RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Dietary Laws of the Hebrews
Essentially different in principle is the prohibition against consuming the blood and the fat of (clean or edible) animals. The blood
4. The Pro- is not unclean in itself; on the con-
hibition of trary, it is the precious vital fluid, Blood. which is offered to God as the worthiest portion of the animal creature. Life is from God and belongs to God. On account of its intimate relation to life, men shall not swallow the blood, but shall consecrate it to God. By this very property, too, blood is also the appropriate means of atonement, can intercede for men, can be offered to God in their place — " For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls" (Lev. xvii. 11). For this reason care must be observed in the slaying that the blood may escape. Nothing lacerated or smothered is allowed to be eaten, because in that case the blood has not properly escaped. This practise of avoiding to partake of blood is very ancient (Gen. ix. 4). It is sharply accentuated in various repetitions and portions of the Law (Lev. iii. 17, vii. 26-27, xvii. 10, xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16, 23-24, xv. 23; cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 25; I Sam. xiv. 32-33). Even the stranger who had settled in Canaan was forbidden to eat the blood (Lev. xvii. 10, 15), whereas in Deut. xiv. 21 the stranger is at least allowed the cattle " that dieth of itself." Whoever transgressed the commandment had to undergo the same course of expiation as in the case of the defilements noted above (Lev. xvii. 10, 15), or expect extermination by the hand of God (Lev. xvii. 16, vii. 27). The blood of sacrificial beasts was brought to the altar; in other cases it was simply poured on the ground or covered with " dust." The avoidance of partaking of blood has become so natural to the Jews that the practise continues. The proviso that the blood of animals must properly escape in the slaughtering led to a complicated ceremonial, under rabbinical Judaism, with reference to the slaughter (purporting to follow the tradition mentioned in Deut. xii. 21). The slaying is to be despatched by a " Schachter " (Jewish butcher) who thoroughly understands the Talmudic regulations (cf. the Mishna tract Hullin and the penal laws in connection with partaking of blood, Keritot, K, 5; also Maimonides, Yad ha-HazaJfah, Hilkot Shehitah ; Shulhan 'Aruk, Yore De'ah ; and on Jewish butchering, I. Hamburger, Realencyklopadie fiir Bibel und Talmud, ii. 1099 sqq.; JE, xi. 253 sqq.).
Like the blood, the fat of sacrificial beasts is forbidden to be eaten (Lev. iii. 17. vii. 25). Not the outer fat, which grows united S- The Pro- with the flesh, is meant, but that
hibition deposited about the entrails, and of Fat. especially about the kidneys, including in case of sheep the " fat tail " (Lev. 111. 9-10). But, far from being unclean, the fat is, in a certain sense, the " quintessence " of the body, and therefore the choicest portion, reserved by Yahweh for himself. Here, too, the standpoint IS theocratic, not hygienic or sanitary. Moreover, Deuteronomy says naught of this prohibition.
There are two additional precepts in respect to food: (1) Gen. xxxii. 32, which, to be sure, is not
■a prescriptive rule, but states as a generally recognized usage in Israel that the hip sinew {nervus ischiadicus) of slaughtered animals 6. Two Ad- was never eaten. (2) The express ditional command not to " seethe a kid in its Restric- mother's milk " is found in the Book tions. of the Covenant (Ex. xsiii. 19) and repeated Ex. xxxiv. 26 and Deut. xiv. 21. It is not necessary to assume that the intent here was to do away with some heathen sacrificial practise (Maimonides, Roskoff) or some other custom of superstitious intent (magical craft, Stade). It is more probable that this prohibition, like Lev. xxii. 28, Deut. xxii. 6-7 (cf., too, the Sabbath rest for beasts), enjoins a certain sparing of nature even in the animal world. In later times this prohibition was so far amplified by the Targum and rabbinical writers that meat might not be cooked in milk or butter at all; and this led to a punctilious classification of kitchen utensils, and to similar pedantries in vogue among modern orthodox Jews. The original significance of the matter is more correctly recognized by the Samaritans, who even now procure meat and milk from different districts.
In the New Testament the primitive Christian congregation is found for the most part loyal to the traditional precepts of Moses. But the distinction between clean and unclean 7. The animals, like other purificatory pre- Christian scriptions that hedged Israel in, had Usage and to fall away if any closer touch was Attitude, to ensue with the heathen world.
The lesson was imparted to Peter (Acts x. 9 sqq.). Such abolition of barrier precepts, indeed, is intrinsically supported by the revelation fulfilled through Christ, which, by removing from the sinner his once burdening ban of uncleanness, purifies and sanctifies the whole creature. In this light the external distinction of clean and unclean loses its proper warrant of being. Especially to be noted is the canon of Matt. XV. 11, 17-20; Mark vii. 15, whereby dietary laws are already repealed in principle. In the primitive Christian Church the prohibition against partaking of blood was longest and most strictly maintained in force; and this, indeed, with reference to Gentile Christians as well as Jewish (Acts XV, 20, 29, xxi. 25), not as a distinctively Israelitic prohibition, but one reaching back even to Noah. In Tertullian's time the Church deemed itself still generally bound by that restriction (Tertullian, ApoL, ix.; De monogamia, v.; De idolatria, xxiv.; Eusebius, Hist, eccl, v. 1). The Greek Church adhered to the same constantly (Second Trullan Council, canon Ixvii.; Suicerus, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, i. 113). In principle, however, this prohibition was done away with by the word of the Lord, Matt. xv. 11, as well as through the evangelic liberty proclaimed by the apostles, Paul especially (I Tim. iv. 3-4), as belonging to the " elements of the world " (Gal. iv. 3), which could serve only by w:iy of preparatory instruction to the congregation of the faithful, who are told " all things are yours, and ye are Christ's."
C. VON Orelli.
Dietenberg-er Dig'g'le