레위기 7:24의 주석

יעשה לכל מלאכה [AND THE FAT OF CARRION AND THE FAT OF THAT WHICH IS TORN] MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK — Scripture comes and teaches you with regard to חלב (the forbidden fat) of carrion that it does not acquire the “uncleanness of carrion” (‎‏טומאת נבלות), i.e. that whilst the flesh is unclean (cf. Leviticus 11:39) the fat (חלב) does not acquire this uncleanness (cf. Sifra, Tzav, Section 10 5; Pesachim 23a, b).

[Fat ...] does not acquire uncleanness. Meaning: If [the verse came] to permit deriving benefit, [it would be unnecessary] since one is permitted to derive benefit from a נבלה (the carcass of an animal which has been slaughtered improperly), as it is written (Devarim 14:21): “To the stranger that is in your gates...” thus, the fat is also included. Perforce, it comes [to teach] that the fat does not cause impurity of נבלה and may even be used for oiling the hides of animals dedicated to the Temple upkeep. For this reason it is written, “may be used for any purpose.”

תאכלוה ‎לא ‎‏ ואכל[AND THE FAT OF CARRION … MAY BE USED IN ANY WORK] BUT YE SHALL IN NO WISE EAT OF IT — By these words it is not intended to forbid the eating of the חלב of a נבלה and טרפה because it is חלב for this has already been forbidden in Leviticus 3:17, but the Torah in effect says here: The prohibition of eating נבלה or טרפה shall come and fall upon (shall form an additional prohibition to) that of חלב — that if one eats it (the חלב of נבלה or of טרפה) he becomes liable to the punishment for transgressing the prohibition of נבלה also, (or of טרפה also), and you should not say: No prohibition can be super-imposed upon another prohibition already existing (Zevachim 70a).

And fall on the prohibition of חלב. [Although Rashi writes, “he will be liable for the prohibition of נבלה”] the same applies to the prohibition of טריפה (an animal which died of natural causes, or would have died of such causes had it not been slaughtered). Rashi needs to mention both of these examples: the fat of a נבלה and the fat of a טריפה, for if it let us know only נבלה, I would say that regarding נבלה a prohibition falls on another prohibition because it acquires a severe impurity, but regarding טריפה it does not. And if it let me know only concerning טריפה, [I would say that regarding טריפה] a prohibition falls on another prohibition because it is a prohibited while still alive, but regarding נבלה it is not. For this reason, both are necessary.