Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat.

“And He changed the food of men, giving them leave to eat flesh: for from Adam the first-formed until the Flood men ate only of seeds and the fruit of trees, and to eat flesh was not permitted to them. But since the three sons of Noah were the beginning of a race of men, God blessed them for multiplication and increase, saying: "Increase and multiply, and replenish the earth and rule it; and the fear and dread of you shall be upon every living thing of animals and upon all the fowls of the air; and they shall be to you for meat, even as the green herb: but the flesh with the blood of life ye shall not eat: for your blood also will I requite at the hand of all beasts and at the hand of man. Whoso sheddeth a man's blood, in return for his blood shall it be shed." For He made man the image of God; and the image of God is the Son, after whose image man was made: and for this cause He appeared in the end of the times that He might show the image (to be) like unto Himself. According to this covenant the race of man multiplied, springing up from the seed of the three.”

“From this the eating of meat takes its beginning, not for the purpose of prompting them to gluttony. But since some of the people were about to offer sacrifices and make thanksgiving to the Lord, he grants them authority over food and obviates any anxiety about foods lest they seem to be abstaining from foods because they were not properly consecrated. "I have given you them all," he says, "as I did the green grass." Then, as in the case of Adam when he instructed him to abstain from the one tree while enjoying the others, so in this case too. After permitting the consumption of all foods without hesitation, he says, "except you are not to eat flesh with its lifeblood in it." So what does this statement mean? It means "strangled," for an animal's blood is its soul. So since they were about to offer sacrifices in the form of animals, he is teaching them in these words that as long as the blood has been set aside for me, the flesh is for you. In doing so, however, he is intent upon resisting in advance any impulse toward homicide.”

“And the Lord blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth; and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; as the green herb have I given you all; but flesh with the blood thereof shall ye not eat.”

“בשר בנפשו FLESH WITH THE SOUL THEREOF [SHALL YE NOT EAT] — He here prohibited to them אבר מן החי the eating of a limb cut from a living animal, that is to say that בשר בנפשו (literally, flesh together with its life) means so long as its life is in it you shall not eat the flesh. בנפשו דמו (literally, its blood together with its life) means whilst its (the animal’s) life is still in it (the blood). Consequently בשר בנפשו לא תאכלו FLESH SO LONG AS THERE IS LIFE IN IT SHALL YE NOT EAT forms the prohibition of אבר מן החי the eating of a limb cut from a living animal. And connecting בנפשו with דמו we obtain the reading also בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו ITS BLOOD TOGETHER WITH ITS LIFE SHALL YE NOT EAT which forms the prohibition of partaking of blood of a living animal (Sanhedrin 59a)”

“ONLY FLESH WITH THE LIFE THEREOF, THE BLOOD THEREOF, SHALL YE NOT EAT. Rashi wrote: “This prohibition applies while the animal’s life is still in the blood. Thus, you should not eat flesh as long as there is life in it, meaning a limb cut from a living animal, nor shall you eat its blood together with its life, meaning the blood of a living animal.” (with its life) with the preceding word, basar, and also with the succeeding word, damo (its blood), although the text reads, basar b’naphsho damo. Ramban objects that if so the text should have said, v’damo (and its blood), instead of damo. But if this be so Scripture should have said, “flesh, so long as there is life in it, and also its blood ye shall not eat.” But according to the simple meaning of Scripture, this interpretation is incorrect, and according to the Midrash it is not true, for the sons of Noah, Note 222. have been admonished against eating a limb cut from a living animal, as is the opinion of the Sages, but not the blood of a living animal, as is the opinion of Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel. Rather, the interpretation of the verse is as follows: “only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat,” for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.”

