💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:24:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
8 [1] N’VEILAH’ (THAT WHICH DIETH OF ITSELF) ‘U’TREIFAH’ (OR IS TORN OF BEASTS) HE SHALL NOT EAT TO DEFILE HIMSELF THEREWITH. Scripture is stating that [the priest] should be careful not to eat *n’veilah* or *treifah* so that he should not become defiled therewith, and then it will be necessary for him to be separated from the holy things, and he will not be able to eat of them until he bathes his flesh in water, *and when the sun is down, he shall be clean*. And the reason [why He mentioned here the prohibition against eating *n’veilah* and *treifah*], is that since He had referred to every sort of impurity which can occur to a person, seeing that He mentioned leprosy and an issue, which includes male and female, and the impurity of the dead, of semen, and of a swarming thing, therefore He goes back [in the verse before us] to warn [the priests to separate themselves] from the holy things when they are impure because of *n’veiloth*, and He warned them about this by way of an admonition against eating them. And the reason [why He singled out *n’veilah* and *treifah* in warning the priests not to eat them, and He did not mention those creeping things which also render the eater impure], is because a man’s soul finds it loathsome to eat creeping things, but it does not find *n’veilah* and *treifah* loathsome. Therefore He mentioned here [the prohibition against eating food which conveys] impurity in the case of [that food] which it is common [to eat]. Now the word *treifah* mentioned here [which renders the eater impure, must perforce] mean an animal that was torn by a lion or bear which killed it in the field, for when it is still alive [and is then slaughtered ritually] it does not convey impurity [although it may not be eaten. The term *treifah* which the Torah mentions here as conveying impurity to one who eats it, is applicable, however, even to an animal that was not killed when torn by beasts], for from the moment when it is torn by the lion [or any beast] it is called *treifah* (“torn”), whether it is alive or after its death. Thus He mentioned here all sources of impurity, for having stated that animals of the forbidden species [which are not mentioned here, although they do convey impurity to one who eats them], cannot be [made permissible by] ritual slaughtering, as I have explained in the section of *‘Vay’hi Bayom Ha’shemini’* (*And it came to pass on the eighth day*), it is [automatically] included under the term of *n’veilah* [which is mentioned here]. This is by way of the plain meaning of Scripture. The [Rabbinical] explanation likewise interprets [this verse as an admonition] about holy things with reference to impurity, namely that the verse speaks of the carrion of a bird of a permissible species [i.e., which died by itself, or has not been slaughtered properly], which has no defiling effect by means of contact or carrying, but [conveys] impurity only when in the [eater’s] gullet, and thus it forbids him to eat [subsequently] of the holy things. And we must then explain [that when Scripture states here] *‘u’treifah’* (*or is torn of beasts*), [it is in order to define the term *n’veilah*, and to explain that this law of impurity of *n’veilah* refers only] to those *kinds* [of birds] that can have a *treifah* [i.e., to those species which may usually be eaten if slaughtered properly, but which are nonetheless *treifah* if found to be suffering from certain organic diseases, and consequently forbidden to be eaten], thus excluding the carrion of a bird of one of the *forbidden* species, for in its class no *treifah* is ever possible [for such a bird, even if ritually slaughtered, is still *n’veilah*, since the law of *treifah* only applies to such birds which, if they were healthy, would be permitted as food by means of ritual slaughter, which does not apply to these forbidden species], as is stated in the language of Rashi [here]. And as far as the impurity of other *n’veiloth* is concerned, [so that the priest must be careful not to be defiled by them as this will make it necessary for him to be separated from the holy things, although they are not expressly mentioned in Scripture], they have been included in the Torath Kohanim on the basis of the following interpretation: “*Or whosoever toucheth ‘b’chol’* (*any*) *swarming thing*. I would only know the swarming thing. How do I know to include *n’veilah*? From the expression *b’chol* (any).”
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY