רַ֥ק אֶת־דָּמ֖וֹ לֹ֣א תֹאכֵ֑ל עַל־הָאָ֥רֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶ֖נּוּ כַּמָּֽיִם׃ (פ)
Ngunit ang dugo nito ay huwag mong kakainin; sa lupa mo ito ibubuhos na gaya ng tubig.
Bartenura
ונוהג בחיה ובעוף – to exclude cattle as you would not say that the cattle is included among wildlife, and we derive it from what it is written regarding a firstborn having a blemish (Deuteronomy 15:23): “ [Only you must not partake of its blood;] you shall pour it out on the ground like water.” Just as water does not require covering, even the blood of cattle do not require covering.
Ramban
ACH’ (BUT) ONLY AS THE GAZELLE AND AS THE HART IS EATEN, SO THOU SHALT EAT THEM. This means as he explains [at the end of this verse], the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike. Since He had commanded in the wilderness that they may not eat of the herd and flock except as peace-offerings and He warned them that the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Eternal, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off,66Leviticus 7:20. he states here that [upon coming into the Land] one may eat the meat of unconsecrated animals with the full desire of his soul, and [further that] he may eat it from one vessel together with an unclean person just as, in the wilderness, they may eat the gazelle and the hart which may not be offered upon the altar. Now, the expression as the gazelle and as the hart does not mean that one may eat the fat of unconsecrated animals just as he may eat the fat of the gazelle and the hart [from which all the fat may be eaten], since the verse speaks only of the manner of eating [as if to say:] in the same way that you eat the gazelle and the hart so may you eat the meat which you slaughter in all places. The verse does not state “whatever is eaten of the gazelle and the hart, you may eat of the unconsecrated animals.” Therefore, [in order to avoid the misconception that all fat of unconsecrated animals may be eaten] he explains everywhere the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike,67Here in Verse 22 before us, and further, 15:22. and says nowhere [only] “they may eat it as the gazelle and the hart,” in order [to make it clear] that the fat should not be included [in the comparison of unconsecrated animals to the hart and gazelle].
Now the word ach [but — ‘But’ only as the gazelle etc.] constitutes an admonition: since at first it was forbidden to eat [meat] except for the peace-offerings that were slaughtered in [the court of] the Tabernacle, and now, when he made it permissible to slaughter and eat in their cities after all the desire of thy soul, it might have appeared that one may eat it as unconsecrated meat and [if one wishes] even as consecrated meat, as was originally permitted [before the Tabernacle was erected], offering [the blood and the fat] on a bamah (high place). Therefore he stated and warned, But only as the gazelle and the hart, so thou shalt eat them, meaning that you may offer of them neither fat nor blood [on the bamah] and that you should not handle it in the manner of consecrated meat and not warn unclean people away from them at all.
He had to mention Only you should not eat the blood68Verses 16, 23-25. for many reasons. For at first He said with reference to the prohibition of eating blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls,69Leviticus 17:11. from which it might appear that blood that does not atone, [such as that of] an unconsecrated animal, would not be prohibited; therefore, it was necessary to prohibit it clearly. In the case of fat, however, Scripture did not mention [such a reason for] its prohibition thereof; and [in the case of an unconsecrated animal] not all fat which is burned on the altar as the sacrificial portion of the offering is forbidden, nor is every part [of an offering] that is not burned on the altar permitted to be eaten [in the case of an unconsecrated animal], as I have written in its place.70Ibid., 3:9. Hence it was unnecessary to say that certain fats of an unconsecrated animal may not be eaten. Moreover, since he commanded here that we slaughter [the unconsecrated animal] and warned that we eat it in the same manner as the gazelle and the hart, it might have appeared that we are to cover its blood just as we have been commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart;71When a clean fowl or a permissible wild animal is slaughtered, the blood must be covered with