Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 7:25

FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THE FAT OF THE BEAST, OF WHICH MAN PRESENTS AN OFFERING … SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE. It is impossible that the explanation of the phrase: of the beast [of which man presents an offering], is that this beast is itself an offering, so that an unconsecrated animal be excluded from this prohibition, since in the section of Vayikra, Scripture has already prohibited all fat in an unqualified manner,¹³²Above, 3:17. without any condition or exception. Here too it prohibited at first all fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,¹³³Verse 23. and it further decreed against eating the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts,¹³⁴Verse 24. and these cannot be brought as offerings to G-d. Besides, He said there [in the section of Vayikra], It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings,¹³⁵Above, 3:17. and the expression in all your dwellings is never found in any matter connected with offerings. In speaking of the gifts of the priests He says many times, a statute forever,¹³⁶Ibid., 6:11, etc. but does not mention “in all your dwellings,” because the offerings are not “a statute forever in all your dwellings,” as they only apply in the Tabernacle and in the place which the Eternal shall choose.¹³⁷Deuteronomy 12:14. A reference to the Sanctuary in Shiloh and to its final location in Jerusalem.
Let not the eyes of him who is mistaken¹³⁸The allusion is to Ibn Ezra who in Verse 20 wrote that the phrase in all your dwellings refers also to the offerings (see the verse mentioned in the text with reference to the new produce, and also the following note). be blinded by the verse, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your G-d; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.¹³⁹Further, 23:14. On the basis of this verse Ibn Ezra argued that in all your dwellings applies also to the offerings, since the verse refers to the omer (a measure of new barley brought as a meal-offering on the second day of Passover). But Ramban answers that the phrase refers not to the omer, but to the new crop which, through the offering of the omer, was henceforth permitted to be eaten (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 186-188). It is to this prohibition of eating of the new crop before the bringing of the omer [or before the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], that the phrase in all your dwellings refers. Hence the phrase in all your dwellings which is stated in connection with the prohibitions against eating fat and blood (above, 3:17) must perforce mean that they are applicable everywhere, independent of the existence of the Sanctuary and its offerings. For it is eating of the new crop that is forbidden by law of the Torah in all places, and Scripture is saying that we are not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears forever in all our dwelling places, until that same day on which we bring the offering of the new barley in the Sanctuary. If the offering is not brought [as when the Sanctuary is destroyed], it does not become forbidden henceforth to eat of the new crop [i.e., after the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], for He did not say, “ye shall not eat until ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” but instead the prohibition extends until this selfsame day only. Rather, the meaning of until this selfsame day is the one on which you bring the offering when you are in a position to do so, the reason being that the offering should be a new meal-offering [but when you are not able to bring the offering, as when the Sanctuary is destroyed, the prohibition is only until this selfsame day]. It is possible that the word hayom (the day) is connected also with [the latter part of the verse:] “until this selfsame day, until the day ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” [thus clearly indicating that the prohibition depends on the day the offering is brought, and not on the actual bringing thereof].
The complete proof that the explanation of the phrase [in the verse before us] the beast of which man presents an offering, is “of the kind of beast from which man presents an offering,” [and not “of the beast which is itself an actual offering,” so that the unconsecrated beast would be excluded from the prohibition against eating of the fat thereof,] is that it says also in the section on valuations, And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Eternal, all that any man giveth of such unto the Eternal shall be holy,¹⁴⁰Further, 27:9. and it explains that this means the kind of beast whereof men bring an offering to G-d. And so also, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 11. here clearly stating, “any unclean beast of the kind from which offerings are not brought.” There is no difference whatever between stating it in the plural — whereof men bring,¹⁴⁰Further, 27:9. of which they may not bring¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 11. — or saying it in the singular [as in the verse before us], of which man presents, for the meaning is “the kind of beast of which man presents an offering.” Similarly He said, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die,¹⁴²Further, 11:39. which means the kind of beast of which ye may eat, but not that the particular beast may be eaten [since it is expressly prohibited as meat, as it died without being slaughtered properly].
Now since He prohibited all fat of a beast whereof an offering is brought, but not of the kind of which offerings are not brought, it might enter one’s mind to say that a beast which died of itself or was torn [by other beasts] is regarded as a kind from which offerings may not be brought [and therefore their fats may be eaten]; therefore it was necessary to mention [in Verse 24] that [the fats of these animals] are forbidden, and it is this which He said, and ye shall in no wise eat of it,¹³⁴Verse 24. meaning that he who eats it is liable to excision as with all other fats, as He forbade the fat of the entire class of beasts from which offerings are brought, even of those animals which died of themselves or were torn by [wild] beasts. He states, they may be used for any other service,¹³⁴Verse 24. meaning to say that [the fat of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn by beasts] has no law of uncleanness of carrion [but is like ordinary food which has become unclean],¹⁴³Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatum’oth, 1:5. for since He said, and their carcasses ye shall not touch,¹⁴⁴Further, 11:8. He states concerning the fat thereof that one may touch it and use it for any other service. Now if the prohibition of eating fat would apply only to that of actual offerings, why was it necessary to say there in the section of Vayikra, Ye shall not eat any fat,¹³²Above, 3:17. when He had already commanded [in the preceding verse] that it be brought up on the altar as a sweet savor, and how could we eat of the fire-offering of G-d? Why did He not also prohibit the eating of the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys, which are removed from the offerings [and burnt on the altar — yet these may be eaten in the case of ordinary clean animals because they do not come under the term cheilev (fat)].¹⁴⁵See Ramban above, 3:9. Ramban is here arguing that if the prohibition against eating fats is restricted to those offered on the altar, why do we find no prohibition in connection with the other parts offered on the altar. Moreover, why was it necessary to mention here, Ye shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,¹³³Verse 23. when it is known that offerings can be brought only from them [it thus being obvious that the prohibition of cheilev applies to all clean animals — hallowed or unhallowed]! The reason why Scripture said concerning dedicated offerings that became invalidated [because of a blemish they received, in which case they are redeemed and may then be slaughtered and eaten as ordinary food], Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof,¹⁴⁶Deuteronomy 15:23. Ramban’s explanation of this subject is found there in 12:22. and did not mention anything concerning the fat, I shall explain when G-d helps me to reach there.

