Comentario sobre Levítico 3:23

שלמים PEACE-OFFERINGS — They are so called because they bring peace (שלום) into the world. Another explanation is: they are called שלמים because through them there is “peace” (harmony and lack of envy) to the altar, to the priests and to the owners (since all these receive a portion) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22 and our Note thereon; see also Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 16 2).

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE A SACRIFICE OF PEACE-OFFERINGS: IF HE OFFER OF THE HERD, WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE. The reason why the burnt-offering may only be male,²³⁵Above, Chapter 1, Verses 3 and 10. whereas in the case of the peace-offering it can be male or female, and the sin-offering must only be female,²³⁶Further, 4:28. This applies only to the sin-offering of an ordinary individual. See further on in the text for the sin-offering of the prince (4:23). is very clear, since the olah (the burnt-offering) is as its name indicates, [i.e., “ascension” — being that it reaches above all Divine attributes], whilst sh’lamim (the peace-offering) is of the expressions: and all My pleasures ‘yashlim’ (he will perform — literally: he will “perfect”);²³⁷Isaiah 44:28. ‘avanim sh’leimoth’ (whole stones).²³⁸Deuteronomy 27:6. Since the peace-offering is brought in order to bring peace into the world, it performs the function of harmonizing all attributes, such as justice and mercy. Hence it may be brought from the male or female (Ricanti). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 19; also Note 240 further. The sin-offering is in order to appease Him with the present that goeth before²³⁹Genesis 32:21. Him. I have already written on this matter.²⁴⁰Ibid., 46:1 (Vol. I, p. 542): “Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him …”. See also ibid., 32:21 (pp. 402-403). The guilt-offering must be a male,²⁴¹Further, Chapter 5, Verses 15 and 25. because the sin-offering is brought for those transgressions [for which, if committed wilfully, the sinner] incurs the penalty of excision, in order that the spirit return unto G-d who gave it,²⁴²Ecclesiastes 12:7. but the guilt-offering is not brought for those transgressions for which [if committed wilfully] one incurs excision, and therefore it is as if it were for a pleasing odor just like the burnt-offering.²⁴³Hence just like the burnt-offering is a male [for the reason explained above], so is the guilt-offering. The sin-offering of the prince is a he-goat,²⁴⁴Further, 4:23; although the sin-offering of a common person is a female, as explained above. because the prince is the sovereign unto whom judgment [rightfully] belongs,²⁴⁵See Ezekiel 21:32. and he fights the battles of G-d and lives by his sword;²⁴⁶See Genesis 27:40. therefore his offering is the same as the he-goat brought in case of idol-worship [by the congregation].²⁴⁷Numbers 15:24.

אם זכר אם נקבה, be it male or female; the repetition of the word אם between the words זכר and נקבה indicates that the Torah does not favour a male animal over a female animal when it comes to the offering of such peace-offerings.

ואם זבח שלמים קרבנו, the owner had said: “I am obligating myself to offer a peace offering, שלמים; seeing that the donor had not added the word עולה to describe the offering he meant to sacrifice, it is not assumed that he had intended for the entire sacrificial animal to be burnt up on the altar, as is the case with an עולה. The expression שלמים which is related to שלם, to pay, is an expression used by David who said that he wanted to pay his vows (Psalms 117,18) It is assumed that the “vows” were undertakings to offer sacrificial animals. Our sages in Torat Kohanim speaking of נדבה understand the word שלום as an offering in which everyone shares, i.e. the fat parts are burnt on the altar, belong to G’d, the chest, and thigh belong to the priests, the balance may be eaten by the owner, the donour.

ואם זבח שלמים, “and if his offering is a peaceoffering;” the word שלמים, here means: תשלומים, “payment for something.” In this instance, the donor is paying a vow.

A peace-offering (זבח). A peace-offering is called a זבח (feast), on the other hand, a burntoffering, a sin-offering, or a guilt-offering are never associated with the word זבח. This is because the owner eats the peace-offerings meat in the company of his family, friends, and acquaintances, and he praises God and thanks Him for His Kindness. Additionally, more people are needed so that the meat will not become left-over. Therefore it is called a זבח שלמים, because זבח connotes a festive meal. The other offerings, however, which are not eaten by the owners, are not called זבח.

וזרקו בני אהרן את הדם, “the sons of Aaron are to sprinkle the blood, etc.” The Torah employs the verb זרק when describing the sprinkling of the blood of goats, sheep, or bulls because their blood is so similar to that of human beings. By employing a verb that really means “throwing,” we are reminded that seeing that this blood is so similar to ours, the animal is enduring something that the sinner offering this sacrifice was meant to endure. [I suppose that the author means that the word השליך would otherwise have been more appropriate for the blood being poured, or the word שפך, “to pour.” The verb זרק is singularly inappropriate otherwise, as animals cannot “throw.” Ed.]

וסמך ידו על ראש קרבנו, “he must place his weight with his hands on the head of his offering.” This rule does not apply if the offering is either a firstborn animal, animal tithes, or the Passover lamb. It also does not apply to this category of offering when it is offered on behalf of the community. The latter do require libation, and heaving and slaughtering, however as stated in Leviticus 23,20.

‎'ואת כל החלב וגו [AND HE SHALL OFFER … ALL THE FAT THAT COVERETH THE INWARDS] AND ALL THE FAT [THAT IS UPON THE INWARDS] — These apparently redundant words are intended to include in the command the fat also that lies upon the maw. This is the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael; Rabbi Akiba holds that they are intended to include only the fat that is on the gut (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 6; cf. Chullin 49b).

The fat on the stomach. Meaning: The fat on the small intestines are included [as well] by kal vachomer, since they have two signs of forbidden [fats]: They are spread like a garment and they have a detachable membrane. Rabbi Akiva, though, says only the [fat on the] small intestines [are included] because they have two signs: They are spread like a garment and they have a detachable membrane, but [the fats] on the stomach are not spread like a garment, but rather are many pieces of fat [that are attached to the stomach]. The word תותב means a garment, as the Targum Onkeles [writes in Shemos 22:26] היא שמלתו = היא תותביה.