dust (ibid., 17:13). This law does not apply to cattle. Now, since Scripture compares the unconsecrated animal to the gazelle and the hart which are in the class of wild animals we might have reasoned that the law of covering the blood also applies to unconsecrated animals; therefore it became necessary etc. therefore it became necessary [to repeat the prohibition against blood in order] to permit the pouring out of the blood upon the earth as water72Verse 24. without covering it, [a permissibility that was not apparent in the original prohibition in Leviticus 17:11]. This is the sense of the expression ‘upon’ the earth,72Verse 24. not “into” the earth [which would have implied] that “we cover it with dust.” And since it was necessary to mention the permission of [pouring out] the blood [without covering it] he introduced it by stating the prohibition [against eating it]. Additionally, Scripture feared lest we [mistakenly] reason concerning blood as follows: In the wilderness at a time when all their herds and flocks were peace-offerings, the meat was forbidden to be eaten until the priest would sprinkle the blood upon the altar, for such is the law of the offerings; thus the blood prevented them from eating the meat; and He further commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart that, because they are not brought as offerings, we must cover their blood with dust, and so also the blood of a fowl73Leviticus 17:13. because a fowl may not be offered as a peace-offering. And if so [it would logically follow that] we be required to cover the blood of cattle that were slaughtered because one desired meat, or that we eat [the blood] together with the meat by stabbing the animal [instead of ritual slaughtering, in which case a large flow of blood would be avoided] and the blood would not be seen in the open field,74Ibid., Verse 5. for it would be more seemly that it be permissible even to eat pure blood than to pour it out upon the ground so that they shall not offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray.75Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. Therefore he said that one should slaughter the herd and flock [by means of ritual slaughtering despite the abundant flow of blood] and not eat the blood with the meat through stabbing or by cutting a limb from a living animal; instead, one is to pour the blood upon the earth and not be apprehensive over it, but he must not eat it, neither alone nor with the meat. For this reason it was necessary to mention this law once more76Further, 15:23: Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it out upon the ground as water. in the case of a blemished firstling, because at first [when the firstling was yet perfect] the blood thereof was to be sprinkled upon the altar, and, therefore, it was necessary to state that when it is blemished [and thus no longer fit for the altar] they should not treat its blood with sanctity, nor with permissibility, but they are to pour it out like water and not eat it.
It appears to me as a reason for this matter that at first when they were in the desert, a howling wilderness,77Ibid., 32:10. a place where satyrs dance there,78Isaiah 13:21. and all those who came forth from Egypt were accustomed [to sacrifice to these satyrs], He forbade that the blood be seen in the open field and also to slaughter at all, except before the Tabernacle of G-d in order to wean them from that sin. But upon coming into the Land, when it was necessary to permit them meat of desire due to the distance from the Sanctuary, he did not fear that the blood of the herd and flock might be poured upon the ground in their homes. However, in the case of the wild animal and fowl which one traps in the field and forest, and it is customary to slaughter them there and bring them home already slaughtered, he left the commandment as it was, to cover their blood with dust, in order that they should not offer it to the satyrs. Now the Midrash of our Rabbis on the verses, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood,79Verse 23. and Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee80Verse 25. is a very fitting one and is appropriate to the language of Scripture, that they had a great passion for [eating blood].81Sifre, R’eih 76. Therefore all these admonitions were necessary, and so much more was it necessary to mention the prohibition [against eating blood] although he did not mention the prohibition of eating [forbidden] fat.
Now, it is true that this comment of our Rabbis suffices as a reason for the many admonitions that Scripture states [about blood]. Yet the expression which he said, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood79Verse 23. is not clear to me, for what steadfastness and courage are there required to guard against [eating] blood? It would have been proper that he indicate its stringency by stating, “Take heed to yourself not to eat the blood.” Now, we find the term “steadfastness” with reference to [all] the commandments, as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua, Only be steadfast and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee,82Joshua 1:7. and so did Joshua say to Israel, Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses.83Ibid., 23:6. Now these expressions [found in Joshua] refer to all the commandments, to keep, alluding to the negative commandments, and to do, alluding to the positive commandments. But pertaining to a single commandment there is nowhere found such an expression, for, indeed, what need is there for “steadfastness” in a matter which requires only “to sit and not do” something forbidden by one of the negative commandments? But it appears to me that he mentioned steadfastness [in this prohibition against eating blood] for the reason that they were attached to blood in Egypt: that they always slaughtered their sacrifices to the satyrs, as it is written, And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray75Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. and it is further stated, They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods.84Further, 32:17. Now, the worship [of these satyrs] consisted of eating from the blood of the sacrifices, because the blood would cause the demons to assemble and they [the worshippers] would eat over it and from it, as if they were invited by the demons to eat at the table of those demons and they become attached to them. This has already been mentioned in the book Moreh Nebuchim.85Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. This is not the main reason for the prohibition of eating blood, for Scripture itself explains the reason thereof, that the blood is the life, as is mentioned in the section Acharei Moth.86Leviticus 17:11-12. But from this verse here it is clear that they were engrossed in it, and very much in pursuit of it, and they used to prophesy by means of it and tell of things to come. Therefore the verse proceeds and warns that if one should hear from blood-eaters any future event and the sign or the wonder come to pass87Further, 13:3. his heart should not be enticed but instead hold fast to his integrity88Job 2:3. and his belief in G-d, and he should by no means eat of the blood nor cover up this practice [i.e., justifying it by some means]; he is not to be afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks,89Ezekiel 2:6. for they are vanity, a work of delusion.90Jeremiah 10:15. Thus he warned here in the same manner that was used in admonishing concerning the false prophet91Further, 13:2-6. because of his deceptions.
Now the word ach [but — ‘But’ only as the gazelle etc.] constitutes an admonition: since at first it was forbidden to eat [meat] except for the peace-offerings that were slaughtered in [the court of] the Tabernacle, and now, when he made it permissible to slaughter and eat in their cities after all the desire of thy soul, it might have appeared that one may eat it as unconsecrated meat and [if one wishes] even as consecrated meat, as was originally permitted [before the Tabernacle was erected], offering [the blood and the fat] on a bamah (high place). Therefore he stated and warned, But only as the gazelle and the hart, so thou shalt eat them, meaning that you may offer of them neither fat nor blood [on the bamah] and that you should not handle it in the manner of consecrated meat and not warn unclean people away from them at all.
He had to mention Only you should not eat the blood68Verses 16, 23-25. for many reasons. For at first He said with reference to the prohibition of eating blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls,69Leviticus 17:11. from which it might appear that blood that does not atone, [such as that of] an unconsecrated animal, would not be prohibited; therefore, it was necessary to prohibit it clearly. In the case of fat, however, Scripture did not mention [such a reason for] its prohibition thereof; and [in the case of an unconsecrated animal] not all fat which is burned on the altar as the sacrificial portion of the offering is forbidden, nor is every part [of an offering] that is not burned on the altar permitted to be eaten [in the case of an unconsecrated animal], as I have written in its place.70Ibid., 3:9. Hence it was unnecessary to say that certain fats of an unconsecrated animal may not be eaten. Moreover, since he commanded here that we slaughter [the unconsecrated animal] and warned that we eat it in the same manner as the gazelle and the hart, it might have appeared that we are to cover its blood just as we have been commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart;71When a clean fowl or a permissible wild animal is slaughtered, the blood must be covered with dust (ibid., 17:13). This law does not apply to cattle. Now, since Scripture compares the unconsecrated animal to the gazelle and the hart which are in the class of wild animals we might have reasoned that the law of covering the blood also applies to unconsecrated animals; therefore it became necessary etc. therefore it became necessary [to repeat the prohibition against blood in order] to permit the pouring out of the blood upon the earth as water72Verse 24. without covering it, [a permissibility that was not apparent in the original prohibition in Leviticus 17:11]. This is the sense of the expression ‘upon’ the earth,72Verse 24. not “into” the earth [which would have implied] that “we cover it with dust.” And since it was necessary to mention the permission of [pouring out] the blood [without covering it] he introduced it by stating the prohibition [against eating it]. Additionally, Scripture feared lest we [mistakenly] reason concerning blood as follows: In the wilderness at a time when all their herds and flocks were peace-offerings, the meat was forbidden to be eaten until the priest would sprinkle the blood upon the altar, for such is the law of the