๐พ Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to โบ scriptures โบ jewish โบ t โบ Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Levitiโฆ captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:29:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
25 โ[1] ** ืื ืืืืื, from the beast, etc.** This apparently superfluous word is interpreted by *Torat Kohanim* as including the fat of animals each one of which would have been suitable as a sacrifice, and which have been crossbred, such as the product of a billy-goat mating with a ewe or vice versa; the fat of animals which are the product of such crossbreeding is unfit to eat on pain of the *Karet* penalty. The apparently extraneous word ืื in the sequence ืื ืืื refers to an animal called ืืื which is the product of a male goat mating with a gazelle. In my book ืคืจื ืชืืืจ in which I have commented on the ืืืจ ืืืจื ืืขื ืื you will find more about this subject.
โ[2] **ืื ืืืื ืืื, anyone eating such fat, etc.** The word ืื is interpreted by *Torat Kohanim* as including the fat of animals which are not intended to become sacrificial offerings. We should not err and conclude from the words ืืฉืจ ืืงืจืื ืืื ื ืืฉื ืืืณ that only ืืื of such sacrificial animals is prohibited; therefore the Torah adds the word **ืื** ืืืื ืืื. Seeing this inclusive word is not required to warn those who would eat it, it may be applied to the parts of the animal subject to being eaten.
โ[3] It seems rather difficult to understand why I would have made such an error and would have thought that without the word ืื the Torah's injunction would have applied only to ืืฉืจ ืงืืฉืื, sacrificial animals. After all, the Torah mentioned specifically that the fat of a ื ืืื an animal which died by causes other than ritual slaughter may be used for the performance of all kinds of work but may not be eaten (24)? Besides, since when are the remnants of sacrificial animals permitted for use by non-priests? Does the Talmud not state specifically in *Pessachim* 82 that if an animal intended as a sacrifice was found to be *treyfah* after it has been slaughtered, such an animal has to be removed to a place called ืืืช ืืฉืจืคื, to be burned there? We derive this from Leviticus 6,23 ืืงืืฉ ืืืฉ ืชืฉืจืฃ. This teaches that all sacrificial animals which have become unfit for the altar have to be destroyed. In view of this the words ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืจืคื in verse 24 must refer to animals not intended as sacrificial offerings. Why then did the Torah have to write the words ืื ืืืื ืืื to prevent me from making an error as to the prohibition of ืืื applying to ordinary animals? We believe the main point *Torat Kohanim* wanted to make with its ืืืื from the words ืื ืืืื ืืื is that the penalty of *Karet* applies both to someone who partakes of fat from sacrificial animals and to someone who partakes from the fat of ordinary animals. If not for the words ืื ืืื, I would have assumed that the prohibition is an ordinary negative commandment punishable by 39 ืืืงืืช lashes.
โ[4] ** ืื ืืื ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื ืื ืชืืืื "You shall not eat any fat of ox, sheep or goat.** *Torat Kohanim* on this verse comments that the list of these animals is intended to exclude the prohibition of ืืื from animals not suitable for consumption by Jews, ืืืืืช ืืืืืช, as well as free-roaming animals and fowl. In *Chulin* 116 Rabbi Mori is reported as having asked Rabbi Zvid if the fat-tail ืืืื of the sheep was considered ืืื and therefore prohibited. Rabbi Zvid answered: "because of people who ask questions such as you have just asked the Torah wrote the verse ืื ืืื ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื ืื ืชืืืื, to make clear that the term ืืื applies only to the kind of fat which these three categories of animals have in common." How could Rabbi Zvid give such an answer seeing we have already used the animals mentioned in that verse for a different ืืืื, namely to exclude three other categories of animals? If the Torah had not written verse 23 to exclude the three categories of animals mentioned by *Torat Kohanim,* we would have learned a ืงื ืืืืืจ, i.e. used logic to arrive at the opposite conclusion as explained by *Torat Kohanim* on that verse. Perhaps we could have derived the exclusion of those three categories of animals from the words ืืฉืจ ืืงืจืื ืืื ื ืืฉื ืืฉื. These words would already have excluded both fowl (of which only two species may be used as an offering) and impure animals which are totally unfit as offerings, as well as free-roaming animals which are not suitable as offerings for different considerations although they may be consumed by Jews if ritually slaughtered, etc. Alternatively, once the Torah had specifically excluded impure animals and free-roaming beasts, the Torah made it plain that the ืงื ืืืืืจ which was based on the comparison with the prohibition to eat blood which applies to all of the three categories of animals alike although certain other disqualifications do not apply to it, is not to be applied here. You will find that Rashi's commentary on the *Mishnah* in *Chulin* 117 follows a similar path. It is important to take a good look at the next verse.
