Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 12:22

אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי וגו׳ BUT ONLY AS THE GAZELLE [AND THE HART] IS EATEN, [SO THOU SHALT EAT THEM] — i.e. thou art not admonished to eat them in a state of cleanness as is the case with sacrifices which you slaughter in a holy place; if, however, you will argue: How is the case with the gazelle and the hart? Their fat is permitted as food; so, too, is the fat of non-consecrated domestic animals (חולין) permitted! Then I reply: Scripture says אך (which word has a limitative force and thus indicates that חולין are not to be treated like the gazelle and the hart in every respect) (cf. Bekhorot 15a).

ACH’ (BUT) ONLY AS THE GAZELLE AND AS THE HART IS EATEN, SO THOU SHALT EAT THEM. This means as he explains [at the end of this verse], the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike. Since He had commanded in the wilderness that they may not eat of the herd and flock except as peace-offerings and He warned them that the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Eternal, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off,⁶⁶Leviticus 7:20. he states here that [upon coming into the Land] one may eat the meat of unconsecrated animals with the full desire of his soul, and [further that] he may eat it from one vessel together with an unclean person just as, in the wilderness, they may eat the gazelle and the hart which may not be offered upon the altar. Now, the expression as the gazelle and as the hart does not mean that one may eat the fat of unconsecrated animals just as he may eat the fat of the gazelle and the hart [from which all the fat may be eaten], since the verse speaks only of the manner of eating [as if to say:] in the same way that you eat the gazelle and the hart so may you eat the meat which you slaughter in all places. The verse does not state “whatever is eaten of the gazelle and the hart, you may eat of the unconsecrated animals.” Therefore, [in order to avoid the misconception that all fat of unconsecrated animals may be eaten] he explains everywhere the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike,⁶⁷Here in Verse 22 before us, and further, 15:22. and says nowhere [only] “they may eat it as the gazelle and the hart,” in order [to make it clear] that the fat should not be included [in the comparison of unconsecrated animals to the hart and gazelle].
Now the word ach [but — ‘But’ only as the gazelle etc.] constitutes an admonition: since at first it was forbidden to eat [meat] except for the peace-offerings that were slaughtered in [the court of] the Tabernacle, and now, when he made it permissible to slaughter and eat in their cities after all the desire of thy soul, it might have appeared that one may eat it as unconsecrated meat and [if one wishes] even as consecrated meat, as was originally permitted [before the Tabernacle was erected], offering [the blood and the fat] on a bamah (high place). Therefore he stated and warned, But only as the gazelle and the hart, so thou shalt eat them, meaning that you may offer of them neither fat nor blood [on the bamah] and that you should not handle it in the manner of consecrated meat and not warn unclean people away from them at all.
He had to mention Only you should not eat the blood⁶⁸Verses 16, 23-25. for many reasons. For at first He said with reference to the prohibition of eating blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls,⁶⁹Leviticus 17:11. from which it might appear that blood that does not atone, [such as that of] an unconsecrated animal, would not be prohibited; therefore, it was necessary to prohibit it clearly. In the case of fat, however, Scripture did not mention [such a reason for] its prohibition thereof; and [in the case of an unconsecrated animal] not all fat which is burned on the altar as the sacrificial portion of the offering is forbidden, nor is every part [of an offering] that is not burned on the altar permitted to be eaten [in the case of an unconsecrated animal], as I have written in its place.⁷⁰Ibid., 3:9. Hence it was unnecessary to say that certain fats of an unconsecrated animal may not be eaten. Moreover, since he commanded here that we slaughter [the unconsecrated animal] and warned that we eat it in the same manner as the gazelle and the hart, it might have appeared that we are to cover its blood just as we have been commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart;⁷¹When a clean fowl or a permissible wild animal is slaughtered, the blood must be covered with dust (ibid., 17:13). This law does not apply to cattle. Now, since Scripture compares the unconsecrated animal to the gazelle and the hart which are in the class of wild animals we might have reasoned that the law of covering the blood also applies to unconsecrated animals; therefore it became necessary etc. therefore it became necessary [to repeat the prohibition against blood in order] to permit the pouring out of the blood upon the earth as water⁷²Verse 24. without covering it, [a permissibility that was not apparent in the original prohibition in Leviticus 17:11]. This is the sense of the expression ‘upon’ the earth,⁷²Verse 24. not “into” the earth [which would have implied] that “we cover it with dust.” And since it was necessary to mention the permission of [pouring out] the blood [without covering it] he introduced it by stating the prohibition [against eating it]. Additionally, Scripture feared lest we [mistakenly] reason concerning blood as follows: In the wilderness at a time when all their herds and flocks were peace-offerings, the meat was forbidden to be eaten until the priest would sprinkle the blood upon the altar, for such is the law of the offerings; thus the blood prevented them from eating the meat; and he further commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart that, because they are not brought as offerings, we must cover their blood with dust, and so also the blood of a fowl⁷³Leviticus 17:13. because a fowl may not be offered as a peace-offering. And if so [it would logically follow that] we be required to cover the blood of cattle that were slaughtered because one desired meat, or that we eat [the blood] together with the meat by stabbing the animal [instead of ritual slaughtering, in which case a large flow of blood would be avoided] and the blood would not be seen in the open field,⁷⁴Ibid., Verse 5. for it would be more seemly that it be permissible even to eat pure blood than to pour it out upon the ground so that they shall not offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray.⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. Therefore he said that one should slaughter the herd and flock [by means of ritual slaughtering despite the abundant flow of blood] and not eat the blood with the meat through stabbing or by cutting a limb from a living animal; instead, one is to pour the blood upon the earth and not be apprehensive over it, but he must not eat it, neither alone nor with the meat. For this reason it was necessary to mention this law once more⁷⁶Further, 16:23: Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it out upon the ground as water. in the case of a blemished firstling, because at first [when the firstling was yet perfect] the blood thereof was to be sprinkled upon the altar, and, therefore, it was necessary to state that when it is blemished [and thus no longer fit for the altar] they should not treat its blood with sanctity, nor with permissibility, but they are to pour it out like water and not eat it.
It appears to me as a reason for this matter that at first when they were in the desert, a howling wilderness,⁷⁷Ibid., 32:10. a place where satyrs dance there,⁷⁸Isaiah 13:21. and all those who came forth from Egypt were accustomed [to sacrifice to these satyrs], He forbade that the blood be seen in the open field and also to slaughter at all, except before the Tabernacle of G-d in order to wean them from that sin. But upon coming into the Land, when it was necessary to permit them meat of desire due to the distance from the Sanctuary, he did not fear that the blood of the herd and flock might be poured upon the ground in their homes. However, in the case of the wild animal and fowl which one traps in the field and forest, and it is customary to slaughter them there and bring them home already slaughtered, he left the commandment as it was, to cover their blood with dust, in order that they should not offer it to the satyrs. Now the Midrash of our Rabbis on the verses, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood,⁷⁹Verse 23. and Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee⁸⁰Verse 25. is a very fitting one and is appropriate to the language of Scripture, that they had a great passion for [eating blood].⁸¹Sifre, R’eih 76. Therefore all these admonitions were necessary, and so much more was it necessary to mention the prohibition [against eating blood] although he did not mention the prohibition of eating [forbidden] fat.
Now, it is true that this comment of our Rabbis suffices as a reason for the many admonitions that Scripture states [about blood]. Yet the expression which he said, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood⁷⁹Verse 23. is not clear to me, for what steadfastness and courage are there required to guard against [eating] blood? It would have been proper that he indicate its stringency by stating, “Take heed to yourself not to eat the blood.” Now, we find the term “steadfastness” with reference to [all] the commandments, as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua, Only be steadfast and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee,⁸²Joshua 1:7. and so did Joshua say to Israel, Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses.⁸³Ibid., 23:6. Now these expressions [found in Joshua] refer to all the commandments, to keep, alluding to the negative commandments, and to do, alluding to the positive commandments. But pertaining to a single commandment there is nowhere found such an expression, for, indeed, what need is there for “steadfastness” in a matter which requires only “to sit and not do” something forbidden by one of the negative commandments? But it appears to me that he mentioned steadfastness [in this prohibition against eating blood] for the reason that they were attached to blood in Egypt: that they always slaughtered their sacrifices to the satyrs, as it is written, And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray⁷⁵Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. and it is further stated, They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods.⁸⁴Further, 32:17. Now, the worship [of these satyrs] consisted of eating from the blood of the sacrifices, because the blood would cause the demons to assemble and they [the worshippers] would eat over it and from it, as if they were invited by the demons to eat at the table of those demons and they become attached to them. This has already been mentioned in the book Moreh Nebuchim.⁸⁵Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. This is not the main reason for the prohibition of eating blood, for Scripture itself explains the reason thereof, that the blood is the life, as is mentioned in the section Acharei Moth.⁸⁶Leviticus 17:11-12. But from this verse here it is clear that they were engrossed in it, and very much in pursuit of it, and they used to prophesy by means of it and tell of things to come. Therefore the verse proceeds and warns that if one should hear from blood-eaters any future event and the sign or the wonder come to pass⁸⁷Further, 13:3. his heart should not be enticed but instead hold fast to his integrity⁸⁸Job 2:3. and his belief in G-d, and he should by no means eat of the blood nor cover up this practice [i.e., justifying it by some means]; he is not to be afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks,⁸⁹Ezekiel 2:6. for they are vanity, a work of delusion.⁹⁰Jeremiah 10:15. Thus he warned here in the same manner that was used in admonishing concerning the false prophet⁹¹Further, 13:2-6. because of his deceptions.

אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי, in a place that has not been consecrated.

אך כאשר יאכל את הצבי ואת האיל, “However only in the manner in which the deer or hart may be eaten;” seeing that while in the desert only peace-offerings could be eaten by laymen, not venison, which by definition are not fit for offering on the altar, the former are subject not to be consumed while one is in a state of ritual impurity, a restriction that does not apply to eating venison of the permitted categories.

You are not admonished to eat them in ritual purity, etc. [We might think:] Non-sacrificial animals eaten to satisfy one’s appetite, from a species that is offered as a sacrifice, must be eaten in ritual purity — just as the sacrificial meat. This would be similar to the fats of non-sacrificial meat which we are forbidden to eat because they are from a species that is offered as a sacrifice. [Therefore, the phrase, “As the deer and the gazelle,”] teaches us otherwise.

V. 22. אך כאשר יאכל וגו׳. Obgleich nun fortan selbst opferfähige Tiere fern vom Heiligtum geschlachtet und als solche ganz der זביחה wie קדשים unterliegen, so tragen sie doch ganz wie auch bisher opferunfähige Tiere, צבי ואיל, den vollen חוליןCharakter und entfallen bei deren Genuss die Vorschriften der טומאה und רש׳׳י) טהרה, siehe Misrachi). Jedoch nur in Beziehung auf diese טומאה- und טהרה-Gesetze stehen sie צבי ואיל gleich. Der חלב-Genuss bleibt bei בהמת חולין jeder Art, auch bei durch פסול und פדיון wieder חולין gewordenen קדשים, verboten (siehe Wajikra 7, 25). Auf diese Beschränkung der Gleichstellung mit צבי ואיל weist, nach einer Auffassung Bechorot 15 a, die adversative Konjunktion אך. Es ist sehr bemerkenswert, dass, nach Auffassung der Weisen, diese adversative Konjunktion nicht sowohl eine Beschränkung des vorhergehenden, als vielmehr eine Beschränkung des mit ihr eingeleiteten Satzes enthält. So auch אך את שבתתי תשמרו יכול לכל (אפילו לפקוח נפש) ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Joma 85 a), אך אל הפרוכת לא יבא יכול לא יהו כהנים בעלי מומין נכנסין וגו׳ לעשות ריקועי פחים ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Erubin 105 a), פרה תפדה יכול אפי׳ נטרף בתוך ל׳ ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Baba Kama 11 b), והיית אך שמח לרבות לילי י׳׳ט אחרון או אינו אלא י׳׳ט ראשון ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Sucka 48 a), אך ביום הראשון תשביתו יכול מצפרא ת׳׳ל אך חלק (Peßachim 5 a), תאמר ליה׳׳כ שמכפר על מזיד כשוגג יכול יכפר על שבים ועל שאינן שבים ת׳׳ל אך בעשור וגו׳ חלק (Schebuot 12 a), יכול אף ולד כל הקדשים כן ת׳׳ל אך בכור וגו׳ חלק (Temura 25 a). Diese sprachliche Erscheinung bedarf noch einer eingehenden Untersuchung. Da in einigen dieser Sätze und auch sonst mit אך eine Rede eingeleitet wird, ohne dass ein Satz vorangeht, der dadurch beschränkt werden, sollte, wie אך את שבתתי (Schmot 31, 13), אך בעשור (Wajikra 28, 27), so ja auch אך טוב לישראל (Ps. 73. 1), so dürfte vielleicht selbst als adversative Konjunktion genommen bei אך immer eine Ausnahme von dem damit eingeleiteten Satze suppliert sein, der gegenüber als Regel dieser Satz aufrecht gehalten wäre. In dem Sinne: es gibt eine Ausnahme (פיקוח נפש), doch, אך, als Regel gilt את שבתתו תשמרו. Es gibt eine Ausnahme (שאינן שבים), doch, אך für alle sonstigen Beziehungen בעשור וגו׳ יום כיפורים. So auch hier: es gibt eine Ausnahme (חלב), doch, אך, in allem übrigen ׳כאשר יאכל הצבי וגו. Somit würde mit אך immer eine Beschränkung, מיעוט, des damit eingeleiteten Satzes vorausgesetzt. וצע׳׳ע.

הטמא והטהור יחדו, “the ritually impure together with the ritually pure.” Moses does not suggest that they both eat from the same bowl, as that would result in the ritually pure person becoming contaminated with a degree of the impurity of the ritually impure person. But they can both eat meat which was duly slaughtered etc., but not offered as a sacrifice, at the same table. Another example of the word יחדו, “together,” being used in this sense is Exodus 19,8: ויענו כל העם יחדו, “all the people responded together.”

את הצבי ואת האיל, “the deer and the hart;” [most of what follows is culled from Nachmanides’ commentary, although the author here does not attribute it until much later. Ed.] Two mammals with split hooves, chewing the cud, which, because they are free roaming, cannot be offered as sacrifices in the Temple. It is not the objective of this verse to teach that the fat parts on these free-roaming animals that are similar to those on the domestic beasts, must not be eaten, as they must be burned on the altar; they are permitted, seeing the whole animal has remained profane in status. Moses draws a comparison between cows and deer as different categories of mammals only in that henceforth both types may be eaten also when not in a state of ritual purity. This point is clear by the absence of the word כל, “all of it,” when permitting it to be eaten. Nowhere do we have a verse that says יאכלנו כצבי ואיל alone, without this statement being limited by the context in which it appears. The meaning of the word

Perhaps, just as the fat of the deer and gazelle are permitted, etc. In other words: The fat of the deer and gazelle is permitted because they are not offered as sacrifices on the altar. Perhaps so too, the fat of any animal that is not offered as a sacrifice would be permitted. The Torah therefore teaches, “only.” I.e., the word, “only,” is a term that excludes. Rashi has explained this verse according to its simple meaning — that, “Only, as the deer, etc.,” refers to the ritual purity and impurity of non-sacrificial meat. Our Sages, however, expound from here that it comes to teach that the deer and gazelle require ritual slaughtering (Chulin 28a).