The fat. This is because it comes to atone for the sin committed due to having become fat, as it says (Devarim 32:15): And Yeshurun became fat and rebelled; you grew fat, thick and rotund. Therefore, he brings the fat as if he offered up his own fat.

'והקריב מזבח השלמים וגו , “he shall present from the peaceoffering, etc.,” nothing is mentioned here concerning the washing of the entrails and legs of peaceofferings, the reason being that these continue to belong to the owners of the respective animals, each one of whom will make his own arrangements concerning such procedures.

את החלב, “the fat;” the expression “fat,” is used to describe the best part of something. This is clear from the Targum, rendering the word as תרבא, i.e. a combination of abundance and excellence.

הכסלים — Flancs in O. F. — It speaks of the fat which is on (על) the kidneys being also on (על) the flanks because the fat that is upon the kidneys is, when the animal is living, on the uppermost part of the flanks, and they (the kidneys) are in a downward position. This is the fat which is under the loins — what are called lombles in O. F.; it is that white fat which is visible upon the upper part of the flanks, but on their lower part the flesh covers it, (and this latter portion of the fat is therefore not upon but under the flanks).

היותרת, a growth on top of the liver.

Separating. The separation (the diaphragm) which divides between the respiratory organs and the intestines is called in the Talmud “the lobe of the liver.”

היותרת is the protecting wall (membrane) over the liver which is called abris in O. F. In the Aramaic language it is called חצרא דכבדא the lobe of the liver.

The liver. Accordingly, the word על means “with a little of the liver.” We should not say [he removes] the entire liver, for if so, it should say “he shall remove them.”

על הכבד — This must mean that he shall take a little of the liver with it, for in another place it distinctly states, (Leviticus 9:10) “and the יותרת מן הכבד [he caused to ascend in fumes]” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 14 8).

And in another place. I.e. this is proof that “on the liver” means [he should take a little] of the liver [with it].

על הכבד על הכליות — means, besides the part of the liver and besides the kidneys shall he remove this (the יותרת‎).

Aside. Re”m raises a difficulty: Above, Rashi explains “על” means “with” and here he explains that “על” means “aside.” The answer is: The word על has two explanations, “with” and “aside.” Concerning the kidneys Rashi perforce explains that על means “aside from the kidneys,” because the entire kidneys are burnt on the altar. However, here when he explains that “על הכבד” means “aside from the liver,” he is not saying that the word על appearing in conjunction with “liver” means “aside from.” Rather, he is eliminating an error that we might say the kohein burns on the altar only that area of the lobe of the liver which is attached to a small part of the liver, [but not the entire lobe]. Therefore, he explains “aside from the liver,” i.e., the entire lobe was burnt with that little that was attached to the liver (Minchas Yehudah). It appears that Rashi’s intention is clear and proper [unlike Re”m contends]. At first, Rashi writes that the fact that Scripture equates the liver and the kidneys was certainly not with regard to burning on the altar, because the liver is not burnt. If so, you might think that not even a little of the liver is burnt on the altar — but this cannot be. This is because we find different expressions regarding the liver: Here it says: “on the liver,” and in another place it says (9:10): “from the liver.” Thus, it must be that it teaches that the liver is burnt as well, and perforce this means a part of it. Then, Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written: “On the liver on the kidneys,” this implies that they are completely equal, but you maintain that only a part of the liver is burnt whereas the entire kidneys are burnt? To answer this Rashi writes: “[That is,] aside from the liver and aside from the kidneys — he should remove this.” Meaning: With regard to removing [the lobe] they are both equal — the lobe needs to be removed from the liver and the kidneys, each one according to its law — this one in part and this one entirely. Therefore, Rashi concludes “he should remove this,” i.e., in this aspect the liver is the same as the kidneys [but not for burning on the altar] (Divrei Dovid).

העולה ‎‎על‎ means [HE SHALL BURN IT] BESIDES THE BURNT OFFERING. Scripture thus teaches us that the continual burnt-offering should be placed on the wood-pile before any other sacrifice (cf. Zevachim 89a; Tosafot on Zevachim 89a 1.1. כל התדיר and Rashi on Exodus 6:5).

AND AARON’S SONS SHALL CAUSE IT TO ASCEND IN FUMES. This is like His saying further on, And the priest shall cause them to ascend in fumes,²⁴⁸Further, Verse 16. for there He alludes to all those portions of the offering which are burnt on the altar, [hence He refers to them in the plural, while here He alludes to the offering as such, and therefore He speaks of it in the singular]. The interpretation [of the Rabbis] on it is as follows:²⁴⁹Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 14:10. “And Aaron’s sons shall cause it to ascend.²⁵⁰Here in Verse 5 before us, in the case of the peace-offering brought from the herd. And the priest shall cause it to ascend.²⁵¹Further, Verse 11 — in the case of the peace-offering of the flock. And the priest shall cause them to ascend.²⁵²Further, Verse 16 — in the case of the peace-offering of the goats. Why are all these verses mentioned? And Aaron’s sons shall cause it to ascend²⁵⁰Here in Verse 5 before us, in the case of the peace-offering brought from the herd. — only if the offering is acceptable, but not if it has become disqualified. And the priest shall cause it to ascend²⁵¹Further, Verse 11 — in the case of the peace-offering of the flock. — [this teaches] that he should not mix the fats of one offering with those of another [even though they are both of the flock]. And the priest shall cause them to ascend — [this teaches] that he should burn them all at one time.”

Every sacrifice. Rashi does not derive that [the daily burnt-offering] must precede [every sacrifice] from “על העולה,” because there is no implication from the word על, which means “aside from,” whether it precedes or comes after. Rather, [he derives this] from what is written later: “That is on the logs which are on the fire,” which implies they already arranged the burnt offering on the logs which are on the fire.