โ[5] **ืื ืืืืื, from the beasts;** *Torat Kohanim* derives from this expression also that animals not intended to serve as sacrifices due to a physical blemish are nevertheless included in the legislation forbidding the consumption of their ืืื, the fat parts offered on the altar, if they had been used as sacrifices. Although the Torah had already specifically prohibited the ืืื of animals which have not been slaughtered ritually or of animals which were found defective after slaughtering (although these animals too were unfit for the altar and I could have used that fact to apply the legislation to said ืืืืื ืืขืื ืืืืื), this would not have been conclusive. According to Maimonides there is no **biblical** prohibition against a *treyfah* animal being offered on the altar (*Issurey Mizbeach chapter 2).* This prohibition is based only on Maleachi 1,8 that "G'd would reject an offering which does not reflect our high regard for Him seeing we would not dare offer something inferior to our governor." Accordingly, a special verse was needed to include *treyfah* animals. It is true that *Torat Kohanim* on the same two words in Leviticus 1,2 mentions the exclusion of *treyfah* animals; however, this is only an ืืกืืืชื a "lean to;" it is not the kind of exegesis which is binding as has been explained in that connection by the author of *Kesef Mishneh.* At any rate, seeing that a ื ืืื is prohibited as an offering by a biblical injunction because the Torah wrote the word ืืฉืื, "he must slaughter the animal," in connection with every sacrifice, why was there a need to use the words ืื ืืืืื to include the categories mentioned by *Torat Kohanim?* We have to answer again that what *Torat Kohanim* had in mind was that the same penalty *Karet* which applies to someone who partakes of the fat of the sacrificial animal also applies to someone eating the fat parts of an ordinary animal which had become unfit as a sacrifice.
โ[6] **ืืฉืจ ืืงืจืื ืืื ื ืืฉื ืืฉื, from which he will offer a sacrifice to the Lord;** *Torat Kohanim,* which zeroes in on the apparently extraneous words ืืฉืจ ืืงืจืื, concludes that the Torah refers to the type of ืืื which is suitable for burning up on the altar; it excludes the kind of ืืื of the walls of the animal's cavities and fat on the ribs which is not suitable for the altar. According to this reasoning which uses the words ืื ืืื ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื to exclude application of the prohibition to eat the fat of impure animals and the like, the words ืืฉืจ ืืงืจืื were not needed, and they were therefore available to exclude such fats as is on the ribs of the animal from the application of the prohibition to eat ืืื.
โ[7] From where does Rabbi Zvid who used the words ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื to permit eating of the fat on the ืืืื, the fat part of the tail of the sheep, derive permission to eat also from the fat on the ribs, etc.? At the same time we may ask where the sage who derives permission to eat the fat of the ืืืื from the words ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื, finds a source for permitting consumption of such fat as that on the ribs, etc.? We may have to conclude that Rabbi Zvid holds that the words ืืฉืจ ืืงืจืื exclude not only such animals as impure beasts, free-roaming animals and fowl from the prohibition of ืืื, but also exempt fat on such parts of the animal as the ribs from the application of this law. The reasoning is simply that not only any animal but any part of an animal not burned up on the altar is excluded from this injunction. The author of *Torat Kohanim* also arrives at the same exclusion using the words ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื as excluding also the ืืืื from this injunction. If the verse had wanted to exclude **only** impure animals, birds and wild-roaming animals, it would have had to mention only ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื. As soon as we would exempt even a single type of animal from the prohibition of eating ืืื though the prohibition of eating of its blood still applied to it, the whole basis for the ืงื ืืืืืจ which *Torat Kohanim* wanted to refute by the Torah's use of the extraneous words ืื ืืืืื had already disappeared. We would have excluded such animals as ืืื ืืขืืฃ automatically. If the Torah nonetheless wrote extra words, such words may be used exegetically, i.e. to exclude the fat on the ribs. The three words ืฉืืจ ืืฉื and ืขื would between them have excluded only the fat of the ืืืื from the prohibition of eating ืืื.
โ[8] Why then did Rabbi Zvid disagree with the author of *Torat Kohanim* who derived the exclusion of the fat of impure animals, free-roaming animals, and birds from the words ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื? The author concludes that the principal exclusion of such animals as the impure, the free-roaming ones, and the birds is derived from the words ืฉืืจ ืืืฉื ืืขื. He does not therefore accept the view of Rashi on the *Mishnah* in *Chulin* 117 which he quoted earlier.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY