Pollution and Blood

Drawing on the work of Jonathan Klawans (Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism) and others, David Biale (Blood and Belief) points to the difficulty of reconciling the “Priestly” and “Holiness” sections of Leviticus.

In the “Priestly” code, found in Leviticus 11-15 and Numbers 19,. impurity is contracted “as a result of contact with a variety of contagions related
to sexual intercourse, menstruation, childbirth, pathological genital discharges, scale disease, the carcasses of certain impure animals, and
human corpses. Such impurity—variously called by scholars ‘ritual
impurity’ or ‘levitical impurity’ – is often unavoidable and can be
cleansed by rituals of purification. Inadvertent and intentional sins can
also pollute the sanctuary, even from a distance, requiring other means
of purification” (11-12).

The Holiness Code (Leviticus 18, 20; Numbers 35) enumerates sins – sexual sins, idolatry, murder – that defile the land and cannot be atoned through sacrifice (12).

Biale asks, “Why can certain sins be expiated while others cannot? Why, for
example, does animal blood serve as “ransom for your lives” in Leviticus
17, whereas Numbers 35 holds that nothing short of capital punishment
can purify the land from the defilement of murder?” More pointedly, “why
is it that in Leviticus 15:19-24, sexual relations with a menstruating
woman confer only ritual uncleanness, which can be purified, whereas
Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 threaten the most severe individual and collective
retribution for those who engage in intercourse during a woman’s
menstrual period?” (12).

He suggests that the tensions can be reconciled (without resort to source criticism) by understanding the biblical meaning of blood. He distinguishes between proper and improper shedding of blood: “while animal and human blood, properly
spilled, do not create ritual pollution—and, indeed, animal blood
is the most powerful ritual detergent for decontaminating such pollution—
blood improperly spilled is associated with the three cardinal, ‘moral’ sins that defile the land.” Menstrual blood is the great exception, which “creates both ritual and moral pollution.” This is because “menstrual blood, as opposed to all other blood outside the body, is a force of life rather than of death” (12-13). It is the exception that proves the rule.

Though he sets aside Documentary Hypothetical explanations, Biale unfortunately resorts to typical modern anti-priestly explanations, which are the very basis of the DocHyp that he turns down. The central importance of blood is not explained in the Bible because the rationale is not theological but political. It’s part of the priests’ effort to monopolize sacrifice and categorize all other uses of blood as abominations: “These ‘abominable’ rituals may well have been the inventions of the priestly authors themselves as rhetorical devices to distinguish Israel from its neighbors..” Blood has no meaning in itself; it is an “index,” a pointing finger that emphasizes priestly power (13-14). To which one is tempted to say, Groan, and then Yawn.

And then: Oh, but it is explained, as Biale himself recognizes: For the life is in the blood.