על העולה, according to the plain meaning of the text: “with the burnt offering,” as in Exodus 35,22: ויבאו האנשים על הנשים, “the men came with the women,” or as in Leviticus 25,31: על שדה הארץ יחשב, “it shall be reckoned with the field of the land.”

העולה, “the burnt offering;” the one that has been discussed in detail, the daily communal burnt offering.

זכר או נקבה, “male or female.” In connection with the flocks the Torah writes זכר או נקבה, whereas in connection with the sacrificial animal בן בקר, a young bull, we have the wording אם זכר אם נקבה. The reason for the different wording is that the word או is necessary to include the פלגס, a sheep thirteen months old, so that a plural mode is needed here. The word אם does not allow for use in a plural mode.

אם כשב IF [HE OFFER] A LAMB — Because there is amongst the fat-portions of the lamb something which is not amongst the fat-portions of the goat, — for of the lamb the fat-tail (אליה) is offered, — therefore they (the law regarding the lamb and that regarding the goat) have been divided into two separate paragraphs (whilst in the case of the free-will עולה they are contained in one paragraph, Leviticus 1:10—13, since there is no difference in the laws regarding these two animals) (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 18 4).

אם כבש הוא מקריב, “if he offers a male sheep, etc.” The term כשב always refers to a fully grown sheep, as we know from Genesis 30,40 והכשבים הפריד יעקב, “and Yaakov set aside the fully grown sheep, etc.” the term כבש by contrast, refers to immature sheep. The word עגל refers to a fully grown calf, whereas the term בן בקר refers to a bull not yet fully grown. The latter is so named, as it is still dependent on its mother. The term פר בן בקר refers to an animal that is more than 12 months old. The parallel term בן כבש does not occur anywhere as sheep do not become pregnant during the first year of their lives.

Into two sections. Meaning: Not in one section like the voluntary burnt-offering, where it is written (1:10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep — of lambs or of goats — etc.”

אם כשב, here the Torah includes the Passover offering whose fatty tail is to be treated as are the ones of peaceofferings. The tail of a goat, however was thrown away. This is why in connection with the Passover lamb, i.e. שה, we also find the word: מן הכבשים, “from among the sheep,” which was not really necessary.

וזרקו AND [AARON'S SONS] SHALL DASH THE BLOOD THEREOF [ROUND ABOUT] — two applications of the blood are necessary so as to constitute four (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1:5). He (the priest) dashes the blood with a vessel (Zevachim 55a); it is only the blood of the sin-offering that he applies with his finger (Zevachim 53a).

Only the sin-offering. Concerning the sin-offering brought inside [the Heichal] it is written (4:6): “The kohein shall dip his finger into the blood and he shall sprinkle from the blood” and concerning the sin-offering brought outside it is written (ibid. 34): “The kohein shall take some blood from the sin-offering with his finger and put it atop the corners of the altar.” [Concerning the rest of the offering, however, it says that the kohanim should sprinkle the blood and does not mention “finger”] (R’em). [You might ask:] Why does Rashi not mention this above regarding the peace-offering of cattle? The answer is because it is not so much of a proof above, for perhaps the kohein did sprinkle the blood with his finger, and although Scripture does not write “finger,” we should learn a place where it is not specified from where it is clearly written — regarding the sin-offering. Therefore, Rashi waited until the end of all the sacrifices and since none of them mentioned “finger” except the sin-offering, perforce [only for the sin-offering was the blood sprinkled with the finger] (Gur Aryeh).

חלבו means: the choicest part in it; and what is this? The whole fat-tail.

CHELBO’ (THE FAT THEREOF) ‘HA’ALYAH TH’MIMAH’ (THE FAT TAIL ENTIRE). The term cheilev (fat) in the Sacred Language indicates that part of the fat which is separate from the meat and not joined to it. Shuman, on the other hand, is that fat which is intertwined with the meat and cannot be separated from it, something like that which Scripture states: ‘Vayishman Yeshurun’ (But Jeshurun waxed fat);²⁵³Deuteronomy 32:15. so they did eat, and were filled ‘vayashminu’ (and became fat);²⁵⁴Nehemiah 9:25. ‘hashmein’ (make fat) the heart of this people;²⁵⁵Isaiah 6:10. and my flesh is lean ‘mishamen’ (and hath no fatness);²⁵⁶Psalms 109:24. and it shall be rich ‘v’shamein’ (and fat);²⁵⁷Isaiah 30:23. my soul is satisfied as with marrow ‘vadeshen’ (and fatness),²⁵⁸Psalms 63:6. It should be noted that this verse does not contain the root shuman, but deshen. We must assume then that Ramban considered them equivalent terms. This is strengthened by an examination of the Hebrew wording of the verse: ‘k’mo cheilev vadeshen tisba nafshi.’ Now deshen is thus in parallelism to cheilev; hence deshen must here be understood as shuman, as explained above. and similarly in all places. But cheilev is the fat which is separate from the meat and covered by a membrane, and is easily peeled off. The Hebrew language never interchanges these terms [cheilev and shuman] in any place. Thus we say, basar shamen (fat meat), but not basar cheilev [since cheilev, as explained, is the fat which is separate and distinguished from the meat]. Similarly in languages of other nations these terms are separate. The term cheilev is sometimes used metaphorically, as is written, when ye set apart ‘chelbo’ (the best thereof) from it,²⁵⁹Numbers 18:30. since the good part of the produce which is taken up [to be given to the priest], Scripture figuratively calls cheilev, just as the cheilev is set apart in the offerings. ‘Cheilev kilyoth’ (the kidney-fat) of wheat²⁶⁰Deuteronomy 32:14. — Scripture here compares wheat to the kidneys and the fat therein, just as it states, and of the blood of the grape thou drankest foaming wine,²⁶⁰Deuteronomy 32:14. although wine is not blood [hence we must conclude that Scripture only uses these terms figuratively]. And ye shall eat the ‘cheilev’ (fat) of the land²⁶¹Genesis 45:18. means that they shall eat the best of the bullocks, sheep, and goats and all animals. Such is the usage of this figure of speech.
Now the tail does not contain any cheilev at all,²⁶²Having established the premise that the term cheilev has a figurative meaning, Ramban now proceeds to his main theme here: that the tail of the animal contains no cheilev [which is the term for the fat which is forbidden to be eaten] at all, but rather it contains shuman [which is the fatty substance contained in the meat which cannot be separated from it, and is permitted to be eaten]. At the end of this lengthy discussion it will be made clear that Ramban’s intention is to refute a major contention of the Karaites, who prohibited the eating of the fat of the tail, while the true tradition of the Rabbis permits it to be eaten. See further, Note 277. but rather has in it shuman (fat) which is not separate from the meat thereof, just as there is in every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder.²⁶³Ezekiel 24:4. This is confirmed by doctors who in their studies of nature have established the fact that cheilev [fat which is separate from the meat], is never to be found [in the animal] near the hide, nor in a limb which is always in movement [such as the tail]. The doctors have further said that the nature of shuman found in the ribs, sides and tail, which is not separate from the meat, is warm and moist, whilst that fat which can be separated from the meat, such as that which is upon the kidneys, is cold and moist, thick and coarse; it is difficult for the stomach to digest it fully, and it easily spoils; it also increases the white fluid²⁶⁴The ancients believed that a person’s physical and mental constitution is determined by the proper balance of the four bodily fluids which exist in every man. These are “the four humors” — the red, the white, the green, and the black — which vary constantly in man and determine his state of health and disposition at any given moment. Since the eating of cheilev increases the white fluid beyond the proper proportion, it affects the health of the person adversely. and constipates.
If so, the verse stating, Eat ye not any ‘cheilev’ (fat) nor blood,²⁶⁵Further, Verse 17. does not include the shuman (fat) which is upon the tail, for that is not cheilev by name or nature. If all fat were to come under the term cheilev, then all fat in an animal — on the shoulders and sides — would not be allowed to be eaten! For Scripture does not say: “All fat which is offered unto G-d ye shall not eat” [so that you would include in this prohibition the fat of the tail, since it is offered as a fire-offering on the altar]. Rather, He states that “the cheilev (fat) of all cattle which are brought as offerings upon the altar, must not be eaten.”²⁶⁶Ramban’s intent is to refer to the following verse: For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering unto the Eternal, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people (further, 7:25). Now the verse does not state “For whosoever eateth the fat which men present as an offering …” [so that you could argue, since the tail and the fat thereon are offered upon the altar, therefore they may not be eaten]. Rather, the verse states, For whosoever eateth the fat ‘of the beast’ of which men present an offering …, thus teaching that the cheilev of any animal which can be brought as an offering — whether it is actually brought as a hallowed offering or is eaten as common food — is forbidden to be eaten. Thus the verse establishes that cheilev of the ox, sheep, and goat [from which offerings can be brought] is forbidden to be eaten, whether it be an offering or common food. See further, Note 277. It is indeed impossible to say that He prohibited all these fats of the animal which are offered on the altar, for if so the kidneys and the lobe above the liver would be forbidden to be eaten [since they are offered on the altar]!²⁶⁷Verses: 4 and 10, etc. And yet even the Karaites do not forbid these foods! Rather, whatever fat comes under the term cheilev [as explained above], is forbidden to be eaten, even though it is not brought on the altar, such as the fat on the spleen; and that which is not called cheilev may be eaten even though it is offered on the altar, such as the [fat of the] kidneys and the lobe above the liver, and similarly also that of the tail [which even though it is brought on the altar, may be eaten because it is shuman and not cheilev]. Similarly, Scripture states in connection with the command of the installation of the priests, And thou shalt take of the ram ‘ha’cheilev’ (the fat) and the tail;²⁶⁸Exodus 29:22. This shows that the fat of the tail is not called cheilev. and at the performance thereof it is written, And he took the fat, and the tail,²⁶⁹Further, 8:25. for the tail is not cheilev. Now this verse [before us] which states ‘chelbo ha’alyah th’mimah’, means that he shall offer up [from the peace-offerings] the fat thereof, together with the entire fat tail, meaning that when he removes the “entire fat tail” until the rump-bone, he must take with it much fat that is attached to it on the inside. Thus the Rabbis have said in Torath Kohanim:²⁷⁰Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 19:2. “This tells us that he must also take the fat near the tail, which is the fat between the sinews [in the loins].”
In my opinion the purport of this verse is also like that of the other verse: And he shall offer of it all ‘chelbo’ (the fat thereof): ‘ha’alyah’ (the fat tail), and the fat that covereth the inwards.²⁷¹Further, 7:3. So here likewise He says, And He shall offer of the sacrifice of peace-offerings all the fat thereof. In these two verses [just quoted], He first makes a general statement, that [the priest] should offer all the fat thereof, and then He mentions in detail all the parts that he should offer [namely, the fat tail entire … and the fat that covereth the inwards … and the two kidneys, and the fat upon them … and the lobe above the liver …]. Now not everything that is mentioned here is cheilev [fat forbidden to be eaten], for the two kidneys [themselves] and the lobe above the liver are not at all included in the term cheilev. Thus He stated in the section of Bayom Ha’shemini:²⁷²“On the Eighth Day” of Initiation. It is the third section in this Book of Vayikra, known as Shemini. And ‘ha’cheilev’ (the fat), and the kidneys, and the lobe of the liver,²⁷³Further, 9:10. The use of the separate terms there thus clearly proves that not everything mentioned is cheilev; hence we may also say that the alyah mentioned is not cheilev. mentioning the cheilev by itself and then the other inwards by themselves, even as He said, And thou shalt take of the ram ‘ha’cheilev’ and the tail.²⁶⁸Exodus 29:22. This shows that the fat of the tail is not called cheilev. If so, the reason why the tail is offered [on the altar] is not because it is included here in Verse 9] in the term chelbo. Rather, He states here that the priest should burn [on the altar] from the peace-offerings all the fat thereof, and then He proceeds to explain all the inwards [which he should offer], some being cheilev and some not. The meaning of the verse in the case of the sin-offering stating, And all the fat thereof he shall take away, as ‘cheilev’ (the fat) is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace-offerings,²⁷⁴Ibid., 4:31. is not to refer only to that which is strictly speaking cheilev, for if that were so, the kidneys and the lobe on the liver [which are not cheilev] would not be offered up in the case of the sin-offering. Rather, the intention of the verse is that he is to take away the cheilev together with all the things that are removed from the peace-offerings. Similarly, [the verse stating in the case of the she-lamb brought as a sin-offering], And all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings,²⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 35. means that he is to take away as he had done in the case of the peace-offerings, meaning everything that he had taken away there, including the tail with its fat. Similarly, And they put the ‘chalavim’ (fats) upon the breasts, and he caused the fats to ascend in fumes²⁷⁶Ibid., 9:20. means [the cheilev] together with all that is removed from them.
I have had to discuss this point at length in order to shut up the mouths of the Sadducees,²⁷⁷So also in Ibn Ezra here. The “Sadducees,” strictly speaking, were a sect during the Second Temple that denied the authority of the oral tradition. The name Sadducee, however, became a synonym for all those who denied Talmudic authority. The reference here is definitely to the Karaites — a sect which appeared in the Gaonic period (760 Common Era) which rejected the authority of the Oral Law, and based itself on individual interpretation of the Torah. A major contention of theirs (based upon the present verse) was that the tail is forbidden to be eaten since it is here called cheilev. See also Maimonides who writes: “the heretics who here in the Orient are called Karaites” (“The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 160). may their name be erased [from memory], for in matters of Torah it has been said, Answer a fool according to his folly,²⁷⁸Proverbs 26:5. Ramban’s allusion [in his words “for in matters of Torah it has been said, Answer … “] is to a point the Sages have made regarding an obvious contradiction in the Book of Proverbs. In Verse 4 there it states, Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him, and immediately in the following verse it states, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. The Sages explained that there is no contradiction: “in matters of Torah answer him, but in other matters do not” (Shabbath 30b). It is to this principle that Ramban alludes in writing, “for in matters of Torah it has been said … ” and the Rabbis have also said,²⁷⁹Aboth 2:14. “Be diligent in learning Torah, in order to²⁸⁰“In order to.” In our standards text of the Mishnah: “and know what to.” be able to answer the unbeliever.”
The Gaon Rav Saadia²⁸¹See in Exodus, Vol. II, p. 99, Note 230. explained it to them,²⁸²I.e., the Karaites. “Saadia persisted in fighting Karaism with literary weapons; and throughout his checkered life he continued to combat its apostles with unrelenting vigor, so that he became the most dreaded and most hated opponent of the [Karaite] sect down to our own times” (H. Malter, “Saadia Gaon,” p. 262). by saying that chelbo ha’alyah is missing a connective vav, which would make it: chelbo veha’alyah — (its fat “and” the tail) [thus clearly meaning that the tail is not included in the cheilev]. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra refuted Rav Saadia Gaon by saying [that “from a grammatical point of view this could not be possible, for if so] it should have said chelbo elyato²⁸³In other words, since chelbo comes with the pronominal suffix [meaning “its fat”], the word ha’alyah (the tail) should likewise have come in that form: elyato (“its tail”). or hacheilev ha’alyah.”²⁸⁴Or since v’ha’alyah (according to Saadia Gaon’s interpretation) comes without the pronominal suffix, the word chelbo should also not have it, making it — hacheilev v’ha’alyah. Thus Ibn Ezra is saying that the Karaite interpretation still stands, for since it is written chelbo ha’alyah it would appear that ha’alyah is in apposition to chelbo, thus explaining: “What is chelbo? Ha’alyah.” — Ramban, however, will refute this argument of Ibn Ezra, bringing proof from another verse in Scripture which mentions two nouns together, and yet one is written with a pronominal suffix and the other without. Thus Saadia Gaon’s refutation of the Karaite interpretation is valid, and the tradition that the tail is not cheilev is confirmed. See, however, further in text where Ramban comments on the Gaon’s interpretation. But Ibn Ezra’s refutation is not valid, for we find [Scripture stating], And all Israel and their elders, and officers, and their judges!²⁸⁵Joshua 8:33. Here u’zkeinav (and their elders) comes with a pronominal suffix, and v’shotrim (and officers) does not. In our case too it is therefore correct to say, as Saadia Gaon does, that chelbo ha’alyah means chelbo v’ha’alyah, and the two nouns do not stand in apposition to each other, thus proving that the alyah is not cheilev. I will yet mention²⁸⁶Further, 7:25. a great mistake which Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra made in his arguments with them [i.e., the Karaites], in which he spoke more wrongly than they.²⁸⁷Ramban’s intent is to Ibn Ezra’s statement there that cheilev of a cattle slaughtered as common food is not forbidden to be eaten (see above Note 266). That opinion is more harmful than what the Karaite have said. For in abstaining from eating the fat of the tail no infringement of the Torah is incurred, whilst in eating of the cheilev of cattle slaughtered as common food, one violates a prohibition of the Torah! However, the Gaon’s interpretation is not correct,²⁸⁸In other words, Ibn Ezra’s argument against the Gaon’s interpretation is surely not valid, as explained above. Yet the Gaon’s interpretation is also not persuasive, since his explanation is dependent upon a missing connective vav, making the word ha’alyah — v’ha’alyah (“and” the tail). Such an interpretation is not sufficiently convincing to base thereon the permission to eat the tail. and surely it is not an argument sufficiently persuasive to permit the eating [of the tail because of it]. But the interpretation which our Rabbis advanced²⁸⁹Chullin 117a. on the verse, Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat,²⁹⁰Further, 7:23. that He prohibited only [that kind of fat like] the fat of the ox which is common to all [i.e., the sheep and the goat, thus excepting the fat of the tail of the sheep, which is not found in the ox], that is a proper interpretation [from which we may clearly know that the tail is permitted to be eaten]! But in order not to give contestants an occasion to dispute [the tradition of the Rabbis], we have had to bring the [other] proofs and arguments which we have written.