מן הבהמה, from the beast, etc. This apparently superfluous word is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including the fat of animals each one of which would have been suitable as a sacrifice, and which have been crossbred, such as the product of a billy-goat mating with a ewe or vice versa; the fat of animals which are the product of such crossbreeding is unfit to eat on pain of the Karet penalty. The apparently extraneous word כל in the sequence כל חלב refers to an animal called כוי which is the product of a male goat mating with a gazelle. In my book פרי תואר in which I have commented on the טור יורה דעה טז you will find more about this subject.

מן הבהמה אשר יקריב, from the category of animal one may bring a sacrifice, even if in this instance the animal remained secular, had not been designated as a sacrifice.

כי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה קרבן לה', “for any one who eats of the fat parts of the animal which he offers to Hashem as a sacrifice, etc.” The verse does not refer to the actual animal that has been offered as a sacrifice, so that it would exclude animals that have not been sanctified as offerings from this prohibition, but to the categories of animals which may potentially be offered as sacrifices on the altar. The fact that the fat of an animal that has already been offered as a sacrifice is forbidden on pain of the karet penalty when it is done deliberately, certainly does not need to be mentioned here. Even in Parshat Vayikra (3,17) the verse כל חלב... לא תאכלו would not have been necessary seeing that the Torah had already commanded that it be burned up on the altar. The principal reason for our verse here is to indicate that the fat parts of free roaming animals such as gazelles, deer, etc., which basically are allowed to be eaten, although capturing them unblemished may be difficult, are excluded from the prohibition. We might have thought that the categories of animals referred to as חיה that is a sub category of the ruminants described by the Torah as בהמה are included in this prohibition. By ”repeating” something we knew already, the Torah by emphasizing the words בהמה and יקריב, makes clear that free-roaming ruminants that do not qualify for יקריב are also not subject to the restriction of חלב. In order for us not to think that the חלב of an animal that died of causes other than ritual slaughter, i.e. a נבלה or an animal that died from some disease or injury, i.e. טרפה, is excluded from the legislation mentioned here, the Torah writes that although these carcasses may be used, they must not be eaten. (verse 24) The complete meaning of our verse is: the חלב of any category of animal from which a sacrifice on the altar may be presented to Hashem, including those which have become disqualified before reaching the altar, must not be eaten on pain of the severe penalty known as karet.

מן הבהמה אשר יקריב ממנה, “who eats (fat) from the beast which people use to present as offerings;” from that species of beast, although it had never been sanctified as a potential sacrifice. This teaches that fat parts not used exclusively for the altar may be eaten.

כל אוכל חלב, anyone eating such fat, etc. The word כל is interpreted by Torat Kohanim as including the fat of animals which are not intended to become sacrificial offerings. We should not err and conclude from the words אשר יקריב ממנו אשה לה׳ that only חלב of such sacrificial animals is prohibited; therefore the Torah adds the word כל אוכל חלב. Seeing this inclusive word is not required to warn those who would eat it, it may be applied to the parts of the animal subject to being eaten.

It seems rather difficult to understand why I would have made such an error and would have thought that without the word כל the Torah's injunction would have applied only to בשר קדשים, sacrificial animals. After all, the Torah mentioned specifically that the fat of a נבלה an animal which died by causes other than ritual slaughter may be used for the performance of all kinds of work but may not be eaten (24)? Besides, since when are the remnants of sacrificial animals permitted for use by non-priests? Does the Talmud not state specifically in Pessachim 82 that if an animal intended as a sacrifice was found to be treyfah after it has been slaughtered, such an animal has to be removed to a place called בית השרפה, to be burned there? We derive this from Leviticus 6,23 בקדש באש תשרף. This teaches that all sacrificial animals which have become unfit for the altar have to be destroyed. In view of this the words וחלב נבלה וחלב טרפה in verse 24 must refer to animals not intended as sacrificial offerings. Why then did the Torah have to write the words כל אוכל חלב to prevent me from making an error as to the prohibition of חלב applying to ordinary animals? We believe the main point Torat Kohanim wanted to make with its למוד from the words כל אוכל חלב is that the penalty of Karet applies both to someone who partakes of fat from sacrificial animals and to someone who partakes from the fat of ordinary animals. If not for the words כל חלב, I would have assumed that the prohibition is an ordinary negative commandment punishable by 39 מלקות lashes.

כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו "You shall not eat any fat of ox, sheep or goat. Torat Kohanim on this verse comments that the list of these animals is intended to exclude the prohibition of חלב from animals not suitable for consumption by Jews, בהמות טמאות, as well as free-roaming animals and fowl. In Chulin 116 Rabbi Mori is reported as having asked Rabbi Zvid if the fat-tail אליה of the sheep was considered חלב and therefore prohibited. Rabbi Zvid answered: "because of people who ask questions such as you have just asked the Torah wrote the verse כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו, to make clear that the term חלב applies only to the kind of fat which these three categories of animals have in common." How could Rabbi Zvid give such an answer seeing we have already used the animals mentioned in that verse for a different למוד, namely to exclude three other categories of animals? If the Torah had not written verse 23 to exclude the three categories of animals mentioned by Torat Kohanim, we would have learned a קל וחומר, i.e. used logic to arrive at the opposite conclusion as explained by Torat Kohanim on that verse. Perhaps we could have derived the exclusion of those three categories of animals from the words אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לשם. These words would already have excluded both fowl (of which only two species may be used as an offering) and impure animals which are totally unfit as offerings, as well as free-roaming animals which are not suitable as offerings for different considerations although they may be consumed by Jews if ritually slaughtered, etc. Alternatively, once the Torah had specifically excluded impure animals and free-roaming beasts, the Torah made it plain that the קל וחומר which was based on the comparison with the prohibition to eat blood which applies to all of the three categories of animals alike although certain other disqualifications do not apply to it, is not to be applied here. You will find that Rashi's commentary on the Mishnah in Chulin 117 follows a similar path. It is important to take a good look at the next verse.

