Komentarz do Kapłańska 17:19

SPEAK UNTO AARON, AND UNTO HIS SONS, AND UNTO ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.¹⁴³Ramban is now to explain why this chapter [dealing with the prohibition of slaughtering any of the holy offerings outside the Sanctuary Court], is addressed to both the priests and all the children of Israel, which is an unusual form of address in the Scriptural laws. Since this section contains the warning that all offerings are to be brought only in the Tent of Meeting [i.e., in the Sanctuary Court], He therefore admonishes the priests who perform the rites of the offerings that they are not to perform the rites outside [the Sanctuary Court], and He also admonishes the Israelites that they should bring them there to G-d, and not offer them outside by themselves.
The correct interpretation of this section is as our Rabbis have mentioned,¹⁴⁴Chullin 16 b. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. that He forbade Israel whilst in the desert to eat an ordinary meal of meat¹⁴⁵Literally: “meat eaten out of desire to satisfy the appetite.” [i.e., one which was not part of an offering], and they were to eat only the meat of peace-offerings [the fat portions and the blood of which] had been offered upon the altar of G-d. Therefore He said that whoever wants to slaughter any of the three kinds of animals from which all offerings are brought, namely, the ox, lamb, and goat, must bring them unto the door of the Tent of Meeting, and make them offerings of peace-offerings,¹⁴⁶Verse 5. bringing the fats and the blood upon the altar of G-d, and then he may eat the meat thereof according to the law [of peace-offerings, which is that the priest is given the breast and the right thigh, and the rest of the meat is eaten by the owner and his family for two days and the intervening night]. He further stated that if he slaughtered them in any other place, he is liable to the punishment of excision.¹⁴⁷Verse 4: and that man will be cut off from among his people. See Ramban further, 18:29 for the specific meaning of this form of punishment.
It appears likely from the language of Scripture that at first [i.e., in Verse 3-7] He declared a person liable to the punishment of excision in the case of any slaughtering outside [the Sanctuary Court] even of unconsecrated animals, this being the prohibition against eating an ordinary meal of meat,¹⁴⁵Literally: “meat eaten out of desire to satisfy the appetite.” and He stated that the reason for it is so that they should consecrate them to G-d and the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Eternal¹⁴⁸Verse 6. and burn on it the fat. Afterwards [in Verses 8-9] He warned against making an altar to G-d outside [the Sanctuary Court] and offering on it the peace-offerings mentioned [in Verse 5] or a burnt-offering, as used to be done with holy offerings at the time when the bamoth¹⁴⁹See above in Seder Shemini, Note 122 for full explanation of this term. were permitted, but they were to offer them to G-d in front of the door of the Tent of Meeting.¹⁵⁰Verse 9. Thus He ordered all slaughterings, whether of unconsecrated¹⁵¹I.e., originally brought as unconsecrated. When it is slaughtered in the Sanctuary Court as a peace-offering, it has naturally already become consecrated. or consecrated animals, to be done only within [the Sanctuary Court]. Therefore He said in the Book of Deuteronomy, But when ye go over the Jordan, and dwell in the Land etc., then it shall come to pass that the place which the Eternal your G-d shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there, thither ye shall bring … your burnt-offerings, and your peace-offerings,¹⁵²Deuteronomy 12:10-11. stating further, Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest; but in the place which the Eternal shall choose etc.¹⁵³Ibid., Verses 13-14. This was to state that the prohibition against slaughtering consecrated animals outside [the Sanctuary Court] remains in force as long as the Chosen House of G-d exists,¹⁵⁴Thus as long as the Tabernacle was at Shiloh, it was prohibited to bring offerings elsewhere. After its destruction by the Philistines, the bamoth were permitted. After the House of G-d was finally established in Jerusalem, the bamoth were again forbidden and never again permitted (Zebachim 112 b). but He permitted slaughtering of ordinary [unconsecrated] animals [at all places]. It is this which He states, However thou mayest slaughter and eat flesh in all thy gates,¹⁵⁵Deuteronomy 12:15. meaning to say that this prohibition stated here — not to slaughter unconsecrated animals at all, but rather to bring them all as peace-offerings upon the altar of G-d — will not apply in the Land. And He explained there the reason: When the Eternal thy G-d shall enlarge thy border etc.,¹⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 20. meaning to say that the prohibition was only in the beginning when they were in the desert, so that it was easier for them to bring all their offerings to the door of the Tent of Meeting, but after He will enlarge their border [and they will inhabit a wide area], they may eat an ordinary meal of meat¹⁴⁵Literally: “meat eaten out of desire to satisfy the appetite.” by slaughtering [the animal] in their city, except for consecrated animals [which they must slaughter only in the Sanctuary Court]. This is the reason why He mentions here [in Verse 3], What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that slaughtereth … within the camp or that slaughtereth out of the camp. Thus He mentions also those who slaughter out of the camp, so that they [too] should be obliged to bring them to the door of the Tent of Meeting; for although an ordinary meal of meat will be permissible when G-d will enlarge their borders, because they are not near the place of the Sanctuary, He does not likewise permit it in the desert, even outside the camp, because they are not far from the altar of G-d as they will be in the Land when G-d will enlarge their borders, at which time He permitted them an ordinary meal of meat.¹⁴⁵Literally: “meat eaten out of desire to satisfy the appetite.”
This is the proper interpretation of these verses, and it corresponds to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael¹⁴⁴Chullin 16 b. This is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. on these sections of the Torah. From this section here originates [what Rabbi Yishmael] said, that “at first [i.e., as long as Israel was in the desert] they were forbidden to have an ordinary meal of meat.” This is the fitting interpretation of the verse by way of the plain meaning of Scripture. It [also] coincides with the saying of the Rabbis in the Agadah:¹⁵⁷Devarim Rabbah 4:6. “The Rabbis say: There are many things which the Holy One, blessed be He, prohibited, and in another place permitted them again.¹⁵⁸The meaning of course is obvious, that under a different set of circumstances He permitted those matters which He had prohibited elsewhere. The case before us is the perfect example, as the text continues. You may know this [from the following instance]. The Holy One, blessed be He, forbade Israel to slaughter and eat an animal unless they brought it to the door of the Sanctuary [and slaughtered it as a peace-offering]. Whence do I know this? Because it is written, and he hath not brought it into the door of the Tent of Meeting.¹⁵⁹Verse 4. What is written there? Blood shall be imputed unto that man etc.¹⁵⁹Verse 4. And here [in the Book of Deuteronomy] He again permitted it to them, as it is said, thou mayest eat flesh, after all the desire of thy soul.¹⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 20. Whence do I know [that this applies to the time after their entry into the Land]? From that which is stated there on this subject, When the Eternal thy G-d shall enlarge thy border.”¹⁵⁶Ibid., Verse 20. As for that which Rashi has commented [here in Verse 3 on the expression, what man soever there be that slaughtereth an ox, or lamb etc.] that “Scripture is speaking of consecrated animals etc.” [while we have explained above that Verses 3-6 refer to ordinary animals, the answer is that Rashi here follows] the opinion of that Sage¹⁶⁰Rabbi Akiba (Chullin 17 a). who says that an ordinary meal of meat¹⁴⁵Literally: “meat eaten out of desire to satisfy the appetite.” was never prohibited at all [even when Israel was in the desert]. It is in accordance with that opinion that the Beraitha was taught in the Torath Kohanim,¹⁶¹Torath Kohanim, Acharei, Chapters 6, and 9-10. but the explanation of the verses in a manner that accords with them, and the approach of the words of the Sages in the traditions,¹⁶²This is a reference to the text from Devarim Rabbah quoted above, which bears out fully Ramban’s explanation that when Israel was in the desert, an ordinary meal of meat was prohibited to them. as well as in most places,¹⁶³Ramban means to say that while it is true that the Torath Kohanim is like Rashi’s interpretation, yet most Rabbinic sources accept Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion, as presented by Ramban. is as we have explained.

זה הדבר, when the Torah said in 15,31 והזהרתם את בני ישראל מטומאתם, “you are to warn the Israelites regarding their state of ritual contamination,” the warning implied that they were to separate themselves from spiritually negative influences represented both by ritual contamination and by demons.

דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו ואל כל ישראל, “speak to Aaron and to all the Children of Israel.” Nachmanides writes that seeing that the Torah warns that the priests are not to offer any sacrifices outside the consecrated grounds, and the people on their part are not to enter consecrated grounds in order to offer their sacrifices, the Torah also had to warn the Israelites not to offer their sacrifices outside the consecrated grounds.

דבר אל אהרן ובניו, “speak to Aaron and his sons;” they were the slaughterers during all the years that the Israelites were in the desert.

ואל כל בני ישראל, “and to all the Children of Israel.” The reason why this paragraph is inserted here is that it deals with the procedures for slaughtering animals that are to serve as sacrificial animals. As long as the Israelites were in the desert and they all dwelled around the Tabernacle, it was no hardship for them to eat meat only after the animals had first been sanctified as sacrifices, and as a byproduct of getting used to this they were weaned from the practice of offering animal sacrifices to satyrs, as they had been doing in Egypt.

ישחט שור או כשב‎ ‎‎‏ אשר [WHAT MAN SOEVER] THAT SLAUGHTERETH AN OX, OR A LAMB — Scripture is speaking here of consecrated animals since it says (v. 4) "and bringeth it not unto the appointed tent to offer an offering" (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 3; Zevachim 106a).

איש איש …אשד ישחט, any person who slaughters, etc. Why is the word איש repeated here? In Zevachim 108 they explain this in terms of Rabbi Shimon who claimed that if someone slaughters an animal (intended as a sacrifice) on behalf of a private individual he would be guilty of slaughtering sacred things outside the Temple precincts. They base this on the repeated mention of איש meaning איש לאיש. They do not explain it as meaning that if two people combined in that act that they would both be culpable for that sin. The reason is that the Torah phrased culpability by referring to האיש ההוא, i.e. a single individual. The Talmud also explains the restrictive word ההוא as excluding anyone who committed this act accidentally, erroneously or inadvertently. At the same time they explain the word as excluding two people who combined to slaughter the animal by saying the Torah did not write ההם, but ההוא. We find this somewhat difficult seeing that Torat Kohanim is on record as deriving this halachah from the words דם שפך and not from the word ההוא. One may answer that inasmuch as there are two separate restrictive expressions, i.e. ההוא as well as שפך (verse 4), Torat Kohanim derives from the one that when two people slaughter jointly that they are not culpable, and from the other that if the act did not occur intentionally and without outside coercion the perpetrator is not punishable.

אשר ישחט שור או כשב או עז במחנה או מחוץ למחנה, “who will slaughter either an ox, a sheep, or a goat inside the camp or even beyond the boundaries of the camp, etc.” According to the commentary by Nachmanides our paragraph discusses two separate subjects. Subject number one is the prohibition for Israelites while in the desert to eat meat which was not part of a sacrificial offering, something which in halachah we call בשר תאווה, meat eaten merely to satisfy one’s craving for it. The penalty for violating the commandment is karet, the same penalty as is applied to people who deliberately eat on the Day of Atonement, or people who violate the Sabbath deliberately when there are not any witnesses whose testimony would lead to a conviction in court. Even slaughtering non-consecrated animals outside the confines of the Tabernacle is equally forbidden when these had not been brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle to be offered there as שלמים, peace offerings, in which case the fat parts and the blood are sprinkled or burned on the altar as the case may be, and the remainder, after the priest has received his statutory share, may be eaten by the owners. Subsequent to this legislation, the Torah continues in verse eight to deal with the reverse situation, when an Israelite arrogates to himself the right to perform priestly procedures within the confines of the Tabernacle. The Israelite as well as the priest is warned not to erect altars even to Hashem outside the confines of the Tabernacle. While it is true that upon entry into the Holy Land the regulations concerning בשר תאווה were considerably relaxed, the prohibition to erect private altars was never rescinded. Even a עולה, a burnt offering, of which the owner of the animal does not receive anything, must not be offered on a private altar in a private domain. While it is true that immediately after the Israelites entered the Holy Land, some altars outside the Tabernacle were permitted for the purpose of offering communal offerings, in the main, that was only a temporary arrangement. The permission to eat meat that had not first been part of a sacrificial offering was a concession to the fact that once in the land of Israel, the journey all the way to either Shiloh, or later on Jerusalem, was a great inconvenience for the people, who, but for this concession, would normally have eaten meat only on the three pilgrimage festivals when at least the male had to appear in the Temple. At any rate, it is hard to understand that the mere fact of slaughtering an animal that had not been consecrated as an offering should carry the karet penalty, seeing that even Rabbi Yishmael derives this prohibition from what is written in Deut. 12,20, and there the Torah speaks about animals which had been consecrated as offerings. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, does not agree that meat that had not been consecrated was ever forbidden. From that verse we can derive that while the people were in the desert and the Tabernacle was right in their midst, only consecrated meat was allowed. But nothing had been spelled out about someone slaughtering such animals becoming guilty of the karet penalty.