לעומת העצה, the kidneys; our sages in Chulin 11 describe how this tissue is to be removed.

חלבו האליה תמימה, “the entire tail;” Nachmanides writes that in classical Hebrew the word חלב refers to fat which is separate, not integrally attached to flesh. The fat that is attached to the flesh is called שומן. This is why in Deut. 32,15, when Moses described Israel waxing fat, i.e. becoming a victim of affluence, he writes וישמן ישורון ויבעט, “that Yeshurun put on fat as a result of which it kicked,” (became unruly and overbearing).” The prophet Isaiah 6,10 speaks of the heart of the Jewish people becoming “fat,” and uses the term השמן לב העם, “the people’s heart grows fat.” The fact is that the tail called אליה does not have any חלב, i.e. separate fat parts at all, whether in name or in substance, whereas it does have שומן, fatty tissue intertwined with the flesh, tissue which is not subject to being separated like the fat which is separated from the kidneys with the membrane which supports it. Seeing that this is so, the wording כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו, “you must not eat any fat or any blood,” does not include the fat that is part of the tail, seeing that the tail does not contain any tissue called חלב. If what we described as שומן, were forbidden under the heading of חלב, practically all the flesh of the animals would be forbidden. We must pay attention to the fact that the Torah did not writeכל חלב אשר תקריבו לא תאכלו, “any ‘fat’ which you offer as sacrifice you must not eat” (when the animal in question had not been sanctified as a prospective sacrifice, Ed.] for if so, the kidneys and the exterior parts of the lungs would be forbidden to us as food, but the Torah wrote: כל בהמה אשר תקריבו ממנה על המזבח, “that the חלב of any sacrificial animal offered on the altar is forbidden to be eaten.” As a result of this distinction, fatty tissue on the spleen, milt, טחול, is also forbidden, even though it has not been presented on the altar under the heading of קרב “innards,” as have the fatty substances enclosed by a separate membrane that was originally attached to lungs and kidneys. The reason is that it too can easily be separated from the spleen itself. The reason why the Torah writes לעמת העצה יסירנה, “the one (fat) that is opposite the flanks,” is that if the tail is removed in its entirety, תמימה, then some fatty substance which qualifies under our definition of חלב is included at its interior end. It is also possible to explain that just as the other verse speaks of ואת כל חלבו, “he is to remove as a sacrifice all its fatty substances from it,” (7,3) that just as in the description of the meat offerings there, [most of which is consumed by its owners, Ed.] when the Torah first uses the term את כל חלבו as a general heading, describing the organs which are covered by such substances in detail later at the same time mentioning the organs themselves, i.e. שתי הכליות, יותרת הכבד, here too the mention of the word אליה does not imply that this part of the body itself contains something defined as חלב.

חלבו האליה תמימה, “the fat thereof, the fat tail in perfect condition, earlier (verse 3) that tail had simply been part of the parts of the animal to be burned up as חלב, fat parts forbidden to be eaten,” the Rabbis derived this from Leviticus 7, 23: כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו, “you must not eat the fat of any ox, sheep or goat.” This means that the type of fat that sheep, oxen and goats have in common must not be eaten. It therefore exempts the fatty tail of a sheep from this prohibition.

לעמת הָעֶצָה — i. e. above the kidneys which give counsel (עֵצָה) (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:22 and Note thereon).

לעמת העצה יסירנה, “which shall be removed close to the backbone.” The word עצה in our verse is a combination of the words עץ and עצה, “wood” and “counsel.” The word עץ is appropriate as it is hard as wood; the word “counsel” is appropriate as it is located near the kidneys the source of man’s “counsel.” The tail is to be removed starting at a point above the kidneys. This is the meaning of (verse 10) על הכליות יסירנה, “he is to remove it above the kidneys.”

'לחם אשה לה‎ means: it is the food of the fire in honour of the Lord. (The translation is not: it is food, a fire offering unto the Lord; לחם is construct, and the words must be translated as Rashi does).

Food of the fire. Meaning: The form of a noun with two segolim under the פ and ע position of the פֶעֶל [such as לֶחֶם] is the same whether it is annexed to the next word or stands alone, and it is unlike the other annexed words that change to the חטף vowel [when annexed to the next word].

לחם is a general expression for food. Similar is, (Jeremiah 11:19) “let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof (בלחמו)”; (Daniel 5:1) “[Belshazzar] made a great banquet (לחם)”; (Ecclesiastes 10:19) “It is for laughter that a banquet (לחם) is made”.

For the sake of the Most High. I.e., the meaning of לה' is “for the sake of Hashem,” but not that one gives to Him, for it already is written (Tehillim 50:12-13): “If I were hungry I would not tell you... [Will I eat the flesh of bulls or do I drink the blood of he-goats?]”