offerings; thus the blood prevented them from eating the meat; and He further commanded concerning the gazelle and the hart that, because they are not brought as offerings, we must cover their blood with dust, and so also the blood of a fowl73Leviticus 17:13. because a fowl may not be offered as a peace-offering. And if so [it would logically follow that] we be required to cover the blood of cattle that were slaughtered because one desired meat, or that we eat [the blood] together with the meat by stabbing the animal [instead of ritual slaughtering, in which case a large flow of blood would be avoided] and the blood would not be seen in the open field,74Ibid., Verse 5. for it would be more seemly that it be permissible even to eat pure blood than to pour it out upon the ground so that they shall not offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray.75Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. Therefore he said that one should slaughter the herd and flock [by means of ritual slaughtering despite the abundant flow of blood] and not eat the blood with the meat through stabbing or by cutting a limb from a living animal; instead, one is to pour the blood upon the earth and not be apprehensive over it, but he must not eat it, neither alone nor with the meat. For this reason it was necessary to mention this law once more76Further, 15:23: Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it out upon the ground as water. in the case of a blemished firstling, because at first [when the firstling was yet perfect] the blood thereof was to be sprinkled upon the altar, and, therefore, it was necessary to state that when it is blemished [and thus no longer fit for the altar] they should not treat its blood with sanctity, nor with permissibility, but they are to pour it out like water and not eat it.
It appears to me as a reason for this matter that at first when they were in the desert, a howling wilderness,77Ibid., 32:10. a place where satyrs dance there,78Isaiah 13:21. and all those who came forth from Egypt were accustomed [to sacrifice to these satyrs], He forbade that the blood be seen in the open field and also to slaughter at all, except before the Tabernacle of G-d in order to wean them from that sin. But upon coming into the Land, when it was necessary to permit them meat of desire due to the distance from the Sanctuary, he did not fear that the blood of the herd and flock might be poured upon the ground in their homes. However, in the case of the wild animal and fowl which one traps in the field and forest, and it is customary to slaughter them there and bring them home already slaughtered, he left the commandment as it was, to cover their blood with dust, in order that they should not offer it to the satyrs. Now the Midrash of our Rabbis on the verses, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood,79Verse 23. and Thou shalt not eat it, that it may go well with thee80Verse 25. is a very fitting one and is appropriate to the language of Scripture, that they had a great passion for [eating blood].81Sifre, R’eih 76. Therefore all these admonitions were necessary, and so much more was it necessary to mention the prohibition [against eating blood] although he did not mention the prohibition of eating [forbidden] fat.
Now, it is true that this comment of our Rabbis suffices as a reason for the many admonitions that Scripture states [about blood]. Yet the expression which he said, Only be steadfast in not eating the blood79Verse 23. is not clear to me, for what steadfastness and courage are there required to guard against [eating] blood? It would have been proper that he indicate its stringency by stating, “Take heed to yourself not to eat the blood.” Now, we find the term “steadfastness” with reference to [all] the commandments, as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Joshua, Only be steadfast and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee,82Joshua 1:7. and so did Joshua say to Israel, Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses.83Ibid., 23:6. Now these expressions [found in Joshua] refer to all the commandments, to keep, alluding to the negative commandments, and to do, alluding to the positive commandments. But pertaining to a single commandment there is nowhere found such an expression, for, indeed, what need is there for “steadfastness” in a matter which requires only “to sit and not do” something forbidden by one of the negative commandments? But it appears to me that he mentioned steadfastness [in this prohibition against eating blood] for the reason that they were attached to blood in Egypt: that they always slaughtered their sacrifices to the satyrs, as it is written, And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray75Ibid., Verse 7. To pour blood upon the ground would give the appearance of a sacrifice to satyrs. and it is further stated, They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods.84Further, 32:17. Now, the worship [of these satyrs] consisted of eating from the blood of the sacrifices, because the blood would cause the demons to assemble and they [the worshippers] would eat over it and from it, as if they were invited by the demons to eat at the table of those demons and they become attached to them. This has already been mentioned in the book Moreh Nebuchim.85Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. This is not the main reason for the prohibition of eating blood, for Scripture itself explains the reason thereof, that the blood is the life, as is mentioned in the section Acharei Moth.86Leviticus 17:11-12. But from this verse here it is clear that they were engrossed in it, and very much in pursuit of it, and they used to prophesy by means of it and tell of things to come. Therefore the verse proceeds and warns that if one should hear from blood-eaters any future event and the sign or the wonder come to pass87Further, 13:3. his heart should not be enticed but instead hold fast to his integrity88Job 2:3. and his belief in G-d, and he should by no means eat of the blood nor cover up this practice [i.e., justifying it by some means]; he is not to be afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks,89Ezekiel 2:6. for they are vanity, a work of delusion.90Jeremiah 10:15. Thus he warned here in the same manner that was used in admonishing concerning the false prophet91Further, 13:2-6. because of his deceptions.
