כִּ֣י אִם־בַּמָּק֞וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁבָטֶ֔יךָ שָׁ֖ם תַּעֲלֶ֣ה עֹלֹתֶ֑יךָ וְשָׁ֣ם תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּֽךָּ׃
mais uniquement au lieu que l’Éternel aura choisi dans l’une de tes tribus, là, tu offriras tes holocaustes, là, tu accompliras tout ce que je t’ordonne.
Kli Yakar
“And he took from the stones of the place and put them at his head, etc.” After he realized that this place would become the House of God which dims the sun’s orbit, he therefore took from the stones of the place and placed them as protection for his head, to demonstrate the beloved holiness upon them, as it is written For Your servants desire its stones (Psalms 102:15). He took 12 stones corresponding to the 12 tribes, as it appears in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 68:11), and the stones quarreled, each one saying “Upon me shall the righteous one rest his head,” until they became one stone. This hints to the future, as written by the Guide for the Perplexed, that the Holy One Blessed be He concealed the location that would become the place of the Temple and the King’s palace so there wouldn’t be quarreling between the tribes, as each tribe would desire that holy place. For the sake of peace it was said that the Lord will choose from all your tribes (Deuteronomy 12:5) and it is written only in the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribes (Deuteronomy 12:14). How so? When David bought the threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite, he collected money from all the tribes, as Rashi explains there. Therefore, this quarrel that occurred between the stones which ultimately became one stone was a sign and marker for the future, that likewise there would be a quarrel between the crown stones — the 12 tribes of God — as each tribe would say “upon me shall the Righteous One of the world rest His head,” referring to the Temple, about which it is said From the beginning, exalted, was the place of our sanctuary (Jeremiah 17:12). Eventually they became one stone through David collecting gold from all of them. Regarding this stone, it was said about the Second Temple And he shall bring forth the headstone (Zechariah 4:7), meaning the very stone that was at Jacob’s head was brought forth to establish God’s Temple. Jacob made it into a bed to lie upon, to be a sign that this would be “the bed of Solomon” — the king to whom peace belongs — as Rashi explains in Song of Songs on the verse Behold, it is Solomon’s bed (Song of Songs 3:7).
Rashi
בכל מקום אשר תראה IN EVERY PLACE THAT “THOU” SEEST — i.e., that enters thy mind, but thou mayest offer anywhere by the command of a prophet, as, for instance, Elijah did on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:21 ff.) (Sifrei Devarim 70:3).
Ramban
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.
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.