אך in this instance, is that it introduces a warning. Seeing that prior to the latest piece of legislation it had been forbidden to eat any meat unless the person eating it was ritually pure, and the meat had originally been part of a consecrated animal, and had not been remained uneaten for more than the period allocated to that type of sacrificial offering, I might have thought that all the restrictions applicable to consumption of sacrificial meat did not apply to בשר תאוה, meat from non-consecrated animals, and that it would most certainly be in order to also consume meat from animals that had been consecrated and whose blood had been offered on private altars. Moses therefore is at pains to spell out that the only restriction that does not apply to the eating of such animals is that although allowed to be eaten, the fat parts and the blood must not be eaten, although they are not fit for the altar. The reason why Moses had to warn the people at this juncture once more not to eat blood from non-consecrated animals was because when the prohibition to eat blood was spelled out, the Torah had also stated ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח לכפר, “I have reserved the blood to serve for you as an atonement on the altar.” (Leviticus 17,11) I might have thought that the prohibition to eat blood applies only to blood that could serve as our atonement, and that therefore blood from non consecrated animals is permitted. Moses makes sure that no one can make such a mistake. In connection with the חלב, the fat on the kidneys and parts of the liver that is burnt on the altar, Moses does not repeat the prohibition as applicable also to non-consecrated animals. The קרב, “the entrails” of consecrated animals (Leviticus 1,13) are not all forbidden, whereas that of non-consecrated animals, are not all permitted. Furthermore, seeing that here Moses commanded that the manner of slaughtering these domestic mammals that are potentially fit for the altar, is the same as that of doing so for permissible free-roaming animals, I might have concluded that the domestic animals’ blood when the animal slaughtered as בשר תאוה, meat that may be eaten in a state of ritual impurity, needs to have its blood covered (burial) just as does the blood of the free-roaming beasts after slaughter. Moses therefore adds the words: על הארץ תשפכנו כמים, “you shall pour it out on the earth just as you do with water.” (Verse 23) Moses did not say בארץ תשפכנו, which would mean that the blood of such animals has to be buried inside the earth. There is yet another concern that Moses wanted to address here, again something he was afraid the people might easily misunderstand. It is a fact that while in the desert, none of the שלמים, peace offerings, the ones whose meat are eaten primarily by the owners, could be eaten until after the requisite procedures with its blood had been performed by the priests. It is also a fact that when no such procedures were performed with the free-roaming animals, it was almost automatic that meat would be eaten that still had some blood in it. One might have thought that this was in order, just as one might have thought the same concerning all manner of birds, none of which other than the pigeons are fit for offering on the altar, that therefore such blood would be permissible without the procedure of “burying,” i.e. “covering” it in the earth first. One might also have thought that the birds would not require the same degree of slaughter and that stabbing them to death would suffice. [After all, even with the pigeons that are offered as sacrificial offerings the Torah did not stipulate שחיטה, slaughter, but מליקה, nipping, (Leviticus 1,15) Ed.] Moses therefore had to spell out that the blood of birds, other than the pigeons and turtle doves which qualify as offerings on the altar, must also be covered, the reason being that the pigeons and turtle doves did not qualify as שלמים, peace offerings on the altar, but only as burnt-offerings or as sin-offerings. In both instances the layman did not get to eat of those. I might therefore have assumed that just as mammals that have not been consecrated as offerings, do not need their blood covered, neither do these birds, or that the blood could be consumed after the bird had been stabbed to death. One might even have assumed that bird’s blood could be eaten and was not included in the prohibition of mammals’ blood. Moses therefore goes on record that it must be poured out, just like water. In fact, pouring out the blood might be misconstrued as a practice customary among the pagans who worshipped demons, satyrs, and the like. Moses therefore repeats that צאן ובקר, most of the bodies of which are offered on the altar, must have almost all the blood poured down the drain of the altar, except for the minute amount sprinkled on the altar. This needed to be repeated in the event that an animal had proven to be unfit as an offering, having developed a blemish that had not existed before. In effect, the blood of such a blemished animal is neither treated like the blood of a sacrificial animal, nor like the blood of an animal that had not been consecrated at all. Nachmanides writes further on our subject, adding a historical perspective, which explains the apparent change of attitude to blood. Immediately after the Exodus, when the Israelites were still very much under the influence of the practices of the Egyptians, they considered the new desert environment described by Moses as the region in which all these demons and satyrs were at home. (Compare Deut. 32,10 for a description of that howling wilderness.) The Torah had already stated in Leviticus 17,7 that certain sacrificial rites performed in the Tabernacle were designed, among other reasons, of course, to disabuse the people from still offering sacrifices to the demons and slaughtering animals in that process. According to Maimonides, in his Moreh nevuchim, section 3, chapter 46, it was part of that rite that men and beasts, i.e. the satyrs, sat at the same table and shared the blood of the animal sacrificed in their honour. It became essential then as a first step in reeducating the people to establish that slaughtering livestock was acceptable only if its blood was earmarked for the altar of Hashem. Permitting בשר תאוה, eating of meat from animals that had not been first consecrated to Hashem, would have made the task of weaning the Israelites from their former customs so much harder. Now, however, Moses is addressing a generation who did not have to discard heathen practices as they had been raised under the כנפי השכינה, the protective wings of the presence of Hashem. Therefore, considerations mentioned in Leviticus 17 no longer applied. Moses, i.e. the Torah, was not concerned that once settled in the land of Israel, where due to the distance of most of the people from the Temple, non-consecrated meat had to be made available, did not worry about pouring out the blood. The Egyptians had abhorred cattle and sheep and had not eaten their meat anyways as we know already from when Joseph entertained his brothers at lunch. (Genesis 43,32) However, the Egyptians, great hunters, did feast on venison, and therefore steps had to be taken to prevent the blood of free-roaming bests from being eaten. The Torah therefore decreed burial of a kind for the blood of such animals. (if they were the kind Jews may eat.) Covering such blood with earth would ensure that it is not offered to the satyrs. [Abravanel and others raise many objections against that interpretation, Ed.]