Ramban
FOR WHOSOEVER EATETH THE FAT OF THE BEAST, OF WHICH MAN PRESENTS AN OFFERING … SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE. It is impossible that the explanation of the phrase: of the beast [of which man presents an offering], is that this beast is itself an offering, so that an unconsecrated animal be excluded from this prohibition, since in the section of Vayikra, Scripture has already prohibited all fat in an unqualified manner,132Above, 3:17. without any condition or exception. Here too it prohibited at first all fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,133Verse 23. and it further decreed against eating the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts,134Verse 24. and these cannot be brought as offerings to G-d. Besides, He said there [in the section of Vayikra], It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings,135Above, 3:17. and the expression in all your dwellings is never found in any matter connected with offerings. In speaking of the gifts of the priests He says many times, a statute forever,136Ibid., 6:11, etc. but does not mention “in all your dwellings,” because the offerings are not “a statute forever in all your dwellings,” as they only apply in the Tabernacle and in the place which the Eternal shall choose.137Deuteronomy 12:14. A reference to the Sanctuary in Shiloh and to its final location in Jerusalem.
Let not the eyes of him who is mistaken138The allusion is to Ibn Ezra who in Verse 20 wrote that the phrase in all your dwellings refers also to the offerings (see the verse mentioned in the text with reference to the new produce, and also the following note). be blinded by the verse, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your G-d; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.139Further, 23:14. On the basis of this verse Ibn Ezra argued that in all your dwellings applies also to the offerings, since the verse refers to the omer (a measure of new barley brought as a meal-offering on the second day of Passover). But Ramban answers that the phrase refers not to the omer, but to the new crop which, through the offering of the omer, was henceforth permitted to be eaten (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 186-188). It is to this prohibition of eating of the new crop before the bringing of the omer [or before the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], that the phrase in all your dwellings refers. Hence the phrase in all your dwellings which is stated in connection with the prohibitions against eating fat and blood (above, 3:17) must perforce mean that they are applicable everywhere, independent of the existence of the Sanctuary and its offerings. For it is eating of the new crop that is forbidden by law of the Torah in all places, and Scripture is saying that we are not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears forever in all our dwelling places, until that same day on which we bring the offering of the new barley in the Sanctuary. If the offering is not brought [as when the Sanctuary is destroyed], it does not become forbidden henceforth to eat of the new crop [i.e., after the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], for He did not say, “ye shall not eat until ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” but instead the prohibition extends until this selfsame day only. Rather, the meaning of until this selfsame day is the one on which you bring the offering when you are in a position to do so, the reason being that the offering should be a new meal-offering [but when you are not able to bring the offering, as when the Sanctuary is destroyed, the prohibition is only until this selfsame day]. It is possible that the word hayom (the day) is connected also with [the latter part of the verse:] “until this selfsame day, until the day ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” [thus clearly indicating that the prohibition depends on the day the offering is brought, and not on the actual bringing thereof].