AND IF HIS OFFERING BE A GOAT. He mentions here the species, thus meaning, “if of the species of goats is his offering,” [and thus includes male and female]. This is like the opinion of Onkelos who translated: “and if of the ‘bnei’ (species of) the goats is his offering.” Similarly, that which He said in connection with the burnt-offering, whether of the sheep, or of the goats,²⁹¹Above, 1:10. also means of their species [for since the male of the goats is called tayish, the verse there which speaks of a burnt-offering which can be only a male, must perforce mean “the species of the goats,” which automatically includes the males].
In my opinion²⁹²The above was the interpretation of Ibn Ezra. Hence Ramban now states, “in my opinion … ” the Sacred Language is not particular as to the names of animals, for the majority of them have the same name for both male and female, such as camel, ass, rock-badger, hare, and swine, and among the birds the young pigeon and the turtle-dove. Even among the species which do have different names for the male and female — such as shor and parah (ox and cow), kesev, kisbah (he-lamb, ewe-lamb), tayish and eiz (he-goat and she-goat) — Scripture is not particular, and will sometimes say seh and shor of the female, similar to that which is written, ‘V’shor o seh’ [literally: “and ox or lamb] ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day,²⁹³Further, 22:28. which applies only to the dam and the lamb [it being permissible to slaughter the male parent and its young in one day], in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says²⁹⁴Chullin 78b. The name of the Sage is Rabbi Yehudah. that [in animals] one does not take into consideration the seed of the male parent. Similarly, of ‘ha’izim’ (the goats) for a burnt-offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish,²⁹¹Above, 1:10. means of the t’yashim (the he-goats). And if his offering be an ‘eiz’ (a goat)²⁹⁵Here in Verse 12. means a male or female [since a peace-offering, which is the subject of this verse, can be brought either from the male or the femals]. So also, And if his means suffice not for a ‘seh’ (lamb)²⁹⁶Further, 5:7. means a ewe-lamb or a she-goat [as is expressly stated there in the preceding verse].²⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 6. The section there deals with the offering of higher or lower value, Scripture first stating that where the offender can afford it he should bring as a sin-offering a ewe-lamb or a she-goat. Then follows the verse: And if his means suffice not for a ‘seh’ (lamb). The word seh in this case must perforce mean a ewe-lamb or she-goat. Thus it is proven that Scripture uses the term seh also for the female.

ואם עז קרבנו, If his offering consists of a she-goat, etc. According to Torat Kohanim, the reason why the Torah interrupted the presentation of its subject with the legislation about the goat-offering is to teach that the אליה, fat of the tail, did not have to be included in the part to be offered on the altar (compare 2,9). We must first understand what is meant by "interrupted the subject?" Korban Aharon writes that whereas the Torah should have written here ואם עז, it wrote אם עז. This is obviously erroneous, seeing the Torah does write ואם עז.

ואם עז קרבנו, ”and if his offering is a goat;” according to Nachmanides the word עז describes the species, and does not narrowly refer to the female of the species only. I do not believe that classical Hebrew, i.e. the Holy Tongue, distinguishes between the male and the female of the species of animals as the Torah, generally, lumps together the males and the females, such as when speaking of the גמל, a camel, or יחמור, שפן or ארנבת or חזיר. (Deut. 14) Even those categories in which the Torah does distinguish between the males and the females, such as תיש and עז, or כבש and כבשה, the distinction is even halachically hard to notice such as in the legislation not to slaughter the mother animal and its young on the same day. The Torah in Leviticus 22,25 uses the masculine mode, אותו ואת בנו “him and his son,” although clearly what is meant is “its mother and her young,” seeing that no one is certain about the paternity of the young, [there not having been any D.N.A. tests in those days. Ed.] Some of our sages (Rabbi Yehudah) hold that the Torah does not worry about the semen of the male that fathered the calf or lamb. (Chulin 75). [This depends on the context of the halachic problems involved. Ed.] When the Torah has to address the distinction, for instance in connection with the burnt offering in chapter one, it adds that the gender used for this offering must be the male, i.e. the תיש, in the event the donor chose the species of goats. When the Torah does not specify, either gender of the species referred to is acceptable.

ואם עז קרבנו, and if his offering is a female goat;” any paragraph that has appeared in the Torah and whose basic content has been repeated, was repeated in order to add an additional dimension to it. (Talmud tractate Sotah folio 3) Seeing that the subject of the fatty tail is not applicable to female goats, the Torah interrupted its sequential report in order to repeat the laws concerning offering a female goat.

The ריב"א (Rabbi Yitzchak ben Asher Halevi), writes in a Tossaphot on Pessachim 96 that although the procedure outlined by the Torah for the offering of a goat is identical to that of the category כבש in the preceding paragraph except for the offering of the אליה, the fact that it was accorded a separate paragraph must be viewed as an "interruption." As far as I am concerned what the author of Torat Kohanim had in mind is quite simple. When the Torah dealt with the procedures involving the עולה, the burnt-offering, the Torah wrote a paragraph commencing with the words: "if the burnt offering consists of the flock, either sheep or goats, etc. (1,10)," no separate paragraph is accorded to the goats serving as burnt-offering. If, nonetheless, the Torah wrote a special paragraph when the goats serve as peace-offerings, this must certainly be viewed as "an interruption." It indicates that this paragraph must contain a new הלכה.

The paragraph does not start with the word אם but with the word ואם, to teach that all the laws pertaining to the זבח שלמים, peace-offering sacrifices, outlined previously in the first paragraph of chapter three, apply to such offerings. The only reason that the Torah interrupted its outline of the peace-offerings was to iindicate that the אליה of a goat did not need to be offered on the altar. The reason we know this is that in the enumeration of the details of a peace-offering consisting of a goat (after having listed the details of such offerings when they consisted of sheep), the only detail not mentioned is the reference to the fat of its tail.

As to the absence of mention of an אליה when the Torah described the procedure of a peace-offering consisting of cattle, there was no need to write anything to exclude this as cattle do not possess a tail wich would fit the definition of אליה. Seeing that no one would have imagined that such a tail be offered on the altar even though it was mentioned in the paragraph dealing with sheep, there was no need to write anything which would serve to exclude the tail of the peace-offering consisting of cattle from being offered on the altar. The author of Torat Kohanim was perfectly justified then in writing that the rule about אליה does not apply to cattle, though there is no word in the Torah which excludes it. The rule we had established earlier that when a paragraph starts with the letter ו, the laws mentioned in the former paragraph and those mentioned in the subsequent paragraph are interchangeable, applies only when the anatomical facts enable us to apply these laws to animals mentioned in either paragraph. When such application is impossible due to the animal mentioned in the former paragraph not possessing the anatomical feature in question, we can ignore such considerations. In the case of an offering consisting of a goat, however, the anatomical conditions which apply to sheep also apply to goats. As a result the Torah needed to exclude the אליה of a goat specifically. Had the Torah lumped sheep and goats together as it did in its description of the rules applying to burnt-offerings, we would have assumed that the fat tail of the goat qualified for burning up on the altar. The Torah therefore wrote a special paragraph dealing with the peace-offerings consisting of goats.

חקת עולם This whole verse is well expounded in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 20 6-8).

חקת עולם, a perpetual statute, etc. This verse provides us with the ammunition necessary to prove that not only the חלב, certain fat parts of animals which are being offered on the altar, are forbidden for consumption by Jews, but that those fat parts are equally forbidden when the animal has been designated for consumption as חולין, secular purposes. This is why the Torah writes that this statute applies throughout the generations in all parts of the earth where Jews reside. This part of the verse would not make sense unless the prohibition applied to animals not slaughtered as sacrifices. Torat Kohanim (189) also explains the word חקת עולם as applying לבית העולמים, "when the permanent Temple would be built," whereas it explains the word לדורותיכם as לדירותיכם בכל מושבותיכם בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, "in all your dwellings both inside and outside the Holy Land." Seeing the Torah already wrote that this was a perpetual statute, what need was there for the additional words: "for all your generations in all your dwellings?" Clearly, the words חוקת עולם have to be read as a continuation of כל חלב לשם, (3,16), that all the fat parts are to be be offered on the altar, including the periods when the permanent Temple would be built. The Torah continues that this warning (law) is also applicable for all times and in all places, even in the diaspora. We might have thought that prohibition of these fat parts was a reasonable prohibition while these parts were offered as something sacred on the altar, but that at times when the entire sacrifice legislation was in abeyance due to the absence of a Temple or Tabernacle, such a prohibition did not make sense; we might also have argued that this legislation should apply only in locations where the Tabernacle or Temple was situated but not in other locations; the Torah therefore had to write that it applies unconditionally and universally. [The thought presented here by our author that there was a case for arguing that this fat should be permitted, may be based on the fact that the Torah permitted meat not offered on the altar (Deut. 12,20) after the Israelites settled in the Holy Land, while in the desert no meat other than sacrificial meat was permitted for general consumption. Ed.]

בכל מושבותיכם כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו, even in those locations where you eat secular meat, i.e. meat from animals which were not offered on the altar as sacrificial meat. Although none of the fat or blood of those animals was destined for the altar, it is still forbidden.

The entire verse is well explained in Toras Kohanim. They learned from this that the prohibition of fats is even in the everlasting house [the Beis HaMikdash], during the time it is standing and also when it is destroyed, in the Land of Israel and outside the Land. Thus it is explained in the first Perek of Kiddushin (37b).

'כל חלב לה, “all fat parts are G-d’s.” This is a law applicable at all times. When the Temple stood, i.e. Solomon’s Temple, when these fat parts were burned on the altar, these parts were not allowed to be eaten even by the priests.

As an everlasting statute. If only the one who commands a law knows its reason, but it cannot be understood in terms of nature, ethics, or reason, it is called a חוק, from the language of being engraved (חקיקה) on a wooden or stone tablet. The source of this expression is that a law obligated by nature, ethics, or reason cannot be forgotten, but if its reason is unclear it can easily be forgotten in time. Therefore, it would have to be written down to save it from being forgotten or changed. Still, it could be erased over time, so they would engrave the law on a long-lasting stone tablet (HaKesav veHaKabbalah).

The Torah added the word: לדורותיכם, “throughout your generations,” to make clear that this prohibition continues in force even after the Temple no longer functioned. Should you think that this prohibition applied only in the Land of Israel, the Torah added the words: בכל מושבותיכם, “wherever you will dwell.”

כל חלב, “all fat,” [that used to be burned upon the altar Ed.] the reader will take note that wherever the Torah discusses the subject of animal offerings, it repeats its warning that Israelites must not eat either חלב or דם, “such fat, or blood.” We must learn not to assume that seeing that something is fit to be presented to the King of Kings, it must logically also be acceptable to the King’s subjects. However, the Torah prohibits only consumption of these parts of an animal. It does not forbid making other use of it, or even trading in it.

That is that He commanded us with the process of the sin-offering sacrifice, according to the description that is mentioned - whatever sin-offering it may be. And that is His saying, "This is the law of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18). And in Leviticus, it is also explained how it is offered, what is burnt from it and what is to be eaten. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 6.)

That is that He commanded us with the process of the peace-offering sacrifices - according to the description that is mentioned - with His saying, "And if his sacrifice is a sacrifice of peace-offerings" (Leviticus 3:1). And He said further with the completion of the process, "And this is the law of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings [...]. If he offers it for thanksgiving" (Leviticus 7:11-12). These four processes - meaning the process of the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, the guilt-offering and the peace offerings - are all the processes of sacrifices. For all animal sacrifices that are sacrificed by an individual or the community are perforce one of these four types. However the guilt-offering is exceptional, in that it is always the sacrifice of an individual - as we have explained many times. And Tractate [Zevachim] also includes the laws of these four commandments, and those things which are connected to them by being similar to them in terms of obligation and exemption; the disqualified process and the one done properly. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 9.)