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is the only exception to the eating of flesh; it was not to be eaten with the blood in it, which is said to be its life; not that the blood is of itself the life, but because it is a means of life, and that being exhausted, the creature must die, and because the animal and vital spirits appear to us most vigorous in it; yea, it is the ailment and support of them, and which furnishes out the greatest quantity of them: or rather it may be rendered, "the flesh with its life in its blood" (m); while there is life in the blood, or while the creature is living; the meaning is, that a creature designed for food should be properly killed, and its blood let out; that it should not be devoured alive, as by a beast of prey; that raw flesh should not be eaten, as since by cannibals, and might be by riotous flesh eaters, before the flood; for notwithstanding this law, as flesh without the blood might be eaten, so blood properly let out, and dressed, or mixed with other things, might be eaten, for aught this says to the contrary; but was not to be eaten with the flesh, though it might separately, which was afterwards forbid by another law. The design of this was to restrain cruelty in men, and particularly to prevent the shedding of human blood, which men might be led into, were they suffered to tear living creatures in pieces, and feed upon their raw flesh, and the blood in it. The Targum of Jonathan is,"but the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat.''And the Jewish writers generally interpret this of the flesh of a creature taken from it alive, which, they say, is the seventh precept given to the sons of Noah, over and above the six which the sons of Adam were bound to observe, and they are these;1. Idolatry is forbidden. 2. Blasphemy is forbidden. 3. The shedding of blood, or murder is forbidden. 4. Uncleanness, or unjust carnal copulations is forbidden. 5. Rapine or robbery is forbidden. 6. The administration of justice to malefactors is required. 7. The eating of any member or flesh of a creature while alive (n) is forbidden.Such of the Heathens who conformed to those precepts were admitted to dwell among the Israelites, and were called proselytes of the gate. (m) "carnem cum anima, "seu" vita ejus, sanguine ejus", Cartwright. (n) Maimon. Hilchot Melachim, c. 9. sect. 1.”

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood - Though animal food was granted, yet the blood was most solemnly forbidden, because it was the life of the beast, and this life was to be offered to God as an atonement for sin. Hence the blood was ever held sacred, because it was the grand instrument of expiation, and because it was typical of that blood by which we enter into the holiest. 1. Before the deluge it was not eaten, because animal food was not in use. 2. After the deluge it was prohibited, as we find above; and, being one of the seven Noahic precepts, it was not eaten previously to the publication of the Mosaic law. 3. At the giving of the law, and at several times during the ministry of Moses, the prohibition was most solemnly, and with awful penalties renewed. Hence we may rest assured that no blood was eaten previously to the Christian era, nor indeed ever since by the Jewish people. 4. That the prohibition has been renewed under the Christian dispensation, can admit of little doubt by any man who dispassionately reads Act 15:20, Act 15:29; Act 21:25, where even the Gentile converts are charged to abstain from it on the authority, not only of the apostles, but of the Holy Ghost, who gave them there and then especial direction concerning this point; see Act 15:28; not for fear of stumbling the converted Jews, the gloss of theologians, but because it was one των επαναγκες τουτων, of those necessary points, from the burden (βαρος) of obedience to which they could not be excused. 5. This command is still scrupulously obeyed by the oriental Christians, and by the whole Greek Church; and why? because the reasons still subsist. No blood was eaten under the law, because it pointed out the blood that was to be shed for the sin of the world; and under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins. If the eaters of blood in general knew that it affords a very crude, almost indigestible, and unwholesome ailment, they certainly would not on these physical reasons, leaving moral considerations out of the question, be so much attached to the consumption of that from which they could expect no wholesome nutriment, and which, to render it even pleasing to the palate, requires all the skill of the cook. See Lev 17:10.”

“With blood. This was a matter of indifference in itself, like the forbidden fruit. But God gave the prohibition, to keep people at a greater distance from imbruing their hands in the blood of others, which nevertheless we know some have drunk! He would also assert his dominion over all things; the blood or life of animals being reserved to be offered in sacrifice to him, instead of the life of man, Leviticus xvii. 11. Blood of brutes is gross and unwholesome. (Menochius) — The apostles required this law to be observed by the first Christians, that the Jews might not be disgusted: but, after a competent time had been allowed them, the Church thought proper to alter this discipline. (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xxxii. 13.)”