Kommentar zu Dewarim 12:16

רק הדם לא תאכלו ONLY YE SHALL NOT EAT THE BLOOD — Although I have told you that there is no sprinkling of blood on the altar in its case (it being blemished and thus unfit for the altar), you shall nevertheless not eat it.

Its blood is not to be sprinkled on the altar, etc. I.e., one might think that eating blood is prohibited only in order to sprinkle it on the altar [and therefore it would be permitted here], so the verse lets us know differently [that “You may not eat the blood,”] However, it is perplexing that we need this verse. For we can derive this from the verse in Parshas Acharei Mos (Vayikra 17:10), “Whoever eats any blood, etc.,” which teaches [a prohibition] regarding blood even from ordinary meat — as Rashi explains there. Perhaps the answer is: The prohibition is written twice [though it is unnecessary]. Re”m explains likewise above in Parshas Acharei Mos. But it seems to me that if we only had the verse, “Whoever eats, etc.,” then we might think: Even though they are ordinary animals, but since at the time of slaughtering they were unblemished and their blood was thus fit to be offered upon the altar, therefore the Torah prohibits [eating] their blood. However, this is not so regarding sacred sacrifices that became unfit, therefore an additional verse is necessary to forbid its blood. See what I wrote above in Parshas Acharei Mos.

V. 16. רק הדם לא תאכלו (siehe zu V. 15). על הארץ תשפכנו כמים, obgleich פסולי המוקדשים hinsichtlich בכורה ומתנות durch die Gleichstellung mit חיה צבי ואיל- Charakter haben, so unterliegt doch ihr Blut nicht der כיסוי-Pflicht wie das Blut wirklicher חיה (Chulin 84 a; — siehe zu Wajikra 17, 13.) Gleichzeitig ist durch den Satz על הארץ תשפכנו כמים die Bestimmung gegeben, dass alles nicht für den Altar bestimmte Blut, מים ,דם שנשפך על הארץ-Charakter trägt und wie "Wasser" מכשיר זרעים ist (siehe zu Wajikra 11, 34), im Gegensatz zu דם קדשים, das nicht מכשיר ist (Chulin 33 a).

רק הדם לא תאכלו, “only the blood you must not eat.” Even though the Torah permits the commoner to eat the meat through a process of redemption, i.e. paying compensation to the Temple treasury for the one time sanctified animal, plus a small premium, its blood had been forbidden already prior to this animal having been sanctified, so how could it possibly be released through redemption? The same rule applies to the forbidden fat parts of any animal slated as a sacrifice, or not. The reason why the Torah singled out blood as its example, is that blood of any animal, whether basically fit to become a sacrifice or not, is forbidden, whereas the fat parts of animals not ever suitable as sacrifices were never forbidden. (Compare Talmud tractate Chulin folio 117)

תשפכנו כמים YE SHALL POUR IT [UPON THE EARTH] AS WATER — This latter word is intended to tell you that although they are compared to these חיות, yet it (the blood) requires no covering with dust as prescribed in the case of these חיות in Leviticus 17:13 (Sifrei Devarim 71:15; Chullin 84a). Another explanation is that the word כמים is intended to suggest: It is like water in so far as to make seed (food) receptive to uncleanness just as water does (cf. Leviticus 11:38) (Sifrei Devarim 71:15; Chullin 35b).

This teaches you that it does not require covering. Since Scripture compares it to the deer and gazelle, we might think: Just as the deer and gazelle require covering [of their blood], so too this animal requires covering. Therefore the verse needs to write, “Spill it like water,” to say that it does not require covering (Re”m). Additionally, we might think that blood of all animals requires covering, since the term בהמה (domesticated animal) is included under the term חיה (wild animal); and just as the blood of a wild animal requires covering, so too regarding a domesticated animal. Therefore the phrase, “Spill it like water,” teaches us: Just as water does not require covering, so too the blood of sacred animals that became unfit [does not require covering]. And from this we may extrapolate that the blood of all domesticated animals does not require covering. See chapter Kisui Hadam (Chulin 84a), where this is explicitly written.

Another interpretation: It is like water, etc. The first interpretation is problematic, because why is the word, “water,” needed? The verse only needs to write, “On the earth you are to spill it,” and we would know that it does not require covering. Therefore, another interpretation is needed. But the second interpretation on its own [is problematic], for this verse should have been written over there [in the section] regarding the conditioning (hechsher) of edible seeds (Vayikra 11:38). Therefore we also need the first interpretation.