind, can it rightfully be claimed that Yeshua used something forbidden in Torah as symbolism or to make a point?
Hi Paula,
To be honest I thought the Sages would have applied this to human blood as well but after some searching found some mixed answers. It appears that human blood is forbidden when it is detached from the body, or at least there is a rabbinic prohibition on that: http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5764/shlach.html
But in other cases it seems to be allowed…
Hence you are probably right to question if my query was rightfully stated in the first place:)