מן הבהמה, from the beasts; Torat Kohanim derives from this expression also that animals not intended to serve as sacrifices due to a physical blemish are nevertheless included in the legislation forbidding the consumption of their חלב, the fat parts offered on the altar, if they had been used as sacrifices. Although the Torah had already specifically prohibited the חלב of animals which have not been slaughtered ritually or of animals which were found defective after slaughtering (although these animals too were unfit for the altar and I could have used that fact to apply the legislation to said חולין בעלי מומין), this would not have been conclusive. According to Maimonides there is no biblical prohibition against a treyfah animal being offered on the altar (Issurey Mizbeach chapter 2). This prohibition is based only on Maleachi 1,8 that "G'd would reject an offering which does not reflect our high regard for Him seeing we would not dare offer something inferior to our governor." Accordingly, a special verse was needed to include treyfah animals. It is true that Torat Kohanim on the same two words in Leviticus 1,2 mentions the exclusion of treyfah animals; however, this is only an אסמכתא a "lean to;" it is not the kind of exegesis which is binding as has been explained in that connection by the author of Kesef Mishneh. At any rate, seeing that a נבלה is prohibited as an offering by a biblical injunction because the Torah wrote the word ושחט, "he must slaughter the animal," in connection with every sacrifice, why was there a need to use the words מן הבהמה to include the categories mentioned by Torat Kohanim? We have to answer again that what Torat Kohanim had in mind was that the same penalty Karet which applies to someone who partakes of the fat of the sacrificial animal also applies to someone eating the fat parts of an ordinary animal which had become unfit as a sacrifice.

אשר יקריב ממנה אשה לשם, from which he will offer a sacrifice to the Lord; Torat Kohanim, which zeroes in on the apparently extraneous words אשר יקריב, concludes that the Torah refers to the type of חלב which is suitable for burning up on the altar; it excludes the kind of חלב of the walls of the animal's cavities and fat on the ribs which is not suitable for the altar. According to this reasoning which uses the words כל חלב שור וכשב ועז to exclude application of the prohibition to eat the fat of impure animals and the like, the words אשר יקריב were not needed, and they were therefore available to exclude such fats as is on the ribs of the animal from the application of the prohibition to eat חלב.

From where does Rabbi Zvid who used the words שור וכשב ועז to permit eating of the fat on the אליה, the fat part of the tail of the sheep, derive permission to eat also from the fat on the ribs, etc.? At the same time we may ask where the sage who derives permission to eat the fat of the אליה from the words שור וכשב ועז, finds a source for permitting consumption of such fat as that on the ribs, etc.? We may have to conclude that Rabbi Zvid holds that the words אשר יקריב exclude not only such animals as impure beasts, free-roaming animals and fowl from the prohibition of חלב, but also exempt fat on such parts of the animal as the ribs from the application of this law. The reasoning is simply that not only any animal but any part of an animal not burned up on the altar is excluded from this injunction. The author of Torat Kohanim also arrives at the same exclusion using the words שור וכשב ועז as excluding also the אליה from this injunction. If the verse had wanted to exclude only impure animals, birds and wild-roaming animals, it would have had to mention only שור וכשב. As soon as we would exempt even a single type of animal from the prohibition of eating חלב though the prohibition of eating of its blood still applied to it, the whole basis for the קל וחומר which Torat Kohanim wanted to refute by the Torah's use of the extraneous words מן הבהמה had already disappeared. We would have excluded such animals as חיה ועוף automatically. If the Torah nonetheless wrote extra words, such words may be used exegetically, i.e. to exclude the fat on the ribs. The three words שור כשב and עז would between them have excluded only the fat of the אליה from the prohibition of eating חלב.

Why then did Rabbi Zvid disagree with the author of Torat Kohanim who derived the exclusion of the fat of impure animals, free-roaming animals, and birds from the words שור וכשב ועז? The author concludes that the principal exclusion of such animals as the impure, the free-roaming ones, and the birds is derived from the words שור וכשב ועז. He does not therefore accept the view of Rashi on the Mishnah in Chulin 117 which he quoted earlier.