Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 3:9

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.”

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.)