Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Deuteronomio 12:24

להכשיר את הזרעים – to be susceptible to become defiled such as the blood of cattle, as it is written concerning it (Deuteronomy 12:24): “You must not partake of it; you must pour it out on the ground like water.”

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.

while he is ritually impure either an intrinsic ritual impurity (e.g., someone who suffers from a constant flow, someone who has ṣara‘at , or even a man who has had a nocturnal emission ) or a derived ritual impurity (e.g., ritual impurity acquired from a corpse, or from someone who suffers from a constant flow, or from someone who has ṣara‘at , or from a quadruped that is unfit for food, or from a ritually impure flying or crawling animal). Once a certain Sadducee [a derogatory reference to a Karaite — Translator] approached me and asked if the Torah forbade eating the fat-tail. I told him the truth, saying that although the fat-tail falls within the category of suet (as it is written: “its suet: the entire fat-tail…” [3:9]), our ancestors permitted it to be eaten and forbade all other suet. He then replied, Doesn’t the Torah prohibit all suet? — for it is written: “Eat no suet or blood” [3:17]; and this injunction is preceded by, “it is an everlasting decree for your generations…” [3:17]. I answered that the abovementioned verse appears in the context of the peace-offering. The phrase, “it is an everlasting decree for your generations in all your dwelling places” is not an irrefutable proof of his thesis, since Scripture also says, “You will eat [from the new crop] neither bread, nor parched grain, nor kernels, until that very day, until you bring the offering of your God” [23:14] — and there Scripture also says, “it is an everlasting decree…”. By this reasoning, we may not eat bread in Exile, since we have not brought the ‘Omer offering! He continued to argue, citing, Never eat the suet of cattle, sheep, and goats. I continued to refute him, pointing out that this verse also appears in the context of the peace-offering. My evidence is the qualifier in “Whoever eats the suet of animals that are brought as offerings to God” [:25]. Consider the consequences of his reasoning: the abovementioned qualifier is now needed only to exclude from the prohibition all meat that is not brought as a peace-offering (i.e., ordinary meat). Accordingly, this parasha specifies that the suet of an animal that dies by itself [Hebrew: neveylah] and the suet of an animal that has been torn [Hebrew: ṭereyfah] may be used for any purpose other than eating . The meat of a neveylah and of a ṭereyfah are elsewhere known to be forbidden [Deuteronomy 14:21; Exodus 22:30]; but it is the meat that is prohibited. Since the suet of such an animal is not brought on top of the Altar, one might think that it is permissible for food — hence the verse admonishes, other than eating . Consequently, Scripture did not need to repeat the prohibition against blood; and this passage was written to teach us the punishment for eating the suet of sanctified animals. Likewise, the verse Nor will you eat blood… exists only to incorporate birds in the prohibition — this is why the suet of birds is permissible [Karetot 4a]. The conclusive proof is that the Book of Deuteronomy mentions that meat of luxury (i.e., ordinary meat) is completely permissible, and in three different places excludes only the blood [Deuteronomy 12:23; 12:24; 12:25] — without any mention of suet! At this point the eyes of the Sadducee [a derogatory reference to a Karaite — Translator] were opened, and an oath escaped his lips, that he would not rely on his own reasoning for the derivation of the Commandments, but that he would depend on the exegesis of the traditional commentators.