דין כיסוי דם ואכילתו בהלכה הכהנית ובהלכות חכמים

This paper traces and clarifies the source of the accusation of carelessness with blood, including its consumption, found in Qumran writings. In the days of the Second Temple there was a sharp dispute between the adherents of the Priestly Law and their opponents regarding the prohibitions dealing with the handling of blood. Several Qumran documents, as well as the books of the Pseudepigrapha that share their views (Jubilees, Enoch), contain the priestly rules connected with the eating of blood and the guilt associated with it while the position of their opponents finds expression later in Rabbinical Law. The dispute includes the following contentions: 1. according to the Priestly Law the blood of cattle, fowl and deer that are slaughtered outside the Temple for eating purposes must be covered. According to Rabbinical Law there is no need to cover the blood of cattle; 2. according to Priestly Law one must be scrupulous in preventing the appearance of spots of blood on the clothes or body of the slaughterer. In Rabbinical Law there is no such admonition; 3. according to the Priestly Law there should be as many peace offerings (where blood is tossed on the altar as an expiation) as possible and the slaughter of animals outside the Temple is limited. The rabbis do not share this view; 4. according to the Priestly Law the prohibition against eating blood is all inclusive: all blood is prohibited. In Rabbinical Law (Bet Hillel) blood may be eaten in selected cases; 5. in the Book of Jubilees man is responsible for punishing those who eat blood. Failure to punish the guilty parties leads to the obliteration of mankind. In Rabbinical Law the guilty person is only cut off (כרת); the punishment is by God, and mankind is not threatened. This dichotomy between the views of the Priestly Law and the Rabbinic Law derives from an emphasis placed on different sources in the Bible. The Priestly Law, which has a realistic approach to Biblical Law, follows Leviticus 17 and interprets Deuteronomy 12 according to the same precepts, while the Rabbinic Law, which has a nominalistic approach, follows Deuteronomy 12 and largely ignores Leviticus. It is apparent that the accusations regarding the eating of blood in the Qumran writings and in the Pseudepigrapha refer to this dispute.