This verse speaks of consecrated [animals]. Explanation: the verse is speaking about consecrated animals that were slaughtered outside [the Temple courtyard]. (Gur Aryeh) You cannot say the verse is saying that [even] unconsecrated animals slaughtered outside would make one liable for excision, as we find no commandment against this. You might ask that the Gemara Chulin (16b) says, “Originally, flesh of desire [i.e., unconsecrated animals killed in order to enjoy their meat] was forbidden,” and Rashi explains, “Because it is written, ’Each and every person [of the House of Israel] who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat etc.,” indicating that our verse is talking about unconsecrated animals? It seems to me that the correct way to explain Rashi is as follows: The main subject of the verse is not unconsecrated animals because the verse makes one liable for excision, and there is no penalty of excision regarding unconsecrated animals. However, because Scripture writes in general terms, “Each and every person of the House of Israel who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat,” instead of writing, “who will slaughter a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,” this indicates that no animal may be slaughtered outside because “meat of desire” was forbidden to them. Because no animal may be slaughtered outside as meat of desire was forbidden to them, the verse did not write, “who will slaughter a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,” as that would have implied that other meat is permitted to slaughter outside. Therefore, since nothing may be slaughtered [anywhere] except for consecrated animals, because they were forbidden to eat meat of desire, the verse did not need to specify consecrated animals and wrote in general terms, “who will slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat.”

במחנה [WHAT MAN SOEVER SLAUGHTERETH …] IN THE CAMP — i. e. outside the forecourt (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 6 5; Zevachim 107b).

Outside the [Temple] courts. I.e., when it is written “within the encampment” here, it does not mean the priestly encampment, i.e., within the Temple courts, making someone liable for excision if he slaughtered a sacrifice outside its correct place north of the altar. [This is not so], because even if one slaughtered in the south, what liability would there be for this, so long as he slaughtered within the Temple courts? [The Toras Kohanim derives from the words “beyond the encampment.” See Re’m]. Therefore it means outside the Temple courts.

אשד ישחט, who will slaughter, etc. Torat Kohanim phrases its comment thus: "From the mention of the words 'ox, sheep, and goat' I can only derive culpability for slaughtering four-legged mammals; whence do I know that slaughtering birds intended for the altar outside the precincts of the Temple or Tabernacle is also prohibited on pain of the karet penalty? Answer: from the words או אשר ישחט. I could have reasoned that if slaughtering the bird's neck, which is not the normal procedure is culpable, then someone who merely severed the bird's neck by pinching, i.e. מליקה i.e. the normal procedure, would certainly be culpable if he performed this act outside the precincts of the Temple, therefore the Torah had to tell us that he would only be culpable for שחיטה, slaughter, but not for מליקה, pinching." Thus far Torat Kohanim. From the above we learn that the word או serves to include culpability for slaughtering the bird in the wrong place whereas from the words אשר ישחט I derive that pinching is not culpable which I would otherwise have considered punishable due to the קל וחומר. How do I reconcile this with a Baraitha in Zevachim 107 where we are told by Rabbi Yishmael that he derives the culpability for slaughtering the bird from the expression אשר ישחט, whereas he derives the exclusion of culpability for pinching the bird's neck from the words זה הדבר (in verse 1) which I would have included on the basis of the קל וחומר had it not been for the words זה הדבר? Even Rabbi Akiva who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael in Zevachim uses the extra words דם יחשב in order to derive the law that slaughtering sacrificial birds in the wrong place is culpable. He derives the exclusion of this culpability when the bird's neck is merely pinched from the expression אשר ישחט. We are forced to conclude that the author of Torat Kohanim was neither Rabbi Yishmael nor Rabbi Akiva. It is quite impossible to reconcile the view of Rabbi Yishmael with that of the author of Torat Kohanim, because the former uses the expression זה הדבר for an exegesis based on a גזרה שוה, comparing it to the same expression in Numbers 30,2, where the Torah speaks about who can cancel vows. On the other hand, the fact that Torat Kohanim does not record the exegetical comment of Rabbi Yishmael concerning the extraneous words דם יחשב, who includes culpability of someone who sprinkles the blood outside the precincts of the Tabernacle, it appears that the author of Torat Kohanim accepts the view of Rabbi Akiva. The exegetical use made by Torat Kohanim of the words או זבח in verse 8 i.e. that the blood is included in the prohibition and culpability of שחוטי חוץ makes it plain that Torat Kohanim does appear to accept the viewpoint of Rabbi Akiva as per the folio of the Talmud we quoted. From all this it emerges that the exegesis that the slaughtering of the bird is culpable when performed outside the courtyard of the Tabernacle is based on the words דם יחשב, whereas the exclusion of pinching the bird's neck as culpable is based on the words אשר ישחט. The question therefore arises why the author of Torat Kohanim derives two separate הלכות from the words אשר ישחט? Besides, why does the author of Torat Kohanim need the words דם יחשב in verse 4?

I have seen the following comment by Maimonides in chapter 18 of his treatise on Ma-asseh Hakorbanot. "When two people get hold of a knife and they perform ritual slaughter jointly they are free from punishment because the Torah wrote: אשר ישחט או אשר ישחט, i.e. one who slaughters not two who slaughter." Why did Maimonides have to look for a different expression in our verses and could not derive this הלכה from the existing exegesis either in the Talmud or Torat Kohanim ? Another difficulty in the statement by Maimonides is that the very words from the verse used by Maimonides for exonerating two people who slaughter jointly have already been used exegetically to derive the law about slaughtering birds, something which both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva had agreed on in Zevachim 107? We have explained earlier that according to one of these Rabbis the word אשר ישחט is used to include culpabiity for slaughtering the bird, whereas according to the other Rabbi this word serves to exclude culpability if one merely pinched the neck of the bird in question. Maimonides accepts this latter ruling in chapter 19 of the treatise we mentioned earlier. We have still another difficulty with the exegesis of Maimonides' ruling in the matter of someone slaughtering on behalf of a private individual, i.e. איש. He derives this from the words דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך. This is how Maimonides explains his exegesis: "Although the person in question had not intended to slaughter these קדשים, sacrificial animals, for G'd as such, he will still be culpable because the Torah wrote: "it shall be accounted as blood (guilt) for that man, he has spilled blood." The latter words mean that though in his own mind this blood was similar to ordinary blood spilled on the ground and not blood intended for the altar at all he is guilty. Thus far Maimonides. The Talmud, on the other hand, uses the words איש איש as the basis for the culpability of someone who slaughters such an animal; furthermore, Torat Kohanim uses the words דם שפך as the exegetical base for excluding joint slaughter by two parties or people who slaughtered inadvertently or while under duress as we mentioned earlier. How can we use the same words exegetically to derive the prohibition of שחוטי חוץ? The last mentioned explanation is offered in the name of Rabbi Yossi who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon concerning the meaning of איש איש in Zevachim 108.

We must understand therefore that Maimonides chose to bring proof for his הלכה from the superfluous words דם שפך, as it is a stronger kind of proof than the exegesis based on the repetition of the word איש. Proof of this is found in Baba Metzia 31 where the repetition of the word העבט תעביטנו in Deut.15,8 is discussed. In that instance Rabbi Shimon took the view that the Torah employed normal human syntax and that the extra word was not intended for special exegetical purposes. Tossaphot write there that when there is evidence in the verse under discussion that the repetition is not justifiable in the context of that verse, we say that it has exegetical significance. When there is some justification for the repetition, however, we may choose not to look for further הלכות based on that word. Rabbi Shimon holds that in the case of Deut. 15,8 the words די מחסורו אשר יחסד לו, "in the amount that he is short," provide ample reason to rule that when the impoverished person does not want to turn his assets into cash and prefers to receive handouts, one need not assist such a person. This is what is meant by our "ignoring the repetition תעביטנו and declaring that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax." Considering this comment by Tossaphot, we can appreciate why the words איש איש are not as good an exegetical base as are the words דם שפך which are used by the Talmud as the exegetical basis according to Rabbi Yossi. Although the Talmud uses this exegetical basis only according to the view of Rabbi Yossi, we are entitled to assume that Rabbi Shimon feels the same way about it seeing we have no reason to assume that the two Rabbis disagree. While it is true that the Talmud (Zevachim 108) presents Rabbi Shimon as using the repetition by the Torah of the word איש איש as teaching that it is culpable to slaughter a mammal outside the precincts of the Temple if said animal was slated to be a sacrificial animal, this was only before Rabbi Shimon had heard of the exegetical value of the words דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך. This is presumably why Maimonides also quoted this latter exegesis as the basis for our הלכה.

[The author proceeds to deal with the first question he raised against Maimonides. I have decided to skip this. Ed.]

דם יחשב BLOOD SHALL BE IMPUTED [UNTO THAN MAN] — As though he had shed the blood of a human being, who is guilty of a deadly sin.

BLOOD SHALL BE IMPUTED UNTO THAT MAN. This means that [his guilt is as] of the time of Creation.¹⁶⁴Ramban’s intention is as follows. At the time of Creation the slaughtering of any living creature as food was forbidden (see Ramban on Genesis 1:29, Vol. I, pp. 56-58). Only after the flood was the killing of animals permitted (ibid., 9:5, pp. 134-135). Hence the meaning of the verse here is that if one slaughters an animal outside the camp, then since it is forbidden to him as food, it shall be imputed to him as if he is guilty of bloodshed “as at the time of Creation.” See also Ramban here on Verse 11. The verse is thus stating: “Now of all living creatures except man, I [the Eternal] have declared their blood to be as water, and their flesh as dung,¹⁶⁵Zephaniah 1:17. just as it is said [at the time of Noah], as the green herb I have given you all.¹⁶⁶Genesis 9:3. But if one slaughters an animal outside the camp, then [since it is forbidden to be eaten], it shall be imputed to him as if he had shed blood [of a fellow man].”

דם יחשב, as if the relationship of man to the animals were as it had been before the deluge when it had been forbidden to kill animals as food.

דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך, the person is guilty of death at the hands of heaven, in return for the blood of the animal he had spilled outside the holy precincts. [at that time in the desert, killing an animal for food unless as a sacrifice was equivalent to shedding innocent blood. Ed.]

דם שפך, “it is considered bloodshed.” Seeing that the Torah had said in Genesis 9,3 כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל לאכלה, “I have allocated it to you as food, like the grass of the field,” and had thereby permitted Noach and mankind to kill living creatures to use as food, excepting man, i.e. cannibalism, the Torah here adds –for the Israelites- that unless we observe the rules laid down for eating meat the whole procedure turns into murder, into wanton killing. In that event, we must consider the situation as if the prohibition to eat meat which was in effect before the deluge had been reinstated.

דם יחשב לאיש ההוא, דם שפך, “it will be considered as bloodshed for that man, he has shed (innocent) blood.” The severity of this legislation must be viewed against a background of ante-diluvial times. Before the deluge the lives of the animals were sacrosanct, i.e. man was not allowed to eat meat, only fruit and vegetables; we know this from Genesis 1,29: “here I have given you all herbage yielding seed that is on the surface of the entire earth, and every tree that has seed-yielding fruit; it shall be yours for food.” When, in the wake of man’s general corruption, the animals became corrupt also, and were saved from the deluge by Noach, man acquired the right to eat meat. This is why we need a prohibition here that such animals unless they had first been designated as sacrifices and been slaughtered as such, are prohibited to the Jewish people on pain of the karet penalty. Seeing that animal sacrifice substitutes for man’s dying for his sins, if such an animal has been killed for secular consumption, it is considered as if the killer had killed a human being. The status of the Israelites in the desert had much in common with the status of Adam in Gan Eden before the sin so that slaughtering an ox was similar to killing a human being (Isaiah 66,3, and Nachmanides on verse 11 in our chapter).

As one who shed the blood. I.e., it is as if it said, “It shall be considered [for that person] as blood of a person.” Because if not, would we not know that it is considered bloodshed [of an animal] when a person spills blood during the slaughtering.

ואל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו, “and he had not first brought it to the entrance of the Tent of meeting;” as long as Moses had not erected the Tabernacle, slaughtering of animals could be done anywhere, (compare Tanchuma on this portion, section 10) as we find in fact when the Torah described in Exodus 24,5: וישלח את נערי בני ישאל ויעלו עולות, “and Moses sent the young men of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings.”As soon as the Tabernacle had been erected and became functional, the people were warned not to offer any sacrifices of animals that had not first been brought to the entrance of the Tabernacle first and been approved. דם יחשב, “it will be considered as if he had shed innocent blood;” the Torah speaks here of slaughtering animals for profane use, just eating their meat, and it wishes to warn people not to consider the slaughter of animals as an act of worshipping idols, as will be explained forthwith, (verse 7) when it continues with: ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים, “and they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to the satyrs.” The Jewish people had been deeply involved in idolatrous practices. The Torah now commands that when the time comes when they will use animals for profane purposes, this must be just that, without a tinge of idolatry.

דם שפך HE HATH SHED BLOOD — These apparently redundant words are intended to include in the penalty of כרת him who sprinkles outside the fore-court the blood of a sacrifice which has been slaughtered within it as is here commanded (Sanhedrin 34b; Zevachim 107a).

דם שפך ונכרת, “such a man has shed blood and he will be erased, etc.” The reason why this would be considered at least as serious an offence as murder, is that if that animal were not used for his own food, it should only have been killed as an offering to its Creator.

דם שפך ונכרת, so far we have only heard of the penalty; where did the Torah write the warning not to commit this offence? We find it in Deuteronomy 12,13: השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך בכל מקום אשר תראה, “take heed not to offer your burnt offering in any place of your choosing.”

אשר הם זבחים [THAT THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MAY BRING THEIR SACRIFICES] WHICH THEY SACRIFICE [IN THE OPEN FIELD ….. UNTO THE LORD] — "which they sacrifice" means, which they are at present accustomed to sacrifice.

זבחי שלמים לה׳. "sacrifices of peace-offerings to G'd." Why did the Torah not content itself by writing וזבחו אותם, instead of repeating the words זבחי שלמים once more? Perhaps G'd wanted to demonstrate His fondness of the holy offerings brought by His people. He did so by emphasising that He considered these offerings as "peace-offerings," offerings by means of which Israel and G'd are perceived as dining at the same table, just like children at the table of their father. When the Torah writes שלמים לה׳ אותם, we may view the word אותם as referring to the previous subject בני ישראל which was mentioned at the beginning of our verse. The Torah describes how the soul of the Israelites leaves its mortal sheath, so to speak, in order to perform the service for its Maker, completely unaware of the "exaggerated" fondness displayed in return by G'd towards a soul so attuned to its G'd. All this is still insignificant compared to what we owe G'd in response to all He has done on our behalf already before we got around to acknowledging this by means of any peace-offerings.

אשר הם זובחים על פני האדמה, some of them even err in slaughtering such animals as sacrifices to demons instead of as sacrifices to G’d.

Which they were accustomed to slaughter. Because if it refers to their actually slaughtering them, this would mean the same as “their sacrifices” and why would the verse repeat itself? Therefore one must say “they slaughter” means “which they are accustomed to slaughter.” Alternatively, you might ask that “which they slaughter” implies that the animal has already bee slaughtered, yet afterwards it is written, “And slaughter them as peace-offerings”? Re’m

וזבחו זבחי שלמים, “and slaughter them as meat offerings;” this verse has been written in an abbreviated mode as the word 'לה, “in honour of the Lord,” has been left out.

לשעירים .means TO THE DEMONS. Similar is (Isaiah 13:21) “and demons (ושעירים) shall dance there" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 9 8).

AND THEY SHALL NO MORE SACRIFICE THEIR SACRIFICES ‘LA’SE’IRIM’ AFTER WHOM THEY GO ASTRAY. “La’se’irim means ‘unto the demons.’ Similarly it states, ‘u’se’irim’ (and demons) shall dance there.”¹⁶⁷Isaiah 13:21. This is Rashi’s language, derived from the Torath Kohanim.¹⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Acharei 9:8. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “the demons are so called [se’irim, a word which is connected with sei’ar, meaning ‘hair’], because on seeing them a person’s hair stands up on his body. But it is likely that they are called se’irim [a word which also means ‘goats’], because mentally deranged persons see them in the form of goats. And the word ‘more’ [in the verse before us, and they shall no ‘more’ sacrifice …] indicates that the Israelites used to do so in Egypt. After whom they go astray denotes that whoever seeks after them and believes in them ‘goes astray’ from his G-d, since he thinks that there is a power that can cause good or evil apart from the Glorious and Fearful Name.” [Thus far the words of Ibn Ezra.]
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has indeed hinted at the truth concerning the word “more,” as I have written above.¹⁶⁹Above, 16:8 [beginning with the paragraph: “And this is the secret of the matter. They used to worship etc.”]. The name se’irim will also be made clear to you there. They are also called sheidim [“demons,” as Rashi interpreted here — a word which is connected with shodad, meaning “devastate, despoil, ruin”], because they dwell in “devastated” places, such as the desert, and their principal habitat is in the far corners [of the earth], such as the northern extremity of the earth which is wasteland on account of the cold climate.
Know that just as the formation at the original Creation of man’s body as well as that of all living creatures, vegetation and minerals, was from the four elements,¹⁷⁰Fire, water, earth, and air. See Vol. I, p. 26. These basic elements were first created by G-d, and out of a combination of them. He made man, etc. which were combined by Divine power to form material bodies which as a result of their thickness and coarseness could be perceived by the five senses,¹⁷¹Sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. even so there was a creation from only two elements, fire and air, resulting in a body which cannot be felt, nor perceived by any of the [five] senses, just as the soul of an animal cannot be perceived by human senses because of its delicacy. The body [of these creatures of two elements] is of a spiritual nature; on account of its delicacy and lightness it can fly through fire and air. And just as the combination of the four elements in any object is the cause of its existence and its destruction [since everything that is composite must ultimately revert to its original components],¹⁷²See Ramban on Genesis 2:17, Vol. I, p. 75. so is it with these beings created from a combination of only two elements; when the elements combine, the creature lives, and when they separate [decompose], it is like the dead. It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said:¹⁷³Chagigah 16 a. “Six characteristics have been said of sheidim, in three they are comparable to the ministering angels and in three to human beings. The three things in which they are comparable to the ministering angels are that they have wings, they fly, and they know what is about to happen, as do the ministering angels. [On this statement the Gemara asked:] ‘How can it enter your mind to say that the sheidim know the future [when even the ministering angels do not know it]! Say rather thus: They hear [from behind the Curtain of heaven] what is about to happen.’ The three things in which they are comparable to human beings are that they eat and drink, procreate, and die as do human beings.”¹⁷⁴Ramban now begins to explain the text quoted on the basis of certain scientific concepts that were prevalent in his times. A prefatory word is in place. The serious student will not look upon these concepts with an eye for criticism. The theory that the whole physical world is founded upon various combinations of four elements, was an Aristotelian legacy which ruled man’s minds for a millenium. The extension of that theory into the elusive world of the spirit was logical. That scientists today have moved to other theories to explain the universe and the various phenomena of life, has no bearing upon the explanations which were accepted in the past, for who can foretell what knowledge will do to “the established truths” of today? The important thing in Ramban’s presentation of this whole obstruse subject is his final conclusion that only G-d in His Providence exercises power over man’s destiny. Now the cause of death generally is the separation [decomposition] of the components of the body, this being true of all kinds of bodies [whether they are composed of the four elements like humans or of only two, like sheidim]. The reason for their ability to fly is because of the lightness of the [two] elements [fire and air] of which they are composed, as may also be seen in the case of a fowl, in which, because the elements of fire and air dominate over the small parts of the other two elements [earth and water], the fowl can hover in the air and fly [although it is composed of all four elements]. Surely, then, the above-mentioned creatures that have nothing in them of the heavy elements [earth and water], possess great hovering power in the air, to be able to fly tirelessly. The matter of “eating” [mentioned above in connection with these creatures] means their deriving nourishment from the moisture of water and the odors of fire, something like the fire that licked up the water that was in the trench.¹⁷⁵I Kings 18:38. This is the purpose of the burnings which necromancers perform to the demons. The reason [for their need to “eat”] is that the fire in the air causes the drying up of their bodies, which must therefore be restored just as man’s need for food is due to depletion in his body. As for that which has been said concerning their “hearing what is about to happen,” it is because in the course of their flying on high they become aware of things that are about to happen from the powerful forces contained in the atmosphere, these being “the princes of the quiver.”¹⁷⁶A reference to the forces involved in the movement of the constellations. See my Hebrew commentary p. 96. It is also from there that “those who have wings tell matters”¹⁷⁷The expression is based on Ecclesiastes 10:20: For a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter. of the future, as has been tested by enchanters,¹⁷⁸See Maimonides’ “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 30-35. and as I will explain in its place¹⁷⁹Deuteronomy 18:9. with the help of G-d. But neither of them know what is to happen for many days to come and for times that are far off;¹⁸⁰Ezekiel 12:27. but they can only inform of that which is to happen in the near future, as we know from their encounters [i.e., those of enchanters], that they gain knowledge from the sheidim as to what has been decreed to come. Therefore Onkelos rendered the verse, They sacrificed unto demons, ‘lo eloha’ (no gods),¹⁸¹Deuteronomy 32:17. as “they sacrificed unto demons in which there is no utility,” meaning that there is no need for them, as they do not prevent harm that is destined to come, neither do they do anything productive, nor do they inform of times far off so that a person may knowingly guard himself. It is this which is the sense of the expression, lo eloha,¹⁸¹Deuteronomy 32:17. which is as if it said, “no power or rulership,” for the word Elokim is an expression of strength and power, [a composite word consisting of the words] e-il heim.¹⁸²See Ramban, Genesis 1:3 (Vol. I, p. 25) where he explains the name to mean: e-il (Force), heim (they), the word “they” alluding to all other forces. Thus Elokim means “the Force of all forces.” Thus the verse is stating that demons have no strength or power whatsoever, and hence there is no need for them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good.¹⁸³Jeremiah 10:5.

חקת עולם תהיה זאת, not to offer sacrifices to the demons even though they were not being equated with deities in any manner, but were considered only as creatures that could be employed by their human masters. They even used to employ such demons for errands to distant countries. We have documented proof of this in the case of Joseph Shida [the demon named Joseph].(Sanhedrin 59, compare Nachmanides) and about the demon who was prominent in the household of Rav bar Rav Ashi (Chulin 105). Had such demons been considered deities it is inconceivable that people of Rav Ashi’s stature or Rav Pappa’s stature would have had any track with them whatsoever.
It is reported in the Talmud that whereas little is known about the manner of these demons’ creation, they are known to eat and drink just as human beings. It is further worthy of mention that the sages, collectively, referred to the phenomenon of the demons as מזיקים, destructive, harmful phenomena. They multiply in a manner similar to humans and they die a regular death. They see without being seen themselves.
Apparently, although they are composed of composite material, their bones are extremely thin and transparent. The author speculates that just as ordinary human beings in common with the animals possess a נפש חיוני “intangible life-force” which, seeing that it dies with the body it inhabits, as distinct from the human נשמה which is an intangible spirit emanating in the celestial regions, is basically terrestrial in nature, these demons are “powered” by such a life-force. The reason we find that “life-force” referred to on occasion as נפש is the fact that it cannot exist without its tangible partner, the one which feeds on food and drink secured from what is available in our terrestrial universe.
Consider the very fact that the Torah describes “blood as the life-force” (Deuteronomy 12,23). If someone were to sacrifice blood to such a creature, especially, seeing that it is powerful enough to sustain the life of such creatures, the blood sacrificed to such creatures would be equivalent to keeping these demons alive. (compare Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim,3,46 on the subject).
This would be a violation of the statement in Chulin 105 כל מידי דצייר וחתים וכייל ומני לית לן רשותא למשקל מינעה. This is a conversation between the “owner” of a demon, Mar bar Rav Ashi, according to which the demon who had not paid back a loan on time to the “owner” claimed that his power to collect objects in this world did not include objects which were clearly defined and visible. From this Tossaphot Taanit 8 divrey hamatchil אלא בדבר concludes that if clearly defined and visible phenomena in this world were out of bounds to the demons unless they were definitely ownerless, phenomena which are not visible to us humans belonged to the category of phenomena over which such demons did have control.
At any rate, when a situation exists when many people find such demons useful and pliable to their wishes, people indulged in offering them blood so as to endear themselves to these creatures and to get them to perform their wishes. The people offering these gifts of blood used to eat it themselves also, in order to share more common ground with these creatures. Some people even made a point of consuming the blood of such “gifts” to the demons in the vicinity of the Temple. They were under the impression that these demons were performing their dances in that vicinity. They hoped to ingratiate themselves with these creatures by showing them this kind of “respect.”
When G’d decided to sanctify us and He separated His people from dependence on such demons and taught us not to pursue such ultimately useless phenomena and put our trust in them, seeing that contrary to a superficial perception they are really mazikim, destructive forces, as our sages correctly described them, He levied a severe penalty on people who continue such relationships as they used to entertain with demons. The penalty of karet means severance from one’s own people’s eternal future. (verse 10)
G’d levied a similar penalty on eating blood and offering gifts to these demons as He had levied at the time in Gan Eden when he forbade eating from the tree of knowledge on pain of man becoming mortal, i.e. losing an aspect of his infinity on this earth. (Genesis 2,17). The Torah rationalized its prohibition and the severity of the penalty by stating: “for the soul (intangible life-force) of the flesh is in the blood.” This is the Torah’s way of referring to the almost invisible essence of these creatures. On the one hand, this essence is called nefesh “life-force,” on the other hand it is referred to as blood, as once the blood stops coursing through the veins of the body it feeds it is the end of the existence of both the body and life force of such creatures. G’d added (verse 11) ואני נתתיו לכם על המזבח לכפר, “I have given you an opportunity to present this blood on My altar in order to facilitate your atonement for your life-force.
The point G’d is making is that as opposed to these demons for whom such blood is an essential part of their nutrients, enabling them to stay alive, I, the Lord, do not need anything like this for Myself; on the contrary, I have provided you My people with an opportunity to remain alive yourselves by achieving atonement for your sins by means of sacrifices involving the life blood of the animal you are offering.
Sacrifices, offerings, in order to be meaningful as expiation, must be in a certain reciprocal relationship to the donor. If the donor had been guilty of forfeiting his life, only someone else’s life, in this instance the blood of the sacrificial animal, can possibly achieve this kind of atonement in lieu of the sinner’s lifeblood himself. Other parts of the sacrificial animal being burned up on the altar, similarly, correspond to the parts of the body of the donor which had been guilty of committing the sin for which the donor hopes to atone. (compare author on Leviticus 1,2)

