2008 Woodie Awards
"Mingling Bloods": Towards Communal Progress
Professor Aaron Koller
Issue date: 2/15/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 4 next >
We recently celebrated the berit milah of our son Shachar Yaakov, which gave me the motivation to reflect both on the ceremony of the berit and on the significance of the institution. A quotation from Yehezkel 16:6 is central to the berit milah ceremony: va-'e'ebor 'alayikh va-'er'ekh mitboseset be-damayikh, va-'omar lakh be-damayikh hayi va-'omar lakh be-damayikh hayi "I passed by you, and I saw wallowing in your blood; I said to you, 'In your blood, you shall live'; I said to you, 'In your blood, you shall live'." In context, the blood is already present: the infant girl symbolizing Israel in Ezekiel's vision has been abandoned by her parents, and has been left sitting yet in her birth blood, never swaddled or cleaned. And yet - the (divine) benefactor claims - she will live in, or despite, her blood - with his help, of course.
But Hazal take the verse differently. In the Targum we see their approach: ve-amarit lekhon, be-dama de-mehulta ahus aleikhon; ve-amarit lekhon, be-dam pishaya efroq yatkhon "and I said to you (pl.), 'through the blood of circumcision I will have mercy on you'; and I said to you, 'through the blood of the Pesah I will redeem you'." This same interpretation is found in the Mekhilta on Parshat Bo', ยง5, where the reasoning is explained more fully: Israel stood to be redeemed, but was naked of merit, not having fulfilled any mitzvot. God therefore gave them two, the circumcision and the Pesah, to enable Himself to redeem them on that merit.
The rabbinic midrash here involves three steps: (1) first, the Rabbis focus on the repetition of the phrase va-'omar lakh be-damayikh hayi (note that this is not, in fact, a typical example of emphatic repetition, which could have omitted the second introductory va-'omar) and claim that the two occurrences of the phrase are independently significant; (2) they then explain that the repetition is to indicate that two bloods are spoken of; (3,4) the two bloods are identified as the reason for the guaranteed survival, by understanding the preposition bet of be-damayikh to means "because of"; (5) the two bloods are specified as the blood of circumcision and the blood of the paschal lamb; (6) a narrative introduction is provided (in the Mekhilta) to explain how these bloods saved the young maiden Israel at a time when otherwise they would have been doomed.
But Hazal take the verse differently. In the Targum we see their approach: ve-amarit lekhon, be-dama de-mehulta ahus aleikhon; ve-amarit lekhon, be-dam pishaya efroq yatkhon "and I said to you (pl.), 'through the blood of circumcision I will have mercy on you'; and I said to you, 'through the blood of the Pesah I will redeem you'." This same interpretation is found in the Mekhilta on Parshat Bo', ยง5, where the reasoning is explained more fully: Israel stood to be redeemed, but was naked of merit, not having fulfilled any mitzvot. God therefore gave them two, the circumcision and the Pesah, to enable Himself to redeem them on that merit.
The rabbinic midrash here involves three steps: (1) first, the Rabbis focus on the repetition of the phrase va-'omar lakh be-damayikh hayi (note that this is not, in fact, a typical example of emphatic repetition, which could have omitted the second introductory va-'omar) and claim that the two occurrences of the phrase are independently significant; (2) they then explain that the repetition is to indicate that two bloods are spoken of; (3,4) the two bloods are identified as the reason for the guaranteed survival, by understanding the preposition bet of be-damayikh to means "because of"; (5) the two bloods are specified as the blood of circumcision and the blood of the paschal lamb; (6) a narrative introduction is provided (in the Mekhilta) to explain how these bloods saved the young maiden Israel at a time when otherwise they would have been doomed.