The complete proof that the explanation of the phrase [in the verse before us] the beast of which man presents an offering, is “of the kind of beast from which man presents an offering,” [and not “of the beast which is itself an actual offering,” so that the unconsecrated beast would be excluded from the prohibition against eating of the fat thereof,] is that it says also in the section on valuations, And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Eternal, all that any man giveth of such unto the Eternal shall be holy,140Further, 27:9. and it explains that this means the kind of beast whereof men bring an offering to G-d. And so also, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,141Ibid., Verse 11. here clearly stating, “any unclean beast of the kind from which offerings are not brought.” There is no difference whatever between stating it in the plural — whereof men bring,140Further, 27:9. of which they may not bring141Ibid., Verse 11. — or saying it in the singular [as in the verse before us], of which man presents, for the meaning is “the kind of beast of which man presents an offering.” Similarly He said, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die,142Further, 11:39. which means the kind of beast of which ye may eat, but not that the particular beast may be eaten [since it is expressly prohibited as meat, as it died without being slaughtered properly].
Now since He prohibited all fat of a beast whereof an offering is brought, but not of the kind of which offerings are not brought, it might enter one’s mind to say that a beast which died of itself or was torn [by other beasts] is regarded as a kind from which offerings may not be brought [and therefore their fats may be eaten]; therefore it was necessary to mention [in Verse 24] that [the fats of these animals] are forbidden, and it is this which He said, and ye shall in no wise eat of it,134Verse 24. meaning that he who eats it is liable to excision as with all other fats, as He forbade the fat of the entire class of beasts from which offerings are brought, even of those animals which died of themselves or were torn by [wild] beasts. He states, they may be used for any other service,134Verse 24. meaning to say that [the fat of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn by beasts] has no law of uncleanness of carrion [but is like ordinary food which has become unclean],143Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatum’oth, 1:5. for since He said, and their carcasses ye shall not touch,144Further, 11:8. He states concerning the fat thereof that one may touch it and use it for any other service. Now if the prohibition of eating fat would apply only to that of actual offerings, why was it necessary to say there in the section of Vayikra, Ye shall not eat any fat,132Above, 3:17. when He had already commanded [in the preceding verse] that it be brought up on the altar as a sweet savor, and how could we eat of the fire-offering of G-d? Why did He not also prohibit the eating of the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys, which are removed from the offerings [and burnt on the altar — yet these may be eaten in the case of ordinary clean animals because they do not come under the term cheilev (fat)].145See Ramban above, 3:9. Ramban is here arguing that if the prohibition against eating fats is restricted to those offered on the altar, why do we find no prohibition in connection with the other parts offered on the altar. Moreover, why was it necessary to mention here, Ye shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,133Verse 23. when it is known that offerings can be brought only from them [it thus being obvious that the prohibition of cheilev applies to all clean animals — hallowed or unhallowed]! The reason why Scripture said concerning dedicated offerings that became invalidated [because of a blemish they received, in which case they are redeemed and may then be slaughtered and eaten as ordinary food], Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof,146Deuteronomy 15:23. Ramban’s explanation of this subject is found there in 12:22. and did not mention anything concerning the fat, I shall explain when G-d helps me to reach there.
Let not the eyes of him who is mistaken138The allusion is to Ibn Ezra who in Verse 20 wrote that the phrase in all your dwellings refers also to the offerings (see the verse mentioned in the text with reference to the new produce, and also the following note). be blinded by the verse, And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your G-d; it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.139Further, 23:14. On the basis of this verse Ibn Ezra argued that in all your dwellings applies also to the offerings, since the verse refers to the omer (a measure of new barley brought as a meal-offering on the second day of Passover). But Ramban answers that the phrase refers not to the omer, but to the new crop which, through the offering of the omer, was henceforth permitted to be eaten (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 186-188). It is to this prohibition of eating of the new crop before the bringing of the omer [or before the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], that the phrase in all your dwellings refers. Hence the phrase in all your dwellings which is stated in connection with the prohibitions against eating fat and blood (above, 3:17) must perforce mean that they are applicable everywhere, independent of the existence of the Sanctuary and its offerings. For it is eating of the new crop that is forbidden by law of the Torah in all places, and Scripture is saying that we are not to eat bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears forever in all our dwelling places, until that same day on which we bring the offering of the new barley in the Sanctuary. If the offering is not brought [as when the Sanctuary is destroyed], it does not become forbidden henceforth to eat of the new crop [i.e., after the end of the sixteenth day of Nisan], for He did not say, “ye shall not eat until ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” but instead the prohibition extends until this selfsame day only. Rather, the meaning of until this selfsame day is the one on which you bring the offering when you are in a position to do so, the reason being that the offering should be a new meal-offering [but when you are not able to bring the offering, as when the Sanctuary is destroyed, the prohibition is only until this selfsame day]. It is possible that the word hayom (the day) is connected also with [the latter part of the verse:] “until this selfsame day, until the day ye have brought the offering of your G-d,” [thus clearly indicating that the prohibition depends on the day the offering is brought, and not on the actual bringing thereof].
The complete proof that the explanation of the phrase [in the verse before us] the beast of which man presents an offering, is “of the kind of beast from which man presents an offering,” [and not “of the beast which is itself an actual offering,” so that the unconsecrated beast would be excluded from the prohibition against eating of the fat thereof,] is that it says also in the section on valuations, And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Eternal, all that any man giveth of such unto the Eternal shall be holy,140Further, 27:9. and it explains that this means the kind of beast whereof men bring an offering to G-d. And so also, And if it be any unclean beast, of which they may not bring an offering unto the Eternal,141Ibid., Verse 11. here clearly stating, “any unclean beast of the kind from which offerings are not brought.” There is no difference whatever between stating it in the plural — whereof men bring,140Further, 27:9. of which they may not bring141Ibid., Verse 11. — or saying it in the singular [as in the verse before us], of which man presents, for the meaning is “the kind of beast of which man presents an offering.” Similarly He said, And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die,142Further, 11:39. which means the kind of beast of which ye may eat, but not that the particular beast may be eaten [since it is expressly prohibited as meat, as it died without being slaughtered properly].
Now since He prohibited all fat of a beast whereof an offering is brought, but not of the kind of which offerings are not brought, it might enter one’s mind to say that a beast which died of itself or was torn [by other beasts] is regarded as a kind from which offerings may not be brought [and therefore their fats may be eaten]; therefore it was necessary to mention [in Verse 24] that [the fats of these animals] are forbidden, and it is this which He said, and ye shall in no wise eat of it,134Verse 24. meaning that he who eats it is liable to excision as with all other fats, as He forbade the fat of the entire class of beasts from which offerings are brought, even of those animals which died of themselves or were torn by [wild] beasts. He states, they may be used for any other service,134Verse 24. meaning to say that [the fat of a clean animal which died of itself or was torn by beasts] has no law of uncleanness of carrion [but is like ordinary food which has become unclean],143Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Aboth Hatum’oth, 1:5. for since He said, and their carcasses ye shall not touch,144Further, 11:8. He states concerning the fat thereof that one may touch it and use it for any other service. Now if the prohibition of eating fat would apply only to that of actual offerings, why was it necessary to say there in the section of Vayikra, Ye shall not eat any fat,132Above, 3:17. when He had already commanded [in the preceding verse] that it be brought up on the altar as a sweet savor, and how could we eat of the fire-offering of G-d? Why did He not also prohibit the eating of the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys, which are removed from the offerings [and burnt on the altar — yet these may be eaten in the case of ordinary clean animals because they do not come under the term cheilev (fat)].145See Ramban above, 3:9. Ramban is here arguing that if the prohibition against eating fats is restricted to those offered on the altar, why do we find no prohibition in connection with the other parts offered on the altar. Moreover, why was it necessary to mention here, Ye shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,133Verse 23. when it is known that offerings can be brought only from them [it thus being obvious that the prohibition of cheilev applies to all clean animals — hallowed or unhallowed]! The reason why Scripture said concerning dedicated offerings that became invalidated [because of a blemish they received, in which case they are redeemed and may then be slaughtered and eaten as ordinary food], Only thou shalt not eat the blood thereof,146Deuteronomy 15:23. Ramban’s explanation of this subject is found there in 12:22. and did not mention anything concerning the fat, I shall explain when G-d helps me to reach there.