לשעירים, “to the demons;” the spiritually negative phenomena, שדים, the expression occurs in that sense also in Isaiah 13,21 ושעירים ירקדו שם, “and the demons are dancing there.” Ibn Ezra writes that the reason that these demons are described as שעירים, hairs, is that people’s hair stands on edge when they behold these creatures. It is more likely that the reason they are called thus is that they conduct themselves like people who have gone out of their minds, as elaborated on by Nachmanides in his commentary on 17,14 כי נפש כל בשר בדם היא.

חקת עולם, “this shall be a statute for ever.” These words must not be understood as connected to what is written in verse 9 about people who offer sacrifices on altars other than the altar in front of the Tabernacle/Temple who are guilty of the most serious penalty there is.[This editor has failed to understand all his life how the people could have ignored this warning not to offer sacrifices on private altars until about 100 years before the destruction of the first Temple, under the rule of King Yoshiyahu, (Kings II chapter 23) i.e. for close to eight hundred years after they had come to the Holy land. In spite of all the prophets warning and even the Kings loyal to the Torah’s injunctions this law had been consistently ignored. Ed.]

אשר יעלה עלה [WHOSOEVER MAN THERE BE ….] THAT OFFERETH (lit., bringeth up) A BURNT OFFERING — This is intended to declare one who burns the limbs of sacrifices outside the fore-court to be liable to the penalty of excision just the same as him who slaughtered a sacrifice outside the fore-court; so that if one person slaughtered a sacrifice outside the fore-court and another brought it up on the altar to burn it both are liable to excision (cf. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 10 6; Zevachim 106a).

ואליהם תאמר, "And to them you are to say, etc." According to Rabbi Yishmael in Zevachim 107 we are dealing here with an example of a phenomenon known as ערוב פרשיות, i.e. that the Torah writes a verse in a paragraph dealing with one subject whereas that verse really had its place in a different paragraph dealing with another subject matter. In our case our verse teaches that whereas so far the prohibition against שחוטי חוץ was presumed to apply only to the act of slaughtering outside and not to burning up the remains of the animals outside the sacred precincts, our verse comes to include also the burning up of the remains of such animals in all instances where these animals had been slated to be burned up on the altar. According to the first Mishnah in Zevachim chapter 13 if one slaughtered the sacrificial animal within the sacred precincts but burned the remains outside those precincts one is just as guilty as if one had slaughtered the animal outside the permitted perimeter. This prohibition applies even if the remains of that animal had not been meant to be burned up on the altar at all. Compare Rashi on the Mishnah.

Outside [the Temple Courts]. Because you might ask: What does “who will bring a burntoffering” come to prohibit? If it is to prohibit slaughtering sacrifices outside, it already said “Each and every person etc. who will slaughter” above, (verse 2) in this parsha. Rashi explains that it comes “to make liable one who burns limbs outside as one who slaughters outside.” I.e., even though someone already slaughtered it outside and disqualified the sacrifice, and you might have thought that someone who offered it after this invalid slaughtering would incur no transgression because the first person had already disqualified it. The verse teaches that they both transgressed and are both are liable.

מבית ישראל, from the house of Israel, etc. The Torah had to write the words "from the house of Israel" and could not content itself with writing the pronoun ואליהם at the beginning of this verse which would have created the impression that it referred to the matters discussed earlier in the paragraph. The word איש איש would have referred to two people who commit a sin jointly such as slaughtering an animal intended for the altar outside the sacred perimeter as we have already discussed. The Torah was afraid that an exegete would use the repetition of the word איש to include Gentiles. The Talmud in Menachot 73 when explaining the word איש איש in Leviticus 22,18 uses the repetition to mean that free-willed offerings by Gentiles are acceptable for the altar of the Temple. In order to prevent us from interpreting the additional word איש in our context in a similar manner the Torah had to add the words מבית ישראל. Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are acceptable only from Israelites. This in turns leads us to interpret the other meanings we have attributed to the extra word איש in our chapter. Once the Torah was worried about our misinterpreting the word איש איש, so that it had to add the words מבית ישראל, the Torah next had to worry that the words מבית ישראל would lead us to interpret that even proselytes could not offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. This is why the Torah had to add the words: "and from amongst the proselyte who lives amongst you."

At this point there was a need to write all these words of an inclusive nature. Were it not for these additional examples of inclusive letters, etc. we would be tempted to interpret that the Torah did not include anything which was not spelled out specifically. This is true even according to Rabbi Yossi who holds that the Torah used the ordinary human syntax. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili holds that the principle of the Torah using ordinary human syntax applies only when there is some evidence that the Torah does not want us to use a specific extraneous word exegetically. [The Talmud in Baba Metzia 31 deals with numerous phenomena of the Torah repeating a word, such as :,שלח תשלח, הוכח תוכיח, הקם תקים, עזוב תעזוב and others. In all these instances the extra word is used exegetically, no one claiming that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax. Ed.] Although the Talmud queries the right of Rabbi Yossi Haglili who fails to use the extra word איש exegetically in one context to use it exegetically in other contexts, this would hold true were it not for the fact that the Talmud found an alternate expression to arrive at the same הלכה by using the word דם שפך exegetically instead of the extra word איש. Whenever the result of interpreting the extra word איש is not in conflict with known הלכות, we do not resort to the principle that "the Torah merely used ordinary human syntax." Tossaphot on Baba Metzia 31 point out that it is unreasonable to suppose that the rabbis were unable to find some exegetical use for the repetition of the word איש in every case where it appears, or for that matter, for any of the many examples where the Torah repeats a word, albeit in a slightly modified form. While it is true that Tossaphot there address the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the same applies to the opinion expressed by Rabbi Yossi Haglili. The main thrust of the argument of those who hold that the Torah uses ordinary human syntax is that we fall back on that principle only where exegetical use of the word would bring us into conflict with accepted הלכות. It can be demonstrated that even Rabbi Shimon frequently accepts that principle although he does use repetitions exegetically.

ונכרת [THAT MAN] SHALL BE CUT OFF — his offspring are cut off (die out) and his own life-time (lit., his days) is shortened (cf. Rashi and Tos. Shabbat 25a; Tos. Yevamot 2a).

His children will be cut off. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi does not explain this above in v. 4), because there it says “from among his people” in the singular form. But “from his peoples” [here], in the plural form, implies to some degree that there are many sorts of excisions. (Gur Aryeh) This is a difference between excision and death: death is decreed on the individual person, whereas excision cuts off him and his children. Death does not affect one’s children because so is the way [of the world], a generation goes and another generation comes. But excision [results in] the person being cut off from the root of life and the fruit is afflicted as well. Because when a tree’s root is removed, the fruit too is afflicted with it.

כל דם [WHATSOEVER MAN THERE BE … THAT EATETH] ANY BLOOD — Since Scripture states (v. 11) “[for it is the blood] with the life that maketh expiation", I might think that one is liable only for eating the blood of consecrated animals, (i. e. sacrifices), for it is only the blood of such animals that makes expiation. Scripture therefore states here “[Whatsoever man there be … that eateth] any blood [I will cut him off from among his people]" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 3).

ואיש איש מבית ישראל אשר יאכל, "And any person from the house of Israel who will eat, etc." Torat Kohanim explains the repetition of the word איש in these words: "The word ישראל refers to the Israelites; the word גר refers to a proselyte; the letter ה before the word גר refers to the wife of the proselyte; the word בתוכם refers to women and slaves. In view of this, why did the Torah have to repeat the word איש? Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Shimon answers that it is meant to include a baby of a Jewish mother fathered by a stranger or a slave." We need to know why the Torah had to write so many words to include all these details just as the Baraitha in Sukkah 28 asked concerning the word האזרח including the wives, etc. In that instance we find the following discussion [concerning who has to observe the commandment of fasting on the Day of Atonement, (Leviticus 23,27) a positive commandment applicable only at a certain time, something not normally applicable to women, Ed.]. "Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rav that the Torah compared men and women as being equal when it comes to the penalties for violations of Torah laws. As a result, the question arises why the Torah had to write words such as האזרח to restrict the law to adult males, or the words איש או אשה in Numbers 5,6 where clearly we speak of violation of a negative commandment, something that applies to women even if the Torah did not write the word אשה?" The answer given there is that the Torah included the application of the law even to the additional time before nightfall. Without the extra word I might have assumed that seeing neither men nor women are culpable for failure to observe that part of the fast, women would not even be obligated to observe it; therefore the Torah had to write a word indicating that observance is obligatory for women also. Using the approach underlying the discussion in the Talmud, we are entitled to ask here also why the Torah needed to write anything to include women? Who would have thought that women are relieved of the prohibition to eat blood? It is a negative commandment and it goes without saying that women are culpable if they violate it! Besides, why would we have made a difference between a baby born by a proselyte and one born by a natural-born Jewess that the Torah had to write something special to include such a woman? Furthermore, whom did the author of Torat Kohanim refer to when he spoke about a baby fathered by a proselyte so that the Torah had to specifically include such a child in its legislation by writing איש איש? If such a child reverts to paganism when he grows up, clearly the legislation does not apply to him. If, on the other hand, he grows up as a Jew, why would we need a word in the Torah in order to let us know that this legislation applies to him? In view of the fact that Torat Kohanim describes the child as an Israelite, it is clear that the assumption is that the child remained Jewish willingly. There is no reason why he should be inferior to a proselyte who was not even born as a Jew!

The verse says: Any blood. Re’m writes: You might ask, why do we need “any” to include not eating the blood of unconsecrated animals? Derive this from the verse in parshas Re’ey, “However, you may not eat the blood; on the earth are you to spill it like water,” where Chazal expound that even where there is no throwing [of blood] on the altar, there is a negative commandment [against eating blood]. He answers: It is written in both places [even though once would have been enough], similar to what the Gemara (Pesachim 28b) says regarding the obligation to eat matzoh nowadays [when there is no Pesach sacrifice]. (Nachalas Yaakov) With all due respect, it seems that Re’m fails to distinguish between the expression חייב(liable), which means [to the punishment of] excision, and the expression “do not eat,” which is [in violation of] a negative commandment. This difference is obvious. Re’m forgot what Chazal said in the first chapter of Kerisus (4a): Rava said, “The three excisions regarding blood, are for what [reason]...” See there.

אשר יאכל כל דם, “who eat any blood;” the Torah has repeated its warning not to eat blood on many occasions as it is something that will be absorbed by our tissues whereas fat and tendons are not so absorbed.

ונתתי פני I WILL SET פני [AGAINST THAT SOUL] — ‎פני is taken to mean as much as פנאי שלי My leisure — i.e. I will turn away (פונה) from all My affairs and concern Myself only with him (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 4; cf. also Targum Jonathan)

I will turn from all My [other] concerns. [Rashi says that פני means “free time” and not Hashem’s “face”], because wherever the Torah speaks of Hashem directing his face it is for good, and here it is for bad [Re’m]. It seems to me that Rashi is answering the question of how can [the expression] “I shall direct” apply to anger? It should have said would be “rest” or “set down.” Therefore he explains, “I will turn away etc. and concern Myself with him” to give him according to the fruit of his deeds. This is easy to understand. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

The author of Korban Aharon writes that the correct wording in the Baraitha quoting Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Shimon should be: מן הגוי ומן העבד. The lesson would be that although the father of such a child is or was a pagan or a slave who had not been forbidden to eat blood, the child is forbidden to eat blood as he is considered part of the people his mother belongs to. The child of any union between a male Gentile and female Jewess is considered Jewish as we know from Yevamot 23, where the Talmud bases this on Deut. 7,3-4 the word בנך referring to a grandchild whose father was a Gentile. Thus far Korban Aharon. I find it difficult to accept a distinction between the son of such a mixed union who has decided to opt out of Judaism and one who has not. Once the Torah designated such a son as Jewish he is Jewish in the full sense of the word. If the Torah spoke of a son who did not want to remain Jewish, he has thrown off all of Torah! The Torah certainly does not address such a person! If we are able to impose Torah law on such a youngster we are obligated to do so just as we do with any natural-born Israelite who defies Torah law. If he is not under our control, what point is there in the Torah writing laws concerning such a person?

I believe that in order to understand what motivated the comments of Torat Kohanim and Korban Aharon it would help if we first examined the reason underlying the prohibition to eat blood which is the subject of our paragraph. Our sages have enlightened us in describing the souls of all Israelites as of a quality which is unmatched, when they interpreted Deut. 32,9 כי חלק ה׳ עמו, to mean that "His people are part of G'd Himself." They also added that although we live our lives in the "lower" world, physically distant from the "higher" celestial regions, we nonetheless retain a חוט של חסד, an umbilical cord of love which ties us to the celestial regions as demonstrated by the words יעקב חבל נחלתו, that "Jacob is the "rope" of His inheritance" (ibid.). The "soul" of an animal, on the other hand, is rooted in the "lower" world. It is related only to the spiritual forces of the lowest order, the קליפת נוגה. Whenever man -knowing it is forbidden-consumes the life-blood of an animal i.e. blood whose loss would result in the death of that animal (as opposed to blood of the capillaries), such eating is punishable by כרת, the premature death and/or extinction of the Jew eating such blood. The reason is very simple. By eating such blood and absorbing a lower category of animal soul thus diluting the "higher" soul G'd has equipped him with, one demonstrates his contempt for higher spiritual values, denying his דבקות, attachment, to one's celestial origin. The Torah writes: "I will set My face against the person (soul) who eats the blood and will cut him off from amongst his people." The Torah refers to what we have called the חוט החסד, the "thread (or rope) of love" which connects the Jewish soul to its celestial origin. All Jewish souls have a common celestial origin near the throne of G'd; this is why the Torah spoke of מקרב עמה, "from the midst of his people."

Furthermore, it is a well known fact that though the Jewish people share a common root, they are different individually in their relative spiritual levels. This is the mystical dimension of Kohelet 5,7: כי גבוה מעל גבוה שומר וגבוהים עליהם, "for there is One higher than the high Who watches and there are high ones above them." Seeing this is so, one might reason that in view of the fact that this animal which is ritually fit to be eaten cannot therefore have a ritually impure "soul," (life-force) and that imbibing its soul could not be damaging to our souls. I would have reasoned that if consumption of blood is capable of contaminating Jewish souls at all, it can have such an effect only on the most superior of souls, i.e. that of the males. It would follow that the penalty decreed by the Torah is restricted to Jewish males. This is why the Torah had to write words which make it plain that women are no less culpable for infraction of this prohibition than are men. Once the Torah had to write words or letters to include people whom we would not normally have included in that legislation, it had to spell out all the ones included or I would have reasoned that the respective inclusion applied only to the particular "lower" category of person singled out by special reference. The Torah therefore had to demonstrate that though Jewish souls are not all of the same calibre, all are holy enough to jeopardise their holiness if the bodies they inhabit consume animal blood.

You may also choose to pursue a different approach to our problem. You may argue that consumption of animal blood, i.e. the "soul" of such an animal could prove damaging only to the lowest categories of Jewish souls, and that therefore only those kinds of Jews should be prohibited from eating animal blood. A superior soul would be able to resist the subversive influence of such an animal's "soul" although it might not be totally immune to it. Such potential damage would certainly not be sufficient to rate the harsh כרת penalty. The Torah therefore carefully phrased the legislation in such a way that we cannot arrive at such faulty conclusions. By writing a series of expressions each one designed to include more and more categories of people in this legislation the Torah makes it clear that it applies to both people equipped with superior souls and those whose souls are on a lower level.

Here is a list of different levels of sanctity. The highest level belongs to the Israelite males; the second highest level belongs to their wives seeing that a female soul is not on the same level of spirituality as is that of a male; the next lower level is the son of a union between a natural born Jewish father and a proselyte. Next in line of sanctity from birth is the son of a proselyte married to a natural-born Jewish woman. Next in line is the female proselyte, daughter of either of the two last mentioned unions. Below this is the son of a union between a male proselyte and a female proselyte. Next in line of sanctity from birth is the daughter born from a union between a male and a female proselyte. Finally, there is the level of the proselyte himself. All of the above-mentioned levels are alluded to in the Torah at some point or other. The first and highest category of sanctity from birth is spelled out in the Baraitha of Torat Kohanim when they interpret the word ישראל in our verse as a reference to a male, natural-born, Israelite. Proselytes are mentioned twice in that paragraph when the words הגר הגר are understood as referring to two separate types of proselytes. You will also find that in Sukkah 28 they interpret the letter ה of the word האזרח as including the wives of the proselytes. This teaches us that the letter ה in the word הגר is to be understood as a רבוי, an additional dimension of the word גר. This means that the words הגר הגר in our verse really include four different kinds of combinations of proselytes. You therefore have a total of 4 extra words or letters each including additional categories of proselytes. Perhaps the wording of the author of our paragraph in Torat Kohanim who wrote גר אלו גרים, instead of זה גר as we would have expected, reflects that what he had in mind are two different categories of proselytes as opposed to a multiplicity of proselytes all of the same category, whereas the letter ה in front of the first גר refers to the wives of the proselytes. When the author of Torat Kohanim went on to write that the word בתוכם refers to the wives and slaves, he meant natural-born Jewish wives and slaves whose status in Jewish halachah is the same as that of women. Do not query the need for these people to have been especially included in the legislation seeing we could have included them by applying a קל וחומר from the application of the legislation to proselytes, i.e. if even proselytes are included what possible reason could there be for not including natural-born Jewish women? After all, natural-born Jewish women possess souls that are intrinsically less holy than those of their husbands, and if so what need was there for the Torah to mention them as being included in the group of people to whom the כרת penalty applies if even their husbands are so vulnerable that they are liable to the כרת penalty if they eat blood? Remember that if it had not been for the inclusive word בתוכם which we used to include women in the prohibition to eat blood and the resultant penalty, we would not have used the letter ה in the word הגר to include two categories of proselytes as we have described. Altogether we are faced with six different "inclusive" words or letters. The Torah wrote איש איש i.e. 2 more "inclusive" words which the author of Torat Kohanim uses to include the child born of an Israelite woman from a union with either a proselyte of a slave i.e. a child containing Jewish seed albeit seed from a Jew who was not a natural-born Jew. This is why the Torah wrote the additional words מן הגר, "originating in a proselyte." The intention of the verse was to refer to a proselyte who had married a natural-born Jewess or vice versa. These last named two categories are derived from the words איש איש.

Do not raise the objection that there was no need to write extra words or letters to include all these different levels of proselytes and the offspring of their unions seeing that even a total proselyte, i.e. one in whose veins not a drop of "Jewish" blood flows is subject to this legislation? If it had not been for the extra word איש which tells us that the proselytes mentioned in this verse were second generation proselytes, i.e. those whose father or mother or both had already been Jewish at the time they were conceived, I would not have known all this. Having written the extra word איש enabled the Torah to describe that there are different levels of proselytes, the most spiritually endowed being the ones in whose veins there flows some blood of a natural-born Jew. These are followed by the proselytes in which no such blood of natural-born Jews flows at all. You may ask whence do we know that a female child whose father was a proselyte and whose mother was a natural-born Jewess is subject to this legislation? Answer: if even a proselyte in whose veins no Jewish blood flows at all is included in the above legislation there was no need to add further רבויים, letters of an inclusive nature, to add such people to the groups of people covered by our verse.

בנפש האכלת, against the person (soul) eating, etc. Torat Kohanim understands the word בנפש in the singular as teaching that G'd does not punish a community who collectively consume blood with the כרת penalty, as the sin does not have the power to destroy the holiness of a group of people.

מקרב עמה, from amongst his people. According to Torat Kohanim the purpose is ועמה שלום, "and his people will be at peace." I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. If the people are guilty of that penalty because they are each responsible for the proper conduct of a fellow Jew, why should they not be punished? If, on the other hand, the Torah does not speak of people whose culpability originates in the הלכה of ערב, i.e. that each Jew is a sort of guarantor vis-a vis-G'd of a fellow Jew's behaviour, such as in instances when the sin was committed accidentally or unbeknown to the fellow Jew, why would the Torah have to even hint that such people are free from this penalty or any penalty at all? I believe that what Torat Kohanim had in mind was that when you cut off diseased branches from a tree you thereby improve what remains of the tree. The words מקרב עמה, from the midst of his people, mean that G'd decided to cut off this branch in order for the diseased branch not to infect the rest of the tree so that the tree itself remains healthy, שלם.

כי נפש הבשר FOR THE LIFE OF THE FLESH of every creature, not only of animals brought as sacrifices, is dependent on its blood (בדם היא), and it is for this reason that I have placed it [on the altar] to make expiation for the life of man: let life come and expiate for life!

FOR THE LIFE OF THE FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD; AND I HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU UPON THE ALTAR TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR YOUR SOULS. The sense of this verse is to state that He forbade us [to eat] blood because He has given it to us to be upon the altar and to effect atonement for our souls, and it is therefore the part dedicated to G-d, just as is the case with the forbidden fat.¹⁸⁴Above, 3:17. And if one should ask: “Why then has He forbidden us to eat the blood of a wild animal and that of a fowl, from which offerings are not brought?” We will dismiss the questioner by saying that it was His wish to keep us far away from eating any kind of blood, in order that we should never make a mistake therein [and eat forbidden blood as a result of failing to distinguish between one kind of blood and another]. In the case of fat, however, He did not [categorically] forbid all kinds of fat, because [the permissible kind of fat] is distinguishable from the non-permissible.¹⁸⁵See Ramban above, 3:9, that even in the same animal the prohibited fat is distinguishable from the permitted fat. So also are the fats of a permitted fowl and wild beast [which are permitted to be eaten] distinguishable from those fats of a permitted animal that may not be eaten. This is not so in the case of blood; hence He prohibited all blood, even that of fowls and wild animals which are not offered upon the altar.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁸⁶Guide of the Perplexed, III, 46. that the Chaldeans loathed blood, considering it impure, and only those who sought to establish contact with the demons and to foretell the future would eat it. Now the Torah always seeks to destroy these foolish theories, by [ordaining measures which are] contrary to their ideas. Therefore He prohibited the eating of blood and chose it as the means of purifying [the impure] by means of the sprinklings thereof,¹⁸⁷Such as in the case of the leper (above, 14:14). and to throw it upon the altar of G-d for atonement. Therefore He said, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood,¹⁸⁸Above, Verse 10. just as He said with reference to him who gives of his children to Molech,¹⁸⁹Further, 20:6: And I will set My face against that soul. because this [practice of eating blood] leads to a kind of idol worship, such words not being stated concerning any other commandment. Now these words [of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] are sensible in themselves, however the verses do not indicate [that the reason for the prohibition against eating blood is] so [as the Rabbi has said], for they always state the reason for that prohibition to be, For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof;¹⁹⁰Further, Verse 14. For the life of the flesh is in the blood.¹⁹¹In Verse 11 before us. And in the Book of Deuteronomy He again states, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh.¹⁹²Deuteronomy 12:23.
It is proper, therefore, to explain the reason for the prohibition against eating blood by saying that G-d created all lower creatures for the purpose of man, since only he amongst all of them recognizes his Creator. Nonetheless, He did not at first permit man to eat anything except for vegetation, but no living creatures at all, just as is stated in the Chapter of Creation where it is said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed etc. for food;¹⁹³Genesis 1:29. See Ramban there (Vol. I, pp. 57-58) for a full exposition of the thought presented here briefly. but when the flood came and they [the lower creatures] were saved by the merit of Noah, and he brought offerings from them to G-d which were acceptable before Him,¹⁹⁴Ibid., 8:21. He gave man permission to slaughter [and eat them], just as He said, Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all,¹⁹⁵Ibid., 9:3. since their existence was because of man. Thus He permitted man to use their bodies for his benefit and needs because their life was on account of man’s sake, and that their soul [i.e., blood] should be used for man’s atonement when offering them up before Him, blessed be He, but not to eat it, since one creature possessed of a soul is not to eat another creature with a soul, for all souls belong to G-d. The life of man just as the life of the animal are all His, even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath.¹⁹⁶Ecclesiastes 3:19.
Now in the opinion of the Greek philosopher [i.e., Aristotle] as interpreted by those who scrutinize his words, it was out of the Active Intellect¹⁹⁷A concept of great significance in Medieval philosophy, the Active Intellect denoted an incorporeal substance, the role of which was to make the forms of the imagination “actual” objects of the intellect, after they have been only “potential” objects of the intellect. Yehudah Halevi in his “Al Khazari,” when presenting the view of the philosophers, writes of it: “This is the degree of the Active Intellect, namely, that angel whose degree is below the angel who is connected with the sphere of the moon” (p. 37). It is out of that Active Intellect that the animal soul originated. that there emitted a very fine and bright flash and glitter of light, from which came forth the spark which is the soul of the animal. It is thus in a certain sense a real soul. It therefore has sufficient understanding to avoid harm, and to seek its welfare, and a sense of recognition towards those with whom it is familiar, and love towards them, just as dogs love their masters, and they have a wonderful sense of recognition of the people of their households, and similarly pigeons have a sense of knowledge and recognition. Now it is also known that the food one eats is taken into the body of the eater and they become one flesh.¹⁹⁸Genesis 2:24. If one were to eat the life of all flesh,¹⁹⁰Further, Verse 14. it would then attach itself to one’s own blood and they would become united in one’s heart, and the result would be a thickening and coarsensss of the human soul so that it would closely approach the nature of the animal soul which resided in that which he ate, since blood does not require digestion as other foods do, which thereby become changed, and thus man’s soul will become combined with the blood of the animal! And Scripture states, Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth?¹⁹⁹Ecclesiastes 3:21. It is for this reason that He said, For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the flesh thereof,¹⁹⁰Further, Verse 14. for all flesh, whether man or beast, has its soul in the blood, and it is not fitting to mix the soul that is destined to destruction with that which is to live [in the hereafter]. Rather, it is to be as an atonement upon the altar to be acceptable before G-d. This is the sense of the expression, Therefore I said to the children of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood,²⁰⁰Verse 12. meaning: “Because the blood is identical with the soul, and it is not proper that one soul devour another, therefore I had compassion upon man’s life and gave it [the animal’s soul] to him upon the altar, so that the soul of the animal should effect atonement for his soul.” Thus we have been taught in the Sifre:²⁰¹Sifre, R’eih 76. “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood.¹⁹²Deuteronomy 12:23. Rabbi Yehudah says, [From the fact that it states, only be steadfast, which indicates that a special effort was required], you learn that they were addicted to eating blood etc. For the blood is the life¹⁹²Deuteronomy 12:23. — this teaches you why it was prohibited. And thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh¹⁹²Deuteronomy 12:23. — this prohibits the eating of a limb cut from a living animal.” This is a hint and proof for what we have explained. It is for this reason that He further commanded that we are to cover up all blood of an [edible] wild beast or fowl [which have been ritually slaughtered]²⁰²Verse 13. because their blood is not brought upon the altar, for even of fowls only two species [i.e., young pigeons and turtle doves] may be brought as offerings, and they too are not slaughtered [in the usual way];²⁰³See above, 1:15. but in the case of cattle, most of them that are found among men may be slaughtered to the Glorious Name and their blood is used for atonement, and it is therefore not to be covered. There was no necessity to require the covering of the blood of an ordinary [unconsecrated] animal, since the slaughtering of cattle for ordinary meat was not permitted in the desert,²⁰⁴See Ramban above, Verse 2. and even afterwards [when Israel came into the Land of Israel and a meal of ordinary meat was permitted], the commandment of the Torah is directed to the majority [and since in most cases cattle were brought as offerings, and their blood would be needed for the altar, therefore He did not require covering of the blood even if the cattle were not slaughtered as offerings].

כי נפש הבשר בדם היא, for the life-force of all flesh is in its blood; why is the fact that the life-force is in the blood repeated twice in this verse? According to what I have written earlier this verse explains why the soul of the person eating blood is destroyed. The reason is that the blood contains the נפש, the essence of the animal it comes from. Consuming that life-force results in the soul- i.e. life-force of the person who consumed it becoming diluted with this spiritually inferior life-force. We still need to investigate why the Torah chose the expression נפש הבשר, "life-force of the flesh," instead of writing "the life-force is within the blood?" I believe G'd was anxious to answer a potential questioner that if the imbibing of the animal is so detrimental to the soul of a Jew, why did He not forbid the consumption of the flesh (meat) also? After all, the flesh too contained the life-force of the animal so that eating it would also cause irreparable harm to a Jewish soul? The Torah therefore repeats that it is only the blood in the flesh which contains the essence of the animal not the flesh itself. The essence of the animal is found in its blood, and not in the flesh. This is the meaning of נפש הבשר בדם היא. G'd did not make a human being in such a fashion. In the case of man, the life-force is not only in the blood but also in the flesh and the bones. Our sages refer to this life-force as הבלה, a certain moisture which survives in the bones of the righteous for many years after they have died. This is why they do not rot away. On the other hand, the wicked who are compared to animals are those who will not be resurrected when the time comes seeing that all their bones have dried out and have rotted away completely so that not an iota of their one-time life-force still exists.

כי נפש כל בשר בדם הוא, “for every living creature’s life-force is in its blood.” From this we learn that the reason for our not being allowed to eat blood is that the purpose of the blood is to secure atonement for man. It is part of the essence of the creature. The reason is the same as the reason for the prohibition of eating certain fat parts that are burned up on the altar. These too serve to secure man atonement for his sins. For man to eat such parts of the animal would be counterproductive, as he would deprive himself of the chance to achieve atonement This leaves us with the question why the blood and fat of animals which are not allowed to be offered on the altar is also forbidden? Also, why then did the Torah not forbid all kinds of fat, not only that on the kidneys and the liver? The fat parts that are not easily identifiable from a distance have not been designated as atonement to be burned up on the altar. Seeing that all blood looks alike, no such distinction was made as to which part of the blood requires sprinkling on the altar, etc. Maimonides’ approach to the subject parallels that of Nachmanides, i.e the Torah widens the framework of the prohibition to make such practices as sacrificing to the demons even more unlikely. Ibn Ezra points out that the resident stranger has not been mentioned in this paragraph at all, as opposed to the paragraph dealing with meat offerings and burnt offerings, as the Israelites in the Land of Israel are obligated to enforce that such resident strangers do not offer sacrifices to their deities. On the other hand, when discussing the prohibition of eating blood, the stranger resident in the Land of Israel is mentioned as, seeing that the blood represents the life force of the animal, such a stranger is also forbidden to eat that blood.

Depends on the blood. By saying this, Rashi indicates that “flesh” of the verse does not mean actual flesh, but that every creature is called flesh as it says (Bereishis 6:12), “For all flesh (כל בשר) had corrupted [its way on the earth].” He also writes “depends” to indicate that the soul is not in the blood, because the soul has no tangibility. One cannot speak of it being anywhere, but only of dependency, that its existence depends on the blood since without blood the soul is gone. He also says “therefore” instead of saying “And I have given it to you” like the verse, so that the verse is saying: Because the soul depends on the blood, therefore I have given the blood to achieve atonement for the soul of a person. Thus the verse is not saying “And I have given...” as a separate statement. It seems that the verse uses the expression “flesh” to exclude fish and locusts that are not flesh, and [therefore], when Rashi says “every creature,” this is because a soul cannot rest on any flesh that is not [of] a creature, because there is no soul without life, and no life except [in] a creature. (R. Yaakov Taryosh).

כי נפש הבשר בדם היא, “for the life of the flesh is in the blood;” the word היא has the vowel chirik under the first letter where it is spelled with the letter ו, and the last time it appears in this paragraph in verse 14, it is also read as if it had been spelled with a ו as if it had been written with the letter י i.e. feminine. The two times in between when the word appears it is read as masculine, and it is spelled both times with the letter ו as appropriate.

ואני נתתיו לכם, "As for Me, I have given to you, etc." The Torah is telling us that the proof of the fact that the blood of the animal contains its "soul," its life-force, is that G'd allowed us to offer up the blood of the animal on the altar as a means to obtain atonement for our inadvertent trespasses. The process may be called נפש תחת נפש, G'd accepts one "soul" in lieu of another soul, i.e. the soul (life-force) of the sinner.

בנפש יכפר, and it can therefore atone for someone else’s life. (Ibn Ezra)

The verse also intends to warn us not to kill animals without an ulterior purpose. We are only allowed to take the life of an animal (the ones which are fit for consumption by Jews) to help us atone for our sins. The sequence of the words נתתיו לכם על המזבח are intended to demonstrate that the "gift" G'd has made us of the domesticated animals on earth carries with it some restrictions. We are not absolute owners of these animals to do with them whatever we please; rather they should serve to help us recapture our standing with the Almighty in the event that we became guilty of certain sins. We are taught in Sanhedrin 2 that if a domestic animal is guilty of an offence for which the Torah decreed that said animal has to die, such as initiating sexual intercourse with a human being, it is judged by a tribunal of no fewer than 23 judges, the same number required to judge a human being, someone who has killed a human being. It is not permitted to slaughter such an animal except when one wants to consume its meat. In Deut. 12,20 the Torah is on record as permitting man to indulge his craving for meat. In other words, the Torah had to write a special verse in order to permit us to eat meat which was not intended as sacrificial meat.

כל נפש מכם NO SOUL OF YOU [SHALL EAT BLOOD] — This is stated in addition to v. 10 to admonish the adults about their young children (that they should not permit them blood to eat — for “no soul” shall eat blood) (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 7 6; Yevamot 114a).

על כן אמרתי, “therefore I have said, etc;” this is a reference to Leviticus 3,17.

אשר יצוד WHO HUNTETH — I seem to have here only the law that the blood of hunted beasts and fowls caught now by hunting must be covered with dust. Whence do I know that this applies also to geese and fowls which have been kept in the house having already been caught? Scripture therefore states יצוד] ציד], “who hunts a hunted thing"— hunted under any circumstances whether now or before. If this be so why does Scripture at all state אשר יצוד (let it merely state 'אשר ישחט וכו‎)? But it uses the term “hunting” to teach that one should not eat meat except after such toilsome preparation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 2; Chullin 84a).

אשר יצוד ציד. Seeing that in the main, these free roaming beasts’ habitat is in desolate regions of the earth, areas in which the kind of demons we mentioned are at home, (compare Isaiah 13,21 “there ostriches shall make their home and there shall satyrs (demons) dance.”) the Torah therefore forbids to leave the blood of these beasts exposed and ordered us to cover it with earth in order to forestall any chance that this blood be used to feed the demons. It goes on to say:

אשד יצוד ציד חיה או עוף, who hunts any beast or fowl, etc. We need to analyse why the Torah had to write this whole introduction instead of merely writing that if someone slaughters or otherwise kills a free-roaming animal or fowl he has to cover its blood with earth. Furthermore, if it is a decree without the Torah revealing its rationale, why does the Torah not merely write יכסהו, "he shall cover its blood with dust," instead of writing וכסהו, which implies that he had to fulfil another commandment prior to covering the blood of the creature in question.

וכסהו בעפר, for then it will no longer be fit as food.

אשר יצוד ציד חיה או עוף אשר יאכל, “who will trap a beast of bird of the kind that may be eaten;” seeing that the eating of any kind of blood is prohibited, and such blood cannot be offered on the altar either, it would be insensitive to leave such blood uncovered. The Torah therefore decrees burial of a kind for the lifeblood of such pure animals. Moreover, unless the blood of such animals is covered, anyone seeing it might conclude that this blood was the remainder of blood poured out after part had been sprinkled on an altar as a sacrificial rite dedicated to idolatry. Ibn Ezra is convinced that here too resident strangers in the Land of Israel are forbidden to eat such impure animals as donkeys, horses or birds of prey.

[That one should not eat meat without this] preparation. Rashi (Chulin 84a) explains, “As if one hunted [it], that it was not [always] prepared for him. I.e., one should not eat meat constantly lest he become poor.”

ציד חיה, “this is an allinclusive term, including all free roaming beasts.”

אשר יאכל THAT MAY BE EATEN — This is especially mentioned to the exclusion of unclean animals (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 4).

Except for [ritually] unclean. You might ask: Perhaps it comes to exclude [even] טריפה [a “torn” animal], for example, if the brain membrane was pierced or if it became טריפה while being slaughtered. The answer is: Here it is written “he shall spill its blood and cover it,” and earlier (verse 4) it is written “he has spilt its blood.” Just as there it is speaking of an unfit slaughter [outside the Temple courts, so here it is speaking of an unfit slaughter], such as slaughtering a טריפה. And even so, it is written, “Cover it with earth.” If so, what does “that is permitted to be eaten” come to exclude? It must come to exclude the ritually unclean. This is in accordance with R. Meir but not the Sages. The halachah however is according to the Sages, and this requires [further]analysis.

I believe that by writing the words אשר יצוד the Torah intended to forbid the hunting of any species that are impure, i.e. whose meat is forbidden for Jews to eat although it may be used in another context. I have discussed this in my book פרי תואר item 117 in accordance with the view of Maimonides in his treatise Maachalot Assurot chapter 8 where he writes that permission to hunt is dependent on one's intention to hunt those free-roaming animals which we are allowed to eat. The fact that amongst the herd of animals one hunts there are some which do not qualify as food for Jews does not pose an halachic problem to the hunter in such an instance. This is the true meaning of the expression כי יצוד אשר יאכל, i.e. the activity of hunting is permissible only when its object is to provide you with permissible food. The Torah continues with וכסהו, [the emphasis being on the conjunctive letter ו Ed.] to draw our attention to the preceding מצוה, namely not to engage in hunting animals for sport but only for food. The Torah writes that the permission to eat, i.e. אשר יאכל, is contingent on the covering of the blood of such animal by earth once it has been spilled i.e. ושפך את דמו. In Deut. 12,24 the Torah warns that blood of free-roaming animals must not be consumed either. This teaches that already in our verse the Torah was concerned with our not eating the blood even of free-roaming animals or fowl by writing כי נפש כל בשד, that the life-force of all flesh, not only that of pure domestic animals, is situated in its blood. As a result of what we have just described you find three distinct commandments in our verse. 1) Not to hunt impure animals for one's pleasure; 2) Not to eat the blood of either חיה or עוף; 3) To cover the blood of such animals instead of pouring it down the sink, etc.

או עוף, “or fowl;” regardless if few or many; from this expression our sages derived that if one killed 100 or one beast or bird in one location the covering of their blood can be combined into a single operation. [They do not need to be interred in individual graves. Ed.] (Sifra)

I believe we can also detect in the expression ושפך וכסהו an allusion to the need to cover only some of the blood with earth whereas the rest may be poured down the sink, compare Chulin 88.

חיה או עוף, “four legged free roaming beasts or birds;” the two categories of creatures are lumped together to teach that they share a common denominator, i.e. this legislation applies to creatures that are not acceptable as potential sacrifices on the altar. By the same token, in order that we should not think that the blood of domesticated beasts that are permitted as food has not been forbidden, the Torah adds:

וכסהו בעפר, “its blood is to be covered,” as it is clear from that that it will not be fit to be eaten.

דמו בנפשו הוא means its blood represents its life (במקום הנפש), in as much as its life is depending on it.

THE BLOOD THEREOF IS ‘B’NAFSHO’ (ALL ONE WITH THE LIFE THEREOF). “Its blood represents its life, since life is dependent upon the blood.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct.²⁰⁵From the language of Rashi it would appear that the substance of the blood is identical with the life of the animal, and that is not correct in Ramban’s opinion, since they are really two separate substances, and the blood of the animal is merely the “carrier” of its life. Hence Ramban will present other interpretations of the verse. Rather, it is possible to explain that the word b’nafsho here means “in its body,” Scripture thus stating, “for as to the life of all flesh, it is the blood in its body.” Similarly [we find the word nefesh meaning “body” in these verses]: ‘Nafsho’ (his person) was laid in iron;²⁰⁶Psalms 105:18. seventy ‘nefesh’ (persons);²⁰⁷Exodus 1:5. he [the Nazirite] shall not come near to a dead ‘nefesh,’²⁰⁸Numbers 6:6. meaning “a body,” since “the body” of anyone that is possessed of a nefesh (soul) is also called nefesh.
In my opinion Scripture mentioned three expressions with reference to blood, which constitute but one reason. First it stated, For the life of the flesh is in the blood.²⁰⁹Verse 11. Then it changed and said [in Verse 14 before us], For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof, meaning to say that the blood is the life, and the life is in the blood, as both are mixed together, similarly to wine when diluted with water, in which case the water is in the wine and the wine in the water, and each one is “in” the other. Afterwards it explained [in the second half of Verse 14 before us, stating for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof], that the blood is the very life, meaning to say that both have become one inseparable substance, so that you can never find blood without life nor life without blood, as is known of the air²¹⁰The sense here is clearly “the force of the heart beat” pumping the blood. In Medieval learning it was explained as the element of air which originates in the heart, and which in turn supplies the blood and sustains the person. which originates in the heart, that it is the hyly²¹¹A Greek term indicating the primary matter created by G-d (see Vol. I, p. 23), and here used in a wider sense as the force in the heart which is the primary organ of life. from which proceed all dispositions [of man], supplying the substance which gives nutrition and makes blood, and it is the blood which in turn creates it and sustains it. [The relationship between life and blood is thus] like that of matter and form in all physical creatures, where the one cannot be found without the other. Now our Rabbis interpreted the three punishments of excision which Scripture mentioned with reference to blood²¹²Above, 7:27; 17:10, and 14. in the following way:²¹³Kerithoth 4 b. “One verse prohibits the eating of that blood with which life escapes [when cutting the throat of the offering, since it has been given for atonement upon the altar]; one verse prohibits the eating of blood which escapes when slaughtering [an ordinary, unconsecrated animal], and one verse prohibits the eating of blood, that [of a fowl or wild animal, which when slaughtered] must be covered.” This saying of the Rabbis explains why the punishment of excision was mentioned three times, but the reason for the different Scriptural expressions concerning the life and the blood [of the animal] is as I have explained.

כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא, “for the life-force of all living creatures is its blood” [or contained with its blood. Ed.] (a reference to the way the author described such an almost invisible essence in the blood in his commentary on verse 7).

דמו בנפשו, its blood is bound up with its essence. The meaning of this expression is that the blood is equivalent to its life-force [the life-force being something abstract. Ed.]. Here the Torah has provided us with the reason why we have to cover i.e. "bury" the blood of the above-named categories of animals. Seeing that the blood is its life-force, it is a matter of showing some respect for that life-force. The Torah also commanded that the remains of a human being be buried only as a demonstration of respect for the life (or life-force) of a human being.

דמו בנפשו, “its blood represents its life.” According to Rashi, the meaning of this expression is that the blood of such an animal [that is not equipped with a soul, נשמה, is its life-force Ed.], acts in lieu of a soul. When deprived of its life it dies. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s interpretation is not correct, but that it is possible to understand the meaning of the word נפש as an alternate word for גוף, body. We find something analogous in connection with Psalms 105,18 where the words ברזל באה נפשו, normally translated as “an iron collar put on his neck,” may be understood as describing a strong body as equivalent of a life force. [In the context there when Joseph’s encounter with Mrs Potiphar is described as Joseph trading “irons” for a “sword,” i.e.. he came close to being executed, losing his נפש, for allowing himself almost to be seduced by that woman, seeing he had provided her with that opportunity by being alone in the house with her. Ed.] Personally, (Nachmanides speaking) I think that the Torah has provided us with three meanings for the term דם, seeing that each time the penalty of karet is mentioned alongside. This teaches that unless we kept in mind all three parts of the definition we could not properly understand the subject.

For the soul depends on it. Not that a person’s blood depends on his soul, but rather his soul depends on his blood.

כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא“ for the life of any flesh is all one with its blood;” the verse has been somewhat abbreviated, and should really have read בדמו נפשו, “its life is inextricably bound up with its blood.” Another example of a similarly abbreviated verse would be Psalms 65,5: היכלך, apparently: “Your Sanctuary,” but in reality: “the Sanctuary of Your holiness.”

כי נפש כל בשר דמו הוא means the life is (is identical with) the blood; דם and בשר are masculine, נפש is feminine.

בנפשו, including this invisible life-force contained therein. This is because the blood contains something almost intangible. Seeing this ingredient is the closest to anything completely intangible in this terrestrial universe, it is an ideal nutrient for the demons and for those who consort with them. The Torah says:

The soul is the blood. Rashi is answering the question: Since flesh and blood are words of the male form, why then does the verse write היא [the female form]. He answers: “The soul is the blood,” and the word היא refers to the soul, which is a word of the female form.

The reason the Torah did not use the same syntax when it described the free-roaming animals as it did when it referred to the pure domesticated mammals where the Torah described the blood as דמו בנפשו, may be because the "pure" domesticated animal possesses a "soul," something which has been placed in its blood, whereas in the case of free-roaming animals or fowl the blood itself is in lieu of the "soul" G'd provided for the "pure" domesticated animals. This explains why such free-roaming animals and fowls are not suitable as sacrifices on the altar to achieve atonement for their owners with the exception of the pigeon and the turtle-dove. Even in the case of the latter, their blood is not sprinkled on the altar, seeing it does not represent the "soul" of the bird but its blood, i.e "soul" equivalent has been removed when the priest pinched the neck of the pigeon instead of slaughtering it.

ואמר לבני ישראל, this line must be understood as: ואמר הבר לבני ישראל, “as I have already said to the Children of Israel.”

ואומר לבני ישראל, although I have permitted the gentiles the consumption of such lifeblood, I have prohibited it to the Children of Israel already in Leviticus 7,26 seeing that the life essence of living creatures is contained in it while the animal was alive and it is liable to transfer some of these animalistic characteristics kind to the persons ingesting it as food. The Torah wants to protect the Jewish people from absorbing more animalistic tendencies than we already possess.

כי נפש כל בשד דמו היא, for the life-force of all flesh is its blood. The Torah explains that the reason it forbade us to eat the blood of such animals is not that it is used to attain atonement for our own souls, i.e. the life we had forfeited by our sin, in which case there would have been a reason to distinguish between the blood of those animals which are fit as a sacrifice and those which are not. Rather, the reason is that we are not to consume the essence of such an animal.

כל אוכליו יכדת, anyone eating it will be cut off. I have explained already why this penalty is appropriate. The reason the Torah writes the word אוכליו in the plural whereas the penalty יכרת is in the singular is to alert us to the effect of the penalty. כרת means the withdrawal of the life-sustaining connection with the soul's celestial root. Seeing that all the Jewish souls have a common root, any reference to that root is in the singular. The reason the Torah describes the people consuming such blood as אוכליו, i.e. in the plural is, that there are many who derive some satisfaction of what a single person eats. The source of physical vitality attached to the celestial root contains a variety of preparatory steps to enable it to be absorbed successfully by bodies which have become fused with a soul. Although the body is essentially a material phenomenon G'd has created a force called נפש whose nature it is to develop liaison with material forces and which develops an urge to participate in the experiences a body finds pleasant. G'd created this force so that the soul would be able to function harmoniously within the body. The corresponding force, i.e. a somewhat diluted version of the purely spiritual soul, נשמה, is known as רוח, spirit; it is called thus because just as the wind is a phenomenon on earth but remains intangible, so this phenomenon we call רוח, spirit, performs both a physical and a spiritual function. When man eats, i.e. when the body eats, these other parts of the human personality also receive their sustenance from the food absorbed first by the body. This is why the Torah speaks about multiple אוכליו, "beings which eat of the blood." We may perceive of the following as all partaking of the nourishment a human being absorbs in ascending order. The body, the animalistic life-force נפש; the רוח, and finally the נשמה. As to the element subject to the כרת penalty, this is applied only to the חוט החסד, the "umbilical cord of love" connecting the נשמה to its celestial root. When this cord is severed from its root all other parts of the spiritual side of man will dry up and wither automatically..

