ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף דברים 12:20

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.

It is equally possible (our author speaking) to understand the word אותות as related to the word אות as in אות נפשו, “the desire of his soul,” or as like בכל אות נפשך, “in accordance with all you desire” (Deut. 12,20). This would reflect what we have learned in the Midrash that when the Israelites had observed that the angels who had descended on earth at the time G’d descended on Mount Sinai had all had flags with them and that the Israelites ever since had felt an urgent desire to have flags also (Compare Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2,13 on the words ודגלו אהבה). There are numerous other verses interpreted in similar fashion (compare Song of Songs 2,4; Tanchuma Bamidbar 14).

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.