We may also understand the verse on the basis of Torat Kohanim which explained on the word בנפש in verse 10 that the penalty applies to an individual eating and not to a community eating blood as the animalistic life-force contained in the blood is not powerful enough to destroy the fabric of the collective souls of such a community. This is alluded to here when the Torah refers to a number of people who eat but to the destruction of only a single soul.

I have tried to understand why G'd commanded that the blood of free-roaming animals or fowl has to be buried whereas the blood of pure domestic animals which have not been offered as a sacrifice does not need to be covered with earth. It is understandable that when the blood has been offered on the altar that no further procedure is needed; however, seeing that even when the Temple was standing most animals which were slaughtered were not offered as sacrifices, why did the blood of such animals not enjoy burial? Seeing we have explained that the "soul" of such a בהמה טהורה is superior to the life-force G'd supplied to free-roaming animals and fowl, why do we appear to discriminate against the בהמה טהורה by pouring away its life-blood instead of according it the honour of burial? Our question is reinforced by the fact that G'd rejected all free-roaming animals and almost all birds as unfit to serve as a sacrifice?

When we consider that I have explained that the blood of the free-roaming beast is itself its "soul" i.e. its life-force, as distinct from the pure domestic animal whose life-force is separate from its blood though carried by its blood, it emerges that G'd commanded only blood which is at the same time the essence of the vitality of the creature to be buried. Any blood which does not represent the essence of the creature does not need to be accorded such a symbolic funeral. Although the blood of the pure domestic animal contains its life-force, its "soul," the fact remains that its blood and its "soul" are not identical. Covering of the blood is required only for the מורגש, the tangibly peceptible, not for the היולי, that which is perceived only in the abstract, in its potential.

I wish to pursue the thought of why G'd decided to create the categories of the pure domestic animals as being so essentially different from the free-roaming beasts, animals which at first glance appear to have so much in common. We will understand the reason better if we first appreciate the factors which enable G'd's various creatures to fulfil their overall purpose and function on earth. Inasmuch as G'd is the source of all life in its various forms, He has made sure that all His creatures are equipped with the wherewithal to function in nature. He made all living creatures as composites of four basic raw materials, i.e. fire, air (spirit), water, and dust. The origin of these four raw materials is something that has not been made accessible to us, it is (at least partially) spiritual in nature and is described in kabbalistic literature as the "four legs of the throne of the Almighty," Ezekiel describes four carriers of this throne as creatures with the faces of four different animals including man in the opening chapter of his book as carriers of G'd's throne. There are also four angels who correspond to this basic "foursome" of creation, i.e. Gabriel, Rafael, Michael, and Nuriel. These three "foursomes" may be perceived as providing providing the background to the creation of a physical universe, the gradual reduction of pure spirit to something material. Each "foursome" is a preparatory level to a lower level of spirituality, something closer to the physical material world. The "foursome" described as part of G'd's throne in Ezekiel are the four categories of creatures which form the basis of life on earth. The face of אדם refers to the human species; the face of the ox refers to the pure domestic animals; the face of the lion refers to the free-roaming beasts on earth; and, finally, the face of the eagle refers to the fowl. Just as there are four categories of life on earth [living creatures containing blood Ed.] so there are four categories of inert beings, i.e. fire, wind, water, and dust. All creatures are composites of these four elements. Even amongst the intangible souls or life-forces G'd has created we find "foursomes." The highest of these are the celestial lights G'd has created which are almost part of the essence of G'd Himself. In every single sphere of creation we find the active, the dispenser, the male on one hand, and the passive, the recipient, the female. In the final analysis even the most inert component of our physical universe is the recipient of celestial input, i.e. from the region of the throne of G'd.

Let us now examine the nature of the celestial influences the foursomes in our world are exposed to. Inasmuch as the face of one of the foursomes in Ezekiel's vision is that of the ox, i.e. a pure domestic animal, it is reasonable to suppose that the pure domestic animals in our universe i.e. its counterpart in our regions, receive their spiritual input via their celestial counterpart. However, the face of the lion represents an impure free-roaming animal. It is reasonable therefore to assume that all free-roaming animals (including the pure ones) receive the kind of spiritual input from the celestial regions associated with their counterpart the lion and what it represents. They are therefore deprived of primary positive spiritual input. The same applies to the fowl, seeing that the face of the eagle in Ezekiel's vision is also that of an impure category of bird. We need to examine why the counterpart of these "faces on the throne of G'd" have not been granted positive spiritual input as did the pure domestic animals which are recipients of spiritual input from the ox in Ezekiel's vision? Furthermore what is the source of the criteria which enabled some free-roaming beasts such as the gazelle, etc. to be considered pure beasts, fit for consumption by Jews?

Remember that there are levels of perceptions which the recipient's mind is incapable of perceiving even if the source from which such perceptive powers emanate makes an effort to transmit such receptive power. Torah scholars are well aware of the fact that there are gradations of such perceptive powers and some of them are endowed with greater such powers than others. [I believe we can best describe what the author is trying to tell us when we imagine the receiver of a person equipped to handle a minimum of 5000 volt being bombarded from a transmitter which sends out impulses of 1000 volt maximum. The receiver in the hands of the person described would not be able to handle such transmissions. I shall continue to paraphrase the comments of our author as I feel that rendering them literally would not result in the reader's enlightenment. Ed.] The lion and eagle in our world are to be perceived as possessing such receivers having made efforts to exceed the natural receptive powers granted to them. As a result, the impulses emitted from their celestial counterparts are largely wasted on them and they are forced to stay outside the garden that G'd had intended for them to be part of seeing they have not achieved the spiritual goals they were meant to achieve. As a result of being under-achievers in G'd's overall scheme for His universe, He commanded the Israelites to keep a distance from such animals so as not to absorb any of their failings. We know from Deut. 4,11 that in order to remain both spiritually and physically alive one needs to maintain a close affinity to G'd and His commandments. We know from Job 14,4 that it is reserved for G'd alone to know by what devious paths purity can develop out of something that started with an impure base. If the original bird in Ezekiel's vision was the eagle, symbol of an impure bird, and so was the eagle in our world, this does not mean that amongst all the fowl some will not evolve which bear the mark of purity, such as the pigeons amongst the domesticated birds or the chickens, geese, turkeys, etc.. The same holds true for the free-roaming mammals. Although their archtype is the lion, this did not prevent certain categories evolving into pure free-roaming beasts such as the hart, the gazelle, and the roebuck. Due to their being cut off, or better, having caused themselves to be cut off from their celestial counterpart and not having received the required positive spiritual input from the source of their part of the celestial "foursome," the only level of "soul" these animals possess is their blood itself.

אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה [AND EVERY SOUL] THAT EATETH CARRION, OR THAT WHICH WAS TORN … [HE SHALL BOTH WASH HIS GARMENTS AND LAVE HIMSELF IN WATER] — Scripture is here speaking of the carrion of a clean bird which causes uncleanness only during the time it passes through the gullet (lit., it is being swallowed in the gullet) and what Scripture teaches you here is that it makes one unclean by eating of it [but it does not defile one by touching it]. The טרפה mentioned here (though being superfluous since a טרפה which died) is of course also a נבלה and thus causes uncleanness just as any other נבלה is mentioned only for the sake of the correct interpretation of the word נבלה. For thus we learn (in Sifra): One might think that the carrion of an unclean bird causes uncleanness in the moment it passes through the gullet! Scripture therefore adds the word טרפה to intimate that this law of נבלה applies only to that class of birds among which טרפה is possible, thus excluding unclean birds for in their class a רפה‎ט can never occur (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 7; Zevachim 69b).

וכל נפש אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה, after the Torah wrote about the prohibition of eating blood, something which if permitted would draw us closer to the circle of demons, it speaks about the prohibition of eating meat from diseased animals or animals which have died of causes other than ritual slaughter. A nation that concentrates on attracting the holy spirit to itself would do something counterproductive if consuming such carcasses which are the home base of spiritually negative influences. We know that this is so from the Torah’s prohibition of trying to derive spiritual inspiration from the dead or parts of them. (compare Deuteronomy 18,11 where consulting ghosts or other death-related matters is specifically outlawed, and we are ordered not to tolerate people who practice such cults in our land.)

וכל נפש אשר תאכל גבלה, and every person eating an animal which died of natural causes, etc. The reason the paragraph commences with the letter ו before כל is to remind us that all the rules which apply to the eight different categories of Israelites and proselytes we listed in the last paragraph (verse 10) apply here also. The Torah here mentioned two categories, i.e. אזרח וגר, natural-born Jew and proselyte, to tell us that these are respective "headings" for the various categories of natural-born Jews and proselytes.

אשר תאכל נבלה, even a minor will become ritually defiled. [because the Torah addresses itself to כל נפש, “every living person.” Ed.]

וכל נפש אשר יאכל נבלה וטרפה באזרח ובגר, “any person native or proselyte, that will eat a dead carcass (natural death) or a beast that had been torn and died as a result,” Ibn Ezra writes that in view of the Torah having written about animals not fit as sacrifices on the altar, it also mentions two other categories of animals that are in a state of being unfit for the altar, though under different circumstances those animals would have qualified as sacrificial offerings.

The carcass of a pure bird. Explanation: [This law concerns the carcass of a pure bird] because it is written (below 22:8), “He must not eat to defile himself with it,” i.e., [the verse there is speaking of a bird] that causes defilement only by eating it, and perforce it is not speaking of the carcass of an impure animal that [also] causes defilement through touching and carrying. The verse here writes “that will eat,” to teach that [it is speaking of something that] causes defilement through eating but not through touching and carrying. And this applies only to the carcass of a pure bird, because [the carcass of] an animal causes defilement through touching and carrying. [See Re’m )

וכל נפש, “and any person,” i.e. even minors.

When it is swallowed. To exclude before a person swallowed, when it is still in his mouth; [in that case] one is [still] pure. And to exclude after one had swallowed it and it is still in his innards and not digested, and he immersed after swallowing it, that he is pure.

אשר תאכל נבלה וטרפה, “that eats either dead animals that have died by natural causes or by having been fatally wounded;” this was repeated as seeing these kinds of animals are not acceptable on the altar I might have thought that they are permitted as an ordinary part of our diet. Seeing that this was the point where the Torah enlarged on a number of forbidden foods it was appropriate not to neglect mention of these last two categories.

Whatever has within its category [the possibility of being] improperly slaughtered. I.e., it was previously kosher and now it became improperly slaughtered. Excluding... i.e., there was never a time when it was kosher.

ונשא עונו THEN HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — If he eats sacred food or enters the Sanctuary in this state of uncleanness he becomes liable to excision for this uncleanness just as for doing these things in any other state of uncleanness (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 14).

ונשא עונו. In accordance with the degree of spiritual contamination he has brought upon himself. There are different degrees of such spiritual contamination, of course, and the punishment will fit the seriousness of the transgression

ונשא עונו, if he either consumes sacred meat or sacred products in a state of ritual impurity, or if he enters the holy precincts in such a state.

If he eats holy food. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said “iniquity” [not “his iniquity”]? He answers: The word “his iniquity” implies the specific punishment for someone who enters the Sanctuary when he is impure, i.e., the punishment written regarding other [such] impurities, which is excision. Re’m. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why should he bear his iniquity for [merely] making himself impure?

ובשרו לא ירחץ ונשא עונו [BUT IF HE WASH THEM NOT], NOR LAVE HIS FLESH HE SHALL BEAR HIS INIQUITY — For the omission to lave his body before entering the Sanctuary or before eating sacred food he is liable to excision, but for the omission to wash his clothes he is liable to lashes only (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 12 13).

And for not washing his clothes [he is punished] with lashes. (Mahar”i) Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say “his body?” It should have said “If he does not wash his clothes and does not bathe in water” as it is written nearby (verse 15), “[He] shall wash his clothing and bathe in water.” He answers: The verse writes “his body” [to specify that] “He is punished with excision for not washing his body, etc.” Explanation: if he did not immerse, which is the [ritual] washing of the body, his punishment is excision if he eats holy food or enters the Sanctuary. But if he did not wash his clothes and threw them into the Sanctuary, or even if his clothes touched a corpse while he was wearing them and he entered the Sanctuary while the clothes were still touching the corpse, he is exempt from excision but liable for lashes.